15 P R O C E E D I N G S

R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARANGER

on WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2017, at PEMBROKE, Ontario

A P P E A R A N C E S:

Mr. J. Richardson and Ms. Julie Scott

Counsel for the Crown

Mr. J. Foord

Counsel as amicus curiae

Table of Contents

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S W I T N E S S E S

E X H I B I T S

EXHIBIT NUMBER ENTERED ON PAGE

W I T N E S S E S O N V O I R D I R E

E X H I B I T S O N V O I R D I R E

EXHIBIT NUMBER ENTERED ON PAGE

Table of Contents

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2017: U P O N R E S U M I N G:

R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E

MARANGER J.: (ORALLY): The 22nd day of September, 2015 will forever be remembered by the citizens of the Counties of Renfrew and Hastings. It will be

remembered as a time of terror and of sorrow. It

will always be considered one of the saddest, darkest days in the community’s history.

For on that day, Basil Borutski took it upon himself to exact vengeance, to act as judge, jury

and executioner against three beloved innocent

women. On that day, Basil Borutski committed three vicious cold-blooded murders.

He first attended the cottage of Carol Culleton.

The cottage door was locked. Basil Borutski broke into the cottage. He attacked her with a coaxial cable. He hit her with it. He then wrapped it six times very tightly around her head and neck

suffocating her, murdering her.

Then Basil Borutski drove to the residence of Anastasia Kuzyk. His attendance with a shotgun was witnessed by the victim’s sister, Eva Kuzyk. He

30 gained entry. Eva Kuzyk escaped when she saw him coming forward with a shotgun. She fled outside and then heard the sound of a shot going off in the

house. Basil Borutski shot Anastasia Kuzyk to death in the kitchen of her home. He murdered her in cold blood.

He then left the Kuzyk residence and drove to the

farmhouse of Nathalie Warmerdam. Adrian Warmerdam witnessed him chasing his mother in their home with a 12-guage shotgun. He escaped with his life. He heard a shot and he called the police. Basil

Borutski shot Nathalie Warmerdam to death. He

murdered her in cold blood.

These horrific events set into motion an unprecedented massive frightening manhunt for Basil Borutski in this part of eastern Ontario. It

involved dozens of police officers, the locking

down of a courthouse. There were fears that he had other victims in his sights.

At 2:30 in the afternoon in a field in Renfrew

County, near Basil Borutski’s family hunting cabin, he was arrested uneventfully.

On September 23rd, 2015, he gave a statement to Detective Sergeant Casey O’Neil. In that

statement, he admitted to killing the three victims. He justified it by saying they were not innocent. That only killing something innocent was murder.

The Ontario Provincial Police then acted quickly, methodically and with a high degree of

professionalism in processing and gathering evidence from each of the three crime scenes, and from the area of Basil Borutski’s arrest. The totality of the evidence, including forensic

evidence establishing his guilt in this case was

abundant. It was unequivocal. It was overwhelming.

The trial was supposed to last 17 weeks. It lasted six weeks. This was largely because Basil Borutski

decided not to actively participate in his own defence, despite repeated requests by the court, including requests during the pretrial motions, including a psychiatric assessment, jury selection,

the trial, including this final stage of the trial.

He has for the most part remained silent and aloof to the proceedings. Amicus curiae was appointed and as a consequence of Mr. Borutski’s inactivity,

seemingly non-participation at trial, the role of

amicus curiae was expanded. Mr. Foord’s work in this regard was exemplary. He did all he could given the case to ensure a fair trial process. Mr. McCann was appointed as a counsel to conduct

specific cross-examinations under section 486.3 of

the Code. Mr. McCann is a veteran of many murder trials. He, from time to time, also offered his wisdom during the conduct of this case.

30 Mr. Richardson and Ms. Scott conducted the trial fairly, even handedly and efficiently. Their work was also exemplary.

The jury verdict of guilty of two counts of first- degree murder in the deaths of Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam, and one count of second degree murder in the case of Carol Culleton was supported

by the evidence presented at trial. It was a just

and proper verdict.

The sentencing in this case is automatic. It’s life imprisonment. The issues to be decided here

are twofold, one, what range of parole

ineligibility should be ordered between 10 and 25 years for the second-degree murder of Carol Culleton, and, two, should the period of parole ineligibility be consecutive in this case because

they were multiple murders?

The position of the Crown:

The Crown has submitted that the need for retribution and denunciation here trumps all other

sentencing principles. That the effect these murders had on the families and the greater community was devastating; that in the circumstances of this case, and taking into account

section 718 of the Code and section 745 of the

Code, that 20 years of parole ineligibility should be imposed for the murder of Carol Culleton, and that the three periods of parole ineligibility should be served consecutively, leaving a sentence

30 of life imprisonment without parole for 70 years being a true life sentence as Mr. Borutski is now

60 years old.

Mr. Borutski did not offer any submissions although asked. Mr. Foord, as amicus, advised the court to take measured retribution and that rehabilitation and hope are always considerations when a judge is

about to pass sentence.

I have taken into consideration the able submissions of both the Crown and of amicus. I

have read and considered the Victim Impact

Statements of the family and friends of the victims. The measure of their loss and the effect these murders has had on them is incalculable. I borrow from the eloquent words of Nathalie

Warmerdam’s mother, as I’m certain these words

apply in some way to all the victims in this case.

