Lakhwinder Singh Sandhu

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault arising from an incident during an Uber ride and appealed on the basis of alleged errors of fact and law, primarily contending that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The appellant argued that an Uber receipt, which showed a direct route from pick-up to drop-off, was exonerating and had been given insufficient weight.

The Court of Appeal found no error, deferring to the trial judge's credibility and fact-finding, which included cogent reasons for concluding that the receipt did not accurately reflect the route taken.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to determine whether the accused, who suffered a stroke resulting in expressive aphasia, remained unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference.

The Board applied the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Bharwani to assess the accused's capacity to conduct a defence and instruct counsel.

Given the accused's inability to speak or write in English or Punjabi, and his functional illiteracy, the Board found he lacked the capacity to intelligibly communicate with counsel or the court regarding complex or nuanced decisions.

The Board concluded the accused remains unfit to stand trial and ordered his detention at the hospital with privileges to reside in approved community accommodation, subject to conditions including restricted contact with minors.

The accused was convicted of possession of a loaded, restricted firearm with accessible ammunition, careless storage of a firearm, possession of a prohibited device and ammunition without a licence, and disobeying a lawful court order prohibiting weapon possession.

The court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment on the firearm-related offences (served concurrently) and six months imprisonment on the breach of court order (served consecutively), for a total of three years and six months, less 574 days of enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in a remaining custodial term of one year, eleven months, and eight days.

The court found that the accused transported the loaded firearm across provincial borders in a motor vehicle and possessed it in public places, constituting aggravating factors.

The court emphasized the serious and escalating problem of illegal firearm possession in Peel Region and the paramount importance of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for such offences.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm and a prohibited device (over-capacity magazine) found in a blue duffel bag in the kitchen of his residence during the execution of a search warrant.

The Crown's case relied on surveillance evidence showing the accused carrying the bag, his driver's licence found in the bag, and the continuity of the bag from surveillance observations to its discovery.

The defence argued the firearm was planted by a third party resident.

The court found the accused guilty, rejecting the planting theory as speculative and unsupported, and finding the accused had both actual and constructive possession of the firearm and prohibited items.

The appellant, Deepak Chhabra, was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment.

He sought bail pending appeal, arguing that the trial judge erred in refusing to reopen the trial to admit new GPS evidence and in other respects.

The Crown opposed bail, citing flight risk, particularly because Chhabra attempted to leave Canada the day before sentencing.

The Court of Appeal found that the reviewability interest outweighed enforceability, given the short sentence and the safeguards in the proposed release plan, and granted bail with additional conditions.

Sentencing following jury convictions for dangerous driving causing death, dangerous driving, and impaired driving causing bodily harm arising from a high-speed nighttime intersection collision.

The court weighed aggravating factors including excessive speed, alcohol and marijuana consumption, attempts to deflect responsibility, one death, and serious permanent injuries to two victims, against mitigating factors including the offender's lack of criminal record, remorse, community support, and rehabilitative steps.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for impaired and dangerous driving offences, the court found that six years was inadequate but ten years was excessive.

A global sentence of eight years' imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pretrial custody and house arrest, together with ancillary orders.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Grant Registration issued by the Registrar under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The parties resolved the issues in dispute and submitted signed Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal issued a consent order under s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and s. 14(5) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, disposing of the proceeding without a hearing on the terms set out in the Minutes of Settlement.

The terms included the withdrawal of the Notice of Proposal and the appellant's application for registration, with the ability to reapply after February 3, 2023.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay in his retrial.

The total delay from the appeal being granted to the anticipated end of trial was 18 months and 5 days.

The Crown argued that 1 month and 3 days of this delay was attributable to the defence for a late disclosure request, bringing the net delay below the 18-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The court agreed with the Crown regarding defence delay.

Considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as a discrete event, the court found that the remaining delay of just over 17 months was not unreasonable, despite the Ontario Court of Appeal's comments in R. v. MacIsaac about retrials needing priority.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have given the pandemic circumstances.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused was tried for two counts of first-degree murder in the stabbing deaths of his wife and mother-in-law.

The Crown argued for constructive first-degree murder on the basis that the killings occurred during a forcible confinement.

The accused conceded he killed the victims but argued he lacked the requisite intent due to intoxication and denied forcible confinement.

The court rejected the intoxication defence, finding the accused had the intent to murder based on his actions, the extent of the injuries, and his post-offence conduct.

The court also found that the accused forcibly confined the victims by dragging them from an upstairs bedroom to the kitchen where the fatal wounds were inflicted.

The accused was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division's finding that he is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

The RAD found that the applicant, who feared persecution from the police and the Satkar Committee in Punjab, India, had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Delhi or Mumbai.

