WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:

486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences:

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2024 03 09 Court File No.: Brampton 3111 998 22 2475

Between:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

RANJIT SINGH

Before: Justice G.P. Renwick

Heard on: 04-07 March 2024 Reasons for Judgment released on: 09 March 2024

Counsel: C. Tarjan............................................................................................... counsel for the Crown J. Sandhu and R. Sidhu.................................... counsel for the Defendant Ranjit Singh

RENWICK J.:

Introduction

[1] The Defendant is charged on an eight-count Information with the following offences:

i. Assaulting S.K. (02 March 2022); ii. Forcibly confining S.K. (02 March 2022); iii. Committing sexual assault upon S.K. (02 March 2022); iv. Assaulting S.K. (during 2018); v. Assaulting S.K. (03 February 2022); vi. Assaulting S.K. (05-06 February 2022); vii. Assaulting S.K. (10 February 2022); and viii. Committing sexual assault upon S.K. (10 February 2022)

[2] The prosecution proceeded by indictment and the Defendant elected to have a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

[3] In advance of the trial, in separate written reasons, I dismissed a s. 11(b) Charter Application to stay the prosecution for inordinate delay and an application to permit the complainant to testify remotely from another province.

[4] The trial took approximately 15 hours of court time to complete over parts of four days. For its case, the prosecution called two civilian witnesses (S.B. and the complainant, S.K.), two police witnesses (search warrant officers), and introduced photographs, video recordings, and a black “rope” into evidence. The Defendant solely called the lead investigating officer as a witness and introduced parts of a video recording containing images of the complainant and the Defendant on the day of the latter’s arrest.

[5] At issue is whether the prosecution has proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. This will entail a consideration of witness credibility and reliability, the probative value of the evidence and whether the prosecution’s high burden has been met.

Governing Legal Principles

[6] The constitutionally enshrined presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt govern the fact-finding process. [1]

[7] The 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 alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and more specifically, if I have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed any of the alleged offences, he will be acquitted of all charges.

[8] A 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. [2] If after considering all of the admissible evidence, I am sure that the Defendant committed an alleged offence and I am not left with any reasonable doubt, I must convict him since this demonstrates that I am satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Likewise, if I am not sure, or some reasonable doubt remains, then the charge has not been proven to the required degree and an acquittal must follow.

[9] This case involves credibility and reliability 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, or evasive. A trier of fact is entitled to accept some, none, or all of what a witness says while testifying.

[10] A 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 an inconsistency is significant, then I must pay careful attention to it when assessing the reliability of the witness' testimony.

[11] Admissibility and the weight attached to evidence are two distinct considerations. In addition to the testimony received, there are documents/photographs, video recordings, and a cord said to have been used to tie up the complainant. The probative value of evidence is not presumed. In all cases, a trier of fact must determine the probative value of the evidence and what, if anything, is established or proven and to what degree.

The Evidence and Findings of Fact

[12] In this 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, motive, and the witness’ ability to recall and communicate.

[13] I will not recapitulate all of the evidence received during this trial. Suffice it to note that I have used several opportunities during the trial and subsequent to the completion of the submissions to review my notes and to listen to parts of the digital audio recordings of the proceedings. I have thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this case, and I will only discuss parts of the evidence where it serves to underscore my findings. Lastly, despite any verbal exchanges during the evidentiary phase of the trial or submissions, I came to no conclusions about any of the evidence received until all of the closing submissions were made and my review of the evidence, submissions, and the law was complete.

The Testimony of S.B.

[14] S.B. is a city employee and call-taker for municipal service inquiries. She testified about a phone call she received in March 2022 regarding marriage licensing.

[15] During this routine telephone inquiry, S.B. detected that the caller was “emotional,” “sad,” and “crying.” At one point during the call, the female caller whispered, “can you send someone?” S.B. advised the caller that she could not hear her clearly. S.B. learned that the woman was in the basement. She directed the caller to take the phone off of speakerphone and to move upstairs to better hear her. S.B. then confirmed that the woman was “alone,” and no longer on speakerphone. She asked if the caller wanted S.B. to call the police. Once this was confirmed, S.B. notified her supervisors and she remained on the call until police were dispatched to the home where they located the complainant and the Defendant.

[16] S.B. was a credible witness. She appeared well-intentioned, earnest, and objective. Her evidence was largely unchallenged. The amplifications developed through her cross-examination bolstered her credibility. I accept her evidence as truthful.

The Testimony of the Complainant, S.K.

[17] The complainant testified in chief for approximately three hours on the first day of the trial. She was cross-examined for approximately five hours on the second day and further for over an hour on day three before a brief re-examination. Throughout the cross-examination, save perhaps for one occasion when she questioned the relevance of a portion of her examination, the witness was patient and cooperative with her cross-examiner. For the most part, the complainant testified dispassionately, except for the several times that she became tearful and buried her face in her hands and a handkerchief, which she used to wipe her eyes and nose. It was also evident at various times during her testimony that the colouring of the complainant’s face darkened, she furrowed her brow, and her nose and eyes appeared red and watery.

[18] S.K. is a thirty-four year old, permanent resident of Canada. She was born in India. In 2013, she met the Defendant, who was also then living in India. She came to Canada in May 2017 and maintained contact with the Defendant who arrived in December 2017.

[19] In her examination in chief, the complainant variously described her relationship with the Defendant as friends, “girlfriend and boyfriend,” or acquaintances. During cross-examination, the complainant revealed that the Defendant had proposed to her during the several months of their relationship and she had become engaged to marry the Defendant in India. Due to her uncertainty about the Defendant’s fidelity to her, the complainant never included her parents in the news about this engagement.

