Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-10-526 Date: 2026-02-19 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING T. Powell, for the Crown Respondent

-- and --

ANDREW CAMPBELL Applicant M. Huberman, for the Applicant

Heard: In writing

RULING ON AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO s. 745.6 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

J.M. Woollcombe J.

Overview

[1] On February 17, 2009, George Koutroubis drove to the home of the applicant, Andrew Campbell, to collect a gambling debt he was owed. Mr. Koutroubis was shot four times in his upper body. He was not seen again for five days. Police found his dead body in the trunk of his car in a parking lot in Brampton, 80 km from the applicant's home.

[2] The applicant was charged with Mr. Koutroubis's murder. On December 6, 2011, after a trial before Sproat J., with a jury, the applicant was found guilty of a planned and deliberate first degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years.

[3] The applicant's appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was heard on October 16, 2018 and dismissed on October 22, 2018.

[4] The applicant has served more than 15 years of his sentence. He now seeks a review of his parole ineligibility period under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code, and applies for a hearing before a jury. The process set out in s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code is often referred to as a "faint hope" application. Section 745.61 requires that faint hope applications be screened before a jury hearing is granted.

[5] On July 10, 2024, I was designated by the Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice to screen the application to determine whether it should be considered by a jury.

[6] On July 29, 2025, the defence filed its Application for Judicial Review of Parole Ineligibility, Factum and Casebook. The Crown filed its Response on October 31, 2025. The Crown position is that the applicant has not satisfied the threshold required for this to proceed before a jury. The defence Reply submissions were filed and uploaded on November 2, 2025.

The screening standard

[7] The history of the faint hope provisions was set out in detail in R. v. Dell, 2018 ONCA 674, at paras. 11-29; leave refused [2018] SCCA 389. This history was summarized by Pomerance J., as she then was, in R. v. Al-Shammari, 2022 ONSC 4113, at paras. 7-8 and, more recently, by Stribopoulos J. in R. v. Figueroa, at paras. 8-16 and in R. v. Belisle, 2025 ONSC 2213 at paras. 7-20.

[8] At the judicial screening stage, the threshold is whether there is a "reasonable prospect" that the application will succeed: R. v. Liu, 2022 ONCA 460, at para. 6.

[9] The judicial screening to determine if the application has a "reasonable prospect of success" has a relatively low bar. As Doherty J.A. explained in Dell, at paras: 20, there are two purposes:

First, to save friends and relatives of the victims of the murders the needless pain and anguish of going through a "faint hope" hearing before a jury when the applicant had no realistic chance of success. Second, the screening process was intended to avoid wasting jurors' time and judicial resources on hopeless applications.

[10] A "reasonable prospect of success" is not "any" prospect, however remote. The applicant must do more than show that the application is "not hopeless". As Pomerance J. explained at paras. 10-13 of Al-Shammari, whether there is a "reasonable prosect" of success means:

[12] ... whether it is reasonable to expect that a jury might reduce the parole ineligibility period. This need not be the only rational or reasonable outcome available on the record. If it falls within a range of reasonable outcomes, it qualifies as a reasonable prospect of success. Where an offender can point to rehabilitative progress, remorse, maturation, and a commitment to pursuing a pro-social lifestyle, those factors will weigh in favour of a jury hearing.

[13] To be clear, the screening judge is not predicting what a jury will actually do. That requires a level of prescience that no judge can claim: see R. v. Jenkins, 2014 ONSC 3223, quoted with approval in Dell. More accurately, the screening judge is assessing whether a jury could grant clemency, based on the evidence of rehabilitation...

[11] See also: Figueroa, at para. 20; R. v. Puddicombe, 2024 ONSC 4838, at para. 24; R. v. Joseph, 2024 ONSC 1383, at para. 12.

[12] In determining whether a jury could reasonably reduce the period of parole ineligibility, the factors to be considered are the same factors as a jury hearing the parole eligibility application would apply: Puddicombe, at para. 30; Figueroa, at para. 40. This means considering the factors in s. 745.61(2) and 745.63(1) of the Code. Those factors are:

(a) the character of the applicant;

(b) the applicant's conduct while serving the sentence;

(c) the nature of the offence for which the applicant was convicted;

(d) any information provided by a victim at the time of the imposition of sentence or at the time of the hearing under these sections; and

(e) any other matters that the judge considers relevant in the circumstances.

[13] All of the factors are to be considered, though there is no "score card" that gives each the same weight. It depends on the circumstances and the evidence. At the threshold stage, the judge examines the evidence and performs a limited weighing of it in an attempt to forecast the outcome, were the matter to proceed before a jury. The applicant no longer has the presumption of innocence. The primary focus of the hearing is on changes in the applicant's situation that might justify a less harsh sentence. The applicant must show that his situation justifies a departure from the mandated life sentence without parole eligibility for 25 years. It is his onus to provide evidence that supports his application at the screening stage. This requires an assessment of the offender's progress. The judge must remember that to reduce parole ineligibility, the jury must be unanimous: R. v. Morrisson, 2016 ONSC 5036, at paras. 36-40; Joseph, at para. 16; Al-Shammari, at para. 13.