“There’s a huge hole in our lives and in our hearts. Daily we walk under a black cloud. Our

health and family dynamics had been sorely affected

due to the everlasting stress and sorrow.”

When considering the other victims in this case, I cannot help but feel particularly sympathy for Eva Kuzyk and Adrian Warmerdam who will have to carry the real images of this murder, the everlasting

memory of the terror of that day for the rest of their lives in the loss of a sister and of a mother.

30 Renfrew County was impacted greatly by these murders. I, again, borrow from the eloquent community impact statement. “Residents throughout

east region and Renfrew County tell us they’ll never forget the lines of police cars on their rural roads. The fears they had for their safety and the safety of the families as schools and

businesses were put on lockdown. They tell us how

they no longer feel safe walking on their rural roads or hiking in the bush in Renfrew.

In Renfrew County during hunting season, the sound of gunshots is part of our culture, a normal

everyday occurrence. However, since the murders, gunshots are triggering memories, and the sight of police vehicles once a symbol of safety and security for many are now a reminder of these

horrific murders and fears of future violence.

Historically, folks in Renfrew County leave doors unlocked because everyone knows everyone else or is related to them and feel safe. Since the murders

for the first time, many community members are

locking their homes. There are feelings of vulnerability and despair.”

The sentencing principles in Canadian criminal law have long been codified under section 718 of the

Criminal Code which states:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and contribute, along with crime

30 prevention initiatives, respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one

or more of the following objectives:

a) To denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or the community that it has caused

by unlawful conduct;

b) To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

c) To separate offenders from society, where

10 necessary;

d) To assist in rehabilitating offenders;

e) To provide reparations for harm done to

15 victims or to the community; and

f) To promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

That denunciation is the primary consideration in a case of a multiple murder such as what took place here is clear. As previously stated, the sentence

is life imprisonment. The determination of parole

ineligibility is the question. Section 745.4 and

section 745.51 apply.

For a second degree murder conviction, the range of parole ineligibility is between 10 and 25 years,

and for multiple murders, the parole ineligibility period can be made consecutive. In each case, the

factors that the court has to consider are the same. The four factors are:

The recommendation of the jury;

The character of the accused;
The nature of the offences; and
The circumstances surrounding the commission of

the offences.

What is the appropriate period of parole ineligibility for the second degree murder Carole Culleton? The jury recommendations respecting the

murder of Carol Culleton included six no

recommendations, two for ten years, one for 15 years and two for 25 years.

The character of the accused Basil Borutski:

Basil Borutski has a history of violence against women. Two of the victims here were subjected to his abuse in the past. He has several criminal convictions supporting this fact. In his statement

to Detective Sergeant O’Neil, Basil Borutski came across as someone who sees himself as a victim of basically everything. Of women, of society, of the police, of the justice system. He goes so far as

30 to indirectly blame the police and the justice system for his murdering of these three women, all of which is outrageous. He seemed incapable of

taking responsibility for his many wrongs.

As amicus pointed out, there is perhaps some indication of an underlying mental health issue, but I conclude on the whole of the evidence, that the character of the accused is that he is a

violent vindictive, calculating abuser of women, who on September 22, 2015, took his hatred to its ultimate climax and committed the triple murders of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie

Warmerdam.

Regarding the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding their commission, the two first-degree murders of Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam were planned and deliberate.

They were both in part witnessed by family members.

They occurred in the privacy of the two victims’ homes. They were cold-blooded. They were brutal and the two victims were abused by Basil Borutski

in the past.

With respect to the murder of Carol Culleton, there was an element of planning. The attendance at the cottage after being told to be left alone. The conversations with neighbours the night before

about being slighted, support the proposition that he was angry at Carol Culleton. The fact that he broke into the residence, the fact that she was pleading with him while he was murdering her,

30 together with the past history, are all factors that support a longer period of ineligibility.

In a case of the second degree murder of Carol Culleton, I would order the period of parole ineligibility at 20 years.

With regard to the periods of parole ineligibility

being made consecutive, the jury recommendation was seven jurors recommended that the period be consecutive, three jurors offered no recommendation, one juror abstained.

While agreeing in general terms with Mr. Foord that hope, rehabilitation and measured retribution are and should always be a consideration when imposing a sentence; from time to time in our criminal

justice system, a crime is so deplorable, so devoid

of mercy, so cold-blooded that denunciation,

retribution and giving a sense of justice to the many victims and the community at large become the paramount and virtually the singular consideration.

Basil Borutski’s murderous rampage that took place on September 22nd, 2015 is one such case.

Therefore the sentence will be life imprisonment without eligibility for parole on each count to be

served consecutively, being a total period of 70

years.

All of the various orders requested by the Crown are granted as is the usual Victim Fine Surcharge.

Thank you.

CLERK OF THE COURT: Order all rise.

Form 2 – Certificate of Transcript

R. v. Basil Borutski, 2017 ONSC 7762

Case Summary

15 P R O C E E D I N G S

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

E X H I B I T S

W I T N E S S E S O N V O I R D I R E

E X H I B I T S O N V O I R D I R E

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2017: U P O N R E S U M I N G:

The position of the Crown:

The character of the accused Basil Borutski:

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues