We Will No Longer Stay Silent: The Graham Family’s Fight for Sammy

On February 2, 2026, I filed a formal complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council regarding the conduct of Justice Alexander Kurke in R v Montana Lewis — the case involving the death of my son, Samuel Lucas Graham Jr., who was stabbed to death on November 12, 2020 in Sault Ste. Marie. When the verdict came back on January 30, 2026 as manslaughter, our family was devastated. That was not justice for Sammy. It should have been murder. Brigette and I are no longer staying silent. Below is our follow-up letter to the CJC, submitted on February 25, 2026 — the same day sentencing proceedings began. This is our truth, in our words, for our son Sammy.

Dear Canadian Judicial Council Registry, Screening Officer, and Reviewing Members,

I am following up urgently on my formal complaint submitted February 2, 2026, concerning the conduct of Justice Alexander Kurke in R v Montana Lewis (verdict January 30, 2026). Your office acknowledged receipt and confirmed the matter would be reviewed under the Review Procedures (2025). CJC File 26-0092

As the father of the victim, my son Samuel Graham Jr. (stabbed to death November 12, 2020), I write today as sentencing proceeds (February 25, 2026). This high-profile case has received extensive media coverage (Sault Star, CTV, Sootoday, USA / Canadian Group such as EVE and all social media plate forms ) and raised serious public concerns about fairness, evidence handling, and systemic issues in homicide prosecutions.

There has been some development on the related appeal track: On February 18, 2026, the Crown Attorney’s office (Sault Ste. Marie) confirmed approval of our request to appeal the manslaughter conviction (seeking restoration to murder), with the file now forwarded to the Director of Crown Law Office – Criminal in Toronto for final decision. This appeal stems directly from the same evidentiary inconsistencies and apparent selective assessment of uncorroborated claims detailed in my original complaint, issues that appear to reflect on judicial objectivity and proper application of the law.

To support your review, I attach “Appeal Information – Error in Law.docx,” containing a 6-point summary of key legal and factual errors in the judgment. These points are drawn straight from the trial record, from a 43-page Verdict document that has been release to us from the court and is now in our possession.  This is along side of the truth we have always know since nov 12-2020 (transcripts, exhibits, eyewitness testimony including Semiah Lewis, police/forensic evidence), Canadian law (e.g., Criminal Code ss. 229(a)(ii), precedents like R. v. W.(D.), R. v. Cooper), and the judge’s own reasons. They highlight conduct concerns such as:

• Downplaying premeditation/threats as “teenage bravado” despite explicit texts and actions.
• Giving partial weight to unsubstantiated intoxication claims with zero corroboration.
• Undervaluing forensic evidence of forceful, lethal stabs indicating recklessness/knowledge of likely death.
• Selectively accepting self-serving “regret/knife drop” claims from discredited testimony while ignoring contradictory eyewitness/police accounts.
• Framing as mere “extreme anger” while minimizing planning elements.
• Allowing partial credibility to a witness with a proven pattern of lying/changing stories.

Under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (SC 2015, c. 13), as the victim’s father, I am entitled to respect, dignity, participation (including having my views considered in justice-related processes), and access to information. After more than five years of profound loss, full trial attendance, cooperation with authorities, and now this ongoing fight for accountability, our family deserves prompt, transparent handling of this complaint—particularly in a case of such gravity where public confidence in the judiciary is at stake.

