COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-10000670-0000 DATE: 20250520 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N : HIS MAJESTY THE KING - and - NENG JIA JIN B. Richards and M. Cole , for the Crown J. Pyzer and J. Mann, amicus curaie HEARD: April 4, 2025 j.M. BARRETT J. REASONS FOR SENTENCE
INTRODUCTION
1## Introduction
This is an exceptionally tragic case. Two innocent women were intentionally, randomly, and violently attacked on December 8, 2022, as they went about an otherwise normal day using public transit. Ms. Vanessa Kurpiewska died. Ms. Sulakshana Srijeyarah survived but lives daily with the physical, emotional, and psychological harm that has been inflicted on her as a result of the incident. The impact of Mr. Jin’s conduct is profound. No sentence that I impose can adequately compensate for this harm.
2Mr. Jin appears before me for sentencing. He pleaded guilty to the first degree murder of Vanessa Kurpiewska, contrary to s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; and the attempt murder of Sulakshana Srijeyarah, contrary to s. 239(1) (b) of the Criminal Code . On April 4, 2025, Mr. Jin admitted the facts underlying these offences and convictions were entered. His guilty pleas avoided the need for the five-week jury trial that was scheduled to commence on February 18, 2025. On April 4, 2025, Mr. Jin declined his statutory right of allocution prior to the passing of sentence as set out in s. 726 of the Criminal Code .
3Section 745 (a) of the Criminal Code prescribes a sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for a minimum of 25 years. As a primary designated offence, the imposition of a DNA order and weapons prohibition is also mandated. That is the sentence that will be imposed for Count 1 – the charge of first degree murder of Vanessa Kurpiewska.
4At issue is the appropriate sentence for Count 2 – the charge of attempt murder. As no firearm is involved, there is no prescribed minimum sentence. The maximum sentence available is one of life imprisonment, pursuant to s. 239(1) (b), of the Criminal Code . Crown counsel argues that the maximum sentence is appropriate in this case, noting that such a sentence is not reserved for those with criminal records: e.g. , R. v. Mesgun (1997) , 105 O.A.C. 376. Nor is the maximum sentence of life imprisonment reserved for the “worst offence” and “worst offender”: R. v. L.M. , 2008 SCC 31 , [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163, at para. 62 . Rather, the maximum sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate if the offence is sufficiently grave, and the offender is sufficiently blameworthy. See R. v. Cheddesingh , 2004 SCC 16 , [2004] 1 S.C.R. 433. Amicus submits that the appropriate sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
5For the reasons set out below, on the charge of attempt murder, Mr. Jin will be sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment.
background to GUILTY PLEAS
6## Background to Guilty Pleas
Mr. Jin was originally scheduled to commence a five-week jury trial on February 18, 2025. On that date, Mr. Pyzer and Ms. Mann, then counsel for Mr. Jin, requested a recess to seek instructions regarding the release of some of Mr. Jin’s medical records to Dr. Ian Swayze, the court appointed forensic psychiatrist who was to conduct an assessment of Mr. Jin’s criminal responsibility. Dr. Swayze was to have submitted his report to the court by February 12, 2025. However, due to illness, the timing of the report was delayed to February 18, 2025. On the morning of February 18, 2025, I was informed that Dr. Swayze’s report could be produced that afternoon once he reviewed the additional records. Consequently, the court recessed to afford counsel time to address the outstanding issue. When the court resumed, defence counsel advised that Mr. Jin wished to plead guilty to the charges as laid. Mr. Pyzer requested time to discuss this significant change with Mr. Jin.
7The following day, Mr. Jin’s instructions remained the same. Defence counsel were afforded more time to discuss the matter with Mr. Jin as well as an opportunity to appear before Forestell J., who had conducted the judicial pre-trials.
8On Thursday, February 20, 2025, Mr. Pyzer and Ms. Mann applied to be removed from the record on grounds of a “substantial and irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship”. The application was granted. Given their knowledge of the case and the stage of the proceedings, Mr. Pyzer and Ms. Mann accepted appointments as amicus curaie . They have provided great assistance to the court.
