CITATION: R. v. Kossyrine, 2026 ONSC 910

COURT FILE NO.: CR-12-70000342-0000

DATE: 20260213

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

DMITRI KOSSYRINE

M. Cole, for the Crown

M. Huberman, for Mr. Kossyrine

HEARD: IN WRITING

1On 15 November 2012, a jury convicted Dmitri Kossyrine of first-degree murder. The presiding judge, Ewaschuk J. sentenced him, as required, to life imprisonment without parole for a period of 25 years. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario: R. v. Kossyrine, 2017 ONCA 388, 138 O.R. (3d) 91.

2Mr. Kossyrine seeks a hearing pursuant to s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code to reduce his current parole eligibility. Section 745.6, known as the "faint hope clause" permits a specially constituted jury to determine whether an applicant should be permitted to apply for parole before the 25 year minimum bar to eligibility has elapsed.

3Under s. 745.61(1) of the Code, the application must first be screened by the Chief Justice or a designated superior court judge to determine whether a faint hope hearing proceeds.

4The Crown opposes the application arguing that the applicant has not satisfied the test set out in s. 745.63(1).

The Conviction

5Glen Davis was the president of the Davis Corporation, a company created and built by his stepfather, Nelson Davis. Glen Davis was a successful businessman and a generous philanthropist who donated money to various environmental causes and charities.

6Mr. Davis had a close relationship with his nephew, Marshall Ross. When Mr. Ross proposed starting up a business building residential homes, he approached Mr. Davis for money to begin his project. As a result, Mr. Davis loaned approximately $2 million to Mr. Ross's construction company, Rosshire Enterprises. Unfortunately, Mr. Ross's business did not perform as expected and Rosshire, was unable to repay the loaned funds - $2 million plus interest - to Mr. Davis. Mr. Ross concealed his company’s dire financial situation by fabricating Rosshire’s business activities, making it appear that the company was making money.

7Mr. Ross was under the mistaken impression that he would inherit Mr. Davis's fortune and estate when Mr. Davis passed away. Acting under this misimpression, Mr. Ross decided to have Mr. Davis killed to reap his inheritance as early as possible and save him himself from the ruinous financial situation that he had created.

8The applicant was a contractor whose company, D.K. Custom Homes, worked for Mr. Ross's company and was aware that Rosshire was being funded by Mr. Davis. In 2005, Mr. Ross approached the applicant asking whether he knew of anyone who could kill Mr. Davis. Mr. Ross told the applicant that he wanted Mr. Davis murdered because he believed that the fortune that he would inherit was being squandered by Mr. Davis's charitable donations.

9The applicant, who was aware of Mr. Davis's loans to Mr. Ross, agreed to hire someone to carry out the murder. The applicant believed that Mr. Davis's death would, as a consequence, benefit his company which received a substantial amount of work from Rosshire.

10The applicant recruited Tyler Cawley, someone he knew from work. He paid him $46,000 in cash as part of a fee totalling $100,000 to kill Mr. Davis. The applicant provided details including a picture of Mr. Davis, and a description of his car. The applicant drove Mr. Cawley to different locations which could be potential killing sites. These included Mr. Davis's Home, corporate headquarters and three residential streets where Mr. Davis parked his car when attending Toronto Maple Leafs games.

11On 21 December 2005, Mr. Cawley and his cousin, Ron Berringer, followed Mr. Davis as he left his home in his white SUV. Mr. Davis parked his car in the company parking lot. After exiting his car, Mr. Davis reached into the back of his car to remove a box. As he did so, Mr. Berringer attacked him with a baseball bat striking around the head several times. Mr. Davis cried out for help and nearby construction workers ran to his aid. Mr. Berringer fled the scene with Mr. Cawley.

12Mr. Davis was taken to Sunnybrook Hospital and treated for lacerations to his head as well as a broken elbow. He required numerous stitches to close the head wound and needed a metal plate inserted into his left elbow and forearm. However, he survived the attack.

13Rosshire’s business fortunes continued to significantly decline. Around mid-May 2007, Mr. Ross persuaded Mr. Davis to loan Rosshire another $350,000 with Mr. Davis insisting that he wanted all of his $2 million in loans repaid.

