Toronto Murder & Homicide Lawyers

Home › Criminal Defence › Toronto Homicide Lawyers

A murder charge is the most serious allegation that exists in Canadian criminal law. A conviction carries a mandatory life sentence, the only question left for the judge is how many years pass before you may even apply for parole. If the Toronto Police Homicide and Missing Persons Unit is investigating you, or someone you love has just been arrested, the decisions made in the next few days, the interview you give or refuse, the bail record you build, the counsel you retain, will shape the next several decades. Kazandji Law defends murder, manslaughter and attempted murder cases across Toronto and the GTA. Call 647-588-3234, 24 hours a day.

By Fadi Matthew Kazandji, Founding Partner, Kazandji Law. Toronto criminal defence. Updated July 2026.

What a Murder Charge Actually Alleges in Canadian Law

Every homicide file starts from the same statutory floor. Section 222(1) of the Criminal Code says a person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, they cause the death of a human being. Homicide by itself is not a crime, the Code divides it into culpable and non-culpable homicide, and s. 222(3) says plainly that homicide that is not culpable "is not an offence." A death caused in lawful self-defence, or a true accident without criminal fault, is non-culpable. Culpable homicide, under s. 222(4), takes exactly three forms: murder, manslaughter or infanticide.

What turns a culpable homicide into murder is the mental element in s. 229, and this single section is where most Toronto murder trials are actually won or lost. Culpable homicide is murder where the person who causes the death:

• Means to cause death, the classic intent to kill (s. 229(a)(i)); or
• Means to cause bodily harm that they know is likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not (s. 229(a)(ii)); or
• Intends to kill one person but kills another by accident or mistake, the law transfers the intent to the actual victim (s. 229(b)); or
• Does something for an unlawful object that they know is likely to cause death, even though they hoped to achieve the object without killing anyone (s. 229(c)).

Two features of this framework matter enormously for the defence. First, every route in s. 229 demands a subjective state of mind, what this accused actually intended or actually knew, not what a reasonable person would have foreseen. That is the constitutional dividing line between murder and manslaughter, and it is why evidence of intoxication, panic, chaos or genuine misjudgment can be the difference between a life sentence and a determinate one. Second, the Crown must also prove causation, but the Code casts that net widely. Under ss. 224 to 226, you are still taken to have caused a death even if it might have been prevented by proper medical treatment, even if the immediate cause of death was treatment of the injury applied in good faith, and even if your act merely accelerated a death from an existing disease. Causation fights are real, but they are narrower than most clients expect; the intent fight under s. 229 is usually the main event.

The Crown must prove every element, identity, causation and the s. 229 intent, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury in almost every case. Anything less than proof of the murderous intent leaves, at most, manslaughter.

First-Degree vs Second-Degree Murder. Every Route in s. 231

All murder is punished by life imprisonment, so the classification battle in s. 231 is really a battle about parole eligibility, 25 years for first degree versus a range of 10 to 25 years for second degree. Section 231(2) makes murder first degree when it is planned and deliberate: "planned" meaning a calculated scheme, however simple, and "deliberate" meaning considered, not impulsive. But planning is only one route. The section deems a series of other murders first degree even without any planning at all, and Toronto Crown attorneys use these constructive routes regularly:

Route to first-degree murder	Criminal Code provision	Planning required?
Planned and deliberate murder	s. 231(2)	Yes, the core route
Contract killing, money or anything of value passes or is promised	s. 231(3)	Deemed planned and deliberate
Victim is a police officer, constable, sheriff or other peace-preservation officer acting in the course of duties	s. 231(4)(a)	No
Victim is a prison warden, guard or employee acting in the course of duties	s. 231(4)(b)-(c)	No
Death caused while committing or attempting hijacking (s. 76), sexual assault (s. 271), sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm (s. 272), aggravated sexual assault (s. 273), kidnapping or forcible confinement (s. 279), or hostage taking (s. 279.1)	s. 231(5)	No
Death caused while committing criminal harassment, intending the victim to fear for their safety	s. 231(6)	No
Murder that is also terrorist activity	s. 231(6.01)	No
Murder for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization	s. 231(6.1)	No
Death caused while intimidating a justice system participant or journalist (s. 423.1)	s. 231(6.2)	No
Every murder that fits none of the above	s. 231(7), second degree	n/a

The constructive categories in s. 231(5) matter in practice because they convert what a jury might otherwise see as an unplanned, chaotic killing into first-degree murder simply because of the offence it accompanied. A death caused during a forcible confinement or sexual assault is first degree even if the killing itself took seconds and was never contemplated in advance. Defence strategy in these files often has two layers: contest the murder intent itself under s. 229, and independently contest the underlying offence or the required connection between that offence and the death. Knocking out either layer can move the case from a 25-year parole floor to second degree, or out of murder entirely.

