His Majesty The King v. Gurlal Dhillon, 2024 ONCJ 284

Court File and Parties

Date: May 2, 2024 Information Nos.: 23-12102427, 24-12100110 Ontario Court of Justice

His Majesty The King v. Gurlal Dhillon

Reasons for Sentence

Before The Honourable Justice S. Latimer on Thursday, May 02, 2024, at BURLINGTON, Ontario

Appearances

Counsel for the Crown: N. Chiera Counsel for Gurlal Dhillon: U. Kancharla

Latimer, J. (Orally):

These are my reasons for decision with regard to Mr. Dhillon’s sentence.

Overview of Offences

He has pleaded guilty to charges of robbery, dangerous driving, breaching a youth sentence stemming out of an armed robbery spree that occurred last July in Peel and Halton regions beginning in the early morning with the theft of a female driver’s Mercedes. This driver described to the police how another vehicle was following her along Dundas in Oakville when it intentionally struck the rear of her vehicle. When she got out to assess the damage, a male from the other car, Mr. Dhillon, pointed what looked very much like a handgun at her and stole her vehicle. She was left near Dundas and Trafalgar intersection in Oakville on foot as the robber sped away. This was early in the morning.

Later that morning, a similar encounter took place involving another female driver in her 2022 BMW. A masked Mr. Dhillon pointed a gun at her and stole her vehicle.

Victim Impact

I am anonymizing these victims for their own privacy and safety. The BMW driver has provided a victim impact statement documenting the significant impact Mr. Dhillon’s actions have had on her. He stole much more than her vehicle. He robbed her of her peace of mind and her trust in strangers. She spoke credibly of the anxiety and fear that remain with her to this day.

On the afternoon of the same day, a male driver was sitting in his 2020 BMW SUV in a parking lot in Mississauga. Mr. Dhillon, driving one of the earlier stolen vehicles, approached and brandished a gun at the male victim stating “you move, you die”. The driver fled on foot and was pursued by Mr. Dhillon for a time before escaping. The vehicle was not ultimately taken.

This event caused the driver significant trauma as explained in his impact statement. It has negatively impacted all aspects of his life. He writes “Emotionally, I have been grappling with a myriad of conflicting feelings since the incident. The initial shock and fear have given way to feelings of anger, resentment, and profound sadness. I am angry at the perpetrator for violating my sense of safety and security, resentful of the lasting impact this incident has had on my own life, and deeply saddened by the loss of innocence and trust in the world around me. My immediate reaction to the incident was one of sheer terror and disbelief. The image of the gun pointed at my face and the sound of my own heartbeat in my ears is etched into my memory. In that moment, I felt powerless and vulnerable, unsure if I would make it out alive.”

Very shortly after this attempted robbery, Mr. Dhillon stole another 2022 BMW in the eastern area of Oakville. This robbery had the same signature. A minor vehicle collision causes the victim to exit her vehicle and have a gun pointed at her alongside a threat “I’ll shoot you right now, just give me the keys”.

This female driver has also provided an impact statement. She described the incident as having left “a permanent scar” and having plagued her with nightmares and fear of other drivers. As she writes “I cry at night thinking about the episode. He pulled a gun in the middle of a busy road at 2:45 p.m.”

Mr. Dhillon, fleeing in her stolen vehicle, ran a red light and collided with a driver in another vehicle. Mr. Dhillon was found on foot in the area. His cell phone contained messages with seeming co-conspirators where he writes throughout the day “got benz” and “I just got in a chase, crashed out, can you come get me”.

An imitation firearm was located. It is an Airsoft pistol that looks incredibly like a real handgun. I find as a fact the victims, in the moment they saw this item, would have been convinced it was real. It looks very real. (See the photo of the gun that has been made an exhibit).

Defendant's Background

Mr. Dhillon is a 20-year old man raised in Brampton. He advised the writer of the pre-sentence report that he has a close and positive relationship with his mother and his sister, and their attendance in court during the sentencing bears that fact out. His father is not presently in his life, and the report talks about Mr. Dhillon witnessing domestic violence in the household during his childhood. Mr. Dhillon struggled in school, but seems to have found meaningful employment as a bricklayer and is a member of their union.

