Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Court File No.: CR-24-915
Date: 2025-06-27
Parties
Between:
His Majesty the King
Applicant
Amber Lepchuk & Elise Quinn, for the Applicant
- and -
Alessandro Giammichele
Respondent
Kendra Stanyon, for the Respondent
Heard: June 10, 2025
Reasons for Sentence for First-Degree Murder
Skarica, J. (Orally) – In Presence of Jury
Introduction and Reflections on the Justice System
[1] All right, ladies and gentlemen. This is going to be a little longer than you think. I’m going to take a risk with this sentence for reasons that I’ll make obvious in a minute. From looking over my schedule in 2026, it appears this may well be my last criminal jury trial. Accordingly, in delivering this sentence, I intend to weave some insights that I’ve managed to acquire over the past 46 years since my call to the bar in 1979. Looking at the jury, many of you weren’t even born when I was starting my career. In 1979, that was an era before the Charter when criminal law was relatively simple and straightforward. Justice Moldaver, he’s a very prominent Supreme Court of Canada judge. He specialized in criminal law and was quite famous even when I was starting out in ’79. He did criminal law for many decades as a defence lawyer, both before and after the Charter’s implementation. He was interviewed after his retirement on April 17th, 2023, in the nationalmagazine.ca. I’m going to read from some of the interview and I think you’ll have a better appreciation, now that you’ve done this trial, as to what he’s talking about.
[2] So, the article reads, in part:
After 11 years on the Supreme Court of Canada bench, former Justice Michael Moldaver said he regrets he couldn’t do more to improve Canada’s overburdened and bloated criminal law system and calls on federal and provincial governments to substantially overhaul it. “When I went to the Supreme Court of Canada, I was hopeful that I might be able to do something about the complexity. And I feel like I failed in that regard,” he said in a recent interview. [I have felt the same sentiment]. From his new perch at Bay Street firm Goodmans, Moldaver reflected on his years as a judge. He was appointed in 1990 to what was then the Ontario High Court of Justice and then elevated to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1995, as well as almost three decades practicing criminal law. What concerns him most, he says, is the “prolixity and complexity” of this country’s criminal justice system, including the charges judges have to give juries at the end of trials.” [Now you’ve had experience with this massive – massive charge that I had to read over two days.] Justice Moldaver continues, “I’m convinced, sadly, that complexity is here to stay and once you recognize that, I think that we have to do a major overhaul of the criminal justice system and get down to basics and ask ourselves what it is all about, what is its purpose. This system is so bloated, and so troublesome in many respects, because the trials these days often go on for weeks and months.”
[3] All of those comments apply to this case. We started pre-trial motions in the first week of January 2025, and those lasted on and off until mid-April until just before the trial started. This trial started in mid-April and has gone on about two months. Plus, in the fall of 2024, we had a pre-trial motion regarding disclosure. So, we are closing in on almost six months of pre-trial motions and trial time. In 1979, when I started, it was common to have a jury – a murder jury trial – last about two weeks: so it’s a lot different than now.
[4] So, I come to the basic question: what is the purpose of a country’s criminal justice system? And it seems to me it’s obvious that the answer should be: it is the pursuit of truth and justice.
The Struggle Between Good and Evil
[5] I was called to the bar in 1979, and for the last 46 years, I’ve observed, and I was a lot more interested in, the struggle between good and evil rather than the law itself. I was a defence lawyer, Crown attorney and as a judge, I have seen the struggle between good and evil played out in the court system.
[6] Quite by accident, at some point, I stumbled upon a startling discovery, that no one either knows or is afraid to speak about perhaps for fear of being labeled as being some type of eccentric nut. I discovered that there are spiritual laws of truth and justice that nobody wants to talk about, and that those are far simpler and much more powerful than the prolix and complex laws devised by man that Justice Moldaver has failed to remedy, and that I’ve tried to remedy in a much more minor way, but have failed as well.
The Three Spiritual Laws
[7] This case displays three of those simple and powerful laws. Spiritual law number 1: The Truth.