9I conducted an initial inquiry to satisfy myself that Mr. Jin’s request to plead guilty to the offences as charged was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal. After satisfying myself of this, I cautioned Mr. Jin to think carefully about his decision and explained that it was his absolute right to change his mind at any time. I also informed Mr. Jin that, prior to his plea, I would again have many questions for him about his decision to plead guilty. Mr. Jin indicated that he understood.
10On February 24, 2025, the Crown filed the Attorney General’s consent to a re-election to proceed before me as the trial judge. I again informed Mr. Jin of his right to change his mind and proceed to trial. Before accepting his plea, I again conducted a comprehensive plea inquiry. During the plea inquiry, Mr. Jin confirmed that he left his home on December 8, 2022, intent on killing. His intent was driven by anger and a quest for revenge against the Canadian doctors he blamed for his botched eye surgery. Mr. Jin confirmed his awareness of the mandated sentence of life imprisonment. Further, as someone without legal status in Canada, Mr. Jin confirmed his awareness that he is subject to immigration consequences. Mr. Jin also acknowledged that by pleading guilty, he was giving up the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of his statement to the police following his arrest. In Mr. Jin’s words, he spoke the truth to the police. Based on the plea inquiry, I am satisfied that Mr. Jin’s guilty plea is voluntary, informed, and unequivocal.
11On March 31, 2025, the Crown provided amicus with its proposed facts in support of the guilty plea as well as all other materials that are now filed as exhibits, including Dr. Swayze’s court ordered assessment report dated March 23, 2025; the victim impact statements; a transcribed copy of Mr. Jin’s police statement; and extensive video footage of Mr. Jin’s movements on December 8, 2022. Amicus , with the assistance of an interpreter, reviewed all materials with Mr. Jin at the courthouse.
12On April 4, 2025, the Crown read the facts in support of Mr. Jin’s pleas. Mr. Jin agreed that the facts read in were accurate. Mr. Jin again agreed that on December 8, 2022, he left his home with knives in his backpack intent on killing people. He acknowledged that he carried out this plan when he repeatedly stabbed Ms. Kurpiewska. His attack of Ms. Srijeyarah was with the intent of killing her. I accepted Mr. Jin’s guilty plea to the two offences. During the sentencing hearing that followed, several victim impact statements were read.
13What follows is a description of the events of December 8, 2022, summarized from the facts read in by the Crown, and a summary of the victim impact statements. I will then review the governing legal sentencing principles, the relevant factors of consideration and, finally, my analysis in determining an appropriate sentence for the attempted murder of Ms. Srijeyarah.
the NATURE AND circumstances of the offence
14## The Nature and Circumstances of the Offence
The extensive video footage filed captures Mr. Jin’s movements from the moment he left his Scarborough residence shortly after 11:00 a.m., to his arrest, at about 2:11 p.m. The video footage is extensive and of excellent quality. There can be no issue as to Mr. Jin’s identity in the footage. It presents an overwhelming case against Mr. Jin.
15From the moment that Mr. Jin boarded a Toronto Transit Commission (“TTC”) bus at about 11:10 a.m. up to the time of the attacks, the video footage captures Mr. Jin closely watching female passengers. Particularly concerning is what happens at the Royal York subway station. Starting at 12:20 p.m., Mr. Jin followed Patricia Keller – a woman who bears some likeness to the deceased victim, Ms. Kurpiewska – from the time she arrived at the station to the time she boarded a train at 12:23 p.m. Aware of being followed, Ms. Keller quickly exited the train just as the train departed the station, leaving Mr. Jin on the train. At 12:39 p.m., Mr. Jin exited at the Christie station. His whereabouts for the next hour are unknown. At 1:43 p.m., Mr. Jin boarded the westbound train at the High Park station. On the train, Mr. Jin walked the aisle. At 1:51 p.m., Mr. Jin exited the train and crossed the platform.
