J. Sandhu

The defendant, Ranjit Singh, was charged with eight counts including assault, forcible confinement, and sexual assault against the complainant, S.K. The prosecution proceeded by indictment, and the defendant elected a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony, considering circumstantial evidence and the absence of forensic evidence.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be entirely credible, plausible, and unshaken by cross-examination, rejecting the defendant's theories of fabrication.

The defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all eight counts.

The defendant, Ranjit Singh, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay in his criminal proceedings for assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement.

The total delay was 24 months and 4 days.

The court calculated defence delay, finding 206 days attributable to the defendant, resulting in a net delay of 17.4 months, which is below the 18-month Jordan ceiling for provincial courts.

The court also found that the defendant failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings, thus failing the second branch of the Jordan test for delays below the ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Gurpreet Singh, charged with dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to a violation of his s. 11(b) right to trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 52 months, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling for Superior Courts.

The Crown conceded presumptive unreasonableness but argued for exceptional circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the total defence delay to be 273 days, resulting in a net delay of 43 months.

Even if the Crown's claimed exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 administrative adjournments and ripple effect) were accepted, the remaining delay would still be 35 months, exceeding the threshold.

The court granted the stay of proceedings, finding a violation of the applicant's Charter right.

The defendant was charged with failing or refusing to provide a suitable breath sample following a roadside stop for speeding.

The Crown alleged the defendant refused to comply with a valid screening demand.

The defendant challenged both the validity of the screening demand and alleged a violation of his right to counsel.

The court found the screening demand was valid and made "forthwith" as required by the Criminal Code.

The court also found no violation of the defendant's right to counsel prior to arrest, and any post-arrest delay in providing rights to counsel was minor and did not warrant exclusion of evidence.

The defendant was found guilty.