[8] When the light of truth and reason shines on a set of facts, it burns away the chaff, and what is left exposed is a simplicity and clarity that combines with a logic that anyone and everyone, regardless of intellect and/or education, can easily comprehend. So, when you have all that, you know you’ve found the truth.
[9] Falsehoods: Falsehoods, in contrast, arrange themselves in a convoluted, confusing, and complex fashion that requires mental gymnastics that inspires zero confidence in what is being put forward. An example is the defence theory, here, is that Jassem, who did not know Marko Bakir, had no contact with him at all, but somehow arranged to have Marko killed without Gino, (the accused) being involved at all. That’s what falsehood looks like.
[10] Spiritual law number two – and this is what I think our law – our court of appeals and supreme court have forgotten – human nature never changes despite technological advances. So, accordingly, the wisdom of the ancients should not be ignored or cast aside. And it was the ancients 1000 years ago came up with this jury system that has worked so well for us. I’d like to take as an example, after-the-fact conduct. If you read the caselaw, you will find a confusing morass of law-fueled legal landmines, and many trials come back because those landmines are stepped on.
[11] Where did that law come from? It came from the Bible, 2,000 years ago. Here’s the quote: “The wicked flee, even though no man pursueth, while the righteous stand bold as a lion.” Proverbs chapter 28, verse 1.
[12] When the accused fled to the Dominican Republic, on the trial evidence before us, who exactly was pursuing him on December 4th, 2018? There was no warrant for his arrest at that time. The police were not pursuing him. And there was no evidence anyone at that time was pursuing him as well. “The wicked flee where no man pursueth.” And as the wicked do, he fled anyway on December 4th to the Dominican Republic.
[13] “The righteous stand bold as a lion.” Despite taking $100,000 from Marko in September 2018, and then taking over $100,000 - $111,300 from his mother’s estate, by January 30th, 2019 – that’s Exhibit 57 - and then ripping off Mark Buzzelli’s mother for $3,500 on April 1st and 2nd, 2019 – see Exhibit 52(b) pages 47, 48 – Gino, by April 17th, had a negative 2 dollars and 97 cents in his CIBC bank account.
[14] In Exhibit 56, filed by the defence, on April 16th, Gino indicates the truth for a change: “I have 25 pesos in my name right now.”
[15] On April 26th, again, defence Exhibit 56 – Gino blames his ex-wife and business partner for stealing from him, and indicates, “Yeah, so I’m hiding out now, planning my revenge so people know not to fuck with me. Everyone who fucked me over is going to pay.”
[16] On April 27th, Gino states, “How I deal with things usually ends up with people dead to teach them a lesson not to fuck with me.” It’s exactly what happened to Marko. There’s not much righteousness in those comments made by Gino, and Proverbs tells us exactly what kind of person we are dealing with.
[17] And then, the most important spiritual law of all that nobody talks about, and I hope you don’t think I’m crazy but I’ve seen this over and over again and I applied it when I was a Crown attorney looking for what I called the seed of evil. Evil sows the seeds of its own destruction. That’s God’s way of ensuring – or the universal intelligence or whatever you want to call it – that’s God’s insurance policy to ensure that good will always triumph over evil.
Application of the Spiritual Laws to the Evidence
[18] Applying those three spiritual laws and principles to the very complicated evidence adduced at this trial, the truth reveals itself, and, basically, in one paragraph, concisely, simply with four lines.
[19] 1. The accused rips off everyone, including God, if he had the opportunity.
2. To complete his rip-off of Marko, Gino’s former best friend, the accused contacts Jassem, either his drug supplier or one of his drug suppliers, to get one of Jassem’s killers, Ibrahim, to kill Marko.
3. Logic dictates, does it not, that professional hired killers don’t come cheap given that you can do life imprisonment for a first-degree murder; $10,000 Canadian minus the $5,000 gun expense for the gun that would have to be discarded (you have to discard the gun, you can’t sell it, because it can be traced back to the murder).
