Lawyer seeks leniency for man convicted of murder in Duke of York shooting

Published Monday, Feb. 07, 2011 12:32PM ESTLast updated Monday, Feb. 07, 2011 12:39PM EST0 comments

Kyle Weese’s defence lawyer argued Monday that his “turbulent and tragic upbringing,” which included a suicidal father and drug-abusing mother, should be a mitigating factor in his sentencing.

Mr. Weese, 27, faces a life sentence after being convicted of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Bailey Zaveda in 2008. He was also convicted on charges of aggravated assault; four other people were wounded in the October shooting outside Toronto’s Duke of York pub.

Mr. Weese could be eligible for parole anywhere between 10 and 25 years into his sentence; his lawyer argued Monday that imposing a stricter parole on him would be more fitting of a first-degree murder conviction.

“The sentence should reflect what they're being convicted of,” she said. “ The maximum sentence is reserved for cases involving the worst offence and the worst offender. ... A second-degree murder should not be sentenced as a first-degree murder.”

“Yes, it should,” murmured a couple of people sitting near the back of the courtroom, who had come in support of Ms. Zaveda’s family.

Mr. Weese sat in the prisoner’s box wearing a black suit jacket and white collared shirt, head closely shaved and a neat, narrow beard running along his chin and over his upper lip. He shifted his gaze from the judge and lawyers to those watching the trial, at one point winking and nodding at someone in the audience.

Madam Justice Mary Lou Benotto will deliver her sentencing decision March 28. One of the women who came to support Ms. Zaveda’s family swore under her breath when the judge said her verdict would have to come another day.

Helen Deir, Ms. Zaveda’s mother, said she was disappointed to have to wait almost two months more before getting a decision.

“We were hoping for everything [today],” she said. “Now we wait until almost the end of March? From October ’08?” she said after the hearing.

“It’s silliness,” she said of the defence’s arguments. “He had a bad home, his mother was bad, so he had to follow? ... He still made his own choices.”

But prosecutor Ann Morgan said she wasn’t surprised by the extra wait.

“It’s obviously a very serious case. I’m asking for the maximum parole eligibility and Her Honour’s going to have to give a lot of consideration. It’s a very serious case. So I don’t have a problem.”

View the original article here

McCallion undermined public confidence, Mississauga’s lawyer says

Published Friday, Jan. 28, 2011 9:50PM ESTLast updated Friday, Jan. 28, 2011 9:53PM EST1 comment

The province must beef up conflict-of-interest legislation governing municipal politicians and make it easier for average citizens to make complaints, says a lawyer representing the City of Mississauga at a judicial inquiry into a failed land deal in the suburban city.

The recommendations are contained in a final submission that also sharply rebukes Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, accusing her of “misconduct” and “undermining” public confidence in the city by pushing the land deal when she knew her son stood to make money from it.

Six of the key players filed written submissions this week ahead of closing arguments to be heard on Monday.

Throughout the inquiry and in her closing submission, Ms. McCallion argued that she pushed the deal to build a convention centre and hotel near Mississauga city hall solely because it was a good project for the city and not because her son was involved with World Class Developments, the company putting it together. She maintains that she behaved appropriately because she declared a conflict of interest when the matter came before city council, as required by the province's Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

A legal team hired by the city and lead by veteran Bay Street barrister Clifford Lax argued in its submission that the act should be broadened to cover politicians' actions outside of council. Mr. Lax also suggests that city integrity commissioners or a provincial official should be given the power to initiate court proceedings against officials who may have breached the act. At the moment, citizens must hire their own lawyers and initiate proceedings themselves.

Mr. Lax also accused Mr. McCallion and his business partners of “using” the mayor to further their business interests. He criticized Ms. McCallion for encouraging the owners of the land to sell to World Class, attending meetings with the firm's principals and tasking a confidant with trying to sort out a lawsuit involving the company.

“For the mayor to be seen promoting a deal in which her son has a direct financial interest may lead the public to question whether she is acting for the good of the city, or solely for the good of her family,” Mr. Lax's team wrote.

In other submissions, the Alberta Investment Management Corporation was highly critical of OMERS, the giant pension fund with which it co-owned the land at the centre of the deal. Don Jack, the lawyer for Edmonton-based AIMCo. and its subsidiaries, wrote that OMERS did not consult his clients before agreeing to pay World Class $4-million to drop a lawsuit and its claim to the land. AIMCo. questioned the wisdom of the payout, arguing that it believed it had a strong case if the matter had gone to court.

(OMERS, for its part, maintains in submissions that it “acted fairly at all times with the city and treated the city fairly, notwithstanding that it was not obligated to do anything other than act in its own self-interest as a matter of law.”)

In other submissions, Ms. McCallion's lawyers argued that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act should be changed so that it does not apply to politicians' adult, non-dependent children, but advocated enshrining Mississauga's council code of conduct in law and creating an online database of declared conflicts of interest.

View the original article here