Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-70000012-0000 DATE: 2024-06-26 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – DALLAS LY Accused

Counsel: Jay Spare, and Jordan Howard for the Crown Jessyca Greenwood, and Marco Sciarra for the Accused

HEARD: May 31, 2024

A.J. O’MARRA J.

Parole Ineligibility Ruling

[1] Dallas Ly was found guilty of second degree murder in the stabbing death of his mother, Thanh Tien Ly. He is here today to be sentenced to life imprisonment and the court order as to the time he must serve before he will be considered eligible for parole, the minimum being 10 years and maximum 25 years.

[2] In determining the period of parole ineligibility pursuant to s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code I am to have regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and the recommendation of the jury, if any.

[3] In addition, as consideration of parole ineligibility is part of the sentencing process I must consider the various sentencing objectives, such as deterrence and denunciation; principles, such as proportionality; aggravating and mitigating factors, and rehabilitation of the offender, which is a more limited consideration than sentencing in other offences.

[4] Pursuant to s. 724(2) of the Code I am to accept as proven all facts, express or implied that are essential to the jury’s verdict and permits me to find other facts disclosed by the evidence. In R. v. Aragon, 2022 ONCA 244 at para. 105 it was noted:

To sentence an offender convicted by jury, a sentencing judge must therefore identify the facts that are essential to the jury’s verdict or, in other words, identify “the express and implied factual implications of the jury’s verdict”: R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6 at para. 17.

Nature of the Offence and Circumstances of its Commission

[5] On Sunday, March 27, 2022, shortly after 8:00 p.m. Dallas Ly, then 21 years stabbed his mother to death with a hunting knife and cut off her head. The assault occurred just inside the entrance foyer to their shared condominium apartment, 906-319 Carlaw Avenue, Toronto.

[6] Post-mortem examination of the deceased revealed that she had been stabbed 27 times in the arm, chest, and neck. Wounds to her left arm were considered defensive in nature. The lethal wounds were to her neck and upper chest. There was a large V-shaped wound to the left side of her neck and a circumferential incised wound extending the entire circumference of her neck that severed all internal structures.

[7] Subsequently, Mr. Ly placed his mother’s body and head in separate garbage bags and loaded them into a shopping cart. It was his stated intention to deposit her remains in Lake Ontario after searching the internet for a location.

[8] He endeavoured to clean the scene wiping up the blood, however, subsequent forensic examination in the police investigation revealed the presence of blood staining spread throughout the apartment, largely as a result of the initial attack and then as the offender dragged his mother’s body to her bedroom, where the packaging of her remains occurred.

[9] A compilation of surveillance videos taken from a number of businesses along the route taken by Mr. Ly revealed that he left the condominium at the intersection of Carlaw Avenue and Dundas Street just after mid-night, Monday March 28, 2022. He pulled and pushed the cart with his mother’s remains down Carlaw Avenue several blocks to Eastern Avenue and east on Eastern Avenue to an area near Berkshire Avenue. On the south side of Eastern Avenue Mr. Ly left the cart and his mother’s remains at the side of the sidewalk. He then fled the area returning to the condominium apartment. He left the apartment 16 minutes later.

[10] His mother’s remains were subsequently discovered later that day at approximately 1:30 p.m. by a passerby and reported it to police.

[11] After Mr. Ly had left the apartment he attempted twice to flee the country to the United States. He was denied entry, initially at Pearson International Airport where he had tried to fly to New York City, and then later as he attempted a land crossing at Niagara Falls. Then he went to Hamilton and used a false name in an attempt to gain access to a shelter. After text exchanges with his friends he returned to Toronto and surrendered himself to police at the Eaton Centre, April 2, 2022.

Events Leading to the Murder

[12] Ms. Thanh Tien Ly owned and operated a nail salon in which she employed her son Dallas Ly to work the reception desk to take appointments and payments for services. It was work he considered “brutal, unforgiving and a waste of his time.”

[13] On Saturday, March 26, 2022, his mother called him when he was out with friends for dinner to tell him she needed him to help her at work the next morning. Later, the next morning when another employee showed up for work, he felt his mother had lied to him about his being needed that day. He considered it unnecessary for him to have been there and when he voiced his displeasure with his mother she told him if he did not wish to help out he did not need to be in their home.

[14] Huyen Ly, sister of Tien Ly confirmed that there had been arguments between Dallas and his mother about him living at the condominium.

