His Majesty The King v. Shant Esrabian, 2026 ONSC 53667

COURT FILE NO.: CR-06-3396 DATE: 2026/06/04

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

His Majesty The King Crown

– and –

Shant Esrabian Applicant

COUNSEL: No one appearing for the Crown Lauren Shadley and Matthew Shadley, for the Applicant

HEARD: In Writing

PARFETT J.

Overview

1On June 21, 2008, the Applicant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder in relation to the shooting of Hussein El-Hajj Hassan, which occurred on August 20, 2004.

2The Applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years.

3On November 22, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal heard the Applicant’s appeal from the conviction.

4On December 18, 2013, the appeal was dismissed and on November 20, 2014, the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

5The Crown takes no position on this initial screening application and has not filed any materials.

Facts[^1]

6On August 20, 2004, Hussein El-Hajj Hassan was lured to a remote dead-end road west of Ottawa where he was shot twice and killed. He was buried in a shallow grave. His body was found about one year later.

7The Crown’s theory was that the victim, a cocaine dealer in Ottawa, was murdered because he planned to circumvent his cocaine supplier, Fadi Saleh, and deal directly with Mr. Saleh’s supplier.

8At trial, there was conflicting evidence as to who fired the fatal shots. One of the three accused (Mark Yegin) testified at both the preliminary inquiries of the Applicant and Mr. Saleh (third accused). He gave different accounts of the shooting on both occasions.

9The Applicant testified at trial that he drove himself and Mr. Saleh to the meeting. He stated that he had anticipated that they would assault the victim. His testimony alleged that it was in fact Mr. Yegin who shot the victim. He explained that all three parties then placed the body in the grave, covered it with soil, and fled the scene. The three men then returned to Mr. Saleh’s home. They showered, changed, and disposed of their soiled clothes.

10The Crown theory was that, regardless of which co-accused was the shooter, the Applicant participated in the planned execution of the victim. The jury returned with a finding of guilt on the charge of first-degree murder.

11The Applicant later acknowledged his involvement in the killing, including the fact that the grave was dug in advance of the killing and that he attempted to establish an alibi following the killing.

12Ultimately, the official version of the offence, as noted by the Correctional Services of Canada, pursuant an Ottawa Police Service Prosecution Summary, establishes Mr. Saleh as the sole shooter.

13In 2008 and 2010, the Applicant was also convicted of contempt of court for refusing to name one of his suppliers and refusing to testify in the trial of one of the accomplices.

Legal Principles

14Pursuant to s. 745(6)(2) and s. 745.63 of the Code, the screening judge is to consider the following:

(a) the character of Mr. Esrabian

(b) his conduct while serving the sentence;

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

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

15A threshold issue that needs to be determined in advance of engaging the above analysis is the test to be applied. Without going into the entire history of the faint hope clause, it is sufficient to note that there are two possible tests to be applied. The first test is whether, on a balance of probabilities, there is a reasonable prospect of success at the second stage. This test was established in 1996. Second is whether, on a balance of probabilities, there is a substantial likelihood of success. This test was established in 2011.

16As noted in R. v. Spence,

The question of the possible implications of the retroactive application of the screening test came before the Court of Appeal in R. v. Dell, 2018 ONCA 674. Doherty JA ruled that the retrospective application of the 2011 screening standard violated the applicant’s rights under section 11(i) of the Charter and could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter. As such, in that case the accused was entitled to the benefit of the law as it existed at the time of her offence.²

17The issue of which test should be applied was also dealt with in R. v. Abram.³ The hearing judge decided that when the principles set out in Dell were applied, the Applicant should be given the benefit of the screening standard that was in place at the time of his offence.

18In the present case, the test to be applied is therefore whether, on a balance of probabilities, there is a reasonable prospect of success at the second stage of the proceedings.

19The principles to be applied in assessing the various factors set out in s. 745.63(1) have been discussed in several cases and can be distilled as follows:

All the factors set out in section 745.63(1)(a) to (e) inclusive must be considered. There is “no scorecard” that gives each factor equal weight. Each application is a fact-specific determination;
Once all the evidence has been examined the screening judge performs a limited weighing of the evidence in an attempt to forecast the outcome of the application if it was heard by a jury. The primary focus of the hearing is to “call attention to changes which have occurred in the applicant’s situation that might justify a less harsh penalty” The jury's verdict, in effect, is an assessment of the offender's progress;
To reduce the period of ineligibility, the Applicant must satisfy all twelve jurors. Accordingly, the test at the judicial screening stage is whether on the material filed the applicant satisfies the judge on the balance of probabilities that there is (in this case) a reasonable prospect that the jury would unanimously reduce the ineligibility;
The mandated sentence for first-degree murder is life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years. The applicant must show that his current situation justifies a departure from the normal legislated sentence;
The applicant is no longer presumed innocent. He must provide all the available evidence that would support his application at the time of the threshold screening; and
The applicant must show that the application has real merit and, in this case, a reasonable prospect that a jury will unanimously reduce the period of ineligibility.⁴

Character of Mr. Esrabian[^5]

20The Applicant, Shant Esrabian, was born and raised in Canada. His family originated in Armenia and arrived in Canada in 1976.

