Lakhwinder Singh Sandhu

The accused was convicted of sexual assault involving brief anal penetration of the complainant during a workplace party after consensual dancing and kissing.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the accused’s lack of criminal record, positive pre‑sentence report, and rehabilitative prospects.

The defence sought a sentence of six months less a day due to immigration consequences that could lead to deportation.

The court held that while immigration consequences may be considered, they cannot justify a sentence outside the appropriate range.

A custodial sentence of nine months followed by two years’ probation was imposed as proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s responsibility.

The appellant appealed convictions for theft and possession of a truck and its contents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the theft convictions, finding overwhelming evidence and a proper basis to infer knowledge of the trailer's contents.

However, the court applied the Kienapple principle to stay the conviction for possession of the truck, as the appellant was already convicted of its theft.

The appeal was allowed to that extent, and the total fine was reduced by $1,250.

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.