14In the meantime, Mr. Ross met with the applicant and communicated his anger at the unsuccessful attempt on Mr. Davis's life. He demanded the applicant find someone else to shoot Mr. Davis. The applicant complied and enlisted Ivgeny Vorobiov, someone whom he had a close relationship with.

15On 18 May 2007, police were called to an underground parking lot at Eglinton Avenue in Mount Pleasant Avenue in Toronto. When they arrived, they found Mr. Davis lying on the ground, deceased.

16The post-mortem examination determined the cause of death to be gunshot wounds to the torso.

17The two incidents involving Mr. Davis remained unsolved for several years. Tyler Cawley’s arrest on unrelated charges in November 2008 led to a breakthrough. Mr. Cawley informed the police about the beating inflicted on Mr. Davis in December 2005, revealing that the attack had been orchestrated by the applicant and Mr. Ross.

18Police discovered that Mr. Vorobiov had carried out the murder with another of the applicant’s employees: Jesse Smith. Mr. Smith was arrested when returning from Cuba and confessed the murder to police. Mr. Smith claimed that he waited in a car while Mr. Vorobiov carried out the murder. When Mr. Vorobiov returned he told Mr. Smith that he had shot Mr. Davis who had fallen into his knees and pleaded not to be killed. Mr. Vorobiov told Mr. Smith that he had shot Mr. Davis a second time and left the scene. Following the murder, both men drove to Port Perry where Mr. Vorobiov threw the murder weapon into Lake Scugog.

19After further investigation, the police arrested Mr. Ross, Mr. Vorobiov and the applicant. All three were charged with first-degree murder.

20On 12 October 2011, Mr. Ross pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. Mr. Vorobiov and the applicant were tried together for first-degree murder. Mr. Vorobiov was convicted of the offence but the jury could not unanimously agree on a verdict with respect to the applicant, and a mistrial was declared. The applicant faced a second trial in autumn 2012 and was convicted of first degree murder. His conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal of Ontario.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The History of the Faint Hope Clause

21Parliament added what became known as the "faint hope" provisions to the Criminal Code in 1976. They formed part of a package of amendments that formally abolished capital punishment: see Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 2) 1976, S.C. 1974-75-76, c. 105, ss. 4, 5, and 21.

22The faint hope provisions allowed offenders convicted of first degree murder to apply for a reduction in their parole ineligibility after serving 15 years of their sentence. The application meant that a judge would be appointed to empanel a jury to hear the application.

23The legislation required the jury to consider the offender's character, their conduct while serving their sentence, the nature of the offence, and any other matter deemed relevant by the presiding judge.

24Parliament then made three further significant changes to the faint hope provisions: see An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Judicial Review of Parole Ineligibility) and Another Act, S.C. 1996, c. 34, ss. 2 and 6.

25First, it introduced a judicial screening procedure. Offenders could only have their applications heard by a jury if they convinced the Chief Justice or the designated judge that there was a ‘reasonable prospect’ of success based on the written materials filed.

26Second, it mandated that the jury had to unanimously conclude that the offender’s parole ineligibility period should be reduced, as opposed to a two-thirds majority as previously enacted. Finally, it eliminated faint hope applications for offenders convicted of multiple murders.

27Parliament amended the faint hope provisions in 2011, making several significant changes: see An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and Another Act, S.C. 2011, c. 2, ss. 2 through 5.

28First, the amendments removed faint hope applications for offenders who committed their offences after the amendments became law. Second, it made the threshold test for the judicial screening of such applications more demanding, requiring a demonstration of a ‘substantial likelihood’ of success as a precondition to empanelling a jury. Lastly, the amendments restricted the number of applications an offender could bring and imposed rigid timelines when applying.

29The current scheme in the Criminal Code for faint hope applications reflects the 2011 amendments: see ss. 745.6 through 746. Section 745.61(1) addresses the judicial screening of faint hope applications, providing that the Chief Justice or their designate shall determine, based on certain prescribed materials, ‘whether the applicant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a substantial likelihood that the application will succeed’.

