Judge who convicted three Indian-origin men for murder rules their early parole ban unconstitutional

VANCOUVER — The same BC Supreme Court judge who convicted three men of the first-degree murders of an elderly Abbotsford couple has ruled that the Criminal Code ban on early parole for multiple murderers is unconstitutional.Justice Brenda Brown delivered the ruling on Monday in the case of Abhijeet Singh, Gurkaran Singh and Khushveer Toor. She found them guilty on May 8 of the planned home-invasion killings of Arnold De Jong, 77, and Joanne De Jong, 76, on May 9, 2022. Brown did not release reasons on Monday. .Lawyers return in November for arguments on whether the breach can be justified under section 1 of the Charter. Sentencing is now set for February 2027.In her earlier May ruling in R. v. Singh, Singh and Toor, 2026 BCSC 869, Brown wrote the burden rests on the Crown to prove every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. She later stated: “Although I cannot say exactly what each accused did in bringing about the deaths of Joanne and Arnold De Jong, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that each accused acted as a principal or as an aider/abettor for each of these planned and deliberate murders.”.She also found the only reasonable inference was that the men jointly participated with the intent to kill or to cause bodily harm they knew was likely to kill, and were reckless as to death. The three men became acquainted through Abhijeet Singh’s cleaning company. Gurkaran Singh and Khushveer Toor worked for him. The company had cleaned the exterior of the De Jong home more than once, including a roof and gutter job in April 2022 when Abhijeet Singh and Toor filmed themselves on the roof.During trial, prosecutors argued that the earlier work gave the men useful information, including the ideal point of entry for the home invasion.The trial also heard Arnold died of asphyxiation after his entire head and face were wrapped in duct tape while Joanne died of sharp and blunt force trauma. Both victims were bound with rope wrapped several times around the wrists, stretched taut to the ankles, and knotted.Brown wrote that three persons were needed to carry out the attacks as they occurred. Wrapping Arnold’s entire head and face tightly in duct tape, she figured, would require at least two attackers. One would hold the head while the other wrapped the tape. Joanne was struck on the head, likely more than once, and stabbed repeatedly in the neck. .Brown rejected the defence argument that the deaths were a robbery gone wrong. She found the motive was financial gain and that the men planned to kill the couple because they would be recognized from earlier cleaning work at the house. “Because of this, they could not leave the De Jongs alive at the conclusion of the home invasion,” she wrote.Court records and Brown’s reasons detail the financial trail that followed. A fake Remitly account in the name “Arnold Jong” was opened between 4:17 a.m. and 4:27 a.m. on May 9 using Arnold’s driver’s licence. Abhijeet Singh’s phone records and app activity tied him to the setup. Payments from Arnold’s credit cards hit the men’s Rogers cellphone accounts that morning: $617.83 to Khushveer Toor’s account at 4:30 a.m. and $704.41 to Abhijeet Singh’s at 5:16 a.m. Attempts were made to transfer funds via Remitly, including nearly $1,000 toward Abhijeet Singh’s sister. Khushveer Toor deposited a $5,600 cheque purportedly signed by Joanne with a memo for house cleanup. Gurkaran Singh deposited a $5,100 cheque. The men also took a power washer later sold. Brown found these steps part of the planned robbery and killings.Crown also played video evidence recovered from the men’s phones. One clip showed Abhijeet Singh and Khushveer Toor filming themselves on the roof of the De Jong home during a cleaning job about a month before the killings. .Another, recorded months after the murders, showed the men with the Worth Wicked Slow Pitch bat Abhijeet Singh had purchased the afternoon before the home invasion. Joanne’s DNA was later found on the bat’s handle. In the post-murder video, Gurkaran Singh is seen smiling while holding the bat.Prosecutor William Dorsey described it in closing as “the smile of a murderer” and said the men displayed the weapon with pride, as if they treasured it. Brown later denied a media application for full public release of that video, allowing only supervised viewing. Global News reported that the denial was tied to the Crown’s “smile of a murderer” characterization. Toor’s lawyer Donna Turko said the decision was to protect the integrity of the court and the commentary associated with the video.Family members who saw it called the display of the bat as a trophy sickening..That reaction matched the family’s response outside court on Monday. They had expected sentencing. Instead they heard only Brown’s ruling that the 25-year bar breaches the Charter, with no reasons attached to the ruling. Helen Leusink, Joanne’s sister, said the delay “makes me more and more disappointed in our justice system and how it operates.” Daughter Sandra Barthel asked how this happens in Canada and noted that two of the men are not Canadian citizens. Another daughter said it "felt like a gut punch."The family said they will keep fighting for justice while they wait..A first-degree murder conviction normally carries a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years. The section Brown found unconstitutional excludes multiple murderers from the faint-hope clause, which otherwise allows some offenders to apply for judicial review of their parole ineligibility after 15 years. The federal government under Stephen Harper abolished the faint-hope rule for multiple murderers sentenced after December 2011. The ruling applies only in this proceeding for now. Brown has not yet decided whether the infringement is saved under section 1.All three men are Indian-origin. Gurkaran Singh arrived in Canada on a student visa less than a month before the killings and never enrolled at the college listed on his documents. Reporting and family statements indicate two of the three were in Canada on international student visas. None has been described as a Canadian citizen.Foreign nationals convicted of first-degree murder are inadmissible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Once any sentence is served, the Canada Border Services Agency can seek their removal — an outcome that does not depend on whether the faint-hope clause is restored or the section 1 argument succeeds.

Judge who convicted three Indian-origin men for murder rules their early parole ban unconstitutional

Related Stories

'YEA, THOUGH I WALK': Veteran priest in Wainwright offers comfort, hope after deadly base fire

AUBUT: The empathy trap — when modern feminism overplays its hand

Senators question Bill C-31 liability shield for federal financial officials

Alberta court approves distribution of $7.5 million Paxil birth-defect settlement