Positions of the Parties

[14] The applicant submits that he has shown on a balance of probabilities that his application to reduce his parole ineligibility has a reasonable prospect of success before a jury. He says that he has made significant rehabilitative progress, maturing in his perspectives and gaining insight into his previous poor choices. Counsel asserts that he has "gained remorse" and has accepted responsibility for the murder. While he does not accept that it was planned and deliberate, he acknowledges that there was no self-defence. While Mr. Campbell's time in custody has been marked by some misconducts, there have been none since May 2021. Finally, counsel points out that his risk assessment reports put him at low to low-moderate risk to re-offend, generally and violently, and that there was nothing from the risk assessment conducted in November 2023 that would prevent him from moving from medium to minimum security.

[15] The Crown position is that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that he has a reasonable prospect of persuading a unanimous jury to reduce is parole ineligibility period because: the nature of the offence was a carefully planned, cold and brutal execution; the applicant's post offence conduct of taking steps to cover up the murder by destroying evidence, lying to police and implicating his family to try to create a false alibi for him exacerbate the nature of the offence; the applicant has not changed at all since the offence; and the applicant continues to have no remorse and accepts little responsibility for what he has been guilty of doing.

Summary of Relevant Evidence

[16] I have organized my review of the record by considering the statutory factors set out in s. s. 745.61(1)(a) -- (e) of the Criminal Code. I begin with the circumstances of the offence because they assist in understanding other aspects of the analysis.

a) Nature of the offence

[17] My summary of the relevant facts is drawn from the materials filed by the parties. No transcript of the trial or charge to the jury were provided. Nor is there a detailed summary of the facts in the Court of Appeal decision. With a jury case, there is no written recording of what the factual findings were. Nevertheless, from the material filed, the following facts appear uncontested between the parties.

[18] The deceased, Mr. Koutroubis, was an informal "bookie" for friends and family. The applicant met the deceased through a mutual friend, Q. Tran, who worked with him at the St. Lawrence Market.

[19] The Crown's theory was that the applicant owed a $27,250 gambling debt to Mr. Koutroubis and that he lured the deceased to his home for the purpose of killing him, and thereby freeing himself of the debt.

[20] The Crown adduced evidence of the lead-up to the shooting and events after:

a. At 9 a.m. on February 17, 2009, the applicant asked to borrow Q. Tran's cell phone to call Mr. Koutroubis. He did so again at 2 p.m. These calls are said by the Crown to have been to arrange the alleged re-payment;

b. That afternoon, between 2:30 and 4:31 p.m., Mr. Koutroubis spoke to six friends and conveyed to them variations of the following facts: that the applicant owed him $27,000, that he was going to Whitby that afternoon to collect money from the applicant, that he would be following the applicant to his home and that if he did not get the money now, he was never going to get it;

c. At about 3:00 p.m., the applicant and Mr. Koutroubis left the St. Lawrence Market area and drove in their respective cars to the applicant's home;

d. At 4:43 p.m., Mr. Koutroubis spoke to a friend and confirmed that he was waiting in the driveway at the applicant's home. A neighbour of the applicant's saw the deceased's BMW parked on the street in front of the applicant's home;

e. The applicant shot the deceased at some point between 4:47 and shortly after 5:00 p.m.;

f. Just after 5:00 p.m., the applicant met his wife at their children's daycare. His wife saw that he had a BMW key fob, which he told her was a friend's;

g. When they were home, the applicant left, telling his wife he would be back. She looked out the window and saw his car, even though he had not returned;

h. At about 10:00 p.m., the applicant called his son and asked him for a ride from Yorkdale Mall. His son gave him bus routes so that he could pick him up closer to home. The applicant returned home at midnight. He told his son that he was in trouble with a bookie, that the bookie was missing and that if the police asked, he had been home all night;

i. At home, the applicant washed his clothes and asked his wife to get rid of his backpack and to tell anyone who asked that they had been home together all evening;

j. On February 18, 2009, the applicant lied to Q. Tran and said he had paid Mr. Koutroubis outside St. Lawrence Market and that he did not know what had happened to him. That same day, the applicant lied to Mr. Koutroubis' brother and said he had met the deceased on February 17th outside St. Lawrence Market and had paid him the money he owed before going to pick up his children;

k. The applicant was interviewed by police for the first time on February 18, 2009, prior to Mr. Koutroubis's body having been found. He initially denied knowing Mr. Koutroubis, but then agreed that the deceased was his bookie and said he had paid him $5,000 of his $27,500 debt the day before outside St. Lawrence Market;

l. On February 19, 2009, the applicant told Q. Tran that he had given Mr. Koutroubis the money on Market Street. The applicant also told another co-worker he had paid Mr. Koutroubis, but not the full amount;

m. On February 22, 2009, police discovered Mr. Koutroubis's body in the trunk of his BMW in Brampton. He had died of 4 close-range 9 mm gunshot wounds to his upper chest and shoulder area. The bullets were fired by a 9 mm calibre semi-automatic pistol;

n. On March 11, 2009, the applicant was again interviewed by police. On this occasion he said that he had met Mr. Koutroubis on February 17, that he had paid Mr. Koutroubis at his car and that another white male had been with Mr. Koutroubis. He said that Mr. Koutroubis never came to his home;

o. Search warrants executed at the applicant's home revealed:

i. One drop of blood on the applicant's garage floor. The blood was Mr. Koutroubis's; and

ii. A ziplock bag of 25 rounds of 9 mm ammunition was hidden in a candle holder that was wrapped in a shopping bag.