30In R. v. Dell, 2018 ONCA 674, 364 C.C.C. (3d) 419, at para. 102, the court held that the retroactive application of the “substantial likelihood” test violated s. 11(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and found that the amendment’s changes could only apply prospectively. In other words, where the offence occurred prior to 2 December 2011, the older test of “reasonable prospect” had to be used.

Section 745.63 of the Criminal Code

31 Section 745.63 of the Criminal Code sets out the factors that the jury must consider when determining whether the period of parole ineligibility should be reduced. It reads as follows:

745.63 (1) The jury empanelled under subsection 745.61(5) to hear the application shall consider the following criteria and determine whether the applicant’s number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced:

(a) the character of the applicant;

(b) the applicant’s 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 judge considers relevant in the circumstances.

32 Section 745.6(2) of the Criminal Code states that where the conviction at issue was registered prior to 2011, the application judge must consider the factors set out in paras. (a) to (e) when determining whether there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed.

33In R. v. Morrisson, 2016 ONSC 5036, at paras. 36-43, Durno J. outlined the approach required when assessing the test under s. 745.6(2):

(1) All of the factors set out in s. 745.63 (1)(a)-(e) inclusive must be considered. There is no "score card" that gives each factor equal weight. Each application is a fact-specific determination. One or more factors may be decisive one way or the other. Different factors will receive different weight depending on all of the circumstances and evidence.

(2) 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.

(3) In order 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 a balance of probabilities that there is (in this case) a reasonable prospect that a jury would unanimously reduce the ineligibility period.

(4) 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.

(5) The applicant is no longer presumed innocent. The applicant must provide all the available evidence that would support his application at the time of the threshold screening.

(6) 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.

34These principles have been accepted and applied by my colleagues at the Superior Court of Justice in the following cases: R. v. Eunick, 2018 ONSC 5971, at para. 6; R. v. Abram, 2019 ONSC 3383, at para. 15; R. v. Spence, 2025 ONSC 3645, at para. 24.

APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES

The Character of the Applicant

35The applicant has provided many pages of documents describing his time in incarceration. Medical reports such as psychological risk assessments, support letters and other material describing the applicant’s character can also be helpful in assessing the applicant’s character throughout their period of incarceration: Morrisson, at paras. 66-67; R. v. Al-Shammari, 2022 ONSC 4113, at paras. 48-50. The applicant’s background and upbringing can assist in providing information and context to the convicted offence: Al-Shammari, at paras. 44-47.

36The applicant was born in Russia and resided there until he was 16. His family moved to Canada so that he could avoid being pressed into military service during the Russia Chechnya war. The applicant was the middle of three brothers. His older brother has passed away. Whilst they resided in Russia, the applicant's father was an architecture professor and his mother was an engineering teacher. After moving to Canada, his father made a living designing houses and working in real estate.

37The applicant completed his high school education in Russia and after moving to Canada, in 2000, he started his own construction company which built residential homes. He was married in 2004 and has a son and a daughter.

38Prior to his conviction, the applicant had no criminal record or any issues arising out of his mental health, or any other addiction issues.

39The applicant continues to deny full responsibility for his role in Mr. Davis's murder. However, he admits that his knowledge of the offence has evolved whilst he has been in custody. His 2013 Criminal Profile Report noted that the applicant continued to claim no knowledge of what had happened with respect to Mr. Davis. This account changed in 2023 when the applicant conceded that he knew that Mr. Ross was looking for a contract killer to murder Mr. Davis. However, he continues to insist that he did not know the specific details of the murder plan.

40The applicant’s parole officer describes his attitude change within the institution as well as his increased reliability as a kitchen employee, increased work ethic, and improved relationships with the staff. The Correctional Plan (CP) notes that the applicant has completed several self-directed programs including “Restorative Justice Principles” on 23 January 2023, the “Emotion Regulation” program on 1 May 2024 and “Look Both Ways” writing workshop on 21 October 2022.

