ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
KIRANJOT SAINI
Before Justice G.P. Renwick
Heard on 05 March and 03 September 2025
Reasons for Judgment Released on 07 September 2025
S. Beuerle counsel for the prosecution
P. Dhaliwal counsel for the Defendant Kiranjot Saini
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FOLLOWING A TRIAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Defendant is charged with assaulting Bhupinder Singh with a weapon (a dustpan) and simple assault upon him as well.
2This trial was very brief and took place over two days. The complainant and his now ex-wife, the Defendant, were the only witnesses who testified. There were photographs introduced respecting injuries each party claimed to have suffered during a physical fight alleged between them.
3At the conclusion of the trial, the sole issue raised by the parties is whether the allegations have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
4The onus during a criminal trial begins and ends with the prosecution to prove the guilt of a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Everyone charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent and that presumption remains throughout the whole of the trial, unless and until the court is satisfied that the charges have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s burden of proof never shifts during the trial. In this case, if at the end of my consideration of the evidence and submissions I am not satisfied that the prosecution has proven any element of an offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt, and more specifically, if I have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed an offence, she will be acquitted of the charge.
5A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It must be based upon reason and common sense and it logically derives from the evidence or the lack of evidence adduced during a trial. While likely or even probable guilt is not enough to meet the criminal standard, proof to an absolute certainty is inapplicable and unrealistic. The Supreme Court of Canada has cautioned that there is no mathematical precision to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it lies much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities.1 If after considering all of the admissible evidence, I am sure that the Defendant committed an alleged offence I must convict her since this demonstrates that I am satisfied of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Likewise, if I am not sure, then I have a reasonable doubt and an acquittal must follow.
6This case involves conflicting evidence and credibility assessments. In assessing witness credibility and reliability I have considered the general capacity of the witness to make their observations, to remember what they perceived, and their ability to accurately testify and communicate their recollections. It is also important to determine whether the witness was trying to tell the truth and whether or not the witness was sincere, candid, biased, reticent, and/or evasive. A trier of fact is entitled to accept some, none, or all of what a witness says while testifying.
7A valuable means of assessing the credibility of any witness is to examine the consistency between what the witness said in the witness box and what the witness has said on other occasions. I must also assess what is testified to in the context of all of the evidence in the case and not on an isolated basis. This is true for any inconsistencies and whether these are significant or inconsequential to the case. If the inconsistency is significant, then I must pay careful attention to it when assessing the reliability of the witness' testimony.
8Given the conflicting evidence in this case, I must apply the framework provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] S.C.J. No. 26, as it is now understood. I rely heavily upon the article written by Paciocco J.A. entitled, “Doubt about Doubt: Coping with W.(D.) And Credibility Assessment” found at 2017 - 22 Canadian Criminal Law Review 31. Justice Paciocco reduces the W.(D.) framework into five propositions:
(i) I cannot properly resolve this case by simply deciding which conflicting version of events is preferred;
(ii) If I believe evidence that is inconsistent with the guilt of the Defendant, I cannot convict the Defendant;
(iii) Even if I do not entirely believe the evidence inconsistent with the guilt of the Defendant, if I cannot decide whether that evidence is true, there is a reasonable doubt and the Defendant must be acquitted;
(iv) Even if I entirely disbelieve evidence inconsistent with guilt, the mere rejection of that evidence does not prove guilt; and
(v) Even where I entirely disbelieve evidence inconsistent with guilt, the Defendant should not be convicted unless the evidence that is given credit proves the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
9Also, I have reminded myself to treat the evidence of both witnesses the same. Specifically, I am not to determine the value of a particular witness’ testimony because of their station in life or role in the proceedings. That would be unfair, and it would completely undermine the presumption of innocence and the duty of the court to act impartially. Regardless of a witness’ role, I must apply even scrutiny to all of the evidence to determine the facts in the proceedings.
10Lastly, circumstantial evidence has been produced during the trial. Evidence of the result of the alleged assault, apparent injuries said to have been caused by the other party were allegedly photographed to support a particular narrative of events. As with all matters to be proven by circumstantial evidence, in order to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant caused the complainant’s injury, I must be satisfied that it is the only reasonable inference available on the evidence.2 In assessing the case, I must consider the evidence cumulatively and as a whole. Given that each circumstantial piece of evidence may be insufficient on its own to support the required inference, I must consider all of the individual pieces of evidence together to determine whether the prosecution has met its high burden.
11In the next part, I will outline some of the evidence and provide an assessment of the testimony, with references to specific portions of the evidence. Although I will not refer to all of what a witness said, I listened to each witness carefully, I have taken detailed notes, and I have assessed all testimony for intrinsic and extrinsic consistency, plausibility, balance, possible interest, and the witness’ ability to recall and communicate.
12I do not propose to recapitulate all of the evidence received during this trial. Suffice it to note that I have used ample and many opportunities during the trial and subsequent to the completion of the submissions to review my notes and to listen to parts of the digital recordings of the proceedings. I have thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this case, and I will only discuss parts of the evidence where they serve to underscore my findings. Lastly, I came to no conclusions about any of the testimony I heard until all of the closing submissions were made, and my review of the evidence was complete.
THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED
The Testimony of the Complainant
13Bhupinder Singh was the sole witness for the prosecution.
14He was married to the Defendant in India in April 2022. The complainant and Defendant had only lived together in Canada for about two months prior to the events in question. The police were not called to investigate the allegations until three weeks after they occurred.
15The complainant testified about an incident in their home after a day they had spent together handing out the Defendant’s resume to look for work as a personal support worker. He described hearing the Defendant talking while in the bathroom of their basement apartment. The complainant opened the door to see if everything was all right and an argument ensued. The Defendant refused to tell the complainant who she was speaking to on her cell phone. He threatened to tell her parents. She threw a dustpan at his head. Then, the Defendant took the complainant’s cell phone, to prevent him from calling her parents, and she went into the living room. The complainant described the struggle that followed as he tried to retrieve his cell phone. At some point, because his elbow was near the Defendant’s mouth, she bit his elbow and held it for 30 seconds.
16The complainant described trying to open the Defendant’s mouth to free his arm. He got his phone from the Defendant and she pursued him into their bedroom. There, she allegedly bit his left shoulder. Somehow, his phone and hers fell into the gap between the bed and the wall. After some time, the complainant located both phones and gave the Defendant hers. The complainant did see the Defendant do something to her face and take a photograph of it. He also saw her making a call in the living-room, but she apparently cancelled it and no police came. He was also clear in his evidence in chief, that the Defendant was “chasing” him onto the driveway, so he locked himself in his car before driving to his relatives’ home in Caledon. One of his relatives took photographs of the injuries to the complainant’s back, elbow, and forearm. These four photographs became exhibits 1A-1D.
17The photographs are disturbing. The complainant allegedly suffered scratch and gouge marks on his back and bite marks on his forearm and the inside of his elbow.
18In cross-examination, it was learned that the complainant met the Defendant on a matrimonial website and they had an arranged marriage after it was discovered that they are relatives. The complainant came to Canada approximately eight or nine years ago and sponsored the Defendant to come here as his wife.
19The complainant was questioned about the Defendant’s paycheques being deposited in their joint bank account. Initially, the complainant was “100%” certain that this had not happened. After some cross-examination, the complainant testified, “I don’t remember, if it is, I may be giving her cash. I don’t remember to be honest.”
20The complainant also testified that he had called police three weeks after the allegations took place because he was rushing to go to a religious function and the Defendant was not letting him go.
21The complainant admitted that when the police came he told them that he had pushed the Defendant away and he put his fingers in her mouth to open her teeth.
22He also admitted possibly leaving marks on the Defendant’s arms when he was trying to retrieve his phone.
23During the cross-examination, it was also learned that the “dustpan” that had been thrown was actually a small brush that comes with the dustpan, rather than the dustpan itself. The court also noticed that when the complainant pointed to the right side of his head to indicate where he was hit, but he testified that he was hit on the “left” side. He also said she “tried” to hit his head, but later he clarified that she had actually hit his head.
24The complainant denied slapping the Defendant’s face, pulling her hair, dragging her to the living-room, or punching her arm during cross-examination. After also denying hanging up the phone when the Defendant had called 9-1-1, the complainant said that the Defendant took a lamp and hit him on the head.
25When asked why the complainant told the Defendant’s employer that she had been charged, he testified, “as a Canadian, I take responsibility” that the Defendant did not harm anyone here and that it was his “goal” that all Canadians are safe.
FINDINGS ON THE EVIDENCE
26Overall, I did not find the complainant to be a credible witness. Parts of his narrative were implausible (how both phones ended up in the gap between the bed and the wall). Also, there were significant inconsistencies in his testimony (whether the brush or the dustpan was thrown at his head, which side of his head was hit, and whether the Defendant had thrown the item or “tried” to hit his head with it). In the end, although there is some corroboration found in the photographs introduced, I am unable to rely upon the complainant’s testimony to accept that the photographs accurately represent injuries caused by the complainant and that the injuries were obtained in the manner explained. To be frank, given the concerns expressed, I have a reasonable doubt about the cause of the complainant’s injuries.
27To be complete, the Defendant was a compelling witness. If I were not left in a reasonable doubt about the allegations as a result of the complainant’s testimony, I would have had a reasonable doubt arising from the Defendant’s evidence. The Defendant was credible as a historian.
28I had few concerns about the implausibility or inconsistency of the Defendant’s testimony and it easily raises a reasonable doubt about the complainant’s injuries and the likelihood that the Defendant was physically attacked by the complainant, requiring her to use reasonable force to repel the attack and protect herself.
CONCLUSION
29On all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the allegations of an assault with a weapon and an assault allegedly committed by the Defendant upon the complainant have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
30As a result, I find Kiranjot Saini not guilty of both charges on the Information.
Released: 07 September 2025
Justice G. Paul Renwick
Footnotes
- R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] S.C.J. No. 40 at para. 242.
- R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] S.C.J. No. 33 at paras. 17, 18, 22, 26-36, 41, 42, 55, and 56.