Court Appearances and Canadian Legal Terms

[SnooperDuper]

So has anyone been able to find any Canadian cases where a victim's family has sued a murderer for wrongful death? I don't mean suing an employer or a hospital, or an insurance company, or any other negligent company, I mean the actual murderer. I'd be interested in seeing some kind of evidence that this happens in Canada and haven't been able to find any samples.

Well I am looking but I thought of LR who was an unintended victim in a drive-by shooting who received $2M (in $20's) from gangsters as part of their guilty plea:

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight...louise_russo_sandwich_shop_shooting_deal.html

...and of course the Colonel is being sued by 3 victims/families:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...russell-williams-and-his-wife/article1359910/

 

[SnooperDuper]

So has anyone been able to find any Canadian cases where a victim's family has sued a murderer for wrongful death? I don't mean suing an employer or a hospital, or an insurance company, or any other negligent company, I mean the actual murderer. I'd be interested in seeing some kind of evidence that this happens in Canada and haven't been able to find any samples.

Another one, fairly high profile pig farmer RP:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...was-doing-lawsuits-by-victims-children-allege

 

[Kamille]

Families of two HUB mall shooting victims are suing killer and G4S

http://globalnews.ca/news/1407146/f...ll-shooting-victims-are-suing-killer-and-g4s/

I would think any non high profile murder cases would not really make MSM if there are lawsuits as they are personal civil suits. Not to mention it's probably not as common a thing to do in Canada as it is in the U.S. and elsewhere. I was generalizing and not being specific to one country.

MOO

 

[Juballee]

IMO, Most families who launch a wrongful death civil suit do so on principle rather than trying to "cash in" from a perp with a big bank account. Families who do not get justice in a criminal court may seek justice on a civil level. To hold someone accountable. And families who do receive justice in a criminal court in the form of a guilty verdict may also seek to ensure that the perp does not benefit in any way from their crime with either their own funds or anything that is sent to them via groupies and fan clubs to make sure there are unlimited funds available in their bank and commissary accounts while in prison.

It may also seem offensive to a victim's family that a convicted murderer has unlimited funds available for top notch appeal attorneys and repeated court delays while the victim's family are struggling to pay the bills due to the expense of having to attend the court dates and trial to support and advocate on behalf of their murdered loved one. Or, as in the case of SB, having to make up for the loss of income due to the murder of the main income earner in the family while simultaneously raising their child alone.

It's not so much that the victim's family are trying to get a boatload of money for themselves, but more so just making sure the murderers are not profiting in any way from the crime.

And as a taxpayer, I personally feel it's wrong to be funding victim's of violent crime through useful programs such as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board while the convicted murderers are sitting on extensive funds of their own that could be used to bring relief to the victim's family. Or are collecting funds from well meaning family members or groupies for their own comfort while their victims are struggling to deal with their loss.

MOO

As it has already been pointed out, wrongful death lawsuits are to punitively punish the guilty. If they are already being punished via a jail sentence, then there is no need to punish them further.

I highly doubt that the courts seek to further punish those already incarcerated by making orders in regards to their commissary privileges, that is up to the individual prison to control, from what I know. Btw, even if criminals have unlimited funds, there are limits to what they can buy, and spend at the commissary and when they can buy it.

Families don't have to lose time from work to attend court proceedings to advocate for the rights of the victims, that is the crown's job. In reality, people die unexpectedly all the time, and there are usually people left behind who struggle in one way or another, so much so that an entire industry has been devoted to profiting off it; insurance.

SB suing DM to ensure that he doesn't profit off of his crime only makes sense if DM had written a best selling book about it, or if he was allowed to keep the truck and profit from it in some way, in my opinion.

I'm not sure where this idea that DM has groupies who are sending him money comes from, it sounds like the start of a wild rumour to me, so if you could please link to the source of that information, it would be helpful, otherwise it is a rumour that should not be perpetuated on a site like this, from my understanding of the TOS.