[21] The applicant testified at his trial. His evidence included the following:

a. He claimed that he had been a drug dealer for 20 to 30 years, and sold kilograms of cocaine, profiting $10,000 per kilo;

b. He had successfully hidden this aspect of his life from his family;

c. After the applicant met Mr. Koutroubis (through Q. Tran), Mr. Koutroubis began purchasing cocaine from him. The applicant claimed that Mr. Koutroubis had purchased 18 kg of cocaine from him over an 8 week period;

d. By January of 2009, the applicant claimed that Mr. Koutroubis owned him $170,000 for cocaine;

e. On February 17, 2009, Mr. Koutroubis and the applicant met, but Mr. Koutroubis did not have any money. So, the applicant drove home;

f. The applicant alleged that Mr. Koutroubis surreptitiously followed him to his home. When Mr. Koutroubis pulled into the applicant's driveway, Mr. Koutroubis told the applicant to get in the car. There was a second man, sitting in the passenger seat. Mr. Koutroubis had parked his car a quarter of the way into the applicant's garage;

g. After the applicant entered the car, the applicant said that this second male pulled out a gun. The applicant grabbed the gun and, as the two men struggled, it accidentally discharged three times;

h. The unknown male then fled with the gun, leaving Mr. Koutroubis on the ground;

i. The applicant did not call the police, and decided to handle things "his way". He admitted that he put Mr. Koutroubis' body in the trunk of his BMW and parked it on the street. He acknowledged having driven to the daycare and home and then having driven the deceased's BMW to Brampton.

[22] The jury retired to consider their verdict at 12:07 p.m. on December 6, 2011. At 4:19 p.m., they found the applicant guilty of first degree murder. Their verdict makes clear that they rejected the applicant's version of events. They were satisfied that the Crown had disproven self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt. They were sure that the applicant had committed a planned and deliberate murder.

b) Character of the applicant

[23] The applicant was born on June 25, 1965. He is now 60 years old, having been 43 at the time of the offence.

[24] It is obvious that anyone who commits first degree murder has character issues. The question on this application is whether there has been meaningful change since the applicant committed this offence.

Upbringing and Background

[25] Information about the applicant's background and upbringing comes largely from what he has self-reported while in custody.

[26] The applicant was born in Jamaica and spent his early years in Kingston. He reports that during this time, Kingston was very violent. He describes how as a child, he often saw trails of blood leading to dead bodies and witnessed violence. It was because their standard of living was so low that his mother decided to leave.

[27] The applicant immigrated to Canada with his brother, at the age of 8, to join his mother who had arrived in Canada a few years before. He met his father only once, and said his father died before he moved to Canada.

[28] In Canada, the applicant's mother worked three jobs to try to build a life here. The family lived in Lawrence Heights neighbourhood, which was geared to immigrants as it had low-cost housing. The applicant witnessed violence in the neighbourhood. He attended school and reported that he felt bullied for the first time and experienced racial discrimination. The applicant and his brother looked after themselves as their mother worked.

[29] At the age of 11 or 12, the applicant was first asked to take something to a car, which he knew was delivering drugs. He did so as he felt like he had no choice. Later, he says he became the person who asked others to make drug deliveries.

[30] The applicant graduated from high school in 1985. He left his neighbourhood and went to college for business and accounting. He had trouble finding a work placement he needed, and felt he was not hired because he was Black. Disillusioned, and feeling that he was being discriminated against, he left his post-secondary education program and returned to selling drugs. From the time he was in his 20s, he reports that he dealt in marijuana and cocaine, while also maintaining legitimate employment. While he maintained possession of a weapon while he trafficked in narcotics, and used it, he did not view himself as a violent person.

[31] The applicant self-reported that while he was dealing drugs, he also had a stable work history with 25 years of employment. He reported having worked in accounting at Toronto City Hall, in a kitchen and as an accountant and then as a foreman at an aluminium plant. When he worked for the City of Toronto for 10 years, he reported earning at least $50,000 annually. At the time of his arrest, he worked as a custodian at the St. Lawrence Market.

[32] Correctional staff have commented that the applicant's socio-economic realities, environment, experiences with violence, authority and associations throughout his development years impacted, to some extent, on his offending. He was able to live duplicitously as both a pro-social member of society and as a drug-trafficker.

Criminal Record

[33] The applicant's criminal record includes the following:

a. On March 4, 1987, in Barrie, he was convicted of possession of stolen property and received a suspended sentence and 18 months probation;

b. On March 7, 1990, in Toronto, he was convicted of assault and received suspended sentence and 1 year probation; and

c. On November 5, 2004, in Windsor, he was convicted of transporting a firearm, possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition, and unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon. With unreported pre-trial custody, he received 15 days jail, and a s. 109 weapons prohibition.

Family Support

[34] In terms of family, the applicant's mother remains in Toronto but is deteriorating mentally. He has minimal contact with his brother.