16Three minutes later, at 1:54 p.m., Mr. Jin boarded the eastbound train at Islington Station. Ms. Kurpiewska and Ms. Srijeyarah were passengers on this train. Mr. Jin made his way to the end of the subway car where he took a seat. Within a few minutes, Mr. Jin left his seat to stand in the doorway directly beside Ms. Kurpiewska. There, he removed two knives from his knapsack. At 2:01 p.m., Mr. Jin lunged repeatedly at Ms. Kurpiewska as she sat quietly in her priority seat.
17Seconds later, Mr. Jin turned and faced Ms. Srijeyarah who was sitting alone in the corner on the last bench. Mr. Jin lunged his knife at her head four times but missed. A good Samaritan – Mr. Denys Matvyeyev – approached and kicked Mr. Jin. Mr. Jin continued lunging at Ms. Srijeyarah as Mr. Matvyeyev continued to kick him in an effort to disarm him. Eventually Mr. Matvyeyev knocked the knife from Mr. Jin’s hand. With Mr. Matvyeyev’s help, Ms. Srijeyarah escaped and ran to safety.
18The subway came to an emergency stop at the High Park station. Mr. Matvyeyev blocked Mr. Jin in the corner of the train until the police arrived. By 2:15 p.m., Mr. Jin was under arrest and in police custody after having been tasered and arrested at gunpoint.
19Ms. Kurpiewska was pronounced deceased shortly after her arrival at St. Michael’s Hospital. She was stabbed three times in her chest area, one of which punctured her right lung and heart. She also sustained three defensive wounds to her right hand.
20Ms. Srijeyarah suffered stab wounds to her abdomen, left forearm arm, right hand, and left leg. A tendon in her right ring finger was cut and required plastic surgery.
21Several hours after Mr. Jin’s arrest, after he too received medical treatment, Mr. Jin gave a videotaped statement to the police. Mr. Jin explained that he made his plan to kill people when he “woke up”. He told the police that when he awoke, he “could barely see” and he was “so pissed off” that he just wanted “revenge” and did not want to live anymore. He wanted to kill people. Mr. Jin explained that “initially, I planned to kill someone on the bus” but after getting on the subway, the lighting was much better and so he preferred to carry out his crime there. Mr. Jin described his two victims as “innocent” but noted “my eyes were blinded, am I not innocent?”
Victim Impact
22## Victim Impact
Five victim impact statements were presented to the court during the course of the sentencing hearing.
23The family of Ms. Kurpiewska submitted a joint statement that was read by her sister, Kamila. The statement reflects their love for Ms. Kurpiewska and the unbearable loss her family struggles with daily. Ms. Kurpiewska was only thirty-one years old. As someone born with cerebral palsy, Ms. Kurpiewska overcame many challenges throughout her short life. Ms. Kurpiewska defied the odds after being told she would never walk. She strived to be independent. Despite her challenges, she was “always happy” and a kind person. Her mother concluded the statement with “[i]f tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I’d walk right up to Heaven, and bring you home again”.
24Ms. Srijeyarah was thirty-seven-years old at the time of the attack. She is married and has two young children. The impact on Ms. Srijeyarah’s physical, emotional, and psychological well-being is significant. She lives in physical pain from her injuries. Every day she awakens in severe pain. Her fingers are numb, and she has difficulty with both arms. Her emotional and psychological well-being are also fundamentally altered. Ms. Srijeyarah described her former self as someone with a “helping nature” who enjoyed talking to people during her daily commute. While she continues to use public transit only because she is reliant on it, she relives the trauma of the incident. She wrote “my freedom is completely lost and my hope is lost”. Now she panics if anyone sits beside her. Now she is fearful when in public. Her family have also suffered. Her children, husband, and father live full of worry.
25Ms. Patricia Keller also submitted a victim impact statement. She wrote how she no longer feels safe in public. She suffers from anxiety and is fearful whenever a stranger looks at her. She awakens at night from nightmares about the incident.
26A witness to the attack [1] wrote how the incident has impacted multiple facets of their life. Like Ms. Keller, G.J. suffers from nightmares of the attack. G.J. has gone from someone who used to facilitate support groups for vulnerable people to feeling suicidal from intrusive thoughts.
