ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
INFORMATION NUMBER: 25-47104711
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
MANJEET SINGH
Before Justice M.K. WENDL
Heard on April 22 and June 6, 2026
Reasons for Sentence dated June 23, 2026
E. Divito....................................................................................................... Counsel for Crown
C. Gandy….………………………….…………….……..……....……Counsel for M. Singh
WENDL J.:
1Manjeet Singh pleaded guilty to two counts of theft under $5,000 from the LCBO and one count of breach of probation by attending an LCBO. The Crown and the defence submitted a joint position of 90 days’ custody for my consideration.
2The basis for the joint submission was that Mr. Singh is expected to be deported upon completion of his sentence. As a result, I requested confirmation of that position and adjourned the matter. On the return date, I was advised only that he may be deported or that deportation was merely a possibility. Consequently, I advised counsel that I had concerns with the joint submission and, pursuant to Anthony‑Cook, requested further submissions.
3On today’s date, I advised I would not be acceding to the joint submission and again asked for further submissions.
FACTS
4On June 3, 2025, at approximately 2:07 p.m., Manjeet Singh attended the LCBO at 2273 Rymal Road East in Hamilton with two other individuals. They entered the store, selected alcohol, and placed it into a shopping cart. Together, they took:
10 bottles of Johnnie Walker Black Label ($127.45 each); and
4 bottles of Johnnie Walker whisky ($86.25 each).
5They exited the store without paying.
6Later that same day, at approximately 3:45 p.m., Mr. Singh and the same individuals attended another LCBO at 1191 Wilson Street West. They selected:
6 bottles of Grey Goose vodka ($74.95 each);
12 bottles of Smirnoff vodka ($69.95 each);
6 bottles of Crown Royal ($47.95 each); and
1 bottle of Forty Creek whisky ($72.00).
7They again left without paying. The total value was $3,268.30, none of which was recovered.
8At the time of these offences, Mr. Singh was bound by a probation order prohibiting him from attending any LCBO in Ontario.
ACCUSED BACKGROUND
9Manjeet Singh is 30 years old. He came to Canada in 2016 to attend a culinary arts program at college. He developed a drug addiction in COVID and is currently without status in Canada. He has a criminal record that dates to 2021.
ANALYSIS
10As noted, I have concerns with the joint submission.
11First, if I accept that Mr. Singh will be deported regardless of the sentence imposed, deportation cannot be treated as a collateral consequence. Typically, collateral immigration consequences may justify a lower sentence. However, where deportation is said to be inevitable, it ceases to be a collateral fact.
12While not a collateral fact for me to consider Doherty J. noted in Hamilton1 that deportation may justify a lower sentence for purely pragmatic reasons. However, Hill J. stated in Critton2 that rationality does not apply to those that are in the country without status as with the case of Mr. Singh, in fact, Mr. Singh is under a deportation order.
I prefer the view that the accused's deportation is a factor which can, in some circumstances, serve to mitigate the severity of the sanction imposed by the court. Leaving aside instances of accused who are illegally in the country,
13This reasoning is sound: individuals who are present unlawfully lack legal immigration status, and thus deportation cannot be characterized as a collateral or pragmatic consequence of that status; rather, it is a direct and inherent outcome of its absence.
14Therefore, Mr. Singh’s purported deportation, the cornerstone of the joint submission, is simply not a factor for me to consider either as a collateral fact or for pragmatic reasons as Hill J. outlined Critton.
15Even if I am mistaken, I cannot conclude, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Singh will be deported. First, when pressed by the Court, counsel conceded that immigration authorities only could initiate proceedings following the completion of his sentence and that deportation is merely a possibility. Second, and of particular concern to the Court is the existence of a deportation order dated October 27, 2022, signed by Manjeet Singh, directing his removal. Since that order was issued, Mr. Singh—putting aside the current series of charges—has spent significant periods in custody. In 2024, he appears to have been in custody for approximately 45 days, yet no deportation occurred upon his release. In 2025, he was in custody for five months and 23 days in relation to offences including robbery, theft over $5,000, and failure to comply with probation. Again, he was not deported.