[35] The applicant has three adult children with two partners. His second partner, Ms. Morgan, filed for divorce after he was charged. They have since reconciled and she supports and visits him. He reports that he has telephone contact with his three children.

[36] In 2012, Private Family Visits ("PFVs") were approved for Ms. Morgan and their children. There have been successful PFV's since then.

[37] Two letters of support were provided from the applicant's family.

[38] Ms. Morgan writes that the applicant was always a loving father to the three children (now ages 33, 23 and 17). She reports having had many conversations with the applicant and believes that he is truly remorseful for what he did. She says that he continues to make strides to better himself in jail and that he has become a mentor to others in the institutions. She says that the family will support the applicant's reintegration into society if he is released.

[39] The applicant's eldest son also provided a letter of support. He describes his father as always having been there for him. He knows his father only as a hard-working man with family values who supported his sons, stressing education and them pursuing their dreams. He described the circumstances in which his father found himself in as "completely unexpected". He says that he has visited his father on many occasions and thinks he is doing well in jail, trying to better himself and be accountable. He would welcome his father to work with him in the near future, and looks forward to having his own sons bond with their grandfather.

Risk Assessments

[40] There have been two psychological risk assessments of the applicant during his time incarcerated.

[41] The March 23, 2014 Psychological Risk Assessment was conducted by Dr. Cimbura. The applicant declined to discuss the offence as he was appealing his conviction. He had also not been referred to any institutional programs. By that time, he had two misconducts while in remand awaiting trial, and two minor misconducts since entry into the federal system. Dr. Cimbura found he was generally candid and forthright, but his insight into the offence was difficult to assess given that he did not want to discuss it because of his appeal.

[42] Generally, the tests administered revealed:

a. The applicant scored in the average intelligence range;

b. His Personality Assessment Inventory ("PAI") profile did not provide any marked elevations that would give any indication of clinical psychopathy. He did report drug use, which may have been the source of some of his problems. The applicant's interpersonal style was characterised as "domineering and overcontrolling" with him driven to appear competent and authoritative, and likely to have little tolerance of those who disagreed with his plans and desires;

c. On the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, the applicant did not meet the criteria for psychopathy;

d. On the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), a measure of violent recidivism, the applicant was at a 17% risk of violent recidivism in the next 7 years;

e. On the Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R), the applicant was assessed with a 30.1% chance of recidivism, with recidivism being defined as reincarceration within one year. Higher scores indicate the need for further clinical intervention;

f. On the Statistical Information of Recidivism (SIR-RI) assessment, the applicant fell in a group in which 4 of 5 offenders with similar scores will not commit any indictable offence after release.

[43] Overall, the applicant was assessed as in the "low to low-moderate range for general recidivism and in the low range for violent recidivism" when all factors were considered. The applicant said that he did not see anything that would contribute to any future negative behaviour. From a clinical perspective, a pro-criminal orientation, and a comfort level with a criminal lifestyle, based on the applicant claiming to have trafficked drugs for 20-30 years, a lack of empathy and a lack of consequential thinking were identified as areas of possible concern.

[44] A second Psychological Risk Assessment was prepared for this application by psychologist Dr. Anderson in November 2023, while the applicant was at Beaver Creek.

[45] At that time, the assessor noted that the applicant's version of events had remained as it had been throughout his file: he was selling drugs to the victim, the victim owed him money (a debt of $170,000 incurred over 4-6 months), the victim and a passenger arrived at his home, the victim asked why he was harassing him and the applicant said because he owed him money. According to the applicant, the passenger then picked up the gun he had brought, the applicant grabbed it and it went off, shooting the victim and hitting the passenger, who grabbed the gun and fled.

[46] In terms of treatment needs and responsivity, Dr. Anderson notes that the applicant had successfully competed the Multi-Target Integrated Correctional Program Module ("ICPM") Primer program and the Multi-Target Moderate Intensity ICPM program in 2017. At the conclusion of these, it was determined that his overall ability and commitment to use the skills required to manage his various risk factors needed some improvement.

[47] The applicant then completed the ICPM Maintenance program in November 2021. While gains had been observed, it was noted that the applicant's overall ability and commitment to the use of skills required to mange his various risk factors was still rated as "needs some improvement".

[48] Since that time, the applicant participated in a voluntary workshop, "Do What Matters".

[49] Dr. Anderson found no need to re-score actuarial measures of risk from the 2014 assessment because there were no changes to the factors affecting Dr. Cimbura's risk assessment. Dr. Anderson indicted that the applicant remains in the low to low-moderate risk range for general recidivism and in the low to low-moderate risk range for violent recidivism.

[50] Dr. Anderson observed that the applicant had completed programs recommended to address dynamic risk factors. He recommended that the applicant's "next appropriate step" would be "to cascade to minimum security when supported by his CMT" and that the results of the assessment would not contraindicate this. It was suggested that the applicant's reintegration plan should be gradual and that he may benefit from another course of maintenance program prior to applying for community access such as ETA's, CSVG, UTAs etc.

c) Applicant's conduct while serving his sentence

[51] One measure of changes in the applicant may be seen by his conduct serving his sentence.