The report writer describes Mr. Dhillon as polite and forthcoming. He describes himself as “a good person with a good heart” and acknowledged the terrible decisions he made, indicating at the time that he was under the influence and associating with negative individuals. He describes this experience, that is the post arrest-experience, as a “wake-up call”.

The report advises that at the time of this offending, Mr. Dhillon was subject to two separate youth sentence orders. His youth probation file seems to depict an immature young man who seems, beyond these offences, to have become somewhat more mature and stable as he has aged. His prior youth record exclusively from 2023 includes two discreet sentence hearings for offences such as assault by choking, assault with a weapon, fraud, and breach of an undertaking.

Positions of the Parties

Regarding the position of the parties, the Crown seeks a five-year jail sentence less the appropriate credit for pre-trial custody, focusing on the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence in these grave circumstances.

The defence submits that a lesser but still significant sanction of three years is appropriate, adverting to the Crown’s concerns, but stressing the value of this guilty plea, Mr. Dhillon’s age, and the fact that this is his first set of adult convictions.

Sentencing Principles

The Criminal Code instructs that the goal of any criminal sentence is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law, and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society. (See section 718 of the Code). Sentencing judges attempt to achieve this goal by imposing just sanctions that address one or more of the traditional sentencing principles that are contained in the Criminal Code. These include denunciation, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, making reparation to victims of crime, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgement of the harm they have caused the community and specific victims in our community. (See section 718(a) through (f) of the Code).

Ultimately, the fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed and the degree of responsibility of the person who committed it. (See section 718.1 of the Code). This means that for this sentence to be appropriate, it must be tailored to Mr. Dhillon’s circumstances and the circumstances of these offences.

Relevant Aspects of the Case

I consider the following aspects of this case particularly relevant:

1. This is an early guilty plea. While the Crown case appears strong, significant mitigation still attaches. Mr. Dhillon seems genuinely remorseful at this point, and his plea has eliminated significant trial time in both this court and possibly the Superior Court if that had been the path that he chose to pursue;
2. His plea has saved the victims from having to come to court and testify and relive these terrifying moments;
3. He is an adult first offender;
4. He seems to be, based on the pre-sentence report, intelligent enough to learn from rehabilitative programming. However, I have reservations about his motivations to actually rehabilitate. His statement in the pre-sentence report that this experience has been a “wake-up call” is deserving of modest weight when I consider that I am the third judge Mr. Dhillon has been seen and been sentenced by over an approximate one-year period. His conduct during this particular day and these offences belies his assertion that he is mentally prepared to straighten up and fly straight;
5. On the aggravating side, the Crown is quite right that the predominate principles of sentencing here are general deterrence, specific deterrence, and denunciation. The gravity of these crimes is enormous. Our cars are safe havens for citizens when out and about in the community. Mr. Dhillon stole that feeling of safety from these individuals. He did so brazenly and in public, and in taking their vehicles at gunpoint, made these citizens fear for their lives;
6. The use of an imitation firearm is an aggravating factor, as is the fact that Mr. Dhillon was bound by prior youth sentence orders, including a prohibition order;
7. Car thefts are on the rise in our community, including the violent kind committed here. I make this finding on the basis of judicial notice as a judge who works and resides in this community. The prevalence of this form of criminality is an aggravating feature of this sentencing;
8. These crimes have had significant negative impacts on all of the affected victims;
9. There is an element of pre-planning and evidence of a joint venture here. I note the messages found on Mr. Dhillon’s phone.

Analysis of Cited Cases

The parties have filed cases on this hearing seeking to demonstrate what similar offenders have received in similar circumstances. In R. v. Marzouk, the Court of Appeal reduced a three-year sentence for a single robbery to two in the circumstances of a young adult offender convicted after trial who conducted an imitation firearm carjacking. I disagree that Mr. Dhillon is similarly situated to this individual. I am not prepared to conclude that Mr. Dhillon has exceptional rehabilitative potential as the Court of Appeal found in Marzouk for reasons discussed in (4) above. His prior youth sentences have done nothing to curb his criminal tendencies.

