Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-17-70000850 Date: 2019-04-24 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen – and – Ian Ohab

Counsel: B. Richards and A. Grady, for the Crown P. Klumak and A. Mehta, for Mr. Ohab

Heard: 26 March 2019

Before: S.A.Q. Akhtar J.

Reasons for Sentence

Factual Background and Overview

[1] In the early hours of the morning of 15 April 2016, Melissa Cooper encountered Ian Ohab on the 15th floor of 220 Oak Street, the apartment building in which Mr. Ohab lived. Ms. Cooper accepted an invitation to go to Mr. Ohab’s apartment. She was never seen alive again.

[2] Ms. Cooper had been visiting her friend Melvin Liberty, another resident of the building. and had gone to the 15th floor to buy crack cocaine. At approximately 1.35 am, security cameras recorded Mr. Ohab and Ms. Cooper inside the building elevator. Mr. Ohab hugged Ms. Cooper and appeared to dance suggestively against her. In response, Ms. Cooper playfully grabbed Mr. Ohab around his neck. Both exited the elevator when it arrived on the 23rd floor where Mr. Ohab’s apartment was situated. At 1.48 am, Ms. Cooper’s mobile phone disconnected from her subscribed network. No one heard from her again.

[3] On 16 April 2016, Ms. Cooper’s mother, Michelle Ball, called her phone. Ms. Cooper did not answer. Ms. Ball continued her attempts to contact her daughter without success. Ms. Ball, worried and concerned about Ms. Cooper’s lack of response contacted Tim Brown, one of Ms. Cooper’s friends, as well as Ms. Cooper’s sister. Neither of them knew Melissa Cooper’s whereabouts. Now fearful for her daughter’s well-being, Ms. Ball called Ms. Cooper’s mobile phone service provider, Fido, and was told that the last cellular activity on Ms. Cooper’s phone had been in the early hours of 15 April 2016. Ms. Ball contacted police and filed a missing person’s report.

[4] On 19 April 2016, Ms. Cooper’s severed lower torso was found at Charlie’s Meat Store located at Broadview Avenue in Toronto. On examination, the buttock area exhibited signs of extensive bruising. On 3 May 2016, Ms. Cooper’s detached right arm was discovered on a conveyor belt at a recycling plant in North York.

[5] Police searched Mr. Ohab’s apartment. Tests, using the Luma Crystal Violet Application, detected blood on the walls of the living room, on the bathroom door, and in front of the bath tub where the tiles adjoined. None of the blood had been visible to the naked eye, all was residual and lacked sufficient quantity to identify the donor. However, when tiles in the bathroom were removed, police noticed a small amount of blood which, after testing, was identified as Ms. Cooper’s.

[6] The Crown alleged that Mr. Ohab killed Ms. Cooper and dismembered her body to conceal the cause of death and extent of injuries that he inflicted upon her.

[7] At the outset of his trial, Mr. Ohab denied the offence of first degree murder [1] but pleaded guilty to the offence of causing an indignity to a human body by dismembering Ms. Cooper. Mr. Ohab testified that he and Ms. Cooper returned to his apartment after meeting on the 15th floor. Mr. Ohab said that they both smoked crack cocaine and he had passed out after doing so. When he awoke, Mr. Ohab told the jury that he discovered Ms. Cooper dead on his living room floor. Panicking, he dragged her into his bathtub, and one day later, dismembered her body before scattering the remains in different locations.

[8] On 31 January 2019, a jury convicted Mr. Ohab of second degree murder.

[9] After conviction, as required under s. 745.2 of the Criminal Code, the jury was asked to consider and make recommendations as to the suitable parole ineligibility period. One juror made no recommendation. Another recommended a minimum 15 year ineligibility period. The remaining ten jurors recommended that Mr. Ohab wait 25 years, the maximum time period, before being eligible to apply for parole.

Positions of the Parties

[10] Ms. Richards and Ms.Grady, for the Crown, argues that the circumstances of the offence require a 25 year minimum period of parole ineligibility. Mr. Klumak and Ms. Mehta, on behalf of Mr. Ohab, submits that 15-18 years is the appropriate range.

Personal Circumstances

[11] Mr. Ohab is now 41 years of age. He was the youngest of four children whose parents divorced when he was two. As a result, Mr. Ohab went to live with his father in Barrie. However, he returned to live with his mother at age 12 after his father died of a heart attack.

[12] Soon after, Mr. Ohab began his involvement with drugs starting with the use of marihuana and descending into crack cocaine and heroin when he was 15-years-old. Mr. Ohab used drugs regularly in high school and began to fall foul of the criminal justice system.