[52] There are numerous Correctional Plans and Program Performance Reports that have been completed since 2012. Much of the information in them is repetitive. Of significance, are the following:

a. The March 12, 2012 Correctional Plan that was completed at Millhaven indicates the following: the applicant did not accept criminal responsibility for the victim's death, he had absolutely no remorse for the murder, he had low motivation to change and was extremely comfortable with his criminal lifestyle, he was not considered ready to engage in his correctional plan. He was assessed as a maximum security inmate;

b. By April 8, 2014, the applicant was classified as a medium security offender. On March 21, 2015, he was transferred to Warkworth;

c. The March 16, 2016 Updated Correctional Plan completed at Warkworth indicates the following: the applicant was found to pose a high risk for both violent and general recidivism; he continued to assert that he had acted in self-defence. While he claimed to feel remorse, his claim appeared superficial. While the applicant cited his background and living conditions in Jamaica as underpinning his conduct after the shooting, the author noted that he had immigrated to Canada in 1974 at the age of 9, "so it seems unlikely that he would act so instinctively and with such precision under such conditions". While the applicant had no major mental illness or disorder, his behavioural evidence in custody supported the identification of general criminal and violent specific activities;

This Plan notes that while he was at Warkworth, the applicant was employed as Chairman of the Inmate Committee beginning in September 2015. His final Employment Performance Report for this position, dated April 2018, rated him as excellent in all categories and noted that he was a great worker who worked well in his position and was able to discus issues and work to achieve acceptable outcomes;

At Warkworth, as set out in the second Risk Assessment Report, the applicant completed the Multi-Target Moderate Intensity Program (ICPM);

Also, while at Warkworth, the applicant participated in a Dialectical Behavioural Therapy Group in 2018, which focused on reducing unnecessary suffering by finding valued life directions despite negative emotions or negative thoughts. The applicant completed all four modules, attended 31 of 40 sessions. His behaviour fluctuated over the program. He was often resistant to feedback, but he showed significant improvement towards the end;

d. In May, 2018, the applicant was transferred to Beaver Creek Institution where he remains;

e. The February 17, 2020 Updated Correctional Plan, completed at Beaver Creek Institution indicates the following: since his arrival at Beaver Creek in May 2018, he had demonstrated positive institutional behaviour, he was following his correctional plan goals, there were no institutional charges and he interacted well with inmates and staff. While it was noted that the applicant was actively participating in programming and had made gains, he maintained that he had acted in self defence and that he had accidentally shot the victim while struggling with a person who threatened him with a firearm. It was noted that this is "not a minor discrepancy" and that it would factor into his ability to develop strong insight into his specific index offence attitudes in programming. However, given his acceptance that the victim died as a result of his actions, and his willingness to participate in correctional program requirements, his level of accountability was assessed as medium;

f. At Beaver Creek, the applicant completed a 9 week Restorative Justice Program in July 2019. As indicated in the Risk Assessment Report, he also completed a 4 week therapy intervention program called "Do What Matters" in June 2023, which focused on prioritising personal values;

At Beaver Creek, the applicant was again chosen as Chair of the Inmate Committee and interacted positively in that capacity;

It was noted that in order to elicit consideration for reduced security, temporary absences or releases, the applicant needs to demonstrate engagement by actively participating in his Correctional Plan, showing an absence of criminal activity in custody, displaying conduct that demonstrates respect and showing full compliance with penitentiary rules. His goal over the next five years was to cascade to minimum security;

g. The most recent Updated Correctional Plan, dated May 27, 2024 at Beaver Creek indicates the following: the applicant continued to assert that the shooting was in self-defence and maintained that he intended to pursue the appeal to a higher court, notwithstanding his initial appeal had been dismissed. He continued to assert that the shooting was accidental and that he had no intention of harming the victim. He was commended for making strides in reducing his risk to reoffend. However, despite completing programs, his "criminal thinking remains entrenched". He had "limited remorse for his actions";

It was noted that the applicant had deficits in his attitude and personal / emotional domains and that he needed to continue to work with the institutional supports to participate in all additional programming available to him within the medium security setting to help him prepare for minimum security when applicable. His limited acceptance of culpability and view that his reactionary use of violence was justified remained an ongoing area of concern relative to his risk;

This Report reveals that the applicant's attitude has changed from being assessed as "high need for improvement" at intake, to "moderate need for improvement". His personal / emotional assessment has changed from high need for improvement to moderate need for improvement. His level of accountability has changed from low to medium and his motivation level assessment has changed from low to high. His engagement went from "no" to "yes" and his reintegration potential has moved from "low" to "medium".

[53] The applicant has had the following institutional infractions in the federal system (in addition to the two minor infractions prior to his transfer to the federal system):

a. two minor charges in September and November of 2013 relating to window blockers;

b. two charges in 2014 - a serious charge from threatening a food services officer and a minor one for failing to stand for a formal count;

c. a January 2015 minor charge for refusing to remove a window blocker;

d. a July 2016 incident in which the applicant advised officers that he was going go direct his range to "block up" until they received showers -- he was temporarily suspended from his position;

e. two minor charges in February and May 2021 for being out of bounds;

f. a serious charge in February 2021 for disregarding a staff direction to return to the range and becoming disrespectful with staff and grandstanding;

g. a minor charge in May 2021 for being in possession of 3 grocery items he held in the Inmate Committee Office to provide to another offender.