41His parents, Alexei and Lidia Kossyrine write that, when visiting him, they have witnessed a remarkable transformation in the way the applicant is working diligently in the stockroom and actively participating in various educational programs in classes. They are encouraged by his desire to become a better person and indicate they will do their best to support him should he be released. His brother, Sergui Kossyrine indicates he has noticed a change in the applicant when visiting his brother. He states that the applicant has "embraced his role as a family man demonstrating his dedication as a loving father son and brother". Sergui also writes that Dmitri engages with his family through daily calls to his children and his parents.

42The applicant’s long-time friend Dmitri also indicates that he "was always a very generous compassionate and caring person". He says that he and his family will support the applicant emotionally if released. Similar letters have come in from other friends for example Olexandra Rodmina, Olga Rodmina, Anton Rybantsev, and Dziameyan Maraunik.

43These letters demonstrate the strong commitment among the applicant’s friends and family. All pledge a level of support to assist in his reintegration into society.

44Moreover, the general descriptions of the applicant expressed in the Psychological Risk Assessments conclude that he is a low risk to reoffend. The Correctional Plan Update of 2024 indicates an improvement in attitude and behaviour in the “last few years”.

Conduct of the Applicant Whilst Serving Sentence

45There is no dispute that the applicant has committed acts of misconduct, particularly during the initial custodial phase of his sentence. However, it appears there are no entries of infractions since 2023. According to the applicant, he has not been part of any institutional subculture and has received a good report since 2023.

46The applicant says that it should be noted that this is a vast improvement from the intake stage. He also asks this court to note that he is afflicted with Crohn's disease which makes it difficult for him to make meaningful progress in his rehabilitation. He contends that his medical issues were of such a disruptive nature that it led to an inconsistent approach to employment within the institution. The medical report confirms the presence of Crohn's disease but also indicates that his symptoms have eased in recent years.

47In October 2023, the applicant left prison on a day release to see his family. This visit was an escorted visit which lasted seven hours. The applicant says that this shows how effectively he can be managed in the community. He says that his time with his family made it very clear that life outside the prison is far preferential to being in custody. The applicant says that this provided the impetus for him to begin an improvement in his efforts to be a better inmate. His motivation level has increased and he says that his conduct within the institution since 2023 demonstrates that he is moving in the right direction and that an empanelled jury would be able to judge his prospects for rehabilitation should he be granted an early release.

48Against this proposition, there are a number of infractions registered against the applicant whilst using custody. His list of acts of misconduct include the following:

6 February 2013: the applicant refused to provide a urine sample
5 September 2013: the applicant covered his windows in a group protest and was found guilty of misconduct;
6 November 2013: the applicant was again found guilty of misconduct after he joined a group protest in which inmates covered their cell
13 January 2014: the third occasion where the applicant was found guilty of misconduct by participating in a group protest of inmates covering their cell windows. These actions by the inmates delayed the count of inmates.
April 28, 2017: the applicant tested positive through urinalysis for THC after providing a urine sample
4 May 2017: the applicant again tested positive for THC
February 2018: the applicant was found to be disrespectful to staff
17 May 2019: he tested positive for THC
June 2019: he was caught smoking THC in the washroom
18 June 2019: the applicant again tested positive for THC in a urine analysis test.
19 September 2019: his cell was searched and they found a “notable quantity of suspected marijuana concentrate, also known as shatter”. The applicant admitted ownership of this drug. The quantity was noted as being “consistent with distribution of the drug to others”
7 November 2019: the applicant was again found in possession of “shatter”
16 April 2020: the applicant and other inmates refused to enter the yard and prevented staff from locking the gate
28 April 2020: he covered his cell window which forced officers to use their shield during the count
24 July 2020: the applicant placed a window blocker in his cell door. When confronted he told the officer to “take the rules and shove them up her ass”
11 August 2020: racial slurs directed towards another inmate
14 August 14, 2020: he was searched and a small cellophane package containing heroin and THC was found on his person.
10 September 2020: The applicant assaulted another inmate by striking him in the head
25 April 2024: The applicant failed to provide a urinalysis sample and was found guilty of misconduct

49Although the applicant argues that there was only one misconduct after 2020, this is still a rather disturbing set of instances spanning a substantial number of years from his incarceration date. I also note that the applicant’s security classification did not drop below medium security and at one point his conduct was of such concern that he was transferred to the Collins Bay institution, a more secure holding centre, against his will. At Collins Bay, he was recorded as having used racial slurs.

