Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Dhillon, 2010 ONCA 687

Date: 20101020

Docket: C49104

Before: Laskin, MacPherson and Karakatsanis JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Sukhwinder Singh Dhillon

Appellant

Counsel:

Brian Snell, for the appellant

Brian McNeely, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: October 19, 2010

On appeal from the conviction entered on December 2, 2002 by Justice C. Stephen Glithero of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The accused submits that the trial judge erred in effectively precluding the defence from leading evidence in order to strengthen the ‘other suspect’ evidence of motive and opportunity. The proposed evidence was that homeopathic medicine, which often includes strychnine, was made and kept in the deceased’s home at the time of the death; and that it was thrown out by the family after learning that the police believed that death was caused by poisoning.

[2] The trial judge provisionally ruled that if the defence ‘other suspect’ evidence were admitted, the Crown should be permitted to lead some evidence of the circumstances surrounding the death of the accused wife by strychnine poisoning the preceding year “as a means of demonstrating that the accused had access to strychnine poison and the willingness to use it”. In our view, the trial judge correctly held that without some evidence that the accused had special access to strychnine, the other suspect evidence would leave the jury with an unfair and distorted picture.

[3] The appellant contends that this ruling tipped the balance too far in favour of the Crown. We disagree. The trial judge made a series of discretionary rulings on severance of counts (relating to two murders, including that of the business partner) and similar fact evidence (relating to five murders, including that of the business partner) that strongly favoured the defence case. In this context, the trial judge’s ruling on the circumstances in which the defence could lead ‘other suspect’ evidence was a fair balancing of evidence the parties could and could not call. Importantly, on several occasions after the ruling, defence counsel commented favourably on the balance struck in the ruling.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.

“J. I. Laskin J.A.”

“J. C. MacPherson J.A.”

“Karakatsanis J.A.”