Chan’s manslaughter conviction appeal heard
Unknown when Ontario Court of Appeal will make a decision
Thomas Chan remains out on bail while the Ontario Court of Appeal decides an outcome on his manslaughter and aggravated assault convictions’ appeal. In March, Chan was sentenced to five years in prison for the vicious stabbing death of his father, Dr. Andrew Chan, and the aggravated assault of Lynn Witteveen.
However, Chan’s legal team of Dave McFadden and Joleen Hiland appealed his conviction.
Chan’s appeal was handed over to the Toronto firm of Henein Hutchison’s LLP. Chan appeared in court on Oct. 8 and 9, where lawyers Danielle Robitaille and Matthew Gourlay argued Chan’s appeal in front of an Ontario Court of Appeal panel.
It is unknown when the Ontario Court of Appeal will render its decision.
On Dec. 28, 2015, Peterborough police found Andrew Chan dead at his Haggis Drive home. Witteveen, his partner, received life-threatening injures.
His son was arrested on scene and charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.
In September 2018, Chan went on trial for second-degree murder and attempted murder.
However Justice Cary Boswell found that Chan was guilty of manslaughter and aggravated assault in December after the court heard how Chan had consumed magic mushrooms, before experiencing hallucinations and stabbing the couple because he thought they were the devil.
In his finding of manslaughter and aggravated assault, Boswell said it was apparent to him that Chan was experiencing an acute break in reality at the time of the offences.
Boswell was left to decide whether or not Chan was suffering from a mental disease at the time of the crimes. Chan’s defence argued their client wasn’t criminally responsible due to a disease of the mind caused by the combination of a traumatic brain injury and magic mushrooms.
The prosecution team of Crown attorney Frank Schwalm, assistant Crown attorney Andrew Midwood and Peterborough police Det.
Const. Jo-Anne Elliott believed it was solely the magic mushrooms responsible for Chan’s actions.
A notice of appeal, filed by Chan’s lawyer on Feb. 22, argued Boswell erred in concluding that he was not bound by other decisions of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario — on the question of the constitutionality of Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code.
McFadden argued the law is unconstitutional and previously challenged that section, both prior to the trial and in a failed appeal afterwards.
The section made it so the defence of self-induced, extreme intoxication was unavailable during his trial.
In new case law made after the initial decision by a Toronto judge, that section was ruled to be unconstitutional, prompting McFadden to request reopening the application.