21The Applicant had a good and happy childhood. He was raised in a family that encouraged pro-social behavior and values. As the only son of the family, the Applicant’s parents had high expectations of him. He was to take over the family business (a grocery store and bakery). The Applicant spent a lot of time at the family-owned store where he enjoyed interacting with clients.

22The Applicant dropped out of high school after failing his third year, when he was around fifteen years old. As he was expected to take over the family business, the Applicant’s parents agreed that if he did not return to school, he would work full-time at the family store.

23During his adolescence, the Applicant got into disputes with his father. The main source of conflict was the direction the family business should take. This caused frustration and a sense of dissatisfaction for the Applicant.

24At 17 years old, a family friend encouraged the Applicant to seek a more affluent lifestyle. To become involved, he underwent an initiation test to sell gold. This test served as a demonstration that the Applicant was trustworthy. This initial test gave the Applicant a sense of pride. It was the catalyst for his entrance into criminal activity.

25When the Applicant was around 19 years old, he stopped working for the family business and opened his own restaurant, largely funded from proceeds from his illegal dealings. Initially, his earnings from illegal activity were solely destined to his own business, an Italian restaurant. Over time, the Applicant developed a network of individuals involved in organized crime and moved up the ranks.

26According to the materials filed, the Applicant has come to realize through counselling and reflection, that his ascension into the criminal field was fueled by financial insecurity and a materialistic desire to always have more. The materials state that the Applicant no longer holds this mindset. Rather, he attaches importance to values such as family and humility.

27While incarcerated, the Applicant has sought educational opportunities and opportunities to participate in community activities.

28Presently, the Applicant is the father of a two-year old boy. Another child is expected to be born in August 2026. The Applicant stated that he benefits from the support of a social circle that encompasses his wife, sister and mother. He also has many friends and extended family who have and continue to offer him support throughout this process.

Conduct During Incarceration

29Since his incarceration, the Applicant has been authorized to go on multiple outings. Those who have had the opportunity to get to know the Applicant during his rehabilitation have offered positive reference letters, describing him as appreciated, helpful and professional.

30The Applicant has the following criminal record:

2006 – Operation while impaired - $900 fine and 1 year driving prohibition;
2008 – First degree murder – life imprisonment;
2008 – Contempt of court – 2 years, concurrent; and
2010 – Contempt of court – 4 years, concurrent.

31The Applicant has served his time in several institutions and is presently in the minimum-security wing of the Archambault Institution. While in pre-trial detention, the Applicant received three disciplinary reports. Following his sentence, the Applicant received four disciplinary reports. There have been no disciplinary reports since 2016.

32Since September 2022, the Applicant has participated in the following activities:

Spokesperson to a Commissioner visiting the Institution to explain the procedures in the Minimum-security facility and the changes in his life since his incarceration;
Spokesperson at a high school event where he shared his story in hopes to deter students from making similar life choices to his;
Participating in a program designing books to be read in an audio format for children of persons detained;
Co-writing a book with an established author to raise awareness about how young men can become involved in criminal activity.

33The Applicant has also been involved in numerous courses offered by the instutution covering a wide variety of interests.

34The Applicant participated in an evaluation of his psychological risk. This report was completed in March 2025. The report was written in French.

35With respect to the Applicant’s institutional operation and release history, the report notes:

On note depuis le début de sa sentence que monsieur Esrabian s’est globalement comporté de manière respectueuse avec le personnel et qu’il a occupé des emplois au sein des établissements où il a séjourné.

Un virage positif sur le plan de l’arrimage entre ses conduites et les bonnes intentions formulées semble néanmoins se dégager de son dossier de manière plus convaincante à partir de 2020. On note qu’il n’a été reconnu coupable d’aucun rapport disciplinaire depuis et qu’il n’a été impliqué au sein d’aucun incident sécuritaire. Il n’est pas non plus venu à l’attention du département de sécurité préventive et est décrit comme ayant fait preuve de discernement sur le plan de ses fréquentations.⁶

36The report indicates that Mr. Esrabian’s risk assessment is as follows:

Le résultat obtenu par monsieur Esrabian ne le qualifie pas à l’[Échelle révisée de psychopathie de Hare]. Alors que le score qu’il obtient au facteur interpersonnel et affectif le situe dans la moyenne des délinquants, celui qu’il obtient au facteur de déviance sociale le situe significativement sous la moyenne.