Second-degree murder, the residual category in s. 231(7), still carries mandatory life. But the parole-ineligibility hearing that follows a second-degree verdict is a genuine contest, and the trial record your lawyer builds, about role, motive, provocation short of the defence, remorse and prospects, directly drives how close to the 10-year floor the number lands.

The Sentence Math: Mandatory Life, Parole Ineligibility, and What Bissonnette Changed

Section 235 leaves no sentencing discretion for the conviction itself: everyone convicted of first-degree or second-degree murder "shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life," and s. 235(2) confirms that life is a minimum punishment, not a maximum. A life sentence in Canada never expires. If parole is eventually granted, it is conditional release under supervision, the sentence itself continues for the rest of the person's life, and parole can be suspended or revoked.

What the courtroom fight actually determines is the parole-ineligibility period under s. 745:

• First-degree murder: no parole eligibility for 25 years (s. 745(a)).
• Second-degree murder with a previous murder conviction: 25 years (s. 745(b)).
• Second-degree murder: at least 10 years, and the trial judge may raise it as high as 25 under s. 745.4 after hearing counsel, and, in a jury trial, any recommendation the jury chooses to make (s. 745(c)).

For multiple murders, Parliament enacted s. 745.51 in 2011 to let judges stack parole-ineligibility periods consecutively, 50, 75, even 150 years. In R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23, a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada struck that provision down: stacked ineligibility periods are cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter, and the provision was declared of no force or effect retroactively to its enactment. Be careful with what you read online: the text of s. 745.51 still appears in the printed Criminal Code because Parliament has not repealed it, but it is constitutionally dead. The practical ceiling on parole ineligibility, even for multiple first-degree murders, is 25 years.

How Defence Counsel Attacks the Murder Intent

Because s. 229 demands subjective foresight of death, the murder count is only as strong as the Crown's proof of what was actually in the accused's mind, usually reconstructed from video, messages, witnesses, pathology and the sequence of events. Toronto homicide prosecutions are circumstantial reconstructions far more often than confessions, and each inference in that chain can be tested.

The intent-to-kill inference. The Crown will argue that the nature of the act, a weapon, the number of blows, the target area, proves an intent to kill or an intent to cause bodily harm known to be likely fatal. The defence answer is rarely a bare denial; it is a competing account of a fast, unplanned, chaotic event in which nobody was turning their mind to consequences. If the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the s. 229(a) intent, the verdict is manslaughter, not murder, a difference measured in decades.

Intoxication. Alcohol and drug consumption is a live issue in a large share of homicide files. Intoxication short of automatism can leave a jury in reasonable doubt about whether the accused actually foresaw that death was likely, reducing murder to manslaughter. The extreme end is governed by s. 33.1, re-enacted in 2022 (S.C. 2022, c. 11) after the Supreme Court struck the old version in R. v. Brown, 2022 SCC 18: self-induced extreme intoxication is no answer to a violent offence where consuming the intoxicants was a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable person, judged in part by the foreseeability of the risk. This is technical, fast-moving law, precisely the kind of issue that must be litigated by counsel who follow it closely.

Mental disorder. Under s. 16, a person is not criminally responsible if a mental disorder rendered them incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or of knowing that it was wrong. The presumption of sanity is displaced on a balance of probabilities by the party raising the issue. An NCR verdict is not an acquittal in the ordinary sense, it leads into the Review Board system, but in a proper case it is the truthful and just outcome, and short of NCR, psychiatric evidence can still bear on whether the specific intent for murder was formed.

Provocation. Section 232 is a partial defence that reduces murder to manslaughter, never to an acquittal. Since the 2015 amendment it is dramatically narrower than the public believes: the provoking conduct of the victim must itself amount to an indictable offence punishable by five or more years of imprisonment, must be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of self-control, and must have been acted on suddenly, before passion cooled. Words alone, insults, taunts, confessions of infidelity, no longer qualify. Where it runs, provocation is dealt with in depth on our Toronto manslaughter page.