16Ultimately, I have no confidence that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) will actually deport Mr. Singh. Put bluntly, a deportation order has been in place for nearly four years. During that time, he has been in custody on serious criminal charges —under which CBSA could have readily located and removed him— yet no action has been taken. In my view, going forward, the bare assertion of potential immigration consequences, without supporting evidence, may no longer suffice for a court to find that collateral immigration consequences are established.
17Even if my first and second analyses are incorrect, and deportation is properly characterized as a collateral consequence, it cannot serve as a basis for imposing a disproportionate sentence.
18Mr. Singh was involved in organized, targeted and brazen thefts from the LCBO. The only reason he was in Hamilton was to commit theft from the LCBO. He attended two stores in the area. Aggravating this was that he was on a probation order not to be in an LCBO because of a prior similar occurrence.
19Between the plea before this Court and sentencing, Mr. Singh pleaded guilty to similar offences in other jurisdictions.
20On May 1, 2026, Mr. Singh pled to the following counts:
- Two counts of theft under $5000
Offence dates: Dec 10-20, 2023
Facts: Stole total of $5,365.65 from LCBO
- One count of possession of property under $5000
Offence date: December 22, 2023
Facts: stole total $1882.10 from LCBO
- One count of theft over $5000
Offence date: June 7, 2025
Facts: Stole $5007.26 from Home Depot
21On that, Mr. Singh was sentenced to time served of 81 days enhanced to 122 days.
22On May 29, 2026, Mr. Singh pled to the following counts:
- One count of theft under $5000
Offence date: June 24 2024
Facts: Stole $1010.00 from LCBO
- One count of theft over $5000
Offence date: June 26 2025
Facts: Stole $12,580.00 from Home Depot
23Mr. Singh was sentenced to 4 months of custody on those counts.
24While these convictions post-date the offences before this Court and the rule in Lord Coke’s case applies, I must still consider them for the purposes of totality, and they may be used to assess his rehabilitative potential.3 Moreover, these offences, in conjunction with those before the Court, demonstrate the planned and organized nature of the thefts in Hamilton. Mr. Singh is clearly travelling throughout the province and targeting certain retailers.
25The impact of thefts from the LCBO is significant and not to be dismissed. The LCBO suffers significant losses due to criminal activity every year. It is estimated that Canadian retailers lose just over 4 billion a year to criminal activity or 10.8 million a day. Since the LCBO is a Crown agency and is classified as a taxpayer owned enterprise, their revenue help pay for healthcare, education and other important government programs in Ontario. Losses to the LCBO are losses to every single resident of Ontario.
26In my view, given amount of alcohol stolen in Hamilton, the sophisticated, organized and targeted nature of the thefts, the impact on the LCBO and residents of Ontario, his criminal record, the fact he was on probation not to be in an LCBO at the time of the offence and prospects for rehabilitation, the 90 days joint submission is simply insufficient even if I were to consider the fact he may be deported as a collateral consequence.
27To summarize my concerns with the joint submission:
the cornerstone of the joint submission, the deportation, is not a factor for me to consider, or;
I cannot find as a fact that he will in fact be deported, or;
Even if I am wrong and it is a collateral fact for me to consider the 90 days joint submission is insufficient.