4. So, $5,000 net: that would not cut it for a serious criminal, and would not be anywhere adequate payment to a big-time drug dealer like Jassem; so, accordingly, Gino, with his usual trick, his character, of making a partial payment on a debt owing – that’s what he did with everybody – he ripped off serious and dangerous killers who’d be expected to seek revenge upon him. And they did so by trying to kill him in September of 2019.
[20] There’s the truth reduced to four simple lines that took us six months to arrive at. Those four simple facts, based on logic and reasonable inferences on the trial evidence, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of first-degree murder.
Expansion on the Third Spiritual Law
[21] Since this is my last time conducting a murder trial in all likelihood, I wish to expand a little on this third and most important spiritual law.
[22] Again, evil sows the seeds of its own destruction. This spiritual law is designed to always make sure that good will always triumph over evil. The evidence at this trial is that the accused uses and/or abuses everyone he comes into contact with. Did you see anybody in the court supporting him? I didn’t.
[23] He had no moral compass: we heard that. Part of his pathology manifests itself in acquiring debts he had no intention of ever fully repaying. However, uniquely, I noticed, and I’m sure you did, he pays back a small portion of his debt to provide false hope of full repayment that never comes. He then watches his victims writhe in agony, like a fish flopping about out of water, when they gradually realize, like Marko did, that they have been conned.
[24] As the accused himself puts it, “Let’s just say I’m someone people never want to know.” Exhibit 44, tab B, page 2, line 49. And “I enjoy hurting people.” Exhibit 44, tab B, page 3, line 78.
Seeds of Destruction: Examples
[25] And so, let’s look at some examples of the seeds that germinated in the accused’s ultimate destruction that has led to his reasonable conviction for first-degree murder.
[26] Examples: One, Jason Davies, a drug addict, and, like most drug addicts, a broken soul. The seed is that Gino forced Jason into homelessness by the accused covering up his lie to his dad that the cocaine in the house belonged to Jason when it did not. So, Jason, who was innocent, was pushed out of the house and had nowhere else to go from what I heard. Jason then, accordingly – what’s the consequence, the seed, the “what you reap is what you sow”? What’s the consequence? Jason had no reason to protect Gino after that and co-operated with the police. And Jason provided important evidence that at the same proximate time, Gino, one, was looking for an untraceable gun. And Gino, almost at the same time, two, took Marko’s $100,000, which we know from the evidence he had no intention of ever repaying in full.
[27] Two, Mark Buzzelli (Mark B) – next example – another drug addict and a lost soul. Gino gave him free cocaine because he’s a nice guy? No. he gave him cocaine – cocaine, to a serious drug addict, and manipulated Mark Buzzelli into becoming an accessory after the fact to murder, to cover for the accused hiding in flight even though no one was chasing Gino at that time.
[28] And what was the seed of destruction here? In return for Mark B’s loyalty exposing himself to a serious charge of accessory after the fact of murder, what was Mark B’s reward? On April 1st and 2nd, Mark B talked his mother into loaning money to Gino: $3,500. And what did Gino do with that? He ripped Mark B’s mother off, ending the relationship with Mark B.
[29] Mark Buzzelli was prepared to do a lot of things, but having his mother ripped off was something beyond the pale for him. So, again, now their relationship had broken. And Buzzelli, as I have indicated, allowed himself to be abused by Gino, but sacrificing his mother was a line Buzzelli was not prepared to cross. So, accordingly, Buzzelli, despite his fear of Gino and drug traffickers, testified to Gino’s confession that Gino drove to Marko’s house and killed him.
[30] A third seed – and there’s only four – I’m almost done. $10,000 payment to Marena Leachman at Christmastime 2018. Was this the accused playing Santa Claus from his big bag of broken promises, lies and frauds? The accused has the girth of a Santa, but not the disposition. No, this was just like all of his other seeds of destruction: a partial payment of a debt he never intended to fully repay.