Having reviewed the other cases the Crown has helpfully provided in their sentencing chart, I am satisfied that a total sentence in the range suggested by the Crown is appropriate. These crimes are deserving of condemnation by the court. Five years for this plea in these circumstances seeks to accomplish that goal, while at the same time, not forgoing any possibility for Mr. Dhillon’s rehabilitation. It is a fit sentence for Mr. Dhillon for these offences.

Conclusion and Sentence

In conclusion, I impose 5 years’ jail concurrent on count 1, count 12, and count 6. More specifically on count 1, and I invite the lawyer to make certain my math is correct, as of today on count 1, Mr. Dhillon has served 290 days. Credited on a 1.5 basis, that is 435 days. I accept I should add the 57 days of Duncan credit, totaling 492 days. Dividing that by 30.417, the equivalent of 1 month, Mr. Dhillon has already served 16 months, 7 days.

I credit him 16 months and 7 days, and on counts 1, 12, and 6, I have imposed 43 months, 24 days going forward. That is a total of 60 months or 5 years.

On the dangerous driving count, I impose a 2 year concurrent sentence, and on the breach of a sentence order count, I impose 6 months concurrent.

The total sentence going forward, 43 months, 24 days.

Ancillary Orders

I waive the fine surcharges in light of the jail sentence. I impose a weapons prohibition under section 109 of the Code, and a DNA order on the robbery counts.

Mr. Chiera, the other counts on the information? MR. CHIERA: Remaining counts can be marked withdrawn on both informations.

THE COURT: Mr. Dhillon, that completes this matter in court today. Good luck to you, sir. Ms. Kancharla, thank you for your help in this matter.

MS. KANCHARLA: Thank you, Your Honour.

Dialogue

GURLAL DHILLON: I just want to say – Sorry, sir, I just want to say that even though I’m getting this time, I know that you did this with a clear mind and you know what you’re doing, and I really appreciate this sentence, and I want to tell you guys, for sure, whenever I get out of jail, I’m gonna make sure that I’m on the right path and I’m not gonna ever repeat, because before I’ve been, I’ve been sentenced as a youth for my youth matters, but I never really been put in jail that would, that taught me like, that put me in my mind and taught me to not do the wrong things, but now I’ve been in jail all this time, and going forward I’m gonna be in jail, I really, I really am like sure that when I come out, I’m gonna be totally different. I’m not gonna ever repeat anything that is like going against the law. I’m gonna make sure to always follow, follow the law and not do anything to hurt anyone or, or do any crimes.

THE COURT: Thank you very much, Mr. Dhillon. I wish you luck going forward.

MR. CHIERA: Ms. Kancharla, you want to say something.

GURLAL DHILLON: Your Honour – Sorry.

MS. KANCHARLA: I was just going to ask to be put in a breakout room for a minute ....

THE COURT: Yes ... MR. CHIERA: If I ...

THE COURT: ... Mr. Chiera, yes?

MR. CHIERA: I was going to say, just before we do that, Your Honour, I just want to make sure because some of the counts, as I understand it, was there any request for ancillary orders on these matters?

THE COURT: I ordered a 109 and a DNA.

MR. CHIERA: You did, okay, I must have missed that.

THE COURT: There wasn’t, specifically speaking, a request on the dangerous driving for a prohibition. There is Ministry suspension, so I didn’t touch on that because I don’t recall it being requested.

MR. CHIERA: Oh, okay. That’s fine, but there’s the DNA and the section 109 order?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. CHIERA: Okay, thank you.

... WHEREUPON THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED.

Electronic Certificate of Transcript

FORM3 ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5 (2)) Evidence Act

I, PAMELA CESCHAN (Name of authorized person) certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Gurlal Dhillon in the Ontario Court of Justice (Name of case) (Name of court) held at 2021 Plains Road East, Burlington, Ontario (Court address) 1213-13-20240502-094238- 6- taken from Recording LATIMES, which has been certified in Form 1.

June 7, 2024 (Date) (Electronic signature of authorized person)

5453163400 (Authorized court transcriptionist's identification number­ if applicable)

Ontario (Province of signing), Canada.

A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.

Form 3 - Electronic Certificate of Transcript - September 1, 2022