[15] In describing the relationship between Tien and Dallas she said that when he was very small Tien was very gentle with him and would try to make him happy. However, as he grew older she saw that Tien was not very happy with Dallas. She would say that Dallas was lazy, not intelligent and did not go to work. She would scold Dallas and say that she should kick him out of the house. Huyen said that she would say such things half-seriously and half-jokingly. Huyen’s response was that he could go and live with her, although she said that half-seriously and half-jokingly as well. Tien suggested she ask Dallas if he wanted to live with Huyen, which she did. He said that he would. Huyen said that Tien’s reaction was that she laughed. In any event, Huyen said that she lived in a very small place where there were all women and Dallas could not live there.

[16] His aunt, Huyen testified that her sister, Thanh Tien Ly had a temper and would raise her voice and speak angrily. She would say “a lot of things” but afterwards she would be very affectionate to Dallas.

[17] Surveillance video taken Sunday, March 27, 2022, showed Mr. Ly return to the condominium shortly after noon. He testified he prepared resumes to seek work in the restaurant business. Then he slept until 6:00 p.m.

[18] Surveillance video taken shortly after 8:00 p.m. showed Ms. Tien Ly return to her condominium pulling the black suitcase that contained soiled towels from her business and carrying a cup of coffee in her right hand.

[19] Mr. Ly testified that on her entering the apartment he told her he was leaving and going to live with his aunt although that had not been confirmed with her. In advising his mother of his intent to leave he claimed she flew into a rage, telling him he owed her rent, and threatening to hurt or kill him and his aunt. He testified he returned to his bedroom to gather his clothes. He testified he felt outrage that she would say she would hurt his aunt. He took the hunting knife from its box and unsheathed it. He carried it with him as he returned to his mother at the front door, he said to scare her. On his evidence he approached her with the knife in his hand. Mr. Ly claimed that his mother began to punch him and that he just began swinging the knife.

[20] I am satisfied that the confrontation between them took place almost immediately on her entrance to the apartment. Forensic examination of the scene by the police revealed that there was a substantial amount of blood located immediately just inside the entrance door to the condominium. The surveillance video showed his mother enter and exit the building elevator going to her apartment, wearing a dark winter coat pulling the suitcase and carrying a take-out coffee. The stab wounds to the deceased’s body correspond to cuts in the fabric up the left arm and neck area of the winter coat she was still wearing when the attack occurred. The suitcase and her keys sitting on top of it was found by police still undisturbed at the side of the front door.

[21] I am satisfied on the evidence that Mr. Ly confronting his mother at the entrance to the apartment and bearing a hunting knife, he initiated the attack on his mother. In the circumstances he was the aggressor.

[22] He claimed self-defence, or in the alternative, the partial defence he was provoked by her comments, both of which were rejected by the jury having found him to have either intended to cause her death or to have caused her bodily harm knowing his actions were likely to cause death and was reckless whether her death ensued or not.

Character of the Offender

[23] Mr. Ly was 21 when he killed his mother. He had no criminal record and he had completed grade 11 education.

[24] His parents immigrated from Vietnam, and he was born in Canada. His parents separated when he was approximately 11 years of age. His mother subsequently informed him that his father had died on his return to Vietnam. It was not until after killing his mother that he found out that his father was still alive.

[25] He testified to having experienced abuse at the hand of his mother that involved her using “tools,” such as a back scratcher, shoehorn, slippers, and sometimes throwing dishes at him. A photograph of marks and scars to his back was entered in evidence in support of his having been abused by her. Abuse would largely occur when he would have bad report cards and not doing well in school.

[26] Two forensic psychiatrists, Dr. Mitesh Patel and Dr. Alina Iosif both testified that Mr. Ly had experienced abuse and neglect in his childhood and adolescence, and he had undiagnosed mental health issues.

[27] Dr. Patel, relying on Mr. Ly’s self-reports about growing up with his mother, was of the opinion Mr. Ly suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the abuse.

[28] Whereas Dr. Iosif was of the view in her review of Dr. Patel’s assessment report that due to the lack of requisite Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th ed. (DSM-V-TR) diagnostic symptoms in his history to diagnose PTSD, there was an insufficient basis for an opinion that Mr. Ly experienced PTSD at the time of the homicide, such that it affected his response to his mother’s threats and actions described by Mr. Ly.

[29] Both psychiatrists agreed however, Mr. Ly has experienced PTSD after the fact as a result of killing his mother and he now has a major depressive disorder.

Victim Impact Statement

[30] Huyen Tien Ly, the sister of the deceased and the aunt of the offender, provided a victim impact statement as follows:

This statement is between me, my sister and Dallas. Dallas has killed his mother and it has made me really sad. Because Dallas is my nephew and he is still young, I want to stand here before the court to ask for a sentence that is appropriate for someone that is young. I feel really sad, and I miss my sister because of what Dallas has done.