[13] Mr. Ohab has a 17-year-old daughter whom he is prevented from contacting through court order. He was 23-years-old when she was born. Mr. Ohab met the mother of his child on a movie set when he was 23 and she was 35 years old. According to Mr. Ohab she introduced him to opiates but subsequently obtained a court order barring him from access to his daughter because of his drug use.

[14] Mr. Ohab’s attempts to build a relationship with his daughter led him to register with a rehabilitation programme in 2006 and obtain employment. However, in 2009, a court declared that he was not allowed to see his child.

[15] Mr. Ohab admits that at the time of the murder he used intravenous drugs heavily. After moving to 220 Oak Street sometime in 2011-12, he met Anita Famula who later moved in with him. Ms. Famula was also an addict and died of a drug overdose early in 2016. At this trial, Mr. Ohab testified to the details of Ms. Famula’s death and how it created in him a deeply held cynicism and suspicion about the Toronto Emergency Medical Services.

[16] A report from the Centre of Mental Health and Addictions prepared in 2010 describes Mr. Ohab as presenting with a personality disorder with overlapping categories of “antisocial” and “narcissistic”.

Victim Impact Statements

[17] Section 722(1) of the Criminal Code mandates that any victim impact statement filed with the court must be considered in determining the imposition of sentence. In R. v. Taylor (2004), 189 O.A.C. 388 (C.A.), at para. 42, the court remarked that victim impact statements assist a judge in providing the proper context for the application of sentencing principles.

[18] The Crown filed several victim impact statements, some of which were read in court.

[19] Michelle Ball explained how her daughter’s death “destroyed” her. Ms. Cooper’s father, Alan Ball, wrote that he would never be the same person after Ms. Cooper’s death. Ms. Cooper’s friends and family described how Ms. Cooper’s death had left them heartbroken and that their lives would be “empty” without her.

Aggravating and Mitigating Features

[20] There are several aggravating features in this case.

[21] First, I accept that Ms. Cooper was a vulnerable victim, dependent on crack cocaine. I find that she accompanied Mr. Ohab to his apartment to feed her drug habit.

[22] Second, there is Mr. Ohab’s meticulous clean up of the apartment to avoid detection. Police investigators were unable to locate any visible droplets of blood on surfaces within the apartment despite Mr. Ohab’s dismemberment of Ms. Cooper’s body. The Luma Crystal Violet application yielded only smear marks and no specimen of any quantity for DNA analysis. I have no doubt that Mr. Ohab began the process of concealing Ms. Cooper’s murder almost immediately: changing his clothing when he left his apartment at 2.28 am, buying a hacksaw to cut up Ms. Cooper’s body, and borrowing bleach to remove any blood residue.

[23] Third, there is the dismemberment and indignity to Ms. Cooper’s body. There was clear evidence that Ms. Cooper had been beaten prior to her death: her lower torso showed extensive contusions on her buttocks. Dr. Cunningham, the pathologist who testified at trial, opined that those marks must have originated prior to death. Timothy Brown, the friend with whom Ms. Cooper had engaged in sex only a few hours before meeting Mr. Ohab, testified that he saw no visible bruises on her body. I find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ohab dismembered Ms. Cooper’s body not out of panic but from a desire to conceal the cause of death.

[24] Fourth, Mr. Ohab’s disposal of the body parts, in my view, is also an aggravating feature. As I have already indicated, I find Mr. Ohab did not dismember Ms. Cooper out of panic but did so to conceal how she was killed. The video evidence shows Mr. Ohab leaving the building on different occasions carrying bags holding Ms. Cooper’s body parts. Mr. Ohab can be seen smiling and greeting other residents of the building as he leaves and re-enters the building. He looks relaxed and self-satisfied. Disposing of Ms. Cooper’s body parts leaves an enduring, emotional scar on her friends and family. They will never know, for certain, what happened to her in Mr. Ohab’s apartment. They will never get to say goodbye. They have no idea of her final resting place. Their agony, despite their best efforts, will stay with them forever.

[25] Finally, Mr. Ohab has a very disturbing criminal record with four convictions of violence against women. I would agree with Mr. Klumak that the conviction in May 2001, where Mr. Ohab was found guilty of assaulting his sister and another woman could be explained as a familial dispute. Similarly, viewed in isolation, his conviction for criminal harassment on 29 May 2006, which concerned repeated threats to the mother of his child, could be classified as frustration over child custody and access disputes.