50On August 10, 2020, the applicant was charged with assault. However, that charge was withdrawn by the Crown because the applicant claimed a mental illness. He told the authorities that he had magical powers and that he could control the institution by "utilising the toilet and various powerful liquids". Subsequently, the applicant - who had no prior history of mental health issues - admitted to exaggerating his symptoms but continue to advance further outlandish claims such as being poisoned with LSD by correctional staff. This admission of misleading the authorities leads to the troubling conclusion that rehabilitation is not high on the applicant’s list of priorities.

The Nature of the Offence

51I have already described the offence in detail and will return to this subject later on in these reasons.

Victim Provided Information

52There is no doubt that Mr. Davis's murder left a significant impact upon his friends and family. His wife, Mary Alice, indicated, in her original Victim Impact Statement, the years of mental anguish she has suffered and states that "there will never be closure”. She makes clear that the prospect of the applicants early release on parole would cause her great distress.

53One of Mr. Davis's close friends, Peter Quinn, wrote that Mr. Davis's murder still upsets him when he remembers it. He says that he "still tears up when the details of the event are brought home". Another friend, Keith Jones, wrote that he and his family will never forget what happened and that “it never goes away”. Kim Bilous, another close friend wrote that Mr. Davis's murder deprived society of a great benefit.

54There has been additional information provided from Mr. Davis's environmental colleagues and allies.

55Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party wrote that Mr. Davis's murder "harmed dozens of people, thousands of hectares of nature” and indicated that “his death leaves a gaping hole in the movement for nature in Canada". Monty Hummel, President Emeritus of WWF Canada wrote that Mr. Davis had helped protect “more of Canada than anyone before or after him”. He also indicated that not only did he miss Mr. Davis as a philanthropist and environmental activist but also as a personal friend. Finally, senator and Olympic gold medallist Marnie McBean wrote that she still feels the effects of Mr. Davis's murder and is affected every time news media covers incident of other homicides in Canada. She adds that the notion of the applicant receiving early parole is very upsetting for her.

ANALYSIS

56Turning to the question of whether the applicant has met his burden of demonstrating that there is a reasonable prospect of a jury unanimously concluding that his parole ineligibility period should be reduced, I remind myself of the comments made by Durno J. in Morrison, at para. 36, where he noted:

There is no “score card” that gives each factor equal weight. Each application is a fact-specific determination. One or more factors may be decisive one way or the other. Different factors will receive different weight depending on all of the circumstances and evidence.

57Here, I acknowledge that the applicant has made progress towards rehabilitation. He has raised his work ethic, completed programs within the institution, become reliable when working as an employee in the institution’s kitchen and developed positive relationships with the staff. His family expresses full support for the applicant and their willingness to aid in his integration back into society upon his release.

58However, these positive developments must be weighed against the reality of the other factors that must be assessed.

59First, it is worth remembering the particular facts of this case.

60I have described the offence in detail, but must acknowledge that this was a particularly heinous crime: a contract killing of a philanthropist who used his money to help environmental causes. I reject the applicant’s contention that he played a “limited role” in the incident.

61The applicant recruited the killers in this case. The applicant, on the first attempt at committing murder, drove Mr. Cawley to a series of different locations to identify Mr. Davis to ensure that the intended target died. It was the applicant who recruited a second set of killers some eighteen months later after the first attempt on Mr. Davis’s life failed. On that occasion they were successful. This was not a case of rash thinking on the applicant’s part but a considered plan to murder Mr. Davis at Mr. Ross’s behest, carried out not once but twice. Contrary to his claims, the applicant’s role was central to the events that resulted in Mr. Davis’s death.

62Further, the applicant acted out of greed. The motivation for hiring the killers was the applicant’s belief that Mr. Davis’s death would bring him significant business with a great deal of money.

63I agree with the applicant that any faint hope clause application will involve only the most serious offences in the Criminal Code. As Pomerance J. (as she then was), stated, in Abram, at para. 2, “were the crime the only consideration, the application would have to fail”. However, the jurisprudence shows that courts have placed great weight on the nature of the crime when seeking to determine the question of empanelling a jury under s.745.63 of the Code.