All my opinion only.

 

[swedie]

Responsible for rogue actions? I think Walmart would have a claim if so. JMO

If the rope was defective and Walmart knew it but continued to sell the rope, sure someone could sue them if damages occurred while using the rope. Say you made a tree swing using the rope and it broke while you were on it causing you to fall off, breaking your neck where you became a quadriplegic for the rest of your life. OTOH, if Walmart sold the rope not knowing it was defective, well then it would be the company that made the rope that would be open to a lawsuit. HTH.

Walmart would be open to lawsuits if they did anything neglectful knowing someone could be harmed or killed. We have laws for a reason and the ability to file lawsuits for a reason also. MOO.

 

[Kamille]

As it has already been pointed out, wrongful death lawsuits are to punitively punish the guilty. If they are already being punished via a jail sentence, then there is no need to punish them further.

Where has this been pointed out and is there a link that states that wrongful death suits are strictly to punitively punish the guilty? And why not punish a murderer in every way the law allows?

I highly doubt that the courts seek to further punish those already incarcerated by making orders in regards to their commissary privileges, that is up to the individual prison to control, from what I know. Btw, even if criminals have unlimited funds, there are limits to what they can buy, and spend at the commissary and when they can buy it.

Did not say the courts make orders regarding their commisary accounts. If they have no money, then they won't have money in their commissary accounts. And they'll have to get by on only what the prison supplies them with. Victim's might consider that a suitable punishment.

Families don't have to lose time from work to attend court proceedings to advocate for the rights of the victims, that is the crown's job. In reality, people die unexpectedly all the time, and there are usually people left behind who struggle in one way or another, so much so that an entire industry has been devoted to profiting off it; insurance.

So victim's families should just stay out of the courtroom and not bother to advocate for their loved ones by showing their presence? And we all should get life insurance just in case someone murders us? The option to sue should not be available to anyone?

SB suing DM to ensure that he doesn't profit off of his crime only makes sense if DM had written a best selling book about it, or if he was allowed to keep the truck and profit from it in some way, in my opinion.

I was talking in general terms of why some people sue. In SB's case I have no idea if she will and what her reasons would be. I would think she may want to punitively punish him and put the funds in the foundation she started in her husband's name. And that would likely be based on principle. Punish him to the utmost for taking her life partner away from her and his child and use the funds to help other victims instead of allowing him to continue to have unlimited funds for his own personal comfort. But that is JMO.

I'm not sure where this idea that DM has groupies who are sending him money comes from, it sounds like the start of a wild rumour to me, so if you could please link to the source of that information, it would be helpful, otherwise it is a rumour that should not be perpetuated on a site like this, from my understanding of the TOS.

All my opinion only.

The idea that DM may have groupies or people who will advocate and raise money for him should he find himself indigent is nothing more than speculation and opinion and not presented as fact. Just as the perpetual rumours and innuendo that are consistently posted about the victims and the co accused are. If it's a fact, it will be linked. HTH

MOO

 

[Sillybilly]

.

Hmmmm .... murders usually pay ..... with life in prison .... not money

And if the courts were to assess financial compensation to the victims , it would have to include the poor as well as the wealthy.

We can sue people or corporations for liability .... selling a dangerous product etc , but murder ???

Hard to say .... anyone ever heard of that in Canada ??

.

No, you don't sue for murder which is a criminal charge; a civil case would fall under wrongful death (i.e. your loved one died as a result of an action or inaction/negligence at the hands of another, whether individual or corporation). The Statement of Claim sets out the circumstances and the remedies sought, but does not contain a quotable charge as do criminal cases under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Russell Williams had a couple of million dollar civil suits against him, including one initiated by murder victim Jessica Lloyd's mother and brother:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...h-numerous-victims/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

ETA: Catching up and see that Snooper already cited the Williams case.

 

[Juballee]

<modsnip>

Personally, to me, the idea that just because maybe we can punish someone in more than one way, that we should automatically punish them in every way possible, is distastefully spiteful in my opinion. Especially when we haven't even heard their side of the story yet.

