Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-19-00008013/CR-21-91103421 Date: 2023-09-25 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty The King – and – Thomas Patrick Sliwinski, Defendant

Counsel: Ms. E. Thomas, for the Crown Mr. H. Aly and Mr. S. Hafizi, for the Defendant

Heard: June 5 and August 2, 2023

Reasons for Decision

FUERST J.:

Introduction

[1] Lisa Carr, a civil litigation lawyer, spent years building a successful law practice. In 2018 and 2019, numerous lawyers and staff worked at Carr Law. The firm operated from office space in a strip mall in Vaughan.

[2] Among Ms. Carr’s clients were insurance companies who were suing tow truck operators engaged in illegal business practices. As a result of this work, she became the target of a shocking campaign of intimidation and violence, waged in 2018 and 2019. It included an arranged attempt to shoot her in August 2019.

[3] Unrelated to Ms. Carr, in December 2018 Soheil Rafipour was shot to death outside a Richmond Hill residence.

[4] Police investigation revealed that these appalling events involved a common denominator. That common denominator was Thomas Patrick Sliwinski, a man who was no stranger to the criminal justice system.

[5] In June 2023, Mr. Sliwinski pleaded guilty to point a firearm at Ms. Carr, and also to unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and to manslaughter in respect of Mr. Rafipour. There is no question that his offences warrant a substantial penitentiary sentence.

The Victimization of Lisa Carr

[6] In November 2018 and January 2019, the office of Carr Law was vandalized. The front window was smashed, and unknown persons set fire to the office lobby.

[7] At lunchtime on August 29, 2019, one of Ms. Carr’s associates was sitting in her car parked in front of the office. A man walked up to her open vehicle window, pointed a handgun at her, and told her to drop the case. He fled with her wallet.

[8] A week later, on September 6, 2019, the same man returned, and fired several rounds from a handgun into the front entrance of the law office. Employees were still inside the office at the time, but miraculously, no-one was injured.

[9] Qalid Abderezak was the gunman on both occasions. He and Zakariye Yousuf pleaded guilty to various offences arising from the events. Both men were sentenced by me to lengthy penitentiary terms.

[10] On September 7, 2019, Thomas Sliwinski was arrested in Brantford for possession of a stolen Mercedes sedan. Police had recovered the car on August 26, 2019, searched it, and found three pieces of .22 calibre ammunition. On Mr. Sliwinski’s arrest, the police seized his cell phone. They examined it under warrant. They came across alarming video clips, which appeared to be of events in Vaughan. They notified York Regional Police.

[11] The video clips, made on August 23, 2019, by a woman named Charissa Bell, showed Mr. Sliwinski driving the Mercedes. He followed, then drove up beside a blue RAV4 driven by Lisa Carr after she left her law office. The second last video clip showed a handgun and recorded an audible “click”, a sound consistent with the safety on the gun being disengaged. Mr. Sliwinski was recorded saying, “The safety is off”, and then “It would have been nice to catch her right at that corner right there, it would have been beautiful. I think she knows.”

[12] The last video clip showed Mr. Sliwinski pull up alongside Ms. Carr’s vehicle, look out the driver’s window to where her vehicle was located, and then pull the trigger of a handgun. The handgun was clearly loaded with a piece of .22 caliber long rifle ammunition. When the gun did not fire, Mr. Sliwinski said, “Oh fuck it doesn’t work”. He pulled back the slide, confirmed that Ms. Carr had not seen him, and said either “It jammed” or “It’s in the chamber.”

[13] On September 11, 2019, Mr. Sliwinski was arrested for the attempted murder of Ms. Carr. He gave a lengthy video-recorded statement to the police, in which he said that a man named “Zee” instructed him to kill Ms. Carr. He was to go to her office for 7:00 a.m. When she arrived, he was to “put a couple rounds in her”. Mr. Sliwinski referred to the job as a “hit”. Doing it would satisfy a drug debt. He was told to get the job done, and that the person giving him instructions didn’t care if Mr. Sliwinski had to walk into the place and “kill everybody”. Mr. Sliwinski said that he met an associate of Zee, who gave him an address, a parking spot, and pictures of Ms. Carr. He also received a firearm.

[14] Mr. Sliwinski told the police that he feared for his safety, as people had threatened to kill his children and cut off his wife’s fingers. He said that he never intended to kill Ms. Carr, and in fact had saved her life. The “click” sound on the video was him pulling the trigger of the gun, but he maintained that there was no ammunition in the firearm. He said that he made a video of the intentionally botched hit so that he could show Zee he had tried to kill Ms. Carr.

