Lakhwinder Singh Sandhu

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.

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, 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.

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 a conviction for failing to comply with the no-contact term of a bail order following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

During the trial, the Crown introduced police reports made by the complainant to authorities in Pakistan, which the trial judge relied upon to support the complainant’s credibility.

The appeal court held that the documents constituted prior consistent statements and were presumptively inadmissible unless an exception applied.

Because the defence allegation did not amount to recent fabrication, no exception permitted their use to bolster credibility.

The trial judge’s reliance on this inadmissible evidence was not harmless, given that the complainant’s testimony was the sole evidence supporting the conviction.

The appellant appealed convictions for one count of common assault and one count of sexual assault arising from allegations by a spouse.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge failed to address significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, despite the case turning entirely on credibility.

The appeal court held that the failure to consider material inconsistencies constituted reversible error.

Due to ambiguity between the trial judge’s reasons and the endorsed verdicts on the information, acquittals were directed on both common assault counts and no retrial could be ordered for them.

The conviction for sexual assault was set aside and a new trial ordered on that count.