We as a society already consider that prison is a suitable punishment for the crime of murder, why do some insist that we make the punishment harsher for this particular defendant? Why is it he deserves to have prison be worse for him than it is for everyone else? If all the other prisoners are allowed to have some money in their commissary account, why should a few be forced to have their accounts stripped bare just because they had more money to start with? I really don't see the fairness in that, personally.

RSBM

And families who do receive justice in a criminal court in the form of a guilty verdict may also seek to ensure that the perp does not benefit in any way from their crime with either their own funds or anything that is sent to them via groupies and fan clubs to make sure there are unlimited funds available in their bank and commissary accounts while in prison.

If I recall correctly, victims families are not allowed to advocate in the courtroom until it is time to give their victim impact statement. Even their testimony is not meant to be pleading or imploring to the judge or jury, they should testify only to the truth and answer the questions put to them in as accurate a way as possible. If their presence in the courtroom becomes too much of an emotional distraction to the court, they may even ask to be excused. Because it is not their job to advocate, it is the crowns job, and it undermines their authority to have citizens try to secure justice on their own.

Or, as in the case of SB, having to make up for the loss of income due to the murder of the main income earner in the family while simultaneously raising their child alone.

This is a good indication of what many seem to think she may have reason to sue for. Personally, I don't know what her principals are, but I won't presume to guess that she is of the sort to want to see someone who hurt her particular family get a far harsher punishment than others in similar situations. In our society, having unlimited funds only provides personal comfort when one is not in jail. Again, even millionaires have limits to how much they may spend at the commissary per week, it won't make him any more comfortable than the average prisoner, because he will after all, still be in prison.

This is all my opinion only. Perhaps we should agree to disagree.

 

[SnooperDuper]

People don't get sued unless they have money. Look at what celebrities have to deal with.

I don't think it's about things being more or less just so much as, simply, possible. WR, RP and DM are all men of means.

 

[swedie]

<modsnip>

Personally, to me, the idea that just because maybe we can punish someone in more than one way, that we should automatically punish them in every way possible, is distastefully spiteful in my opinion. Especially when we haven't even heard their side of the story yet.

We as a society already consider that prison is a suitable punishment for the crime of murder, why do some insist that we make the punishment harsher for this particular defendant? Why is it he deserves to have prison be worse for him than it is for everyone else? If all the other prisoners are allowed to have some money in their commissary account, why should a few be forced to have their accounts stripped bare just because they had more money to start with? I really don't see the fairness in that, personally.

RSBM



If I recall correctly, victims families are not allowed to advocate in the courtroom until it is time to give their victim impact statement. Even their testimony is not meant to be pleading or imploring to the judge or jury, they should testify only to the truth and answer the questions put to them in as accurate a way as possible. If their presence in the courtroom becomes too much of an emotional distraction to the court, they may even ask to be excused. Because it is not their job to advocate, it is the crowns job, and it undermines their authority to have citizens try to secure justice on their own.



This is a good indication of what many seem to think she may have reason to sue for. Personally, I don't know what her principals are, but I won't presume to guess that she is of the sort to want to see someone who hurt her particular family get a far harsher punishment than others in similar situations. In our society, having unlimited funds only provides personal comfort when one is not in jail. Again, even millionaires have limits to how much they may spend at the commissary per week, it won't make him any more comfortable than the average prisoner, because he will after all, still be in prison.

This is all my opinion only. Perhaps we should agree to disagree.

If the guilty are being punished it's their own doing, they put themselves in jail/prison. They knew the time would eventually come when they would be caught. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. What is their story? Lies I would imagine. Mark my word, we won't hear their stories. The only stories we will get is the truth being presented by the Crown during the trial as they present the evidence. I can almost guarantee it. Unless one of the accused is called to the witness stand to testify against their co accused, we'll hear nothing of the truth from the defence in the way of their innocence. The defence will cross examine some of the Crown's witnesses and might call upon a witness or two of their own.