After more than five years and three months of navigating profound grief and what has felt like repeated betrayals by the very justice system entrusted to stand with victims and their families, we have remained patient, cooperative, and restrained in our advocacy. We attended every court day and trial dates with a room full of family, friends and piers of the Sault ste marie, provided information in good faith, and trusted the process to deliver fair and full accountability for Sammy’s death. Even every step was in favor of the accused every time we remain hopeful. Regrettably, that trust has not been met with the strength and transparency our family, and the public, deserves. We have no longer remain silent. As the victim’s parents, and victims our selvies, we are now committed to openly sharing our experience, highlighting systemic failures where they exist, and advocating vigorously for meaningful change. This includes pursuing every available avenue to ensure judicial conduct is held to the highest standard, public confidence is restored, and no other family endures the same prolonged injustice. We do this not out of anger alone, but out of a deep prolonged grief, determination to protect the people form the system and honour Sammy’s memory by demanding a system that truly stands tall for victims. “Fundamental to our justice system is the principle that we are all equal under the law, as enshrined in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: every individual is entitled to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Regrettably, my son Sammy and our family have not experienced this equality. We have faced what appears to be discriminatory treatment in the handling of this case, which has compounded our grief and undermined our trust in the system. This echoes the longstanding systemic discrimination faced by Indigenous peoples in Canada, rooted in colonialism and resulting in overrepresentation as victims of violence, unequal access to justice, and failures to provide fair outcomes, as documented in major inquiries and reports. No family, Indigenous or otherwise, should endure such disparities. We raise this not to divide, but to urge the Council to examine whether the conduct in this matter aligns with the Charter’s promise of substantive equality for all, including victims and their families.” This equality demands accountability from all parties—victims, families, accused persons, and those entrusted with administering justice. No one is above scrutiny, and every action must be measured against standards of fairness, transparency, and responsibility. We are committed to upholding this principle by holding the system accountable where it has fallen short, ensuring that victims’ voices carry equal weight, and working toward reforms that restore balance and trust for all Canadians.

I respectfully request:

1. An immediate status update on the screening/review process (e.g., has it advanced beyond initial screening? Any anticipated timeline?).
2. Expedited consideration due to today’s sentencing, the Crown appeal progress, severe victim/family impact, and high public interest.
3. If still in screening, prompt referral to a reviewing member.
4. Written confirmation of next steps.

I am available anytime (705-971-8794 or samgraham@shaw.ca) to provide further details, trial excerpts, or clarification.

Thank you for your role in maintaining judicial standards and for giving due weight to victims’ families in matters involving potential misconduct.

Sincerely,
Sam Graham (and Brigette Graham)
Father of Samuel Graham Jr.
Sault Ste. Marie, ON
samgraham@shaw.ca (mailto:samgraham@shaw.ca)
705-971-8794

MY SON WAS MURDER IN THE FIRST-DEGREE PROTECTING HIS PRIDE TO BE HIS TRUE LOVE , HE WAS A BEAUTIFUL LOVING CARING MAN HIS NAME

 “SAMUEL LUCAS GRAHAM JR 19”

From: info <info@cjc-ccm.ca>
Sent: February 3, 2026 3:37 PM
To: samgraham@shaw.ca
Subject: CJC File 26-0092

Good day,

Thank you for writing to the Canadian Judicial Council (Council). We acknowledge receipt of your complaint, the date of filing for any timeline purposes is today’s date.

Please be advised that your correspondence will be reviewed in accordance with the Canadian Judicial Council Procedures for the Review of Complaint or Allegations About Federally Appointed Judges (Review Procedures (2025)). Once the review of your complaint is completed, we will communicate with you in writing.

Information about the Council’s mandate with respect to complaints can be found on the Council’s web site http://www.cjc-ccm.ca.

Regards,

Registry Support Officer/Agent de soutien au greffe

Canadian Judicial Council/ Conseil canadien de la magistrature

From: samgraham@shaw.ca <samgraham@shaw.ca>
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 3:25 AM
To: info <info@cjc-ccm.ca>
Cc: info@endviolenceeverywhere.org; brigettegraham@shaw.ca
Subject: URGENT Formal Complaint Against Justice Alexander Kurke – Conduct in R v Montana Lewis

URGENT: High-Profile Complaint Requiring Expedited Review
This complaint concerns a recent, high-profile homicide verdict (R v Montana Lewis, Sault Ste. Marie, verdict January 30, 2026) that has generated significant public concern, media coverage (Sault Star, CTV), and public statements from victim advocacy organizations such as End Violence Everywhere calling it a systemic failure. Given the ongoing impact on the victim’s family and the upcoming sentencing date of February 25, 2026, I respectfully request expedited screening and review to ensure timely accountability.