27Finally, Ms. Rosie Simms, a representative of the TTC, submitted a community impact statement. Ms. Simms wrote about the “growing concerns” over the “rise of violence on the transit system” which “shatters the confidence that patrons have using the transit”. The unseen victims are the transit workers. Transit workers are “crucial frontline employees who keep the transit system moving”. Like patrons, workers should also “feel safe while navigating and working the transit system”. Acts of violence, however, create a “heightened vulnerability and significantly affect the safety, well-being, and performance of all transit workers”.
MANDATED SENTENCE FOR FIRST DEGREE MURDER
28## Mandated Sentence for First Degree Murder
As noted, the sentence for the charge of first degree murder is prescribed by the Criminal Code . Consequently, Mr. Jin is sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until he has served a minimum of 25 years from the date of his arrest: s. 746 (a), Criminal Code . As a primary designated offence, a DNA order and weapons prohibition are also mandated and will be imposed. Further, pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code , a non-communication order will be made.
determining an appropriate sentence for the attempted murder
of sulakshana Srijeyarah
29## Determining an Appropriate Sentence for the Attempted Murder of Sulakshana Srijeyarah
The offence of attempt murder, when no firearm is used, carries no prescribed mandatory sentence. Crown counsel seeks the maximum punishment available under s. 239(1) (b) of the Criminal Code – life imprisonment. Amicus submits that 10 years’ imprisonment is an appropriate sentence given Mr. Jin’s guilty plea, his lack of any prior criminal record, and his mental health issues.
The Legal Framework
30### The Legal Framework
The fundamental purpose of sentencing, as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code , is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. This purpose is furthered by imposing sentences with objectives that include denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, reparation for the harm done to victims or to the community, and the acknowledgment of the harm that criminal activity has on victims and our community.
31The fundamental principle of sentencing is set out in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code : “[a] sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”: R. v. Lacasse , 2015 SCC 64 , [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 53 .
32Section s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code further directs sentencing courts to consider a number of other statutory principles, including: the need to increase or reduce the sentence to account for any mitigating or aggravating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender; the need for parity; and the need for restraint when imposing imprisonment.
Mr. Jin’s Personal Circumstances
33### Mr. Jin’s Personal Circumstances
Mr. Jin’s degree of responsibility is informed by his personal circumstances. Mr. Jin is a first offender. He has no prior criminal record. Prior to December 8, 2022, he had no contact with the police.
34Mr. Jin’s family background is set out in Dr. Swayze’s very detailed and fulsome 60-page report. It may be summarized as follows:
At the time of the offences, Mr. Jin was 52 years old. He is now 55 years old. He was born in Fuzhou, China on February 22, 1970. His father was a railroad worker, and his mother was a homemaker. Mr. Jin is the eldest of three children. His mother and sister live in China. His father died in 2017, at 80 years of age. His brother lives in New York City but has had no contact since the incident.
Mr. Jin did not experience any abuse as a child. He attained the equivalency of a Grade 7 education. After leaving school, he had several jobs, including working in restaurants and at a moving company.
Mr. Jin married in 1992. He has two adult children from the marriage. His daughter (Minna) was born in 1992. She lives and works in Toronto. His son (Erin) was born in 1994. Mr. Jin’s marriage ended in 2005. In 2007, Mr. Jin’s ex-wife moved to Canada with their two children.
Mr. Jin came to Canada via the United States where he worked illegally. He requested but was denied asylum in the United States. He entered Canada illegally in 2010. He sought but was denied asylum. He has no status in Canada. Mr. Jin is currently subject to an immigration hold.
Before his arrest, Mr. Jin lived with his daughter and ex-wife in a basement room. Mr. Jin supported himself with his savings and financial help from his daughter.
Mr. Jin has no social connections.
Mr. Jin has poor vision but is not legally blind. He has previously had multiple eye surgeries for retinal detachment and cataracts.