What DM did to his victims is more distasteful than anything that will ever happen to him in jail or prison. One cannot stoop lower on the scum laden pond of life then what the charged did to his victims or their families. Not to forget his own supposed loved ones for that matter. Murdering his own father, setting his mother up the way he did, totally disgusting, disturbing and the lowest of lows.

When all is said and done and the accused are sentenced to prison, there will be much satisfaction knowing Tim did not die in vain and our justice system has worked once again to ridden society of those evil enough who prey upon innocent, vulnerable, decent, people. ALL MOO.

 

[Kamille]

<modsnip>

Personally, to me, the idea that just because maybe we can punish someone in more than one way, that we should automatically punish them in every way possible, is distastefully spiteful in my opinion. Especially when we haven't even heard their side of the story yet.

I'm referring to punishment options after conviction, when their "story" has been told and they are found guilty because a jury of their peers did not believe their story over hard evidence.

We as a society already consider that prison is a suitable punishment for the crime of murder, why do some insist that we make the punishment harsher for this particular defendant? Why is it he deserves to have prison be worse for him than it is for everyone else? If all the other prisoners are allowed to have some money in their commissary account, why should a few be forced to have their accounts stripped bare just because they had more money to start with? I really don't see the fairness in that, personally.


RSBM



If I recall correctly, victims families are not allowed to advocate in the courtroom until it is time to give their victim impact statement. Even their testimony is not meant to be pleading or imploring to the judge or jury, they should testify only to the truth and answer the questions put to them in as accurate a way as possible. If their presence in the courtroom becomes too much of an emotional distraction to the court, they may even ask to be excused. Because it is not their job to advocate, it is the crowns job, and it undermines their authority to have citizens try to secure justice on their own.






This is a good indication of what many seem to think she may have reason to sue for. Personally, I don't know what her principals are, but I won't presume to guess that she is of the sort to want to see someone who hurt her particular family get a far harsher punishment than others in similar situations. In our society, having unlimited funds only provides personal comfort when one is not in jail. Again, even millionaires have limits to how much they may spend at the commissary per week, it won't make him any more comfortable than the average prisoner, because he will after all, still be in prison.

This is all my opinion only. Perhaps we should agree to disagree.

Actually, stripping DM of his inheritance might equalize him with the vast majority of the other prisoners. Right now he is being treated differently because of his wealth IMO. He wouldn't be treated worse than the others, just the same. Instead of being afforded "protection" and special status as he is right now. And he'd still be able to have money in his commissary account, in fact it's a requirement so that they can pay their room and board but he just might have to work for it, or his family and friends might have to send it to him like most of the others. Perhaps the victim's family would like to know he's being treated the same as any other convicted murderer if he is found guilty. And he should be. That would be "fair".

But you're right, we should agree to disagree on this issue.

MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

What do you think DP meant by this, on the subject of why he had not been retained:

"It has nothing to do with finances," says Paradkar. "It's really because of the direct indictment."

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/tim-bosma-trial-judge-hold-010433193.html


So did the DI push DM's case forward far enough to conflict with DP's other murder case?

Or because of the DI, is DP's advice to plead, wheras DM still wants to go to trial?


DP is defending MP right now...she was arrested and charged with second-degree murder on April 14, 2012, a month and a year before DM. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/woman-charged-with-sister-in-law-s-murder-distraught-1.1231112



Jury selection was May 20 2015 and the trial began June 3 2015 (-ish, on or about, exact dates not important here)

The crime occured Feb 5 2009

http://www.mississauga.com/news-sto...on-begins-wednesday-in-death-of-pregnant-mom/

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5...er-cried-bitterly-for-her-mother-jurors-hear/

So in MP's case, it was 38 months between the murder and the charge, and another 38 months between the charge and the trial.