En ce qui a trait au Violent Risk Appraisal Guide – Revised (VRAG-R), l’objectif est de prédire la probabilité d’un délinquant de commettre au moins un crime violent lorsqu’il en aura l’opportunité […] Les résultats obtenus situent monsieur Esrabian dans le troisième échelon sur une possibilité de neuf. Le niveau de risque présenté par les individus se situant dans la catégorie 3 est près de la moitié de celui posé par les délinquants violents « typiques » (c.-à.d. ceux se situant dans la moyenne du risque).

La combinaison des outils suggère que monsieur Esrabian présente un risque de récidive violente faible.⁷

37The report concludes by indicating that,

Bien que les premières années de la sentence du sujet ne se soient pas déroulées sans heurts, monsieur Esrabian semble se trouver sur la bonne voie, cherchant à se positionner autrement vis-à-vis de son existence et ceci en lien aux prises de conscience qu’il a faites au sujet des écueils de son mode de vie antérieur. Il apparaît d’ailleurs plausible que l’agrandissement imminent de sa famille contribue à alimenter la poursuite de ce processus.

Rappelons que la combinaison des instruments utilisés pointe vers un risque de récidive violente faible chez monsieur Esrabian, ce qui apparait juste, et ce, même dans le cadre d’une semi-liberté pourvu qu’il continue de s’adapter adéquatement aux pertes sur les plans financier [sic] et du statut qui accompagnent le renoncement à son mode de vie passé.⁸

38The Applicant received a very positive decision from the Parole Board of Canada that states that he has made some significant personal changes. Specifically, it notes,

Les membres de l’ÉGC indiquent que depuis 2019, vous avez déployé des efforts significatifs pour travailler sur les facteurs contributifs à votre criminalité. Vos paroles de changement concordent avec vos actions. Vous présentez une stabilité comportementale, une bonne maîtrise de vos émotions et il n’y a pas d’information vous reliant à des activités délinquantes. Vous vous impliquez positivement dans les objectifs ciblés à votre planification correctionnelle.⁹

39The Applicant has established a release plan that involves continued visits with his wife, sister and brother-in-law. It also includes continued outings to attend AA and NA meetings, to go to church and assist at the La Montagne d’Espoir food bank.

Nature of the offence for which the Applicant was convicted

40The Applicant was convicted of first-degree murder. This offence is very serious and carries a penalty of life imprisonment.

41The Applicant notes that his specific involvement is nonetheless a factor to be considered. He accepts that he was a party to the murder and explains his involvement as acting out of loyalty to one of the co-accused, per industry rules.¹⁰

Information provided by a Victim

42No information was provided in relation to the victim or his family.

Conclusion

43Mr. Esrabian’s time in custody has not been without some hiccups along the way. At the outset of his time in jail, he had several disciplinary reports, although I note that overall, they were not that serious. He has not had any reports since 2016.

44Mr. Esrabian has used his time to take a wide range of courses. He is presently married with one child and another on the way. Correctional Services have noted that his family has been a significant factor in his personal development.

45The Applicant has expressed remorse for the impact that his actions had on the victim’s family and that remorse is felt by the psychologist to be sincere. In 2023, he participated in a restorative justice program, and it was noted that Mr. Esrabian expressed sincere remorse for his actions.¹¹

46Mr. Esrabian has been permitted to go on many outings, all of which have occurred without incident. More specifically, he has attended AA and NA meetings and has worked three times a week at a food bank.

47The question for this court to determine at this stage is whether,

[T]here is a viable hope that the applicant is a changed person, able to move forward with his rehabilitative efforts while posing no real risk to the safety of the public. Is it open to a jury to conclude that, despite the horrific nature of the crime, there is a realistic prospect that the applicant can become a contributing member of the community? Is it open to a jury to find that the applicant is deserving of an opportunity to seek release now, rather than waiting for the expiration of 25 years?¹²

48In the present case, the answer is ‘yes’. Mr. Esrabian has demonstrated that he has changed and that there is a reasonable prospect that a jury will find that he can become a contributing member of the community and is deserving of a chance to demonstrate that sooner rather than later.

49An order will be made that a jury be empaneled to hear this Application to reduce the number of years remaining until parole eligibility is available. Additionally, there will be an order that a Parole Eligibility Report be prepared by Correctional Services of Canada.

The Honourable Justice Parfett

Released: June 4, 2026