[26] However, his later convictions cannot be explained away as domestic disputes. On 28 June 2010, Mr. Ohab was again convicted of criminal harassment, having followed a female neighbour from an adjoining apartment, commenting on her clothing and body, showing up at her work place and then assaulting her in the street telling her “it’s not my fault you’re so hot, I couldn’t help myself”.

[27] On 30 June 2014, Mr. Ohab pleaded guilty to assault and forcible confinement of a female guest visiting his apartment. This guest smoked crack cocaine and consumed alcohol with Mr. Ohab and Ms. Famula. However, when she attempted to leave, Mr. Ohab picked up a knife and prevented her from doing so. Mr. Ohab believed that his guest owed him money and threatened her with death if she refused to pay. Brandishing a knife and a baseball bat during the threats, Mr. Ohab and Ms. Famula kept the victim prisoner in their apartment for two days.

[28] I find little in the way of mitigation. Although I accept that Mr. Ohab had a difficult childhood and became involved with drugs at an early age, there is no real link between Ms. Cooper’s murder and his drug addiction other than providing the backdrop for their meeting and the possible acceptance of Mr. Ohab’s invitation to go to his apartment.

[29] When asked if he had anything to say at the conclusion of submissions, Mr. Ohab continued to deny the offences. He is, of course, entitled to do so. Any absence of remorse is not an aggravating feature in sentencing but disentitles Mr. Ohab to a discount in what is otherwise deemed to be an appropriate sentence.

[30] Mr. Ohab’s comments, however, went further than mere denials. He claimed that he tried to “repulse” Ms. Cooper from entering his apartment. This comment does not fit very easily with what is seen on the lift video where Mr. Ohab actually embraces and dances against Ms. Cooper. He also continued to assert that he was the victim in this case and that the Crown’s submissions amounted to “propaganda”.

[31] Shortly before the sentencing hearing, Mr. Ohab sent a letter addressed to me repeating his assertions that he should be seen as one of life’s victims: a person who has been on the front line of suffering. Mr. Ohab reiterated his personal circumstances, a subject that had already been very ably explained to me by Mr. Klumak. I take into account the contents of the letter for the purpose of pronouncing sentence.

[32] Mr. Ohab’s lack of understanding of the events juxtaposed with his unenviable criminal record speaks volumes to his lack of prospects for rehabilitation.

Legal Principles

Parole Ineligibility

[33] Second degree murder mandates a sentence of life imprisonment. The general rule is that an offender convicted of second degree murder may apply for parole after ten years of imprisonment.

[34] Section 745.4 of the Criminal Code, however, authorises a sentencing judge to set a period of parole ineligibility in excess of ten years having regard to “the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission”.

[35] Denunciation and deterrence are factors to be considered when evaluating the nature of the offence. However, an increased period of parole ineligibility beyond the ten year minimum does not require “unusual circumstances”: R. v. Shropshire, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227, at paras. 16-19; 26-27.

[36] The jury recommendation regarding the parole ineligibility period is a factor to be taken into account in setting the appropriate period of ineligibility but it is not determinative: R. v. Salah, 2015 ONCA 23, at paras. 270-74.

Parole Ineligibility Case Law Involving Dismembered Victims

[37] Cases where the victim was dismembered after attack differ significantly in sentence. However, these cases make clear that dismembering a victim leads to higher parole ineligibility.

[38] In R. v. Borbely, 2013 ONSC 3355, the offender beat his common law wife to death and dismembered her body. The offender left his victim’s body parts in four plastic pails at a cottage he was renovating. The offender had no previous record and steady employment. He received a 17 year parole ineligibility period. His lack of record and work status were insufficient to reduce his parole ineligibility period.

[39] In R. v. Fatima, [2004] O.J. No. 6278 (S.C.), Watt J. (as he then was) imposed a 15 year parole ineligibility period. The offender and her husband were charged with the death of the husband’s six-year-old daughter - the offender’s step daughter. The judge found it beyond dispute that the husband had committed the killing and dismemberment of the victim. Watt J. also found that the offender had been an aider and abettor in the murder: assisting in the clean up of the family home and the transportation of the victim’s body parts elsewhere. The offender had no previous convictions and was found to be the victim of an abusive husband. However, Watt J. held that even in her lesser role, a 15 year parole ineligibility period was appropriate.