In DM/TB's case, it was 0 months between the murder and the charge, and another 32 months between the charge and the trial (minus PI, plus defense delays)

 

[SnooperDuper]

And well just to throw something on the bonfire about the financial punishment of DM: DM's wealth provided him with the means to murder. Not everyone can drop thousands on an animal incinerator when they need one, or have the vehicles, properties and buildings that would allow someone (smarter) to cover their crime. (It's obvious DM is no genius if he was picked up in less than a week despite having the means to buy any tool he needed to execute and cover his crimes). So DM's stupidity notwithstanding...since he used his wealth as a tool to kill, shouldn't that tool be taken away from him?

DM's wealth was a murder weapon, why should he be allowed to hang on to it?

 

[Juballee]

People don't get sued unless they have money. Look at what celebrities have to deal with.

I don't think it's about things being more or less just so much as, simply, possible. WR, RP and DM are all men of means.

I'm still stuck on why we should treat people differently because they have more money than other people. If it's about stripping criminals of all they have, then shouldn't it be applied equally to all, not just those who have more money? I am of the opinion that just because something is possible, doesn't mean it should be done, especially if it's not about being just.

If DM's wealth were a tool essential for him to commit those crimes, how can poor people afford to commit murder? If we as a society feel we need to take away everything that a person used to commit a crime, then we should take their feet, their hands, and their brains, as those are all much bigger tools to committing crimes than money. Many people without a penny can kill, but you don't see a lot of footless, handless lobotomized murderers out there, in my opinion.

In the same way that it would be unconstitutional to deny a poor defendant a lawyer just because he cannot afford one, I find it also immoral to treat a defendant differently just because they can afford one. I think no one should get preferential treatment nor inferior treatment, if I am going to stand by my principals. All my opinion only.

 

[Kamille]

I'm stuck on why criminal defendants who do have more money are treated differently than other people. MS and DM, same crime, same charges. DM in protective custody with guards who respect him and treat him well according to his attorney. MS, put in GP and shuttled from one jail to another, in and out of segregation likely due to the problems he is enduring from other inmates in GP.

Appears to me that DM is receiving preferential treatment.

MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

If there were a wrongful death suit from LB or TB's families, I think they would sue DM, MS, and MA all in one shot, no?

Then the judge would specify who would pay what proportion of the reward, but the burden would be shared between all of the defendants.

DM and MA would be able to pay, but MS would likely end up in the red (though bankruptcy would be an available remedy)

So it is not really a case of people being treated differently because I think legally both would face a suit...it's just that only one of them would be able to pay out.

If wrongful death awards are limited to $125k per head and first-degree relatives (parents, spouse, kids, siblings) and the burden of the award to the plaintiffs is shared with MS, surely DM would be able to settle up everything for far less than $1M

Compare and contrast the moneys that have been lost on other counts:

- The hangar may have been sold for a lackluster number as was the 6-plex: I guestimate there might have been $4M in real estate losses
- All the money setting up and running the MRO went down the toilet, maybe at least $1M or more
- Lawyer fees are adding up
- There is $6M in property that has been liquidated, plus the hangar that is worth as much. If DM misses out on half of that due to succession/inheritance law in the case where he is found guilty of murder of WM, that might be a loss of $6M

Anyway, there are other forces at work here against DM's money, other than any wrongful death suits, which IMO are probably a burden that will be shared with MS, limited in value, and really not as bad as the financial devastation that has occurred for other reasons.

 

[Juballee]

I'm stuck on why criminal defendants who do have more money are treated differently than other people. MS and DM, same crime, same charges. DM in protective custody with guards who respect him and treat him well according to his attorney. MS, put in GP and shuttled from one jail to another, in and out of segregation likely due to the problems he is enduring from other inmates in GP.

Appears to me that DM is receiving preferential treatment.