Recommendation of the Jury

[31] I am required to consider the jury’s recommendation concerning parole ineligibility: five jurors recommended 10 years, three jurors recommended 15 years, and four jurors made no recommendation.

Position of the Crown and Defence

[32] The Crown submitted that the period of parole ineligibility should be 15 years in this case. The Defence submits that the appropriate disposition should be between 10 and 12 years for parole ineligibility.

i) The Crown

[33] The Crown in support of its position relies on two cases: R. v. Boukhalfa, 2017 ONCA 660 and R. v. Borbely, 2021 ONCA 17.

[34] In Boukhalfa the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a parole ineligibility period of 15 years. In that case the offender alleged that his mother had threatened to kill his half-brother and father and she had lunged at him with a knife. He hit her on the head with a baseball bat then stabbed her repeatedly. She died from stab wounds to her neck. Subsequently, he attempted to clean up the apartment, then fled. He was arrested a short while later.

[35] He was 26 years and suffered mental illness at the time of the offence. He had a criminal record for drug related offences as a youth. He also had a record for carrying a concealed weapon and assault causing bodily harm which arose out of an attack on a woman he had met for the first time. At the time he killed his mother he was also bound by a conditional sentence and a weapons prohibition.

[36] The sentencing judge found the offence involved a breach of trust, use of multiple weapons and intentional infliction of gratuitous and excessive violence. The Court of Appeal observed that the jury finding the accused guilty of second degree murder of necessity entailed being satisfied the offender had the requisite state of mind as described in s. 229(a) of the Criminal Code: “when he unlawfully killed the deceased, (in) a state of mind not diminished by any provoking words or conduct on the part of the deceased. Further, the jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was not acting under a statutory partial defence and provocation.” A period of 15 years of parole ineligibility was considered fit in the circumstances.

[37] In Borbely, the offender killed his common law spouse, dismembered her, and concealed her remains in paint pails wrapped in garbage bags. After the death and dismemberment of his spouse the offender used her bank account and continued to benefit from her disability payments. A period of 17 years of parole illegibility was upheld on appeal.

[38] In R. v. Keene, 2020 ONCA 635 a decision referenced in Borbely, an order for 17 years parole ineligibility was similarly upheld on appeal as being fit. There, the offender had invited the victim to his home, strangled her, dismembered her body, and disposed of the body parts in various locations where they were likely to be found by a passersby. The offender had no criminal record, he did not express any remorse and it was found that he had taken elaborate steps to dismember her body and to conceal his crime.

ii) The Defence

[39] The defence referenced the cases of R. v. Brown, 2017 ONSC 1441; R. v. Pereira, 2019 ONSC 6751; and R. v. McLeod, [2003] OJ No. 3923 (OCA) in support of the recommendation that the court should order a period of ineligibility of between 10 and 12 years.

[40] In Brown, the accused was found guilty of second-degree murder in the stabbing death of his friend. He had stabbed his friend during a fight 30 times, 20 of which were in the victim’s back. He said he stabbed the victim in the chest and then started swinging his hand with the knife without knowing the location of the victim. He fled the scene without calling for medical attention. The jury rejected his claims of self-defence and provocation.

[41] He had been raised partially in the child protection system. He had not completed high school. He had a criminal record that largely involved drug dealing, as well as an institutional record of assaults and possessing homemade weapons.

[42] The court considered the sentencing objectives of denunciation, general deterrence, and the opportunity for rehabilitation, through programs to advance his education and perhaps develop a trade while incarcerated. However, the court concluded the “need to remove Mr. Brown from society for an extensive period of time.” He was ordered to serve 13 years before parole eligibility.

[43] In McLeod, the offender stabbed his girlfriend to death. She had been stabbed 19 times, 4 times to her neck, twice to her upper arm, and thirteen defensive wounds to her hand. He cut up her body, placed her remains in a suitcase and then left it by the side of a highway. About 10 days later the deceased’s body was discovered by a passerby driving along the shoulder of the highway.

[44] The trial judge ordered 10 year period of parole ineligibility. The Court of Appeal found two errors in principle. The judge made a distinction between the offender and deceased being boyfriend and girlfriend rather than spouses or living together. (Now a codified aggravating factor.) The second error was the judge finding his call to her family telling them her remains could be found by the side of the highway, but not the location, as an act of compassion. It could not offset the aggravating factor of his indignity to her body by dismemberment. He had no criminal record or mental disorder. Parole ineligibility was increased to 12 years.

