Court Information

Court File No.: Toronto Region Ontario Court of Justice

Parties

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

J. Battersby, for the Crown

— And —

Tharshan Thaparananthan

P. Klumak, for the accused

Hearing and Decision

Heard: September 21, October 6, 2015

Judge: L. Feldman

Introduction

[1] After trial, I found Tharshan Thaparananthan guilty of two counts of Criminal Harassment and two of Fail to Comply with Probation. While on probation for criminal harassment of another woman, he repeatedly made contact with the complainant, Jusbeer Singh, on Facebook even after having been cautioned to stop by the police. As well, he continued to attempt to meet her at locations he believed she might attend. I found him not guilty of assaulting the complainant at one of those locations. These are my reasons for sentence.

The Evidence

[2] In September of 2014, the complainant was contacted by a friend, Maylene Seecharan, who told her the accused had come to the restaurant she owned and said he had planned to meet her there. Ms. Singh obtained his name and photograph and discovered that her photos were on the defendant's Facebook page together with an immense number of messages, including voice recordings, that he had sent her. She did not receive them because her settings were private.

[3] The content of the messaging was inappropriate, bizarre and disturbing. Some examples included his expressing his love for her and asking if she were happy at what she was doing to him by not responding. By his own account, he had not seen her since 2006. Ms. Singh denied knowing him, although it is probable she had met him briefly about 10 years earlier.

[4] The complainant was understandably concerned for her safety. She had her family drive her to school and contacted school security as there was a possibility the defendant attended the same college.

[5] Ms. Singh called the police on September 17. P.C. Michael Reeves interviewed her and then attended the accused's residence in order to caution him against further communication with the complainant. Mr. Thaparananthan said he would comply and that he would delete the messages. The officer recalls that the defendant said Ms. Singh was lying about not knowing him. P.C. Reeves was concerned he did not take the warning seriously. His concern was prescient.

[6] The officer suggested Ms. Singh not block the accused on Facebook in order to collect evidence in the event he ignored the caution. The complainant took the precaution of checking her social feeds to ensure there would be no indication of where she might be and asked her family not to post her activities.

[7] Regrettably, the accused continued to make contact. Ms. Singh received numerous daily messages until March of 2015 when the defendant was arrested. These included pictures, screen shots and voice messages. Mr. Thaparananthan posted photos of the complainant under which he blended his first name and her nickname, Jasmine, as well as a photograph of himself with her name tattooed on his arm.

[8] There are many other examples of delusional messages that undoubtedly caused Ms. Singh profound fear and upset. Although the complainant never responded, the defendant constantly messaged her that he loved her. Early on, he wrote, "I'm here with my arms and heart filled with love waiting for you…I want your tender love and care…You think I'll leave you aside…you know me better". He went on in another post to say, "I will hold you…passionately with all the love inside me…please you physically…till death". He later wrote, "I wish I could hug you right this moment".

[9] In this context it must have been chilling for Ms. Singh to read the accused's message that he had just been released in February after 3 years in jail and that he missed her. He went on to ask her not to report him to the police for contacting her and said as a reward he would have a gift for her on Valentine's Day. He said he felt he was deeply in love with her, that he had so much to share with her and that she was his queen.

[10] There are many other disturbing messages. Mr. Thaparananthan told the complainant that he was going to hold her tight and kiss her on the lips so passionately that she would not forget the kiss for a lifetime. He reminded her that he was always there for her and would never leave her. He said he would not give up and that her silence was killing him. He wanted to know why she was playing hide and seek games with him and that his heart says it loves being in love with her. He asked her if she had any clue how many times he stared at her name with a big smile on his face.

[11] These messages bespeak a delusional disorder, likely erotomania, as indicated in a psychiatric report, dated June 17, 2011, that was prepared by Dr. Angus McDonald. This report was produced to assess the stability and dangerousness of the defendant who had been convicted of four counts of criminal harassment of another woman over a period of six years commencing in 2007. His longest sentence was 18 months (including 10 months of pre-trial custody). His last sentence in 2013 was 90 days (including 251 days of equivalent pre-trial custody). As noted earlier, he was on probation for criminal harassment at the time of these offences.