[54] The applicant has completed numerous additional programs while in custody, certificates for which are included in his Application.

[55] Finally, there is considerable evidence to show that the applicant has been consistently and positively employed while in custody. At Maplehurst, prior to conviction, he was a cleaner, food server and range cleaner. Once at Millhaven, he worked as a range cleaner, canteen operator, and became Chairman of the Inmate Committee. He maintained that position at Warkworth and Beaver Creek. In this leadership capacity, the applicant has received strong performance reviews.

d) Information provided by the Victim's Parents and Former Partner

[56] Information has been provided from the victim's parents including a letter that was provided to the correctional authorities in 2021 and a second one in response to this application.

[57] In the earlier letter, the victim's parents expressed concerns about the applicant's institutional behaviour and program participation. They expressed concerns about whether he was following rules and learning from the programming.

[58] Most recently, Mr. Koutroubis's parents have provided a statement in response to this application. They continue to suffer immense and ongoing trauma from the brutal murder. Their emotional and psychological wounds have deepened over time. Their other son suffered physically and emotionally, with his health deteriorating and him eventually losing his own life. The idea of the applicant's ability to seek a reduction of his parole ineligibility leaves the family re-traumatized and deeply distressed.

[59] Mr. Koutroubis' parents also expressed concerns for the safety of the community, were the applicant to be released, and suggest that granting consideration to ask for a reduction in parole ineligibility undermines the meaning of the sentence imposed and accountability. They urge the court to deny the application.

[60] Mr. Koutroubis's partner has also provided a letter in response to this application. She writes about how her life was forever changed by this homicide. She and the victim had been married two months before he was killed. Their lives at the point he was shot were full of hope, love and excitement for the future. She then found herself widowed and struck by grief, disbelief and loneliness. The pain has remained with her for years. While she has re-married, had children, and tried to move on, the impact of the murder affects her every day. Indeed, she says that not a day goes by when she does not think of Mr. Koutroubis. She feels that there is no justice that can ever replace her husband's lost life.

e) Other Information

[61] On July 2, 2025, the applicant swore an affidavit in support of his application. It includes his comments about his accountability and remorse. The applicant asserts the following:

a. He accepts that he murdered the victim;

b. He maintained his innocence while his appeal was pending, hoping he would obtain a new trial. After his appeal was dismissed (which occurred on October 22, 2018, more than 7 years ago), he says that there have been "minimal discussions with jail staff about the offence";

c. He continues to assert that he believed Mr. Koutroubis would kill him as a result of the debt that was owed, but now recognizes that his "thought process was distorted" and his belief was not based in reality;

d. He 'grew up" in Jamaica and observed people being shot and killed for trivial things. He says that he himself was shot once. He believes that his upbringing caused him to unreasonably fear for his safety when the deceased arrived in his driveway. He continues that "my experiences in Jamaica during my upbringing had led me to believe that when someone's life is in danger, they need to act swiftly, by any means, to avoid being killed...";

e. He blames the fact that he shot Mr Koutroubis on his "problematic thinking";

f. He asserts that he illogically chose to kill Mr. Koutroubis because at the time he needed to do so to avoid being killed;

g. While he admits his guilt to second degree murder, he explains his failure to have any empathy previously on the basis that he had justified his actions as self-defence. Now that he says he recognises that he acted prematurely and that he has remorse and empathy;

h. He further justifies not having empathy previously on the basis that he did not want to admit to anyone that he was a murderer and that he only recently accepted the truth.

Analysis

[62] The purpose of the reassessment process is to re-examine new information or factors that could not have been known initially. It looks at changes. If granted a hearing with a jury, it is the jury that ultimately assesses the offender's progress. My task, therefore, is to engage in a limited weighing of the evidence to assess whether, in view of the applicant's progress, he has persuaded me that there is a reasonable prospect that the jury could unanimously reduce his period of parole ineligibility. He must show that his current situation justifies a departure from the normal legislated sentence: R. v. Banwait, 2019 ONSC 3026, at paras. 79-80.

[63] On the basis of a global assessment of the merits of this application, I conclude that the applicant has failed to meet his burden of showing that there is a reasonable prospect that his application could succeed. He has not shown that there is a reasonable prospect that a unanimous jury could find that his parole ineligibility should be reduced.

a) The Offence

[64] I begin by commenting on the nature of the crime. The applicant was convicted of committing a planned and deliberate murder. It is difficult to rate the severity of an offence when the offence is first degree murder. All murders involve the loss of life. But the nature and circumstances of the killing does speak to the perpetrator's character: R. v. Eunik, 2018 ONSC 5971, at para. 19; Banwait, at para 28.

[65] I accept the Crown's characterization of this murder. It was cold and calculated. The applicant owed Mr. Koutroubis money and Mr. Koutroubis wanted to collect on the applicant's debt. The applicant chose to eliminate his debt by executing Mr. Koutroubis when he came to his home to collect the debt.

[66] There is no evidence, apart from the applicant's, that there was a passenger with a firearm in Mr. Koutroubis's car. Regardless of whether there was some unknown passenger, the jury found the Crown had disproven self defence beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby wholly rejecting the applicant's version of events about the shooting being accidental or in the course of the applicant defending himself from a threat of death. They found not only that the applicant intended to kill Mr. Koutroubis, but also that that the killing was both planned and deliberate.