Self-Defence in Homicide Cases. Section 34 in Depth

Unlike provocation, self-defence is a complete defence: if it succeeds, the verdict is not guilty, of murder and of manslaughter. Section 34 asks three questions. Did the accused reasonably believe that force, or a threat of force, was being used against them or against another person? Was the act done for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or that other person? And was the act reasonable in the circumstances? Once the defence has an air of reality on the evidence, the Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The third question, reasonableness, is where homicide self-defence cases are decided, and s. 34(2) directs the court to weigh a non-exhaustive list of factors:

• the nature of the force or threat faced;
• how imminent it was, and whether other means of response were available;
• the person's own role in the incident;
• whether any party used or threatened to use a weapon;
• the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the people involved;
• the nature, duration and history of the relationship, including any prior use or threat of force;
• the history of interaction or communication between the parties;
• the nature and proportionality of the response to the force or threat; and
• whether the act was in response to force the person knew was lawful.

In a fatal-force case those factors cut in both directions at once. A home invasion at 3 a.m., a robbery that escalates, an abusive relationship with a documented history, each maps onto specific s. 34(2) factors, and the defence is built by proving those facts, not by asserting fear. Pathology, scene evidence, 911 audio, prior police contacts and the relationship record all become defence evidence. Where the deceased was the aggressor, that history is admissible and often decisive. Kazandji Law builds s. 34 cases from the ground up, because a jury instruction on self-defence is only as strong as the evidentiary record underneath it.

How a Murder Case Moves Through Toronto's Courts

Toronto's criminal court map changed completely in 2023, and much of what is written online is out of date. The Ontario Court of Justice consolidated six criminal courthouses, including Old City Hall and College Park, which no longer hear criminal cases, into the new courthouse at 10 Armoury Street, downtown. Adult bail for the Toronto region runs out of the Toronto Regional Bail Centre at 2201 Finch Avenue West, including weekend and holiday bail courts. Superior Court criminal work is heard at 361 University Avenue. A Toronto murder prosecution touches all three in a defined sequence:

• Arrest and first appearance. After a Homicide and Missing Persons Unit arrest, the accused is brought before the Ontario Court of Justice, and the OCJ side of the file, first appearance, disclosure, case management, any preliminary inquiry, runs at 10 Armoury Street.
• Bail only in the Superior Court. Murder is listed in s. 469 of the Criminal Code, which strips justices of the peace and OCJ judges of bail jurisdiction. Under s. 522, only a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, in Toronto, at 361 University Avenue, can release an accused charged with murder, and the onus is reversed: s. 522(2) requires the accused to show cause why detention is not justified under s. 515(10). A s. 522 decision is not appealable in the ordinary way; review lies only to the Court of Appeal under s. 680. Preparing a murder bail application is therefore a one-shot, evidence-heavy project, a release plan, sureties, proposed conditions and often defence evidence assembled weeks before the hearing date.
• Preliminary inquiry, on request. Since the 2019 amendments, preliminary inquiries exist only for offences carrying 14 years or more (s. 535). Murder qualifies, so the defence can request one under s. 536(4). Used well, a prelim tests the Crown's central witnesses under oath before trial and locks in a transcript, often the most valuable discovery tool in the whole prosecution.
• Trial by jury in the Superior Court. Jury trial is compulsory for murder under s. 471 unless both the accused and the Attorney General consent to a judge sitting alone (s. 473(1)). Toronto murder trials are heard at 361 University Avenue, where the Criminal Trial Office schedules trials, judicial pre-trials, 90-day detention reviews and assignment court.
• The clock is running. Under R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, net delay above 30 months from charge to the actual or anticipated end of a Superior Court trial is presumptively unreasonable, after deducting delay caused by the defence. Homicide files are document- and forensics-heavy, and the s. 11(b) ledger has to be managed deliberately from the first appearance onward.