64For example, in Eunick, the applicant shot a man in a club following an argument. O’Marra J. found, much like this case, that the applicant had shown signs of improvement during his time in custody and had strong family ties. However, O’Marra J. dismissed the application because “the sheer brutality of the crime and the devastating impact on his widow and daughters of the victim are particularly significant”: at para. 29.

65Similarly, in Morrisson, the evidence confirmed that the offender, who had no criminal record, had made significant gains whilst incarcerated, had been moved to a minimum security jail, had completed unescorted absences without incident and posed a low risk to society. However, Durno J. found that the nature of the murder - a contract killing like the present case – in which the applicant had paid the killer, was sufficient to warrant dismissing the application.

66For other cases where the crime played a significant role in the decision to dismiss a faint hope application despite the offender doing well in custody, see: R. v. Atkins, 2021 ONSC 3457; and R. v. Joseph, 2024 ONSC 1383.

67Nor has the applicant shown the type of remorse that would demonstrate the required steps towards rehabilitation. An applicant’s show of remorse and responsibility is a factor to consider but a denial of the commission of the offences, whilst important, is not in itself determinative: Morrisson, at para. 82. The applicant correctly points out that there have been cases in which the applicant did not accept full responsibility for their crimes or continued to deny them but the screening judge allowed the faint hope clause hearing to go ahead: Al-Shammari; R. v. Blair, 2024 ONSC 2108.

68Conversely, there are cases where the lack of remorse carried a more significant weight: R. v. Banwait, 2019 ONSC 3026, at paras. 57-67; R. v. Atkins, at paras. 44-45; R. v. Gatenby, 2021 ONSC 3535, at para. 94.

69In R. v. Brown, 2015 ONSC 5264, Nordheimer J. (as he then was) stated at para. 27:

The applicant's conduct, while he has been incarcerated and viewed in isolation, could lead to the possibility that a jury might consider reducing his period of parole ineligibility. That aspect of the applicant's past behaviour is but one aspect of the overall consideration, however. While that aspect might be received favourably by a jury, I do not see any realistic prospect that a jury would reach a unanimous and favourable conclusion once they were advised of the facts that the applicant has continued to deny his full involvement in the murder and has continued to shield the identity of this two accomplices, such that they remain unprosecuted for their roles in the death of the victim. I believe that any reasonably minded juror would be seriously bothered, if not outright offended, at the failure of the applicant to assist the police to identify those individuals so that they could be arrested and prosecuted for this brutal murder. The applicant's refusal to provide that information is made only that much worse by his shifting story regarding his knowledge of these two men. In light of that refusal, I do not think for a moment that twelve jurors would agree that the applicant should be given the opportunity to apply for early parole. In the circumstances of this case I find the lack of remorse to be important.

70In the applicant’s 2013 Correctional Plan, the authors noted that the had “a high level of egocentricity, lack of victim empathy, an absence of reflection, profound callousness and blatant disregard for human life”. The authors also wrote that the applicant did not accept that he required intervention to deal with his personal problems. In the 2024 Correction Plan Update, the author noted that the applicant displayed “a negative attitude towards the criminal justice system and correctional system”.

71The Correction Plan indicated that the applicant did not accept responsibility for the murder and displayed no remorse, blaming the police’s inadequate investigation and the trial judge for his conviction.

72The applicant appeared to maintain this stance until 2023 when he admitted that he knew Mr. Ross was looking to find someone to kill Mr. Davis. However, the applicant explained that when Mr. Ross had approached him, he refused to carry out the killing. The applicant claimed that he provided money to a third party to assault Mr. Davis but not kill him - an act that would allow them to extort and blackmail Mr. Ross. Later, he stated that he assumed that Mr. Vorobiov was involved but did not believe that Mr. Davis would be murdered.

73In the applicant’s affidavit, provided as part of this application, he now admits that he knew of the murder plan but did not want his friends to be caught and feared for his own safety if he reported the matter. He expresses remorse at Mr. Davis’s murder and regrets his failure to intervene to stop it.