Mr. Jin worked in restaurants until 2017. He has been unemployed since his eye surgery.
Mr. Jin has a number of medical concerns, including pharyngeal cancer; type II diabetes; and clotting disorders. Mr. Jin was only diagnosed with diabetes in November 2023, after he was found unconscious on the floor of his cell. Mr. Jin spent about one month in the Intensive Care Unit at St. Joseph’s Health Centre.
Mr. Jin’s daughter reported that Mr. Jin had suicidal ideation for about six months prior to the attack.
35Dr. Swayze’s report also details Mr. Jin’s mental health. In summary, it notes:
Prior to his arrest, Mr. Jin had no documented history of mental health issues. His family physician was unaware of any mental health concerns.
On December 13, 2022, Mr. Jin was first seen by doctors in the Toronto South Detention Centre. He reported no mental health problems, only a bad life.
Post arrest, Mr. Jin has been seen almost monthly by a number of psychiatrists. Mr. Jin met with Dr. Simpson in February, July, September, and December of 2023. No evidence of delusions or psychotic experiences was noted. In December 2023, Dr. Simpson diagnosed Mr. Jin with “MDD (major depressive disorder)”.
Dr. Julian Gojer was retained by the defence to conduct an assessment of Mr. Jin’s criminal responsibility. For this purpose, on September 12, 2024, Mr. Jin was admitted to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences. There, his presentation changed dramatically. In a report dated November 18, 2024, Mr. Jin was described as having a “psychotic and affective illness” and unfit to stand trial. When Mr. Jin returned to court on December 9, 2024, his fitness was reassessed. Dr. Swayne found that Mr. Jin “cooperated fully” and “was able to address all of the requisite elements of fitness and a review of his mental status” “in striking contrast to” his earlier presentation. Consequently, an application for a treatment order that was before the court was withdrawn.
Once Mr. Jin returned to the Toronto South Detention Centre, he returned to his previous behaviour in which he was “engaged and interacted appropriately”.
36Ultimately, Dr. Swayze opined that at the time of the offences, Mr. Jin was “suffering from a major depressive disorder of moderate severity without psychosis […]. The symptoms associated with this disorder, including hopelessness and nihilistic ideations (often accompanied by suicidal thoughts) acted synergistically with Mr. Jin’s [ sic ] underlying characterological structure; an antisocial and paranoid personality. The symptoms may have been precipitated or intensified by substance use (specifically withdrawal), but the nature and extent of his substance use proximal to the incident remain unclear. Toxicology reports showed no alcohol or other psychoactive substances in Mr. Jin’s blood at time of his arrest.”
37Dr. Swayze concluded that Mr. Jin’s acts were “reality based in motivation with rage, anger, and revenge”. Mr. Jin used his anger against the surgical ophthalmologist to justify his extreme act of revenge directed “towards the community at large”. Mr. Jin’s acts on December 8, 2022 were “organized, coordinated and deliberate”. Mr. Jin carefully examined his surroundings, intentionally targeted victims he viewed as vulnerable, and kept his weapons concealed until seconds before the attack.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
38### Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
The aggravating factors in this case are many. First, there are statutory aggravating factors. In particular, the extensive video footage demonstrates that Mr. Jin intentionally targeted female passengers: s. 718 .04, s. 718.2(a)(i), Criminal Code .
39The following factors are also aggravating:
(i) Ms. Srijeyarah was the victim of a random savage attack while using public transit.
(ii) Having planned his attack, Mr. Jin rode the public transit system that day for hours in search of female victims, including Ms. Keller.
(iii) Mr. Jin was undeterred by the intervention of Denys Matvyeyev who risked his own safety to assist Ms. Srijeyarah escape.
(iv) Ms. Srijeyarah was unarmed, vulnerable, and defenseless. Her vulnerability was heightened by the fact that she sat alone on the last bench – a confined area of the train.