MOO

I don't recall MS complaining about his treatment in jail, other than being placed in segregation, which I believe is considered a step up from protective custody or solitary confinement, as opposed to being in the general population, which is better than segregation. He said the other inmates don't bother him, or something to that effect:

"While he assumes many of the other inmates recognize his name and his high-profile case, he says he has not been targeted in any way. He says he gets outside, but not often &#8212; especially now that he's in segregation again."

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4075078-exclusive-jail-visits-with-bosma-s-accused-killers/

So if spending some time in segregation is worse than being in general population, and being confined alone, solitarily, is considered so much worse that it is used as punishment classically, how is DM getting preferential treatment? If solitary confinement was so great, all the inmates would misbehave just to get that preferential treatment, logically.

Also, the way that the guards treat each individual inmate in jail generally relates to the way that inmate treats the guards. If the guards treat an inmate with respect, it is pretty much guaranteed that the inmate is respectful to the guards, in my opinion.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Actually, stripping DM of his inheritance might equalize him with the vast majority of the other prisoners. Right now he is being treated differently because of his wealth IMO. He wouldn't be treated worse than the others, just the same. Instead of being afforded "protection" and special status as he is right now. And he'd still be able to have money in his commissary account, in fact it's a requirement so that they can pay their room and board but he just might have to work for it, or his family and friends might have to send it to him like most of the others. Perhaps the victim's family would like to know he's being treated the same as any other convicted murderer if he is found guilty. And he should be. That would be "fair".

But you're right, we should agree to disagree on this issue.

MOO

Inmates pay room and board? That's a new one on me. Do you have a link for that please? I know when they cut the prisoners pay to about $3 a day last year, the excuse given was that the cuts were to pay for room and board and the phone system. They do have to pay for their own toiletries, like soap and shampoo, out of their commissary account. And many want a job for that and for letters home and to help pay their families expenses to come visit, but I don't believe they pay room and board out of their commissary funds.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

What do you think DP meant by this, on the subject of why he had not been retained:







https://ca.news.yahoo.com/tim-bosma-trial-judge-hold-010433193.html


So did the DI push DM's case forward far enough to conflict with DP's other murder case?

Or because of the DI, is DP's advice to plead, wheras DM still wants to go to trial?


DP is defending MP right now...she was arrested and charged with second-degree murder on April 14, 2012, a month and a year before DM. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/woman-charged-with-sister-in-law-s-murder-distraught-1.1231112



Jury selection was May 20 2015 and the trial began June 3 2015 (-ish, on or about, exact dates not important here)

The crime occured Feb 5 2009

http://www.mississauga.com/news-sto...on-begins-wednesday-in-death-of-pregnant-mom/

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5...er-cried-bitterly-for-her-mother-jurors-hear/

So in MP's case, it was 38 months between the murder and the charge, and another 38 months between the charge and the trial.

In DM/TB's case, it was 0 months between the murder and the charge, and another 32 months between the charge and the trial (minus PI, plus defense delays)

So that matches what I said earlier - that 3 years from the date of charges to the start of the trial is about the norm in Ontario.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I'm stuck on why criminal defendants who do have more money are treated differently than other people. MS and DM, same crime, same charges. DM in protective custody with guards who respect him and treat him well according to his attorney. MS, put in GP and shuttled from one jail to another, in and out of segregation likely due to the problems he is enduring from other inmates in GP.

Appears to me that DM is receiving preferential treatment.

MOO

MS can ask for protective custody whenever he wants. Every inmate can. He was only moved to one jail that I am aware of. When and to what jails has he been shuttled in and out of? Link please. According to MS, his moving in and out of segregation is not caused by any problems he is enduring from other inmates, so I don't know where you got that impression.

While he assumes many of the other inmates recognize his name and his high-profile case, he says he has not been targeted in any way.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/09/12/tim_bosma_murder_men_accused_of_slaying_say_they_want_to_tell_their_story_but_cant.html

It also doesn't sound like MS thinks it's preferential treatment to be kept in segregation.

JMO

ETA: I see Juballee has already posted the same thing. (I should finish reading before posting.)