TORONTO – A former Montreal professor who gunned down four academics at his university 24 years ago has lost his bid for temporary prison absences.
A Federal Court judge said there was no reason to overturn a decision by the Parole Board of Canada that Valery Fabrikant still poses a risk.
“The board and appeal division made findings of fact which were supported by the evidence on the record,” Judge Daniele Tremblay-Lamer said in her ruling.
“The decisions fall within the range of possible, acceptable and defensible outcomes.”
Fabrikant, 76, who is serving a life sentence for murder in Quebec’s Archambault Institution, sought judicial review of the decision nixing his 2014 request for either an unescorted temporary absence or an escorted temporary absence to visit his family.
Get daily National news
In rejecting the request, the parole board said he represented an “undue risk to society.”
Even though he has had escorted absences for medical reasons, the board noted he remains classified as a medium-security inmate, he appears to be at risk of re-offending, and has not addressed the factors that drove him to crime for which he is in prison.
Fabrikant was an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Concordia University known for disruptive behaviour against students, staff members and other academics. He was facing dismissal when, in August 1992, he went into the engineering department with guns and ammunition in his briefcase and opened fire.
He killed four academics and wounded a secretary.
-
![]()
Kelowna paramedics call for greater safety measures at downtown ambulance station -
![]()
Toronto man receives life sentence for girlfriend’s murder -
![]()
Moncton police officers murdered in line of duty remembered 50 years later -
![]()
Toronto man who killed girlfriend gets life in prison, no chance of parole for 25 years
In 2000, Federal Court declared him a vexatious litigant after he initiated a myriad of legal actions from behind bars. As a result, the court had to grant him permission to try to overturn the parole board’s decision.
At its heart, the issue was whether the decisions against his temporary absences were reasonable.
“The applicant has not identified errors of fact so much as statements by the board that he disagrees with,” Tremblay-Lamer wrote.
“For the most part, (he) is claiming he is not a risk to his family and that this should be obvious given his age and the fact he has had several uneventful escorted temporary absences in the past.”
A few years ago, Fabrikant succeeded in one court battle: He won his bid for a second winter parka after the Federal Court of Appeal decided there was no good reason for prison authorities to deny him one. He was also awarded $50 in litigation costs.
Comments