The Federal Court found no reviewable error, as the RAD reasonably applied the IFA test and the applicant submitted no new evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The accused, a taxicab driver, was charged with second degree murder after running over an intoxicated passenger with his minivan.

The incident was captured on a residential surveillance camera.

The accused testified that he accidentally struck the victim while looking for oncoming traffic.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as irreconcilable with the video footage and internally illogical.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally drove his vehicle at the victim in anger and possessed the requisite mens rea for murder.

The accused was found guilty of second degree murder.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault, the sentencing judge determined what facts could properly ground sentence under s. 724(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court held the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating feature of sexual intercourse, given inconsistencies between the complainant's testimony and the prior consistent witness's evidence, and sentenced on the basis of one incident of touching in a car and one incident of touching in a basement.

Applying the modern sentencing approach to sexual offences against children, with primary emphasis on denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01, the court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed 15 months' incarceration.

DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders were also made.

The accused, Ranveer Singh, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant's evidence regarding lack of consent and the precise nature of the touching raised credibility and reliability concerns due to inconsistencies between her stated feelings/motives and actions, and contradictory factual accounts.

The accused claimed the complainant consented through her conduct, which he perceived as sexual advances.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, and also failed to disprove the accused's honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The accused was acquitted.

The Respondent sought an urgent motion for equal parenting time and the Applicant raised a conflict of interest against the Respondent's counsel.

The court dismissed the conflict of interest claim, finding the Applicant had not met her onus.

Regarding parenting time, the court found the Respondent had not established equal parenting time but had been exercising more than previously ordered.

The court varied prior orders to establish a structured parenting schedule for the Respondent, including one overnight and one mid-week visit per week, and time on special occasions, in the children's best interests.

The appellant, a permanent resident, pleaded guilty to eight offences arising from assaults on his spouse.

The day before his plea, an Immigration Enforcement Officer informed him that he could be deemed inadmissible to Canada due to prior convictions and that he would lose his right to appeal a removal order if he received a sentence exceeding six months.

The appellant pleaded guilty to a joint submission of 12 months' imprisonment less 247 days pre-trial custody credit, resulting in a four-month custodial term.

A removal order was subsequently issued.

On appeal, the appellant sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming it was uninformed because he was unaware of the specific immigration consequences regarding appellate rights, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding that the appellant had adequate understanding of the immigration consequences and failed to establish prejudice.

The accused R.G., S.G., and V.G. were charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats to cause death arising from incidents during R.G.'s three-month arranged marriage.

The court conducted a judge-alone trial, admitting similar fact evidence.

R.G. was found guilty of four sexual assault counts and one assault count, but acquitted on other sexual assault, assault, and threat charges.

S.G. was found guilty of one assault and one threat.

V.G. was found guilty of one threat.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused, emphasizing the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an arbitration award that ordered them to pay $275,431 in damages and costs for breach of a real estate development agreement.

The respondent brought a cross-application to enforce the award.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator made no errors of law and that the issues raised regarding the Real Property Limitations Act and the assessment of damages were questions of mixed fact and law entitled to deference.

The court granted the respondent's application to enforce the award.

This ruling addresses the partial defence of provocation in a murder trial.

The accused, Iqbal Singh, sought to have provocation left to the jury, arguing that his extreme anger and loss of self-control stemmed from seeing his wife, Anita Summan, with Gurcharan Doal in a manner culturally inappropriate for a brother-sister relationship.

The court found no air of reality to the partial defence of provocation, concluding that the alleged wrongful act or insult was insufficient to deprive an ordinary person of self-control, even when infused with the accused's cultural background, as such beliefs must align with contemporary Canadian values and norms of behaviour, including gender equality and personal autonomy.

The accused, Iqbal Singh, applied for a directed verdict of acquittal on charges of first-degree murder and unlawful confinement.

The court reviewed the evidence against the legal tests for directed verdicts, unlawful confinement (actus reus and mens rea), planning and deliberation for first-degree murder, and constructive first-degree murder (temporal and causal connection).

The court found sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to find the essential elements of unlawful confinement and both forms of first-degree murder (planning and deliberation, and constructive murder).

Consequently, the application for directed verdicts on both counts was dismissed, allowing the charges to proceed to the jury.

The appellant appealed convictions for four counts of assault and two counts of uttering threats arising from incidents involving his spouse.

He argued that the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant’s credibility, failed to address inconsistencies in the evidence, improperly applied the test in R. v. W.(D.), and should have drawn an adverse inference from the Crown’s failure to call a witness.

The summary conviction appeal court held that credibility findings are entitled to substantial deference absent palpable and overriding error and that the trial judge reasonably accepted the complainant’s detailed evidence, which was partially corroborated by police observations.

The court further held that the Crown had no obligation to call the witness and that any variance in offence dates was immaterial and caused no prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.