[67] Having chosen to shoot Mr. Koutroubis four times at close range, killing him, the applicant then engaged in a chilling course of conduct in an attempt to avoid detection and responsibility for having committed this murder. This included putting Mr. Koutroubis's body in the trunk of his car and then going about his usual activities, such as picking children up at daycare, in order not to arouse suspicion. That evening, he drove Mr. Koutroubis' vehicle, with his body in the trunk, a distance of 80 km away and left it. He returned home using public transportation, enlisting his son to pick him up so as to ensure there was no business record of his movements.

[68] The applicant then tried to enlist both his wife and his son to provide false alibis for his whereabouts that evening, in a further effort to conceal what he had done.

[69] In the days that followed, while Mr. Koutroubis's family was gravely concerned about his whereabouts, the applicant lied to friends, colleagues and the police about his interactions with the deceased. Deliberately, he chose to prolong the stress and worry that Mr. Koutroubis' family experienced, not knowing where he was or if he was alive. The family's unimaginable agony went on for 6 days, until Mr. Koutroubis's dead body was discovered.

[70] I view the evidence that the applicant chose to lure the deceased to his home to murder him in cold blood, and then attempted to conceal what he had done, as extremely compelling. That said, I accept the applicant's argument that it is conceivable that the jury found that the murder was planned and deliberate, but was not sure that the applicant had lured the deceased to his home, thus finding that the planning and deliberation occurred once the deceased arrived. While this is possible, the fact remains that the jury had to conclude that this was not self-defence, accident, or anything close to a spontaneous event. The applicant planned and thought about the shooting before he did it. He shot the deceased four times. The offence is not one that can be easily explained. It was a senseless execution of a son and husband.

[71] The horrific circumstances of this killing, and the applicant's conduct after it, speak extremely poorly about his character. The terrible impact it has had on the deceased's family is also very concerning. These factors are very likely to lead a jury to have grave doubts about exercising mercy towards the applicant, absent compelling changes that demonstrate a significant change in his character.

b) The Applicant's Purported Acceptance of Responsibility and Remorse

[72] I cannot conclude that the applicant has shown the sort of character change that would warrant a reduction in his parole ineligibility.

[73] In reaching this view, I have carefully considered the applicant's claim that he has accepted responsibility for having committed second degree murder and his purported remorse. On this record, I find that the applicant has accepted responsibility for the offence or expressed anything that can fairly be understood as genuine remorse.

[74] I recognise that while remorse and accountability are relevant factors to consider, there is no legal or practical requirement that an applicant accept his guilt or the factual basis upon which he was convicted. An applicant should not be denied a hearing before a jury simply because of a refusal to accept responsibility or express remorse: Morrison, at para. 82. Indeed, I accept that it is difficult to gauge the precise level of remorse and responsibility when an applicant provides conflicting reports and statements, accepting some remorse, but not the full implications of a jury's verdict. A finding that there has been an evolution to accepting some responsibility may be a positive step, particularly when it is realistic to think that the offender may gradually come to accept responsibility: Puddicombe, at paras. 49-50; Al-Shammari, at paras 54, 67.

[75] I also acknowledge that it is easy for an offender to feign acceptance of responsibility by saying what he thinks the correctional staff, risk assessor or court want to hear, even if there is no genuine acceptance of responsibility. It is, of course, preferable for an offender to be honest and genuine, than to claim to accept full responsibility in order to move past the screening process.

[76] In my view, the affidavit evidence provided by the applicant on this application would inevitably be seen by any jury as a transparent and feigned attempt to appear to have accepted responsibility for this murder, when he does not genuinely done so. His affidavit cannot be fairly understood as an honest acknowledgement of culpability for the murder or true remorse.

[77] First, the timing of what the applicant now says is important. One of the applicant's explanations for his late-breaking remorse and acceptance of responsibility appears to be that there have been minimal discussions with the jail staff about the details of the murder since October 2018 when his appeal was dismissed. Plainly, this not true.

[78] As I have set out, at the time of the Updated Correctional Plans in 2020 and 2024, and when the 2023 Risk Assessment was conducted, there were obvious opportunities provided for the applicant to take the responsibility for the murder. He chose not to, despite having had the programming that he says led him to finally appreciate that he had not acted in self-defence. As recently as May 2024, the applicant continued to reject any suggestion that he was guilty of murder and to assert that he had acted in self-defence. The author of his May 2024 Updated Correctional Plan noted an absence of genuine remorse.

[79] It is in the applicant's affidavit, prepared a year later, that he purports accept, for the first time, that he is guilty of second degree murder.

[80] The applicant's explanation for why he has now come to this insight is troubling. His thought process, which he says is that he believed he had a defence of self defence when in fact he acted "prematurely", is illogical. He continues to attribute his thinking to his "upbringing " in Jamaica. Indeed, in 2016, he also offered this as an explanation for his conduct. He now offers this as an explanation for unreasonably believing his life was at risk. Like the officer who heard this explanation in 2016, I see the applicant's claim that his 2009 perception, as a 40 year old adult, was informed by events that occurred when he was 9 years old in Jamaica, is an illogical and incredible attempt to deflect his own responsibility for what he did. I have little doubt that any jury would see it as just that.