(v) The victim impact is profound. The lives of Ms. Srijeyarah, her family, and countless others, including transit workers and other passengers, are forever changed. [2]
(vi) As with other recent cases involving acts of random violence on the TTC ( e.g. , R. v. O’Brien-Tobin , 2025 ONSC 1291 , 2025 CarswellOnt 2724), Mr. Jin’s acts have led to a deterioration of the public’s sense of security when using public transit.
(vii) The random attack on Ms. Srijeyarah occurred seconds after the first degree murder of Ms. Kurpiewska.
(viii) But for the intervention of Denys Matvyeyev, other innocent persons would likely have been injured or killed by Mr. Jin.
40The mitigating factors are few. First, Mr. Jin pleaded guilty. By pleading guilty, he saved valuable court time. While the Crown’s case is overwhelming, and the guilty plea was at the eleventh hour, Mr. Jin has taken responsibility and elected not to subject the Crown to its onus of proof. Mr. Jin is also a first offender. I reject the Crown’s submission that this is of diminished weight because of discreditable conduct by Mr. Jin both before and after December 8, 2022. Mr. Jin is being sentenced for his conduct on December 8, 2022. He has no prior criminal record. Other alleged misconduct is not aggravating.
41With regard to Mr. Jin’s mental health, the Crown argues that this is not mitigating as it played no role in Mr. Jin’s conduct on December 8, 2022. Amicus argues that it is a mitigating factor. Amicus relies on Dr. Swayze’s opinion that at the time of the offences, Mr. Jin was suffering from a “major depressive disorder of moderate severity, without psychosis”. Dr. Swayze also diagnosed Mr. Jin with Unspecified Personality Disorder (Antisocial and Paranoid Traits) and an Alcohol Use Disorder – moderate – in remission in a controlled environment. I agree that Mr. Jin’s mental health is a mitigating factor. While Mr. Jin’s actions were driven by “rage, anger, and revenge” his mental illness impacted his decision-making. Mr. Jin recognizes the innocence of his victims but used them as “proxies or surrogates” for his “intolerable rage”. Having exacted revenge, Mr. Jin now reports that he no longer thinks about his former ophthalmologist because “he feels he has achieved revenge”.
42With regard to the collateral immigration consequences, in the circumstances of this case, this is not a mitigating factor. Apart from the fact that Mr. Jin entered Canada illegally and was estranged from his family even prior to his arrest, collateral consequences “cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where the sentence becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender”: R. v. Suter , 2018 SCC 34 , [2018] 2 S.C.R. 496, at para. 56 ; R. v. Pham , 2013 SCC 15 , [2013] 1 S.C.R. 739, paras. 11-14 .
43Mr. Jin has been in custody since his arrest on December 8, 2022. As of today, that is 885 real days. Amicus argues that Mr. Jin is entitled to credit for this period: s. 719(3.1) , Criminal Code ; R. v. Summers , 2013 ONCA 147 , 114 O.R. (3d) 641, aff’d 2014 SCC 26 , [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575. Mr. Jin’s pre-sentence custody is already credited in the calculation of his parole ineligibility in relation to his conviction for the first degree murder of Ms. Kurpiewska: s. 746 (a), Criminal Code .
Analysis
44### Analysis
In R. v. Ljeskovica , 2008), at para. 14 , Trotter J. (as he then was) observed that attempt murder is one of most serious offences known to our law. Historically, the courts have often imposed sentences for attempted murder that are more severe than cases of manslaughter. This reflects the fact that the “moral culpability of the attempted murderer is at least equal to that of a murderer”: R. v. McArthur (2004) , 184 O.A.C. 108, at para. 47 . That the victim did not die is due to good fortune, not a lesser intent by the perpetrator. Attempt murder requires an intent to kill: See R. v. Cunningham , 2023 ONCA 36 , at paras. 23-24 .
45Denunciation and deterrence are paramount factors of consideration. These objectives address the moral blameworthiness inherent in the conviction.
46Mr. Jin’s culpability for the attack on Ms. Srijeyarah is no different than that of a murderer. He intended to kill. That he failed is only because Mr. Matvyeyev risked his own life and promptly intervened. But for Mr. Matvyeyev’s intervention, Mr. Jin would have continued his attack on Ms. Srijeyarah and likely attacked other innocent persons. In the video footage, a woman with a child in a stroller is seen seated close to the two victims.
