WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
BARINDER SINGH
Before Justice G.P. Renwick
Heard on 21 August 2025
Reasons for Sentence released on 21 August 2025
M. Otim counsel for the Prosecution
M. Saggi counsel for the Defendant Barinder Singh
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
INTRODUCTION
1Following a guilty plea on 05 May 2025, I found the Offender guilty of sexual assault in his capacity (at the time) as a ride-share driver. While driving the 20-year old complainant home after 11:00 pm, the Offender stopped in a secluded area in her neighborhood, he complimented her and asked for a hug. After receiving permission to give her a hug, he joined the complainant in the back seat of his car, he kissed her neck and stuck his tongue in her ear despite the lack of any attempts to obtain her consent. Initially, the Offender refused to stop his sexual aggression despite the complainant’s requests, and she fled the vehicle and had to walk home. The prosecutor proceeded by summary conviction procedure.
2Originally, the parties did not anticipate a delay until sentencing, but due to a scheduling conflict involving the Offender’s lawyer last month, the matter was adjourned to today. Both parties filed written submissions, which were helpful. Both relied on sentencing decisions of other trial courts and courts of appeal.
3This was a contested sentencing hearing.
4The Offender filed counselling reports, a receipt for a charitable donation, a character reference from a former teacher, and a letter of completion of 100 hours of community service. A pre-sentence report was also filed. Lastly, I received a Victim Impact Statement from the Complainant.
5Though I have read and considered all of the materials and cases referenced, due to the short turnaround time for this judgment, I will not detail the contents of the materials filed. Suffice it to say, for much of the materials submitted, I have reviewed them (in some cases more than once, given the adjournment) and I have fully considered their contents.
6The prosecutor seeks a sentence of three months imprisonment plus 18 months probation and ancillary Orders. The Offender seeks a suspended sentence and probation. Save for one of the ancillary Orders, the Offender is content with the supervision proposed. As an alternative, if jail is the only appropriate sentence, the Offender seeks a conditional sentence of imprisonment.
GOVERNING SENTENCING PRINCIPLES
7The fundamental purpose of sentencing as expressed in section 718 of the Criminal Code is to contribute to respect for the law, the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the objectives of denunciation, deterring the offender and other persons from committing offences, separating offenders from society, where necessary, assisting in rehabilitating offenders, providing reparation for harm done to victims or to the community, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
8The fundamental principle of sentencing is that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The punishment should fit the crime. There is no single fit sentence for any particular offence. The relevance and relative importance of each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender.1
9In R. v. Hamilton and Mason, Doherty J.A. distilled the fundamental principle:
The "gravity of the offence" refers to the seriousness of the offence in a generic sense as reflected by the potential penalty imposed by Parliament and any specific features of the commission of the crime which may tend to increase or decrease the harm or risk of harm to the community occasioned by the offence…
The "degree of responsibility of the offender" refers to the offender's culpability as reflected in the essential substantive elements of the offence - especially the fault component - and any specific aspects of the offender's conduct or background that tend to increase or decrease the offender's personal responsibility for the crime.2
10The Court quoted Rosenberg J.A. who had previously described the proportionality requirement in R. v. Priest:
The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the particular offender, the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the harm occasioned by the offence. The court must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case. Careful adherence to the proportionality principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with for the sake of the common good.3
11Section 718.1 of the Code ensures that proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing. However, proportionality is not the sole principle to be considered. A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.4
12In R. v. Proulx, the Supreme Court spoke about the principle of restraint when considering imprisonment:
Parliament has sought to give increased prominence to the principle of restraint in the use of prison as a sanction through the enactment of s. 718.2(d) and (e). Section 718.2(d) provides that "an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances", while s. 718.2(e) provides that "all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders". Further evidence of Parliament's desire to lower the rate of incarceration comes from other provisions of Bill C-41: s. 718(c) qualifies the sentencing objective of separating offenders from society with the words "where necessary", thereby indicating that caution be exercised in sentencing offenders to prison...5
13The Supreme Court has instructed that section 718 requires a sentencing judge to consider more than simply denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court must also consider the restorative goals of repairing the harms suffered by individual victims and by the community as a whole, promoting a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgment of the harm caused by an offender, while attempting to rehabilitate or heal the offender.6
14Although the rehabilitation of the Offender is a secondary consideration in the overall calculus of an appropriate sentence in this case (well behind denunciation and deterrence), it is still a factor I must consider.
MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FEATURES
15There are several mitigating features worth noting:
i. The Offender is a first offender;
ii. The Offender pleaded guilty during his arraignment on the trial date;
iii. Through his guilty plea and the submissions of counsel, the Offender demonstrated remorse and concern for the harm he has caused the complainant and the community;
iv. The Offender enjoys the support of his wife;
v. The Offender is gainfully employed;
vi. The Offender is no longer employed as a livery driver; and
vii. The Offender is now 31 years old and he remains capable of rehabilitation.
16The aggravating features include:
i. A sexual offence involving the breach of trust of a vulnerable complainant;
ii. A sexual assault late at night when the complainant was alone with a stranger in his vehicle, in a secluded area in her neighborhood;
iii. The assault only ended because the complainant freed herself and fled; she had to walk home, late at night, alone; and
iv. The complainant has suffered emotionally, socially, and psychologically from this sexual assault.7
THE EVIDENCE
17The PSR was fairly positive. The author noted that the Offender is at a low risk to re-offend. The author noted that the Offender has gained insight into his conduct and the seriousness of the offence.