[81] The applicant also suggests that he has come to understand, through his Multi-Target Moderate Intensity Program, that at the time of the offence, he had a mindset that violence was an appropriate response to feeling threatened and that impulsivity was a risk factor for him. It is far from clear to me why, if, as he suggests, he gained these insights in 2017 when he took this programming, it was not until 2025 that he first acknowledged that he had not acted in self defence.

[82] In my view, the timing of the applicant's purported acceptance of responsibility raises significant concerns about whether it is genuine. His claim of remorse comes for the first time in an affidavit filed on this application, and never before in the years after his appeal was dismissed and after the programming that he claims is what assisted him in gaining the insight he says he now has. The applicant's timing suggests that his words are opportunistic, and not indicative of any real remorse.

[83] There are also comments by the applicant in his affidavit that suggest that he still does not actually accept responsibility for this murder, despite claiming to do so.

[84] For instance, the applicant says more than once that in killing Mr. Koutroubis, he acted "prematurely" and without thinking through the situation. He implies that that this was because of his impulsivity and because he believed that he was justified in the shooting, thinking he now says was "distorted". I see him as continuing to deflect responsibility for what he did, rather than accepting it. He blames what happened on what he rationalizes were beliefs that were not based in reality, on the violence he experienced in Jamaica when he was less than 10 years old and on some suggestion that he acted impulsively (something that the jury clearly rejected).

[85] The applicant's affidavit, read as a whole, does not indicate him having any real insight into the criminal life he was leading at the time of the murder and the choices he was found by the jury to have made. Particularly when juxtaposed with the long standing and repeated assertions that he has made in custody, up to and including in March 2024, about his belief that he acted in self-defence, his affidavit rings hollow. A jury would be unlikely to give him much, if any credit for his claim to have accepted responsibility: Banwait, at para. 89.

[86] Similarly, the applicant's expression of empathy that the deceased died because of him is not something for which a jury would give him much credit. Obviously, the deceased died because of him. What he has failed to acknowledge is that he made the choice to cause that death. In March 2024, his parole officer found not only that he had "limited remorse", but also that his criminal thinking remains and that he continued to assert that he had acted in lawful self-defence. The applicant's partner and son suggest that he is remorseful. It is difficult to imagine that a jury would see him as having any empathy, insight or genuine remorse, given the history of what he has said in custody and what he continues to assert in his affidavit: Belisle, at para. 101.

c) Conduct in Custody

[87] I acknowledge that the applicant has, while in custody, followed through on his Correctional Plans. He has taken numerous programs geared towards his rehabilitation. His security classification has progressed so that he is in medium security. He has had regular employment and appears to have done well in his positions, consistently receiving excellent performance reviews.

[88] In addition, while he has had institutional misconducts, there have been none since 2021. Prior to that, there were two while at Maplehurst, five while at Millhaven, one suspension of his position following a threat to direct his range to block up cells until they received showers at Warkworth and four relatively minor charges in 2021 at Beavercreek. There has been an absence of violence. Generally, I would give these infractions little weight and do not find them to be of much concern.

[89] I accept that the applicant has taken some very positive steps in custody. As his parole officer indicated in his March 2024 Updated Correctional Plan, both his "Attitude" and ""Personal Emotional" assessments have moved from "high need for improvement" at intake to "moderate need for improvement". His "Motivation" assessment has gone from "medium" to "high".

[90] However, the officer observes that the applicant's sworn evidence about his long term engagement in undetected high level drug trafficking and detected criminal activity suggests that his SIR-R1 assessment may be an under-representation of his authentic risk to reoffend. Further, his parole officer indicates that he has been assessed as requiring a "high level of static and dynamic intervention". He continues that the applicant "still needs to take full responsibility or his actions, develop more insight into his index offending and underlying risks..." and that he continued to be assessed with "low reintegration potential".

Conclusion

[91] Without doubt, the applicant has made genuine progress in custody. I also accept that he has been assessed as at a low to low-medium risk of re-offending. Despite this, I see no reasonable prospect that the jury could exercise the clemency he seeks. They jury would, almost inevitably, recognize the need for the applicant to make greater progress, in a variety of domains, before it could consider clemency. Generally, I base this on:

a. the applicant's long-standing criminal lifestyle prior to the murder offence;

b. the horrific nature of the offence and the applicant's post-offence conduct;

c. the impact the murder has had on the victim's family;

d. the complete failure of the applicant to take responsibility for having committed a planned and deliberate murder;

e. the applicant's less than genuine, opportunistically timed acceptance of responsibility for having committed an intentional killing, and apparent attempts to justify what he did do on the basis of a claim of distorted understanding of self-defence. The contents of his affidavit, viewed in the context of everything else he has said since committing this murder, would make the jury highly unlikely to accept the purported admissions of responsibility or expressions of empathy as genuine.

[92] The applicant has failed to meet his burden on this application. I decline to direct that a jury be empanelled to consider the applicant's request for a reduction from 25 years of his parole ineligibility.

Woollcombe J.

Released: February 19, 2026