Dear Members of the Canadian Judicial Council,

I am writing to file a formal complaint regarding the conduct of Justice Alexander Kurke of the Ontario Superior Court in the case of R v Montana Lewis (Sault Ste. Marie, verdict delivered January 30, 2026). As the father of the victim , Samuel Graham Jr., I believe the judge’s handling of the evidence and reasoning in his ruling raises serious concerns about fairness, objectivity, and proper application of the law. All details outlined below are based on documented evidence, trial testimony, and statements made in opencourt in front of over 100 witnesses, including family, friends, and community members. This includes transcripts, exhibits (such as text messages and Snapchat communications), eyewitness accounts (primarily from Semiah Lewis accurate and unchanged testimony from day one, the accused’s twin sister), police reports, medical testimony, and the judge’s own oral reasons for judgment.

Case Background: The case involves the stabbing death of my son, Samuel Graham Jr. (Sammy), on November 12, 2020, outside a home on Muriel Drive in Sault Ste. Marie. Montana Lewis was charged with first-degree murder. The trial was judge-alone (no jury) as the defence request this days before trial and crown didn’t fight  it but agreed to it.  This concluded with Justice Kurke acquitting Lewis of first-degree murder but convicting him of manslaughter. Our next court day  is scheduled for February 25, 2026 to discusse sentencing date. The judge ruled that while the stabbing was vengeful and unlawful, the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the intent to kill, or subjective foresight of death required for murder under Criminal Code s. 229. He described the act as having a “high degree of culpability” and “close to murder,” but influenced by anger, immaturity, and crucially, uncorroborated claims of substance use.

Specific Concerns Regarding Judicial Conduct:

My complaint focuses on apparent inconsistencies in the judge’s assessment of evidence and credibility, which seem to have improperly influenced the outcome. These issues undermine public confidence in the judicial process and appear incompatible with the due execution of judicial office:

1. Reliance on Uncorroborated and Discredited Claims of Substance Use:

1. In his oral reasons, Justice Kurke explicitly cited that Lewis’s “judgment was affected by his anger and alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana use that day,” using this to frame the attack as impulsive or immature (“teenage bravado”) rather than deliberate. This factor appears to have softened his assessment of intent, contributing to the reduction from murder to manslaughter.
2. However, there is zero independent evidence supporting any substance use or impairment, we actual have evidence of the  opposite

1. The main eyewitness, Semiah Lewis (accused’s sister my son girl friend of 2.5 years), testified she did not see Montana using drugs or alcohol that day and that he did not appear drunk, buzzed, or impaired at any moment.  She was present throughout the day and the events.
2. Responding police officers reported no signs of intoxication, no smell of alcohol, no visible impairment, no drug paraphernalia.
3. No toxicology report or physical evidence (e.g., bottles, residue) was presented at trial.
4. Montana Lewis did not mention substances in his initial statements to police on the night of the incident. This claim only emerged in his trial testimony,  5 years later and on his 4 lawyer.

1. Critically, the judge found large portion of Montana’s testimony unreliable and self-serving, rejecting his claims of self-defense (noting the fight was over and there was no ongoing threat), reflex action, and protection of his sister (no evidence of danger to her). Yet, he inconsistently accepted the uncorroborated substance use claim from the same discredited source. This selective reliance lacks explanation in the reasons and appears arbitrary, potentially biasing the intent analysis toward a lesser charge. All of this was documented and discussed in court, with no rebuttal evidence from the defense.
2.  
3. Apparent Undervaluing or Ignoring of Overwhelming Evidence of Planning and Deliberate Intent:
4. The evidence clearly demonstrated premeditation and deliberate action, which should have supported a finding of first-degree murder under s. 231(2) (planned and deliberate) or at minimum second-degree murder:
5. Prior threats and texts: While Sammy and Semiah were out (a 30-minute window after an initial argument), Montana texted and Snapchatted friends saying, “I’m going to kill Sam—today’s the day,” “It’s over, he’s done,” “Sorry Mom, Sam f***ed up and pushed me—it’s his day,” and “He’s done the next time I see him.” These were entered as exhibits and discussed in court, showing he was waiting and planning to act upon Sammy’s return. In open court, it was stated that “this was bound to happen,” reflecting building vengeance. As well as Montana stating in court that his friend Jaden was to come over to help handle Sam. The montana quickly but calmly said I guess I shouldn’t of said that.  All documentated

