ºÃÉ«tv

Her three co-accused were convicted on the same charges.

In its ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court said there should be new first-degree murder trials for all four, but affirmed the convictions for attempted murder.

On Nov. 8, 2010, three armed intruders entered the Pan family home in Markham, Ont., took the parents into the basement and shot both of them in the head and shoulders. Jennifer Pan, though not harmed, was tied to an upstairs banister with a shoelace.

The Crown's theory at trial was that Jennifer, who had a difficult relationship with her parents, arranged for them to be killed with the help of others.

All four of the accused were convicted in Ontario court of first-degree murder and attempted murder.

Two years ago, Ontario's Court of Appeal ordered new trials on the first-degree murder convictions. 

The Court of Appeal said the trial judge erred by suggesting to the jury only two scenarios for the attack — one in which the plan was to murder both parents, and another in which the plan was to commit a home invasion, in the course of which the parents were shot.

The Appeal Court said the judge should have presented the possible verdicts of second-degree murder and manslaughter to the jury in the death of Pan's mother.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to restore the first-degree murder convictions.

The accused each filed cross-appeals arguing that the trial judge's error in instructing the jury also tainted the attempted murder convictions and calling for new trials on those counts.

Jennifer regarded her parents, and especially her father, as strict and controlling, the Supreme Court said in its ruling.

She lied to them about graduating from high school, attending what is now Toronto Metropolitan University, completing a degree in pharmacy from the University of Toronto, volunteering at The Hospital for Sick Children and working at a pharmacy, the court said.

"She created fake diplomas, transcripts, graduation photos, and pay stubs to maintain the façade," the court said.

The top court found the trial judge erred in concluding there was no air of reality to the theory about a plan to kill only the father.

Writing for the majority on the top court, Chief Justice Richard Wagner said the jury could have had a reasonable doubt that the mother was one of the intended targets of the plan, while accepting the factual inferences required to convict the accused of second-degree murder or manslaughter. 

While there was strong evidence supporting the Crown's theory that both parents were targets, there was no undisputed evidence contradicting the idea that the plan was only to kill the father, Wagner wrote.

As a result, there was an air of reality to the offences of second degree murder and manslaughter and "they should have been left with the jury," he wrote.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument there should be new trials on the attempted murder counts.

This report by ºÃÉ«tvwas first published April 10, 2025.