[40] In R. v. Worth (1995), 80 O.A.C. 369, the offender was convicted of second degree murder for killing a 12 year old girl and dismembering her body. When the offender was arrested, the child’s severed head was found in a bag in his car. The trial judge imposed a 23 year parole ineligibility period. The offender appealed arguing that his mental illness justified a lesser increase in the parole ineligibility period. The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this argument, upholding the sentence. In its view, the psychiatric evidence provided support for the increased parole ineligibility period imposed by the judge.

Parole Ineligibility Case Law Involving Other Relevant Factors

[41] Courts have also ordered high parole ineligibility periods in cases where the offender did not dismember the victim’s body.

[42] In Salah, the court upheld a 23 year parole ineligibility period for an offender who participated in setting fire to a house, killing two young children. The Crown rejected the offender’s guilty plea to manslaughter. Ultimately, he was convicted of second degree murder. The sentence was upheld on appeal. The offender had no previous convictions and suffered from ADHD. He maintained “sporadic” employment and was found to have started the fire after being promised financial remuneration. After conviction he minimised his role in the offences and expressed no remorse.

[43] In R. v. Sharpe, 2017 MBQB 6, the offender pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree murder. The victims were his domestic partner and another male. After the killings he attempted to “stage” the scene to give the appearance that his actions had been provoked. The offender had no criminal record and confessed to the crimes when arrested. Nevertheless, the court found that the brutality of the offender’s actions - severely beating his victims with weight bars and sharp edged weapons - warranted a 22 year parole ineligibility period.

[44] In R. v. Cerra, 2004 BCCA 594, the court imposed a 20 year parole ineligibility period where the offender beat a woman to death over a drug dispute.

[45] In R. v. Mafi, 2000 BCCA 135, the offender stabbed a restaurant owner and an employee numerous times, killing them. He received a 20 year parole ineligibility period after being convicted of second degree murder.

Findings of Fact at Sentencing

[46] In R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96, at para. 17, the court remarked that a sentencing judge is bound by the express and implied factual implications of the jury verdict and must accept as proven all facts that are essential to the jury verdict. The judge cannot sentence an offender on facts inconsistent with that verdict. The court went on to explain, at para. 18, that in cases where the factual implications of a jury verdict were uncertain or ambiguous, the judge may come to his or her own independent conclusions based on the evidence adduced at trial.

The Appropriate Sentence

[47] Only Mr. Ohab knows exactly what happened in his apartment in the early hours of 15 April 2016. Only he is aware of how and why he murdered Melissa Cooper. And he is the only person who has knowledge of where Ms. Cooper’s body parts were left after he dismembered her.

[48] However, there is ample evidence in this case to support the conclusion that Ms. Cooper was attacked shortly after she entered Mr. Ohab’s apartment. Her phone, according to her mother, was “always on” yet disconnected from the network just 13 minutes after she left the elevator. The extensive bruises on her lower torso are indicative of a physical assault perpetrated upon her by Mr. Ohab. The exact method of death is unknown but only because Mr. Ohab dismembered her and dispersed her severed parts in different locations across the city. I repeat that I am in no doubt that Mr. Ohab did this not out of panic, as he testified, but as a calculated act to ensure that the cause of death would never be revealed.

[49] Ms. Cooper was a vulnerable young woman who, like Mr. Ohab, had become dependent on drugs at an early age. She trusted Mr. Ohab by agreeing to go to his apartment. He betrayed that trust by killing her. His actions not only deprived a young woman of life but her family and friends of a presence that brought happiness and love.

[50] Mr. Ohab’s actions in disposing of Ms. Cooper’s body only add to her loved ones’ nightmare. They will go to their own graves never knowing Ms. Cooper’s final resting place. Their lifelong agony in these circumstances is simply indescribable.

[51] I have weighed the aggravating and mitigating features in this case as well as reviewed the precedents noted above. Taking into account the factors specified in s. 745.4 of the Code, I impose the following sentence.

[52] Mr. Ohab is sentenced to the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. He will be unable to be eligible for parole for 22 years. He will provide a DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code as this is a primary designated offence, and will be subject to a lifetime prohibition from possessing any weapons pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

[53] On count 2, causing an indignity to the human remains of Ms. Cooper, by dismembering her, the previous observations with respect to denunciation, deterrence and the aggravating nature of the crime are all relevant. Mr. Ohab will be sentenced to the maximum penalty of 5 years for this offence, to run concurrently to the life sentence.

S.A.Q. Akhtar J. Released: 24 April 2019

[1] The first degree murder count was reduced to second degree murder after a directed verdict motion brought by the defence. See: R. v. Ohab, 2019 ONSC 1122.