47At para. 131 of R. v. Forcillo , 2018 ONCA 402 , 141 O.R. (3d) 752, leave denied [2018] S.C.C.A. No. 258, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the sentencing range of six years to life imprisonment for the offence of attempt murder, as was previously set out in para. 35 of R. v. Tan , 2008 ONCA 574 , 268 O.A.C. 385. The lower end of this range is reserved for rare cases such as Forcillo , in which a police officer attempted to kill an individual after a lawful use of force during an arrest. Sentences in the mid-range of 10 to 16 years’ imprisonment are appropriate in cases involving the use of a firearm in a public place, planned executions, and cases involving intimate partner violence. Sentences at the higher end, including life imprisonment, are appropriate in cases of “stark horror”, those involving serious and permanent injuries to the victim, or where the offender has a lengthy prior criminal record: See R. v. Small , 2023 ONSC 6841 , 2023 W.C.B. 2002, at para. 40 .
48Having regard to the principle of parity set out in s. 718.2 (b) of the Criminal Code , I have reviewed all of the cases submitted by Crown counsel and amicus . Mr. Jin’s sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
49In the six cases provided by Crown counsel, [3] all involved convictions for attempt murder that resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment. Of these, only one involved a first offender who pleaded guilty: R. v. Singh , 2010 BCSC 1747 , [2011] B.C.W.L.D. 1578. Of the cases referred to by amicus , [4] none involved a random act of violence on public transit.
50Two cases cited by amicus are somewhat similar in that they involved random unprovoked stabbing attacks. In R. v. Matheson , a 10-year sentence of imprisonment was imposed on an offender without a prior adult record who pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of a bar patron. The accused stabbed the victim twice in the back and twice in the neck, causing paralysis. The accused expressed remorse and had some rehabilitative potential. Notably, in Matheson , the Crown and defence agreed that a sentence of nine to 10 years was appropriate. The case of R. v. Edwards also involved a random unprovoked stabbing of two neighbours by an eighteen-year-old mentally ill offender. A sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was imposed. However, in Edwards , one victim suffered no physical injuries while the other suffered no permanent injuries.
51In my view, a sentence at the upper end of the spectrum is required. But for Mr. Jin’s guilty plea, the fact that he is a fifty-five year-old first offender and has a diagnosed mental disorder, a sentence of life imprisonment would be appropriate.
52This was a crime of shocking violence that intentionally targeted females on the subway – a confined space that heightens vulnerability. The attack on Ms. Srijeyarah occurred seconds after the fatal attack on Ms. Kurpiewska, which is a significant aggravating factor: see R. v. Varga (2001) , 150 O.A.C. 358, at para. 94 .
53Patrons and workers of our public transit system are entitled to feel safe from physical harm. The victim impact is profound. Ms. Srijeyarah’s life and that of her family’s is forever altered and is now one based in fear and mistrust. Mr. Jin’s conduct reflects a total contempt for the lives and safety of others. Society needs to be protected from Mr. Jin and others who are like-minded who use the public transit system to prey on unsuspecting victims.
54Mr. Jin’s offences are, unfortunately, not unprecedented. Just a few months after Mr. Jin’s attack, on March 25, 2023, Mr. O’Brien-Tobin murdered sixteen-year-old Gabriel Magalhaes as he sat on a bench in the Keele subway station awaiting a train. Mr. O’Brien-Tobin stabbed Gabriel once in the chest with a knife concealed in his knapsack. The one stab wound proved fatal to Gabriel who died within one hour. Mr. O’Brien-Tobin pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 18 years. Mr. O’Brien-Tobin was 22 years of age at the time of the offence; he had an extensive prior criminal record; diagnosed mental disorders; and, substance abuse issues. In that case, Justice Kelly emphasized the need for denunciation and deterrence given the “chilling effect on members of our community generally, and specifically those who access the TTC”: R. v. O’Brien-Tobin , 2025 ONSC 1291 , 2025 CarswellOnt 2724, at para. 51 . At para. 52, Kelly J. described the attack on Gabriel as “self-centred” and “cowardly”: O’Brien-Tobin , quoting from R. v. Cheong , [1998] O.J. No. 5857, at paras. 21 and 70 . The same is true of Mr. Jin’s attack. Mr. Jin was consumed with his own anger and despair over his failing vision. He sought revenge on random vulnerable strangers who were defenseless to his brutal attack.
