Warning: This story contains disturbing details B.C.’s highest court has rejected Obnes Regis’ bid to reduce his sentence for the 2021 killing of his wife Naomi Onotera. Regis pleaded guilty to manslaughter and indignity to human remains in 2024. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison, with a little more than 12 to serve after credit for time he had already spent in custody. In a decision issued Monday, a three-judge panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal rejected Regis’ case for a “significantly reduced” overall sentence. ‘Horrific’ crime Writing for the panel, Justice Peter H. Edelmann began his decision with a brief summary of the August 2021 killing and its aftermath. Regis punched Onotera in the head during an argument in the washroom of their Langley home, according to the decision. The blow was dealt with “such force that she fell to the ground, where she lay gasping for breath before dying.” “What followed was a horrific series of events,” the decision reads. “Instead of calling 911 for assistance, the appellant decided to dispose of Ms. Onotera’s body. In the hours following her death, he dismembered her in the shower with kitchen knives and flushed pieces of her flesh away. He then moved her body parts to the kitchen in a bucket and used an electric saw to cut her bones into smaller pieces.” The couple’s daughter, who was almost two years old at the time, was “in the vicinity” during the crime, according to the decision. The day after the killing, Regis travelled with his daughter to Fort Langley, where he dumped the rest of Onotera’s remains along the bank of the Fraser River. After Onotera’s death, Regis lied to investigators and her family about what happened to her for months. He was arrested in December 2021 after confessing the crime to an undercover police officer. Despite his confession, Regis initially pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. It wasn’t until the Crown had finished presenting its case—in a trial that had stretched across eight months up to that point—that he changed his pleas to guilty. After the guilty plea, the parties agreed that Regis should serve five years for the indignity to remains charge, and that this sentence should be served consecutively with the sentence for manslaughter, according to Edelmann’s decision. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Martha M. Devlin, in her sentencing decision, determined that 12 years would be appropriate for the manslaughter conviction. She reduced that part of the sentence to 11 years based on the “totality principle,” which requires judges to consider whether the cumulative length of sentences to be served consecutively is proportional to the offender’s overall culpability for the crimes. Grounds for appeal Regis advanced three arguments for why his sentence should be reduced on appeal, according to Edelmann’s decision. He argued that Devlin had characterized the manslaughter as “near murder” based on “conduct extraneous to the unlawful act;” he argued that the trial judge had engaged in “double counting” of his deception as an aggravating factor in the manslaughter sentence; and he argued that Devlin had mishandled her consideration of the “collateral consequences” of his offence. Edelmann’s decision devotes just a few paragraphs to rejecting each argument. On the allegation that Devlin mischaracterized the manslaughter as “near murder,” Edelmann found Regis’ argument focused “too heavily” on the act that led to Onotera’s death, seeking to divorce it from surrounding context. “The appellant does not seriously contest any of the factors relied on by the sentencing judge,” the decision reads. “His primary argument is that the act (the single blow) itself should have been the exclusive focus of her analysis. The judge found the circumstances of this crime bore the ‘badges of violence towards an intimate partner.’ It was open to the sentencing judge to consider the surrounding circumstances, including the appellant’s conduct as he calmly watched the victim die in close proximity to her daughter and deliberately choosing not to call 911 as she gasped for breath.” Likewise, on the question of “double counting,” the appeal judge disagreed with Regis’ argument that his deception after the killing could only be considered an aggravating factor for the indignity charge, and not the manslaughter. “One could easily envisage circumstances where a death would be concealed and followed by a months-long deception of the family without the types of indignities inflicted on the body of the victim in this case,” the decision reads. “I am therefore not persuaded that the sentencing judge erred in taking into consideration post-offence conduct other than the dismemberment and manner of disposal of the body on the manslaughter count.” Edelmann added that, in his view, the more appropriate ground for appeal regarding the judge’s consideration of his post-killing conduct would be the totality principle, which Devlin applied. “The appellant has not established any basis upon which this court would interfere with her assessment that the global sentence was proportionate in the overall circumstances,” the decision reads. Finally, Regis argued that the collateral consequences of his offence—specifically its consequences for his immigration status, the destruction of his relationship with his daughter, and the stigma he will face after his conviction—ought to have led to a shorter overall sentence. Originally from Haiti, Regis arrived in Canada on a student visa in 2003. That visa has since expired, and he has been the subject of a removal order since his application for permanent residency on humanitarian grounds was denied in 2015. He has been able to remain in Canada since then because of an “administrative deferral of removals” put in place by the federal government after the 2016 earthquake in Haiti. It is not clear if he and Onotera sought a change in his immigration status after they were married and prior to her death. Edelmann found that the listed collateral consequences had been dealt with appropriately, dwelling in particular on the suggestion that Devlin had misinterpreted the question of stigma. “The appellant submits that the sentencing judge erred by considering the stigma his daughter will carry instead of focusing on the stigma that will follow him,” the decision reads. “In my view, the sentencing judge was well aware of the stigma the appellant would carry following the conviction and was entitled to give this factor less weight. As noted by the Crown, where a consequence is so directly linked to the nature of an offence as to be almost inevitable, its role as a mitigating factor is greatly diminished … The sentencing judge concluded that the impact of the offence on the appellant’s daughter was a more significant factor in sentencing than the impact on him. In my view, it was well within her discretion to assess the weight to be given to the impact of stigma on both the appellant and his daughter. I fail to see any basis upon which this court would intervene in her assessment.” The appeal court panel unanimously dismissed Regis’ appeal. With files from CTV News Vancouver’s Ben Miljure and Yasmin Gandham
