In a decision that reverberates through Manitoba’s legal community, Guido Amsel, the man convicted in a series of shocking mail bombings that injured a Winnipeg lawyer in 2015, has once again been denied parole by the Parole Board of Canada. The board’s ruling, released Tuesday, cited Amsel’s “continued minimization of responsibility” and “high risk of violent reoffending” as central to their unanimous decision.
The case, which gripped Canada nearly a decade ago, involved explosive devices disguised as ordinary mail packages that were sent to Amsel’s ex-wife and two law firms. Maria Mitousis, a 38-year-old family lawyer who had represented Amsel’s ex-wife during divorce proceedings, suffered devastating injuries when one of the packages detonated in her hands, resulting in the loss of her right hand and severe injuries to her face, chest, and thigh.
“The calculated nature of these attacks represents one of the most alarming cases of targeted violence in Manitoba’s recent history,” said Crown prosecutor Sandra Petersson, who spoke with CO24 following the announcement. “This wasn’t an impulsive act—these were methodically planned attacks against specific legal professionals and his former spouse.”
During his 2018 trial, court evidence revealed Amsel’s elaborate preparation, including purchasing materials at multiple locations to avoid detection and constructing bombs designed to maximize harm. He was ultimately convicted on four counts of attempted murder and numerous explosives-related charges, receiving a life sentence with no chance of parole for 10 years.
The parole board’s 15-page decision highlighted troubling patterns in Amsel’s behavior during his incarceration. According to correctional psychologist Dr. James Henshaw, Amsel has “systematically refused to engage with his violent offender programming” and continues to maintain what the board described as “an alternative narrative” regarding his crimes.
“Mr. Amsel still portrays himself as the victim of a conspiratorial justice system,” the board wrote. “His persistent denial of basic facts established at trial demonstrates a concerning lack of insight into the gravity of his actions.”
Mitousis, who has since returned to legal practice despite her life-altering injuries, provided a victim impact statement that weighed heavily in the board’s consideration. “Every day I am reminded of the violence perpetrated against me simply for doing my job,” she wrote. “The sound of mail being delivered still triggers profound anxiety.”
The bombing case prompted significant security changes across legal offices throughout Manitoba, with many firms implementing mail screening procedures and enhanced security protocols that remain in place today. The Manitoba Bar Association responded to the parole denial with a statement supporting the decision, noting that “the safety of legal professionals who serve the public interest must be paramount.”
Amsel’s defense counsel, Nathan Gorham, expressed disappointment with the ruling, suggesting his client has made “substantial progress” in rehabilitation. “We believe the board has overemphasized historical factors while giving insufficient weight to Mr. Amsel’s behavioral record during incarceration,” Gorham stated, indicating they are considering a judicial review of the decision.
Criminal justice experts note that parole denials in high-profile violent cases often reflect broader societal concerns beyond individual rehabilitation metrics. Professor Elizabeth Comack from the University of Manitoba’s Department of Sociology told CO24, “These decisions balance multiple factors including victim impact, public safety, and the specific risk assessment of the offender. In cases that have shocked the public consciousness, the threshold for demonstrating rehabilitation is understandably higher.”
Amsel will be eligible to apply for parole reconsideration in two years, though the board indicated any future application would need to demonstrate “substantial and measurable progress” in addressing the risk factors identified in their current assessment.
As this case continues to evolve through the correctional system, what balance should society strike between the possibility of rehabilitation and the enduring impact of premeditated violence on victims and the communities they serve?