18These views are essentially echoed by the counselling reports. The Offender completed a program of eight hours respecting sexual boundaries and appropriate conduct. He voluntarily continued counselling for an additional six sessions. He appears to have gained tools and insight that bode well for his complete rehabilitation. The extensive community service and charitable donation further support the view that the Offender has learned from this experience, he is remorseful, and he wants to atone for the harm caused to the Complainant and the community. His apology through his counsel aligns with the extrinsic evidence filed.
19Understandably, the Complainant remains traumatized. Her Victim Impact Statement is compelling. She is fearful and has altered her life, quit her employment (which often required her to travel using ride-share services to go home from work), and suffered psychological harm. Although she is young, there is no doubt that the effects of this experience will not likely ever completely leave her consciousness.
ANALYSIS
20On a continuum of sexual assaults, this is at the low end. The assault began with a consensual hug. However, things quickly devolved and became incredibly distressing and fear inducing for the Complainant. The Offender did not listen to her requests to stop embracing her and he continued the sexual assault. Fortunately, the Complainant suffered no physical injury and her bodily integrity was minimally violated in terms of contact and duration.
21I have considered and approve of a suspended sentence for this Offender for the following reasons:
i. A non-custodial sentence can include sufficient deterrence and denunciation commensurate with the offence and the moral blameworthiness of this Offender;
ii. The level of sexual assault is toward the low end;
iii. There is no prior record or criminal charges; he is a first-offender;
iv. The Offender has demonstrated through his compliance with conditions prior to trial that he can abide by community supervision;
v. The Offender has shown significant remorse AND insight into the offence and the harm it has caused as demonstrated through his guilty plea, apology, his completion of counselling, his charitable donation, and his expressed embarrassment, and desire to change;
vi. The Offender is deemed to be a low risk to re-offend; he has voluntarily removed himself from similar positions of trust in the community;
vii. The Offender is gainfully employed; and
viii. The Offender has a supportive wife (who has been present today and on prior occasions) and community.
THE SENTENCE TO BE IMPOSED
22In my view, the only appropriate sentence for this Offender in these circumstances is a suspended sentence and extended probation, along with ancillary Orders.
23Jail is not an inappropriate sentence for this level of sexual assault, however, given the extraordinary efforts to begin his rehabilitation, his remorse, and the Offender’s insight, I am satisfied that imprisonment is not required to protect the public, express the court’s condemnation for this significant breach of trust, and to deter others from similar conduct. I am equally satisfied that specific deterrence is unnecessary given the Offender’s career change (he is now a dump-truck driver and does not intend to work in the passenger delivery service), his remorse, his insight, his demonstrated compliance while on an extended release until trial, and his expressed apology.
24I am suspending the passing of sentence and placing the Offender on probation for 18 months with the following terms:
i. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
ii. Attend court when required;
iii. Notify any changes of name, address, and occupation;
iv. Report to a probation officer by 5:00 pm on 22 August 2025 in person and thereafter as required, but not less than once per month for the first six months;
v. Do not have any contact, directly or indirectly, with [A.H.];
vi. Do not attend at or within 50m of any place of residence, occupation, education, worship, recreation, or any place you know or find [A.H.] to be;
vii. Do not possess any weapons;
viii. Complete 100 hours of community service within the first 12 months of the probation Order;
ix. Take counselling as directed by your probation officer;
x. Complete releases of information in favour of your probation officer to monitor your attendance, participation, and completion of counselling and community service; and
xi. Refrain from participating in any capacity as a driver of passengers of persons unknown to you.
25The Offender will have until 21 September 2025 to make an appointment with Peel Regional Police to submit to a sampling of his deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) to be analyzed and to have the results uploaded into the national DNA databank. The Offender’s DNA is to be taken by a qualified person in circumstances that are hygienic, that respect the Offender’s bodily integrity and privacy, and that respect his health and safety. Force may be used to extract the Offender’s DNA if he does not submit to the DNA sampling voluntarily.
26I have decided not to impose a reporting requirement under the Sexual Offender Information Registration Act. Key to this determination was the Offender’s guilty plea, the up-front rehabilitative work, the level of sexual assault, and the low risk of re-offence.
27Lastly, the Offender is prohibited from possessing the items referred to in s. 110 for 10 years.
28For his sake and the sake of our community, I wish Barinder Singh well in his rehabilitation.
Released: 21 August 2025
Justice G. Paul Renwick
Footnotes
- R. v. Hamilton and Mason, 2004 CanLII 5549 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 3252 (C.A.) at para. 102.
- Hamilton, supra, at paras. 90-91.
- R. v. Priest, 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), [1996] O.J. No. 3369 (C.A.) at para. 26, as quoted in Hamilton, supra, at para. 92.
- See subsection 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code.
- 2000 SCC 5, [2000] S.C.J. No. 6, at para. 17.
- R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] S.C.J. No. 19 at paras. 43 and 48.
- See subs. 718.2(a)(iii.1) of the Criminal Code.