Both prosecuting offices sit inside 10 Armoury Street, the provincial Crown Attorney's office and the federal PPSC, and case-management courtrooms there map directly onto the old courthouses they replaced. Counsel who appear in these buildings weekly know the practical rhythms: which courtrooms move, how the Trial Office schedules long matters, what a realistic prelim date looks like. That local knowledge is not decoration; it is how Jordan timelines, bail timing and trial strategy actually get managed. Our Toronto bail lawyers page covers the 2201 Finch bail process for offences that are not s. 469.

The Investigation Before the Charge. TPS Homicide and Missing Persons Unit

Toronto homicides are investigated by the Toronto Police Service Homicide and Missing Persons Unit, based at 40 College Street (416-808-7400). The unit runs numbered case files by year, publishes current investigations and cold cases, and works long timelines: surveillance canvasses, cell-tower and device warrants, forensic pathology, witness interviews and, increasingly, months of digital-evidence assembly before an arrest is ever made.

If detectives ask you to "come in and clear something up," treat that invitation as what it is: an evidence-gathering step in a homicide investigation. In Canada you have a constitutional right to counsel on arrest or detention, and nothing prevents you from getting legal advice before any voluntary interview. Politely decline to be interviewed until you have spoken to a lawyer. People talk themselves into murder charges trying to be helpful; they almost never talk themselves out of one. The same discipline applies to consent searches of phones, homes and vehicles, and to conversations with anyone but your lawyer, calls from custody are recorded, and jailhouse conversations find their way into Crown briefs.

Retaining counsel during the investigative stage changes outcomes: it manages any police contact, protects against ill-advised statements, begins preserving defence evidence (video that gets overwritten, witnesses who move), and, if a charge comes, means the bail application under s. 522 starts from a running start rather than a standing one.

Related Charges: Attempted Murder, Accessory, Conspiracy, Infanticide

Homicide files rarely travel alone, and several nearby charges carry their own distinct rules:

• Attempted murder (s. 239) carries up to life imprisonment, with mandatory minimums where a firearm is used, five years (seven on a repeat) where the firearm is restricted or prohibited or the offence is tied to a criminal organization, and four years for any other firearm. Attempted murder is not a s. 469 offence, so bail is heard in the OCJ, in Toronto, at the Regional Bail Centre, 2201 Finch Avenue West. See our Toronto attempted murder page.
• Accessory after the fact to murder (s. 240), helping someone who has committed murder to escape, itself carries up to life imprisonment and is listed in s. 469, so bail goes before a Superior Court judge just as murder does.
• Conspiracy to commit murder is likewise a s. 469 offence: an agreement to kill, even one never carried out, is prosecuted in the Superior Court with SCJ-only bail.
• Infanticide (ss. 233, 237) is a distinct, rarely charged form of culpable homicide with its own restrictive elements and a five-year indictable maximum, radically different exposure from murder, which is why classification arguments matter so much in these tragic files.
• Manslaughter, the residual culpable homicide, is where a murder count lands when the s. 229 intent fails. It has no mandatory minimum absent a firearm, which is why the murder-versus-manslaughter line is usually the single most valuable issue in the case. Full treatment on our Toronto manslaughter page, with the province-wide law on our Ontario homicide lawyers page.

Why Kazandji Law for a Toronto Homicide File

Homicide defence is not a volume practice. It is disclosure measured in terabytes, expert evidence in pathology and toxicology, one-shot bail applications before Superior Court judges, and juries who must be persuaded about a state of mind. Kazandji Law brings senior trial counsel to every stage: pre-charge advice while the Homicide and Missing Persons Unit is still investigating, s. 522 bail applications at 361 University Avenue, preliminary inquiries and Charter litigation at 10 Armoury Street, and jury trials in the Superior Court of Justice. We defend across the GTA from four offices. Toronto, Thornhill, North York and Oakville, and we answer at 647-588-3234 around the clock, because homicide arrests do not happen during business hours. The first consultation is free and privileged. Also see our Toronto assault page and the full criminal defence practice overview.

Homicide Charge FAQ. Toronto

This page is legal information about Canadian homicide law as it applies in Toronto, Ontario, it is not legal advice about your case. Statutory references are to the Criminal Code of Canada as consolidated on the Justice Laws website, and court and police details are drawn from the Ontario Courts and Toronto Police Service websites, current to July 2026. Every homicide case turns on its own facts; speak with a lawyer before acting on anything here. Kazandji Law, 180 John St, Unit 320, Toronto, 647-588-3234.