2. Manslaughter research that night before it all happend: On November 12, 2020 (that evening ), Montana had Sammy look up “manslaughter” online on his phone, claiming it was “for a buddy.” This was testified to and documented, indicating advance research into lesser charges—clear foresight and calculation.
3. Post-arrest comment: At the police station, when informed of the first-degree murder charge, Montana responded, “Really with his hands behind his head leaning back? I thought it would be manslaughter.” This was captured in police records and testified to, showing he had pre-considered the legal outcomes.
4. The chase and stabbing sequence: After Sammy and Semiah return to Semiah home and Montana was waiting for them. Montana quickly ran downstairs to escalate a fight.  a hallway fistfight (triggered by Montana’s rudeness to Semiah, with Sammy defending her), the parties separated. Montana went upstairs to grab a knife from his bedroom, or he may have already had the knife on him.  Then he ran back down quickly chasing Sammy and Semiah out the side door with the knife open.  Sammy exited the side and held the door shut tightly so Montana couldn’t get out the side door.  Montana quickly turned and ran out the front door toward where Sammy and Semiah were) with the knife opened still. He ran past Semiah, confronted Sammy face-to-face in the driveway, and—despite Sammy blocking with his leg and arm last mininute to shield himself—Montana stabbed him twice with significant force: once deeply in the abdomen (severing the aorta, a “highly lethal” wound per medical testimony, causing immediate collapse and death), and once in the arm/shoulder piercing to the bone and spine. Pools of blood and paramedic descriptions (Sammy turning blue/gray within minutes) were evidenced.
5. Despite this documented evidence (all presented and unchallenged in court), the judge focused on “vengeance to hurt badly” without adequately addressing how these elements proved subjective intent to kill or foresight of death (s. 229(a)). Removing the improper substance factor makes the planning even clearer, yet the ruling seems detached from the record.
6. Inconsistent and Unsupported Reliance on Evidence of Remorse

His oral reasons for judgment, Justice Kurke relied heavily on a single paragraph to conclude that Montana Lewis showed genuine remorse and that the fatal outcome was unintended and unforeseen.

The full relevant excerpt is: “He was horrified at what he had done,” said Kurke. “I accept that Montana’s expression to Semiah that he was sorry, the shock in his demeanour that Semiah observed, his efforts at helping Sam and police who attended, his ready admissions of responsibility to 911 operator and first responders, all demonstrate that whatever violence he meant to inflict on Sam had much more terrible consequences than he foresaw or intended.”

This paragraph is central to the judge’s reasoning for finding manslaughter rather than murder, as it portrays Montana as shocked, remorseful, and attempting to mitigate harm—softening the assessment of intent and foresight of death. However, the evidence presented at trial (including Semiah Lewis’s testimony, police officer testimony, 911 call records, and other witness accounts) directly contradicts or fails to support these characterizations. Below is a detailed breakdown of each element the judge cited, compared to the actual trial record:

“He was horrified at what he had done” / “the shock in his demeanour that Semiah observed”  The judge claims Montana appeared horrified and shocked immediately after the stabbing, based primarily on Semiah’s observation of his demeanor (expression, face, body language). This is used to argue Montana was surprised by the deadly result and did not foresee or intend death. 

Trial evidence shows otherwise:  This occurred immediately after the two stabs: Sammy and Montana fell to the ground, knocking the knife loose (not a voluntary drop to stop).  That is Montana unreliable testimont withn zero witness confirm that

Semiah pulled Montana off Sammy. 

Montana reacted aggressively: yelled/screamed “get the fuck off of me” at her. 

Then he said: “turn him over” (to flip Sammy), “I love you”, and “sorry” (to her, likely for yelling—not for the stabbing). 

A witness across the street heard this exchange: him yelling/screaming “get the fuck off of me”, and then saw Montana walk out front with his dog (calm/normal behavior, not panicked or horrified). 

No witness described Montana as “horrified” or “shocked” in demeanor/expression:  Semiah did not say he looked horrified, shocked, stunned, or surprised—she described the actions/words above, with no mention of his face or emotional state matching horror/shock. 

Police officers on scene testified he was calm: no running away, calmly admitted he did it (the stabbing). 

No other testimony (paramedics, 911 audio, etc.) mentioned shock/horror in his demeanor.