DOES THE 90 DAY JOINT SUBMISSION BRING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE INTO DISREPUTE
28Joint submissions are critical to the proper functioning of the administration of justice. Trial judges should not reject a joint submission lightly. They should only do so where the proposed sentence would be viewed by reasonable and informed persons as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system. It is an extremely high threshold and is necessary to maintain the stability of the justice system. A lower threshold than this would cast the efficacy of resolution agreements into too great a degree of uncertainty. Joint submissions should only be rejected in rare cases.4
29In determining whether a 90‑day sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, I highlight the following passage from Anthony‑Cook:
While the "demonstrably unfit" test used by appellate courts is undoubtedly a higher threshold than the simple "fitness" test, in rare cases, this threshold may not be sufficiently robust for the joint submission context. I would not rule out the possibility that a sentence which would otherwise be considered demonstrably unfit absent a joint submission may nonetheless be acceptable in the context of one. For example, take the case of an accused involved in a very serious crime that the Crown may have difficulty proving because of deficiencies in its case. The accused agrees to plead guilty, and to assist the Crown in prosecuting his co-conspirators for this and other more serious offences. The Crown might reasonably conclude that it is in the public interest to agree, by way of a joint submission, to a very lenient sentence in order to obtain the accused's guilty plea and his assistance. In short, a very lenient, even "demonstrably unfit" sentence may, in a particular case, serve the greater good.5
30I highlight this passage to emphasize that it will only be in rare cases that the demonstrably unfit threshold is insufficient in the context of a joint submission. Such cases may arise where there are weaknesses in the Crown’s case, or where the accused has provided significant participation or assistance.
31Also, the fitness of a sentence is a necessary first step in determining whether it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. A demonstrably unfit sentence is a condition precedent to such a finding. While a demonstrably unfit sentence will not necessarily bring the administration of justice into disrepute, a sentence that does bring the administration of justice into disrepute will always be demonstrably unfit.
32Therefore, as a matter of methodology, the court must first assess the fitness of the sentence and, after making that determination, the court must then consider whether any additional factors—this not being an exhaustive list—such as weaknesses in the Crown’s case, the background of the accused, or the accused’s participation with the Crown, justify or “redeem” an otherwise unfit sentence such that it does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and instead serves the greater good. Put another way, a demonstrably unfit sentence that lacks such redeeming factors will inevitably bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
33In my view, considering the factors outlined above—the amount of alcohol stolen, the sophisticated, organized, targeted, and brazen nature of the thefts, the impact on the LCBO and residents of Ontario, his criminal record, the fact that he was on probation not to be in an LCBO, his prospects for rehabilitation, the principle of totality (given he is serving a 8-month sentence)—I find that an 12-month sentence is appropriate.
34In coming to my conclusion on the appropriate sentence I have also considered the parity principle, and I find that the ordinary range for an LCBO theft does not apply. This is not a regular theft from the LCBO. This is an organized and systematic campaign targeting LCBO with the intent of stealing thousands of dollars’ worth of alcohol, the impact of which affects every person in Ontario in terms of diminished revenue to help pay for government services.
35Since the appropriate sentence is four times the position the joint submission and given the factors mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I find the proposed 90-day sentence to be unhinged from the reality of the situation.
36Having made that determination, I turn to whether the sentence brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Here, there are no redeeming factors, there are no issues with the Crown’s case; I am not aware of any assistance provided by Mr. Singh; while I am troubled by his addiction, his background alone does not tip the balance; and deportation is not a factor I can consider, nor can I find that it will occur, and even if it were considered, it would render the sentence disproportionate. Moreover, this is not case like Harasuik6 where the cluster of offences committed by the appellant was varied and unique. This is a straightforward matter two thefts from the LCBO, on the same date, while he was on a probation order not to attend that establishment.
37As a result, since nothing redeems this unhinged sentence and no greater good is served by acceding to it, I find it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Accordingly, I impose a sentence of 12 months concurrent on the theft charges and 60 days concurrent on the breach of probation. The message needs to be clear: organized and systematic theft targeting of the LCBO will be severely sanctioned.
Released: June 23, 2026
Signed: Justice M.K. Wendl
Footnotes
- R. v. Hamilton, 2004 CanLII 5549 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 3252 (ONCA) at para. 156
- R v Critton, [2002] OJ No 2594 at para. 86
- R. v. R.M., 2020 ONCA 231 at para 35
- R. v. Fuller, 2020 ONCA 115
- R. v. Anthony‑Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 SCR 204 at para 47
- R. v. Harasuik, 2023 ONCA 594