55The public must be protected from Mr. Jin and other like-minded persons who use the public transit system as a tool to facilitate the killing of innocent persons: Cheong , at para. 79 ; R. v. Reszetnik , [2021] O.J. No. 1988 (S.C.), at paras. 67-68 , 77. The ripple effects of such acts of violence on the community at large are extremely aggravating. The senseless violent attack of an innocent stranger undoubtedly has a chilling effect on all commuters and transit workers, who undoubtedly now fear for their own safety when using public transit.
56I am of the view that a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment is warranted in this case given the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of Mr. Jin. This will be concurrent to the sentence of life imprisonment for first degree murder.
DISPOSITION
57## Disposition
For the above-noted reasons, I impose the following orders:
(i) For the offence of first degree murder – Count 1 – I sentence Mr. Jin to imprisonment for life, without eligibility for parole until he has served 25 years of the sentence.
(ii) For the offence of attempt murder – Count 2 – I sentence Mr. Jin to imprisonment for 20 years. This sentence will run concurrently with the life sentence on Count 1.
(iii) I direct that a copy of Dr. Swayze’s report, which was filed as an exhibit, should accompany the warrant of committal.
(iv) The warrant of committal will reflect the 885 real days of pre-sentence custody.
(v) The victim fine surcharge is waived.
58The following ancillary orders will issue:
(i) Pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code , Mr. Jin shall be required to provide samples of bodily substances as reasonably required for purposes of forensic DNA analysis.
(ii) Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code , Mr. Jin shall be prohibited from possessing any weapons for life.
(iii) Pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code , I order that Mr. Jin have no contact (direct or indirect) while he is serving his sentence with: any family member of Vanessa Kurpiewska; Patricia Keller and any member of her family; Sulakshana Srijeyarah and any member of her family.
J. M. Barrett J. Released: May 20, 2025
COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-10000670-0000 DATE: 20250520 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: HIS MAJESTY THE KING - and – NENG JIA JIN reasons for sentence J.M. Barrett J. Released: May 20, 2025
1Mr. G.J. wished to remain anonymous and submitted an impact statement identifying themselves with initials. The Crown confirmed that this person provided a statement to police and had assisted Ms. Kurpiewska after the attack.
2Dr. Swayze’s report (at pages 42 to 45), references the police statements of several civilians who describe the impact of the incident on their personal security and well-being.
3Mesgun ; Varga (2001) , 150 O.A.C. 358; R. v. Deeb , 2013 ONSC 7870 , 111 W.C.B. (2d) 99; R. v. Lieug (1995) , 82 O.A.C. 317; R. v. Mann , 2016 ONSC 2675 , 130 W.C.B. (2d) 197; R. v. Singh , 2010 BCSC 1747 , [2011] B.C.W.L.D. 1578.
4R. v. Eli , 2015 BCSC 926 , [2015] B.C.W.L.D. 5254; R. v. McArthur (2004) , 184 O.A.C. 108, [2004] O.J. No. 721; R. v. Logan , [1990] 2 S.C.R. 731; R. v. Forcillo , 2018 ONCA 402 , 141 O.R. (3d) 752; R. v. Tan , 2008 ONCA 574 , 268 O.A.C. 385; R. v. Matheson , 2014 NSSC 203 , 346 N.S.R. (2d) 208; R. v. Edwards , 2015 ONSC 3308 , 122 W.C.B. (2d) 183; and, R. v. Assi , 2021 MBQB 217 , 176 W.C.B. (2d) 364.