Overall: Behavior was calm admission + snapping/yelling at sister + quick “sorry” to her + walking the dog out front—not horror or shock.

“I accept that Montana’s expression to Semiah that he was sorry” The judge accepts Montana’s “sorry” to Semiah as genuine remorse for the stabbing. 

Trial evidence shows otherwise:  After pulling Montana off Sammy, Semiah heard him yell “get the fuck off of me”. 

Right after, he told Semiah: “turn him over”, said “I love you”, and said “sorry”. 

The “sorry” was not remorse for stabbing Sammy or causing harm—it was almost certainly sorry for yelling at her in that moment. 

A witness across the street heard the entire exchange (yelling + “turn him over” + “I love you sorry”), confirming Semiah’s testimony. 

After saying this, Montana came out front with his dog (calm/normal behavior, not panicked or regretful). 

No testimony framed this “sorry” as genuine regret for the act against Sammy—it was quick, directed at his sister, and tied to the yelling at her.

“Montana efforts at helping Sam and police who attended” The judge believes Montana made real efforts to help Sammy and cooperated/assisted police. 

Trial evidence shows otherwise:  After walking out front with his dog, Montana called his girlfriend and told her he was going away for a long time (indicating he immediately understood serious consequences, not focused on aid or remorse). 

Montana’s 911 call lasted only 2 seconds: He stated the address and hung up—no details, no instructions requested, no staying on the line. 

Semiah made the effective 911 call: She gave all details, followed instructions to start CPR (applying pressure with her red plaid jacket while covered in blood), and was screaming in shock—which is how police located Sammy. 

While Semiah performed CPR desperately, Montana was in the front yard doing nothing to help—no CPR, no pressure on wounds, no assisting. 

When police arrived: Montana just pointed in the general direction of Sammy (minimal guidance). 

The officer testified that at no time did Montana help or assist them or Sammy—no aid provided, no meaningful cooperation beyond basic pointing and admission. 

The defense attempted to portray Montana as helpful, but police testimony directly contradicted this—no actual efforts occurred. 

The judge echoed defense-like phrasing (“efforts at helping”), appearing to overstate or fabricate this narrative despite clear evidence it was not true.

“Montana ready admissions of responsibility to 911 operator and first responders” The judge believes Montana quickly confessed responsibility to 911 and responders, showing acceptance and remorse. 

Trial evidence shows otherwise:  Montana’s admissions were extremely minimal: He simply said “I did it” (or equivalent basic acknowledgment)—nothing more. 

There was no emotion, no remorse, no explanation, no apology attached—no “I’m sorry,” no distress, no regret or surprise. 

These statements mean absolutely nothing in terms of proving lack of intent or genuine remorse—they just confirm he knew he stabbed Sammy, which aligns with the fact that he planned and executed the attack (prior threats/texts, manslaughter research the night before, chase with knife, forceful vital stabs). 

The admissions were cold and factual, matching his calm demeanor throughout—not the heartfelt, shocked confession the judge portrayed. 

No testimony (911 recording, police notes, responder statements) described the admissions as emotional, remorseful, or indicative of horror—they were straightforward and emotionless.

These inconsistencies and unsupported characterizations appear to have played a significant role in the judge’s decision to reduce the conviction to manslaughter. They raise serious questions about the objectivity and proper handling of evidence in this case.

4.Why This Constitutes Potential Misconduct:

These inconsistencies and selective evidence handling raise questions about the judge’s objectivity and motives, appearing to substitute opinion for the weight of the evidence and siding with the fabricated statements made by the defense.   This has denied my family and the victim full justice, eroding public trust in the courts—especially in a high-profile homicide case covered by media (Sault Star, CTV, Sootoday). Under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, victims’ families deserve fairness, yet this ruling feels like a systemic failure. Over 100 people in the courtroom witnessed the evidence presentation and reacted strongly to the verdict, highlighting the disconnect. I respectfully request a full review of Justice Kurke’s conduct under your procedures, including any necessary investigation. Please confirm receipt and provide updates as soon as possible as this is a urgent message

 Sincerely, Sam Graham God Bless
Sault Ste. Marie, ON]
705-971-8794
samgraham@shaw.ca

Father of Samuel Graham Jr., Victim in R v Montana Lewis