74The applicant suggests that this transition from his original position set out in 2013 to his assertions 10 or so years later are an indication towards accepting accountability because he has “admitted certain facts surrounding the murder”. This, says the applicant, is a process that will continue as he moves forward.

75On this point, I agree with the Crown that a healthy dose of cynicism should surround the applicant’s recent change of heart.

76The court in Al-Shammari, at para. 67, rightly points out that there are two ways of looking at a failure to fully accept responsibility: as a negative impact on the prospects of rehabilitation or, by contrast, as a sign of honesty and sincerity because the applicant has not instrumentalized responsibility and said what people want to hear.

77On the other hand there are a number of cases that also point out a common sense principle that offenders facing lengthy terms of imprisonment have an incentive to control their behaviour: R. v. Lilly, 2024 NSSC 301, at para. 160; R. v. Marriot, 2024 NSSC 81, at para. 324; R. v. O.G., (2001) 50 W.C.B. (2d) 250 (Ont. C.J.), at para. 38.

78I am of the view that a lack of remorse is not fatal to the screening part of the faint hope application but unquestionably plays a significant role. I agree with the comments made by Dambrot J., in Banwait, at para. 57, where he observed: “Unquestionably, remorse and accountability must be considered together. Accountability is the handmaiden of remorse. Genuine remorse must begin with the acceptance of responsibility for the actions in question”.

79I find the applicant’s failure to acknowledge his full complicity in Mr. Davis’s murder to be very troubling and give his recent comments little credit. In my view, they negatively impact the reasonable prospect of success within the faint hope application test.

80My views of the applicant’s failure to fully accept responsibility are augmented by the fact that in 2022, when police requested his assistance in another investigation into Mr. Ross’s intention to kill other members of the Davis enterprise, the applicant refused to co-operate, informing the police that it was their “problem”. He now expresses regret over his actions.

81Turning to the applicant’s conduct in prison, I disagree with the applicant’s claim that these acts of misconduct are “dated” and that somehow a 2 year time span without incident shows a level of improvement which is “obvious”.

82I place a significant amount of weight on the numerous infractions spanning 10 years compared to the relatively incident free last two years. They show a disrespect for the justice system that sentenced him and an attitude that shows anything other than a desire to change and improve himself in a manner that would be beneficial to society when released. As noted, he manipulated the system to avoid being charged with assault. The applicant argues that the failure to provide a urine sample in 2024 is “minor compared to the previous misconducts in 2013-15” I agree. However, what is more significant is that the incident demonstrates that the applicant continues to show his disdain for the authorities and reveals a lack of sincerity towards taking rehabilitative steps.

83In R. v. Phillips, 2012 ONCA 54, at para. 8, the court, in upholding the screening judge’s decision to dismiss the application summarised the reasons for agreeing with the screening judge:

In our view, Mr. Phillips fails to meet the test under s. 745.6(1). He was convicted of a cold-blooded execution style planned and deliberate murder. He has not accepted responsibility for his offence nor expressed remorse. He has been far from a model prisoner. Although in the last few years his conduct has improved, his record while in custody is at best mixed. He has a considerable record of institutional misconduct offences. He has participated in educational programs only sporadically and has made minimal gains in the anger management programs. He has not been transferred down the security ladder below medium security.

84These words apply with equal force in this case.

85Under these circumstances, I would find that it is highly unlikely that a jury would find he was remorseful for Mr. Davis’s murder or that he had made genuine efforts to change and rehabilitate himself.

CONCLUSION

86As I have already described, there are indeed some positives in the applicant’s behaviour and actions during his time of incarceration. He has been described as having an increased work ethic and as a reliable employee. He has also built relationships with the institution staff.

87However, in light of the nature of the offence, the applicant’s role in implementing the plan that resulted in Mr. Davis’s death, his failure to fully acknowledge his part in the offence, his refusal to assist the police in their later investigation into Mr. Ross, and his repeated infractions when serving his sentence lead me to believe that there is no reasonable prospect that a jury would unanimously agree that the applicant should be permitted to apply for early parole.

88The application is accordingly dismissed.

S.A.Q. Akhtar J.

Released: 13 February 2026