Families upset over likely challenges to murder sentences
The likelihood of looming Supreme Court challenges over provisions that essentially throw away the key for Canada’s worst murderers could rob families of hard-earned justice, say loved ones of victims in two of Alberta’s most notorious mass slayings.
Legal experts believe it’s only a matter of time before consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, made possible after the federal government enacted legislation in 2011, will be challenged before Canada’s highest court on the grounds the punishment is cruel and unusual, violating the Constitution.
Since judges were granted the ability to impose overlapping periods of parole ineligibility, it has only been applied in six cases, half of those in Alberta.
In February, Douglas Garland was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 75 years after a jury found him guilty in the 2014 murders of Nathan O’Brien, five, and his grandparents, Alvin and Kathy Liknes.
Garland’s lawyers have asked the Alberta Court of Appeal to overturn the triple-murder conviction, complaining the sentence is “excessive and harsh,” among other arguments.
Nathan’s father, Rod O’Brien, said the notion of freedom shouldn’t be in the cards for those convicted of the most heinous crimes.
“You can’t rehabilitate evil, the only way to protect victims and society is to keep the evil incarcerated for the rest of their life with no chance of ever seeing freedom,” he wrote in an email to Postmedia.
“As Nathan’s parents, we are trying to rebuild our lives, to be parents, to be strong for our children, to be part of society and help children. These continued legal appeals by defence lawyers and the justice system inhibit our family to rebuild our lives to move forward both personally and professionally.”
The lawyer representing Derek Saretzky, who in August was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 75 years in the 2015 killings of two-year-old Hailey Dunbar-Blanchette, her father Terry Blanchette, and senior Hanne Meketech in Blairmore, questioned the fairness of locking up a 22-yearold until he’s at least 97.
“One of the grounds of appeal will likely be that the consecutive minimums of 25 years amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and, because of that, that section is unconstitutional,” said Balfour Der.
But the notion of a convicted multiple murder facing cruel and unusual punishment amounts to bitter irony for Bill Blanchette, who lost a son and granddaughter.
“I can’t see anything cruel and unusual that would negate or make up for what his victims went through.”