Judge Anne Molloy, whose voice was repeatedly broken as victims’ statements of impact were delivered to the court, explained that the period of ineligibility for the mass murderer had to be reduced to 25 years due to a recent Supreme Court ruling.
	But this did not mean that strong and emotional statements were in vain, he assured the victims and the families who wanted more. 
	“I have to address the elephant in the room … The fact that I can not, and do not impose, more than 25 years of suspension does not mean that everything you said was not important,” he said Monday. 
	“It was very important. I heard and read every word.”
	Molloy’s explanation was one of the most recent examples in which the judge, who has been overseeing the case since the preliminary rulings began, emphasized securing victims’ support through legal proceedings.
	“The sentence I impose today for these murders is life imprisonment, which means exactly that, a sentence for the rest of this man’s physical life. It is not 25 years in prison,” he told those gathered in court. 
	“The only thing that happens on the 25th anniversary of these murders is that the perpetrator can ask the prison council to consider releasing him on parole. That does not mean he will be released on parole. “
	Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that 2011’s unconstitutional law allowed judges discretion to stack periods of incapacity for Canada’s worst offenders: multiple murderers.  
	The prosecution in the case against Alec Minassian, who killed 11 people and injured 15 others in his rage, wanted to accumulate periods of inability to release from prison.  But Molloy waited more than a year after finding the killer guilty to proceed with the conviction because she wanted to hear the Supreme Court ruling. 
	On Monday, he urged the survivors and families of the victims to read the full ruling of the Supreme Court.  
	“This is the unanimous decision of the highest court in our country,” he said.  “And his reasoning is impeccable.”
	Earlier in the day, Molloy personally responded to more than 20 people who spoke or asked to read their victims’ statements in court.
	“I admire your courage, I’m very sorry that this happened to you,” said Janet Jiang, a passerby who tried to save a victim and blamed herself for not doing so for the past four years.
	He listened intently to Robert Forsyth, who described the hole in his family after the death of his 94-year-old aunt, Betty Forsyth, in the attack.
	“Thank you for being here,” Molloy said, her voice pulling.  “I know it was 94, but it does not matter, it does.”
	After Rocco D’Amico spoke in tears about his daughter, Anne Marie D’Amico, who died at the age of 30, Molloy thanked him for keeping her memory alive.
	“He is vital and he is still with us in many ways because of you,” Molloy said.
	Throughout the day, prosecutors filed a plan of the nine-year-old boy who lost his mother in the tragedy.  The sketch shows a bright yellow sun shining on the boy and his mom. 
	“It’s wonderful,” Molloy whispered before wiping away a few tears.
	Another victim, Amaresh Tesfamariam, died more than three years later from her injuries in the attack.  The 65-year-old never left the hospital as he was paralyzed from the throat down and needed a respirator to breathe.  But he died nine months after the judge’s verdict on the charge of attempted murder.  Molloy was sentenced to life in prison on Monday for plotting to assassinate Tesfamariam.
	Outside the courtroom, Tesfamariam’s niece pondered the judge’s decision.
	“What she said in her sentence is what we needed to hear in order to be able to begin healing and find a way forward,” said Luwam Ogbaselassie.
	Several others thanked Molloy for their prepared remarks. 
	Molloy’s approach was “refreshing,” said Allan Hutchinson, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School.
	“Many people criticize the judges for being cold, distant,” he said on Tuesday. 
	“He is a judge trying to show a more empathetic aspect or dimension to the judiciary and I would say that was good, especially in this kind of horrible situation.”
	The first-degree murder cases, according to the law, are supposed to be before jurors, but the prosecution and the defense sought the consent of the attorney general to bring them before a judge on their own.  The pandemic then struck, delaying the trial for months.
	When the trial finally began in November 2020, it was the first high-profile case in the province to take place via video conference.
	Molloy, who chairs from her basement, allowed the lawyers involved to remove their mandatory court gowns – she did the same.
	“It may not look like a real courtroom, it may sometimes not feel like a real courtroom, it may seem more relaxed, but I can assure you that the rules of evidence, the rules of law, are not loose,” he said.  day of the trial.
	She also warned that her cat might appear on the screen and smiled when other pets appeared unannounced on the screens of others during the test.
	In March 2021, Molloy put on her robes and issued her verdict – a verdict in which she refused to name the killer, noting that the insult was one of his motives.
	“If such a case arises in the future, it is my fervent desire, from the outset, to carefully consider the concealment of the publication of the perpetrator’s name,” he said.
	On Monday, he thanked the survivors and relatives of the victims.
	“You have reached my heart and touched me in a very deep way,” she said, her voice cracking once more.
	This Canadian Press report was first published on June 14, 2022.