[31] The consequence was: did Jassem provide the killer out of the goodness of his evil heart? A heart so cruel and rotten that it makes the original heart of the Grinch look gargantuan in comparison? You saw examples in defence Exhibits 101 through 104. No. Jassem expected full payment: not a lousy $10,000 Canadian minus $5,000 expense for getting rid of a gun. Would a major drug supplier risk life imprisonment for a relative tiny amount like that? I suggest no. In trial Exhibit 104 “Chat”, December 19, 2019, Jassem talks about a request for Jassem to bring his shooters to a shop and Jassem states, “I’m gonna bring my savage gangs”.
[32] Now, hearsay is admissible at a sentence proceeding but not at a trial, so I can apply that evidence – and I note at pages 107 and 117, prices of $100,000 and up are being discussed in relation to the discussion of shooting and violence. In addition, in defence trial Exhibit 101, Jassem wants to buy 13 handguns at prices between 4 and $5,000 each. That’s a 50 to $60,000 investment. I conclude that Jassem is a big money criminal who would not be interested in a small-time payment of net $5,000, especially with the huge downside of life imprisonment.
[33] So, in September of 2019, anyone knowing all these facts, would it not be expected that someone connected to the Jassem gang would try to kill the accused? Those facts – the killing and some others I’ll mention in a minute – those facts provide the final pieces of the puzzle, that the Marko killing was a contract Gino had arranged by serious criminals, but only partially paid for by him.
[34] Finally, the final seed: In an ironic twist of fate, the final puzzle pieces proving first-degree murder were provided by Gino himself. At the pre-trial motions, the defence team fought vigorously to be able to introduce police Exhibits 400, 401, and 403 which established the Leachman connection to Jassem. See defence Exhibit 98. The defence wanted the evidence of Gino being shot in September of 2019. See defence Exhibit 96. The defence wanted to introduce a tracking device with the device ID 362222512, which had a phone number to receive alerts ending in 4057, with the nickname “Z”. See defence Exhibits 96 and 97. This was a number in the contacts of the police Exhibit 401 - a phone used in the past interchangeably by Jassem and Leachman. See defence Exhibits 98 and 100.
[35] You’re getting the drift of it. Defence exhibit after defence exhibit. The nickname “Z” appears as a name used by Abdelaziz Ibrahim in his phone. See police Exhibit 404 tendered by the defence.
[36] I note that the Crown at these pre-trial motions fought against the introduction of all this evidence, and I ruled it admissible as I believe that you, a criminal jury, should be provided with as much information as legally possible in order to arrive at a fair and just result.
[37] A consequence of all those defence exhibits – Gino himself introduced the final puzzle pieces, which, with the rest of the trial evidence, established his guilt beyond all doubt – that is guilt of first-degree murder. That’s God’s insurance policy, in my opinion, acting to ensure that evil can never ultimately triumph, and that good in society will always win out.
Broader Lessons and Sentencing
[38] This case also provides a warning to young people who might be attracted to the drug trade due to its apparent glamour and the provision of large quick profits.
[39] Look what’s happened to these young men. Abdelaziz Ibrahim: the pre-trial motion material showed that he died in custody on August 16, 2022. Salloum Jassem, as evil as you get, he died in custody on August 9th, 2024. So, Alessandro Giammichele of the three of them is the lucky one. He’s still alive, but he’s going to spend the rest of his life in jail.
[40] So, Alessandro Giammichele, pursuant to s. 745 of the Criminal Code, you have been convicted of first-degree murder. You are sentenced to be imprisoned for life without eligibility for parole until you have served 25 years of that sentence. Ancillary orders are: s. 109 weapons prohibition. For the rest of your life, you are prohibited from owning any weapons. DNA, s. 487.04(a)(2), murder is a primary designated offence. You will have to provide a DNA sample. Section 743.21, you will have no communication and contact with the Bakir family which includes, but is not limited to, Rawand Bakir and his family, Roza Bakir and her family and Mark Bakir’s parents. As well, you are to have no contact with Jason Davies and Mark Buzzelli.
Andrew P. Skarica
Released: June 27, 2025