[15] The handgun shown in the video clips was never recovered.

The Shooting of Soheil Rafipour

[16] On the evening of December 24, 2018, Soheil Rafipour was fatally shot when he and a friend left a Christmas party at a Richmond Hill residence. It was a drive-by shooting, carried out by someone using a Volkswagen Touareg that was found abandoned in April 2019.

[17] Mr. Sliwinski was not the shooter. But, for several days leading up to the murder he conducted surveillance of Mr. Rafipour. He followed Mr. Rafipour’s vehicle and “pinged” a GPS that was on it. He did so at the direction of other parties who were responsible for Mr. Rafipour’s death. Mr. Sliwinski was seen on video surveillance a week before the murder with others who were involved in it. Additionally, his phone records showed him in the same area as the victim and a co-accused who conducted surveillance on the days leading up to the homicide; he was identified as operating the Touareg several days before the shooting; and his phone “synced” to the Touareg on the day of the shooting.

[18] On his guilty plea, Mr. Sliwinski admitted that he was a party to the unlawful act shooting death of Mr. Rafipour by conducting surveillance on the victim at the direction of those who carried out the homicide, and that although he did not have an intention to kill Mr. Rafipour, there was a reasonable foreseeability of the risk of bodily harm to Mr. Rafipour.

Victim Impact Information

[19] Ms. Carr did not provide a Victim Impact Statement. However, Crown counsel advised that as a result of the acts of violence that targeted her and her law office, Ms. Carr was forced to shut down her law practice, and drastically alter her life.

[20] In a Victim Impact Statement, Mr. Rafipour’s mother said that the day her son was killed, she died with him. His death has taken a great toll on her mental and physical health, as well as that of her husband and their younger son.

The Circumstances of Mr. Sliwinski

[21] Mr. Sliwinski is 42 years old. He has a youth record, and a lengthy prior adult criminal record, although he has served minimal jail time. His last criminal conviction was in 2013.

[22] Mr. Sliwinski’s father left the family when Mr. Sliwinski was young. Mr. Sliwinski’s mother was constantly out of the house. He effectively was raised by a half-brother, who did not treat him well. Mr. Sliwinski struggled in school. He left home when he was 12 or 13 years old. He began using MDMA at the age of 17.

[23] Mr. Sliwinski was diagnosed with PTSD, depression both manic and bipolar, and anxiety disorder. In addition, he has addiction issues. His employment over the years was sporadic as a result.

[24] Mr. Sliwinski has three children by three different partners. His youngest child is nine years old.

[25] In his remarks at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Sliwinski said that he made some terrible mistakes and caused a trail of damage, which he regrets and for which he takes full responsibility. At the time of his offences he would do almost anything to get drugs. He said that he was used and threatened by other persons, whose orders he followed. He became sober while in pre-trial custody, and will do everything he can to improve himself going forward.

The Positions of the Parties

[26] Crown and defence counsel jointly submit that Mr. Sliwinski should be sentenced to a global term of imprisonment of 12 years, composed of 12 years for the manslaughter, eight years concurrent for unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and five years concurrent for pointing a firearm at Ms. Carr. They agree that there should be credit for pre-sentence custody calculated at one and a half to one. They say that this sentence takes into account the mitigating factors, including the guilty pleas and the harsher than usual circumstances of the pre-sentence custody, while acknowledging the very significant aggravating factors, in particular the targeted nature of the crimes and the plague of firearms offences in York Region. The global sentence also respects the principle of totality.

[27] With respect to ancillary orders, counsel agree there should be a DNA order, a s. 109 lifetime prohibition order, and a s. 743.21 non-communication order.

The Principles of Sentencing

[28] The Criminal Code (“the Code”) sets out a number of principles of sentencing that govern a judge’s determination of the appropriate sentence in any given case.

[29] Section 718 provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. This is achieved by the imposition of just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: the denunciation of unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or the community, deterrence both general and specific, the separation of the offender from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparation for harm done to victims or the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or the community.

[30] Section 718.1 of the Code provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that proportionality is the chief organizing principle in determining a fit sentence. See, R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 10.

[31] Section 718.2 provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It sets out various aggravating factors. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances, and that where consecutive sentences are imposed the combined sentence not be unduly long or harsh.

[32] In every case, the determination of a fit sentence is a fact-specific exercise, not a purely mathematical calculation. As the Supreme Court of Canada put it in R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, at para. 15, “The appropriateness of a sentence is a function of the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code as applied to the facts that led to the conviction”. The gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility, the specific circumstances of the case, and the circumstances of the offender all must be taken into account by the sentencing judge. See, R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paras. 58 and 143.