[45] In Pereira, the victim and offender were in a relationship. He stabbed her 34 times – two fatal wounds to her neck, and 23 slash wounds, some defensive. The court found that it was a ruthless, savage, and cruel attack on a friend and staunch supporter of the offender, a “shocking breach of trust.” The offender had a criminal record of offences against women. He had a long history of hospitalizations for psychosis and paranoia. The court concluded that because he suffered from mental illness at the time of the murder, it reduced his moral blameworthiness, a mitigating factor. The court ordered a 12 year period of parole ineligibility.

Assessment

[46] In R. v. McKnight (1999), 135 CCC 3rd 41 Laskin J.A. writing for the majority observed at para. 48: “No two cases are the same but similar cases from this province of brutal second degree murders of an unarmed wife or girlfriend suggest a range of 12 to 15 years”.

[47] There is no principled reason to distinguish between the killing of a spouse or intimate partner, and a child killing a parent as an aggravating factor. I am satisfied that the murder occurred in the context of a domestic relationship – s. 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code refers to the court taking into consideration evidence of the offender in committing the offence abused a member of the offender’s family. In this instance, rather than a spouse or intimate partner, it was an adult son who murdered his mother.

[48] In a review of the cases referred to by counsel, since McKnight the parole ineligibility range for brutal second degree familial murders appear to have expanded from 12 to 17 years.

[49] As noted earlier, I am satisfied that the attack on Ms. Thanh Tien Ly happened within moments on her entrance into the condominium. She was still wearing her winter coat, the large pool of blood in the foyer just inside the front door and the stab wounds to her left arm, to her shoulder and neck area correspond with tears in the coat she wore that night. The suitcase that she pulled into the apartment and her keys were still in the front entrance undisturbed satisfies me that there was limited to no struggle. Mr. Ly stabbed his mother with a lethal weapon he brought to the confrontation, whereas she had none. Further, there was significant disparity in size and stature between mother and son - Mr. Ly, 21 years at 5’11” and his mother 50 years, 5’2”, 119 lbs. Ms. Tien Ly in the circumstances was vulnerable to his attack.

[50] It was a brutal and cruel killing of a mother by her son, 21 years, albeit a mother who had been abusive in the past, but also affectionate with him according to her sister Huyen, and who had provided him shelter and employment. He confronted and attacked his mother in her home. It was a murder that involved gratuitous violence. He desecrated her remains by severing her head and then by disposing of her body and severed head at the side of a roadway to be found by a passerby. The consequence of which caused alarm within the immediate community.

[51] In mitigation, Mr. Ly has no criminal record or earlier anti-social behaviour. The nature of the murder reflects that the offender has mental health issues that need to be addressed. To his benefit he still has some support of family and friends which will be of significance when he becomes eligible for parole and reintegration into the community.

[52] He was given the opportunity at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing to address the court. He said he had remorse for the “damage done” to his family, he is not the type of person to lose control, his actions were out of character, and he takes responsibility for his weaknesses. In my view however, it was a qualified expression of remorse for his actions. In addressing the court he expressed no regret for having taken his mother’s life.

[53] In R. v. Shropshire, [1995] 4 SCR 227 it was noted that the power to extend the period of parole illegibility need not be used sparingly. I consider the sentencing objectives that include the separation of the offender from society, denunciation, general deterrence and to a limited extent specific deterrence in this case. I consider his prospects for rehabilitation, which has less weight in the context of a second degree murder determination of parole illegibility than in sentencing objectives for other offences. I consider the need for proportionality, the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of this offender.

[54] In this instance, I consider the aggravating factors, the brutal domestic homicide involving the desecration of the deceased by decapitation and further indignity by discarding her remains by the roadside. I consider the factors in mitigation as well - his lack of criminal record, undiagnosed mental health issues, rehabilitation potential and limited expression of remorse.

[55] The brutality of the murder places the period of parole ineligibility within the range of 12 – 17 years. In my view, the aggravating factors take it beyond the lower end, but in consideration of the mitigation factors, not to the higher end.

[56] In all of the circumstances, considering the nature of the offence, the circumstances of its commission, the background of the offender, jury recommendations, and sentencing objectives I consider a fit period of parole ineligibility to be one of 13 years.

Sentence

[57] Mr. Dallas Ly you are hereby sentenced to life imprisonment, and I order that you shall not be eligible for parole until you have served 13 years of that sentence.

[58] Further, I order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code a weapons prohibition for life and that you provide a sample of bodily fluid for DNA collection pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code.

[59] I recommend that you receive a psychiatric assessment and referral to mental health programmes as may be available through the Correctional Service of Canada during the service of your sentence.

A.J. O’Marra J. Released: June 26, 2024