[12] It is clear from Dr. McDonald's report that the disorder fuelling Mr. Thaparananthan's previous multiple offences were at the root of his behaviour here. It permits the inference that the defendant's delusions are fixed.

[13] In the report, it is indicated that Mr. Thaparananthan was told many times that the prior complainant wanted no contact with him but was firmly convinced she wished to continue the relationship. He described that relationship as 'wonderful'. After being repeatedly jailed for unwanted contact he suggested she had called him many times. He acknowledged contacting the complainant despite a number of court orders prohibiting it but believed that was what she wanted. When she married someone else, he believed she still pined for him.

[14] In the case at bar, despite the police caution and the complainant's failure to respond to his messages over the course of seven months, the defendant believed she had contacted the police to test his love, that she was sending subliminal messages by playing hard to get and that she was flirting with him. He said he understood the risk to his liberty interests in contacting her.

[15] Dr. McDonald notes that the defendant's disorder is complicated by his having reported experiencing hallucinatory stimuli and hearing voices. The psychiatrist suggests this indicates an early phase of a schizophreniform illness. In these circumstances, the prognosis is uncertain and "probably not favourable".

[16] Dr. McDonald writes that he expects it very likely that Mr. Thaparananthan "will continue to pursue the object of his affection, despite any redirection to the contrary". While he was referring to the prior complainant, I draw the same inference on the facts in this case. The defendant's behaviour here followed the same pattern rooted in his erotic delusions. Of concern, he denies suffering from a mental illness. He has little insight into the impact of his behaviour on others.

[17] Mr. Thaparananthan has ten prior convictions for failure to comply with court orders. In the presentence report, his lack of insight is made clear by his expressed view that his mistake was in contacting the complainant as often as he did. There is an absence of positive, structured activities in the defendant's life. He chooses to spend most of his time alone. The evidence supports the inference that he remains a real risk to re-offend.

Positions of the Parties

[18] Ms. Battersby, for the prosecution, submits that the defendant has made no real progress in understanding his obsession or submitting to treatment and remains a risk to other women. She says his disregard of court orders and lack of commitment in dealing with his mental health issues reinforces that risk.

[19] The Crown has proceeded by summary conviction. The failure to comply charges provide for a maximum of 18 months. Ms. Battersby suggests a global sentence of 15-18 months, including a concurrent maximum of 6 months for the criminal harassment charges, less pre-trial custody of the equivalent of 12 months. She says that 3 years of probation should be imposed in order to provide structure for the accused and protection of the complainant.

[20] Mr. Klumak submits that the public would be best protected by intensive counselling and that no further time is necessary.

Conclusion

[21] These offences are serious and warrant a deterrent sanction. The protection of vulnerable women from inevitable physical or psychological harm at the hand of this accused and other like-minded individuals is paramount: R. v. Bates, 146 C.C.C. (3d) 321.

[22] It is of concern that the accused's fixed delusions render him a continuing risk to other women. Had the Crown proceeded by indictment, I would have considered, given Mr. Thaparananthan's prior antecedents and mental state, a penitentiary term.

[23] In these circumstances, giving whatever weight I can to the defendant's limited rehabilitative prospects, I would impose a global sentence of 15 months, assigning 5 months concurrent to the criminal harassment charges and 5 months consecutive to each of the probationary breaches. In the result, Mr. Thaparananthan will serve an additional 3 months.

[24] The accused will, as well, be placed on probation for 3 years, the terms of which will include a requirement that he attend for assessment, treatment and counselling for his mental health issues and that he sign any releases to permit probation services to monitor his compliance; that he have no contact directly or indirectly with Jusbeer Singh and that he not be within 500 metres of any place he knows her to reside, work, attend school or happen to be; that he reside where approved of by probation services; that he possess no weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.

[25] In addition, the defendant, pursuant to Code s. 743.2, is to have no contact with the complainant while he is in custody. As well, a sample of his DNA will be taken and he will be subject to a Code s. 110 Order for 10 years.

Released: November 16, 2015

Signed: Justice L. Feldman