Analysis

[33] The aggravating factors include:

1. Mr. Sliwinski is not a first offender. He has a lengthy prior criminal record.
2. The offences were planned and premeditated acts of violence, perpetrated against persons who were specifically targeted.
3. Mr. Sliwinski admittedly engaged in the offences, at least in respect of Ms. Carr, on a “for hire” basis, in the sense that his participation was to satisfy his drug debt.
4. His offences against Ms. Carr, a lawyer who was simply carrying out her legitimate professional work for clients, were an attack not only on her, but on the administration of justice.
5. The offences had a very substantial impact. Ms. Carr was compelled to shut down her law practice and give up all that she had worked so hard to achieve. Her life was torn apart. Mr. Rafipour’s death caused, and continues to cause, pain and suffering for his parents and brother. Their lives, too, were torn apart.
6. Firearms offences, particularly the possession and use of loaded handguns by persons who have no business being anywhere near them, are a plague in York Region. They pose an ongoing threat to the safety of its residents.

[34] In mitigation, I consider:

1. Mr. Sliwinski pleaded guilty, which is a sign of remorse and willingness to accept responsibility for his wrong-doing. He did so notwithstanding that there were some triable issues concerning his intent.
2. Mr. Sliwinski expressed remorse in his remarks to me.
3. Although I was not provided with jail records, I accept defence counsel’s assertion that during his pre-sentence custody Mr. Sliwinski was subjected to frequent lockdowns due to staffing shortages and COVID-19 protocols, and that at times he was triple-bunked. This is consistent with information I have received in other cases about the atrocious conditions in jails in the Greater Toronto Area.
4. Following his arrest, Mr. Sliwinski gave a statement to the police that implicated his co-accused. I accept that this cooperation with the authorities may well pose challenges for him during his incarceration, because of the way it is viewed by other offenders.

[35] Mr. Sliwinski’s activity in tracking Mr. Rafipour was critical to the ability of the assailant or assailants to locate and assassinate their victim. With respect to Ms. Carr, Mr. Sliwinski’s activity furthered a many-months long campaign of terror intended to compel her to abandon her completely legitimate work for her clients. I acknowledge that Mr. Sliwinski did not in fact fire the handgun at Ms. Carr, and that he told the police he intentionally botched the job. But the fact is that he pointed a gun loaded with a piece of ammunition at her while she was operating her vehicle, and he pulled the trigger. One can only imagine the horror she felt when she learned from police about the incident.

[36] While I accept that Mr. Sliwinski’s drug addiction made him more vulnerable to involvement in these offences at the behest of others, that explanation for his behaviour does not mitigate either the gravity of his offences or his moral blameworthiness. Nor does the assertion that he was “following orders” from other persons. He is an adult, and he made the choices to do what he did.

[37] In short, all of Mr. Sliwinski’s offences were cold, calculated, and callous. They caused terrible harm. They were committed notwithstanding that Mr. Sliwinski had ample opportunity to reflect on and abandon his participation. They involved behaviour that is completely at odds with the values on which our society is based.

[38] These are offences in respect of which denunciation, deterrence both general and specific, and the protection of society must be the paramount objectives of sentencing. These goals, as well as the principle of proportionality, mandate the imposition of a very lengthy penitentiary sentence.

[39] In the absence of guilty pleas, I would not hesitate to sentence Mr. Sliwinski to a jail term in the upper double digits. I am satisfied, however, that the joint submission put to me by experienced Crown and defence counsel for a global sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment before deduction for pre-sentence custody meets these objectives and results in a proportionate sentence.

Conclusion

[40] Mr. Sliwinski, please stand.

[41] For the offence of manslaughter, I sentence you to 12 years in jail less pre-trial custody of 1476 days credited at one and a half to one as 2214 days, or six years, one month and 24 days. That leaves five years, ten months and six days to serve.

[42] While the offence of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm in respect of Lisa Carr calls for a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment concurrent, in order to give effect to the remnant for the manslaughter the sentence imposed is five years, ten months and six days, to run concurrent to the sentence for the manslaughter. The sentence for point firearm in respect of Lisa Carr is the maximum of five years’ imprisonment, to run concurrent to both other sentences.

[43] On each count there is a DNA order, a s. 109 order for life, and a s. 743.21 non-communication order in respect of the persons named by Crown counsel.

Justice M.K. Fuerst

Released: September 25, 2023

NOTE: As noted in court, on the record, this written decision is to be considered the official version of the Reasons for Sentence and takes precedence over the oral Reasons read into the record in the event of any discrepancies between the oral and written versions.