Ex-lovers get life sentences
Judge also releases ruling with stinging criticism of pair and their former defence lawyer
Along with sentencing two ex-lovers to life in prison for a seven-year-old murder Thursday, a Toronto judge has blasted the pair — and their previous lawyer — for using tactics to avoid going to trial.
On Sunday, after hearing six months of evidence, a jury convicted Michael Ivezic, 57, and Demitry Papasotiriou-Lanteigne, 38, of first-degree murder for the March 2, 2011, killing of Allan Lanteigne, who was the latter’s spouse.
They returned to court Thursday, where Superior Court Justice Robert Goldstein sentenced them to automatic life sentences with no parole eligibility for 25 years.
Papasotiriou-Lanteigne, who was in Greece at the time of the murder, sent his husband an email luring the 49-yearold University of Toronto accounting clerk to his Ossington Ave. home, where Ivezic was waiting to bludgeon him to death with an unknown weapon. The pair were after a $2-million life insurance policy.
“This was not a spontaneous response to a lover’s quarrel, or a couple of drug dealers fighting over turf. This was a cowardly murder, by two-cold-blooded killers of a gentle and decent man,” Goldstein said in court, where Lanteigne’s family members sat alongside jurors who attended the proceeding.
“Mr. Lanteigne’s only crime was to have a large insurance policy in his name. Mr. Ivezic and Mr. Papasotiriou killed him for the most mundane of reasons — money.”
Last October, before the jury portion of the trial began, Goldstein was asked by the defence to stay the murder charges because it had taken more than 30 months to get to trial, exceeding the Supreme Court of Canada’s time limit.
Defence lawyers Mary Margaret Osadet and Susan Jane Von Achten, who were not the trial lawyers, argued the delay was solely the fault of the Crown. But prosecutors Pam Santora, Hank Goody and Anna Tenhouse argued the defence had taken steps to “thwart the advancement of the matter.”
In a 29-page written decision released last week, Goldstein agreed the case had gone on “much too long” and exceeded the Supreme Court’s 30-month ceiling. But he refused to stay the charges, finding fault for the delay lay not with the Crown but with the accused men, enabled by Von Achten.
Von Achten and Ivezic brought “needless and frivolous applications and allegations” to prove their unsubstantiated theory that officials with the Centre of Forensic Sciences, Toronto Police and prosecutors conspired to frame him and suppress exculpatory evidence, Goldstein wrote.
“Both Mr. Ivezic and Ms. Von Achten simply refused to accept any amount of disclosure or any explanation of documents they disputed.
Moreover, they pursued these issues even in the face of judicial rulings to the contrary. (Papasotiriou-Lanteigne) supported these allegations and swore affidavits in support.” Papasotiriou-Lanteigne is a lawyer.
Goldstein reviewed transcripts of various proceedings held before he was assigned to the case and “there is no exaggeration to say that much of the time that was spent in court on disclosure issues was wasted,” he wrote.
“This needless and repetitive litigation added enormously to the amount of time, effort, and money spent on this matter.”
But while it might be “forgiveable” that Ivezic sought to pursue his theory, it is “unforgiveable … that Ms. Von Achten, an experienced criminal defence lawyer, pursued this chimera. She either knew better or should have known better” than to make “unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct against Crown counsel and others.”
He cited an example. In 2016, Von Achten caused subpoenas to be issued to 12 third parties. “Most of these subpoenas dealt with material that had already been disclosed.”
Goldstein noted that while Osadet’s name appeared on the delay application, his judgment should not be taken as any criticism of her or any other defence counsel representing the two men.