[20] The complainant was a nurse in India and after arriving in Canada, she studied nursing at the post-graduate level at Niagara and Seneca colleges in 2017 and 2018. She also worked at a mobile phone store and registered her own cleaning and construction company in the summer of 2020.

[21] The complainant described the incident that gave rise to police involvement first, however, to better understand the context for their interaction that day, I will review various parts of the complainant’s testimony in chronological order.

[22] The complainant had been living with the Defendant as house-mates in the home where the February and March 2022 allegations took place from November 2021. They had moved to this home with others after they had all lived together at another residence from February 2020. Cross-examination revealed that the Defendant and complainant had also lived together as friends in at least one other residence since 2018.

[23] In early February 2022, the complainant became engaged to an Indian national named “J.S.” through an arrangement made by her family in India. Though the evidence was not entirely clear, it appears that the complainant had not met J.S. in person at any point prior to their engagement or these alleged offences.

[24] The complainant testified that when her mother called her and the Defendant to tell them both that the complainant was now engaged to be married, he was “normal” at first and appeared to accept the news. Within the days that followed, the Defendant became upset and had asked the complainant to call off her engagement. He scolded her for talking on the phone with her fiancé and told her to stop or he would tell her fiancé that the Defendant and the complainant were in a relationship and had plans to marry, which was not true.

[25] On one occasion after the engagement news, the Defendant came to the complainant’s bedroom while she had been on the phone with her fiancé. She decided to cut her call short. He opened her bedroom door and wanted to see her phone. She refused to show the phone. He grabbed it, but because her password had changed, he was unable to open the phone. This made the Defendant upset. The Defendant then grabbed the complainant by her hair and slapped her on her face, back, and head.

[26] On another day, just after the complainant had finished her morning prayers, the Defendant came to her room, grabbed her and “threw” her on the floor. She began to cry. The Defendant started to record a video of the two of them to send to her fiancé. She covered her head and face with her hands while on the floor of her bedroom. The complainant testified that when the Defendant tried to hug her, she pushed him away and his phone fell on the floor. The complainant testified that she eventually received this video from her fiancé and it became exhibit #2.

[27] The complainant described another alleged incident which took place in the basement. It was night-time. The Defendant had called her to come down to see him. She declined. He told her if she did not come downstairs, he would come up to her room. He was crying. She relented and went down to see him. When she arrived, he pushed her onto the bed. He removed the left leg of her black leggings and covered her mouth with his hand so that she could not scream. Her legs hung partially off the bed. The Defendant touched her bare thigh with his hand. The Defendant climbed on top of her and told her “if I can do this and no one notices, can you imagine what else I can do.” She cried. The complainant was unclear what made the Defendant stop the assault. He let her leave. She then drove to a Sikh temple and sat in the parking lot until 6:00 a.m., when she returned home and locked herself in her bedroom.

[28] The final set of allegations are the most evocative. The complainant had returned to meet with the Defendant at her former residence, to discuss issues relating to her tenancy, utility bills, and to retrieve some of her property. They spoke on the couch on the main floor of the home. He asked her not to move out completely. At one point he returned from the kitchen and she could see something hanging from his pant pocket. She alleged that the Defendant grabbed her sweater close to her collar, slapped her several times on her face, and began to drag her toward the stairs to the basement.

[29] She testified that she was not on her feet when this was happening. He tried to open the basement door, but she shut it and then blocked it with her right leg. By this point, the complainant was crying and asking what the Defendant was doing. She also called out for others at home to help her. After some minutes, their house-mate, P., came downstairs and saw them “struggling.” The complainant called her name and asked her “Help me. Stop him to do it.” P. did not say or do anything before going back upstairs.

[30] The Defendant dragged the complainant to the bedroom in the basement. He removed her jacket. He then took the item that was hanging from his pocket. It was a long piece of black twisted fabric, like a “rope.” He tied the complainant’s hands to her knees as she sat on the floor of the small bedroom. At one point, the Defendant pulled [up] the complainant’s sweater, revealing half of her naked torso. The Defendant told her that his life was ruined and he would now make a video of them having “sexual relationships,” and then they will get married.

[31] During the ordeal, the complainant was left alone briefly. She testified that the Defendant locked the door and took the key with him when he left. She slid herself on her bum toward the door, but she testified that it was locked. She also testified that the Defendant allowed her to use the washroom in the basement, but she was not permitted to lock the washroom door.

[32] At some point, the complainant convinced the Defendant that she would marry him. They tried calling his friend who had recently gone through this process. They called a legal consultant. The Defendant confirmed that he had someone that was willing to marry him. They learned that a marriage licence could be obtained from the city.

[33] Together, the complainant and the Defendant called the city to inquire about the process to obtain a marriage licence. Given her fluency in English and the Defendant’s language limitations, the complainant spoke to the municipal call-taker by speakerphone. At one point, the complainant asked the Defendant to retrieve a pen and paper to write down the information about the marriage licence. When the Defendant moved away, the complainant told the call-taker that she was stuck. She responded, “yes” when the call-taker asked if she wanted her to “call someone.” The call-taker asked if they were in the basement and then advised them to move upstairs because of a “network issue.” The call-taker stayed on the line until the police came to the front door.

[34] In terms of injuries, the complainant testified that subsequent to that day, she noticed that she had “blue marks” on her “flanks,” and she suffered various aches from this final incident.

[35] The cross-examination of the complainant was extensive. Several new pieces of information were learned during the cross-examination of the complainant:

i. She had been engaged to the Defendant in India; ii. She had not shared the engagement with her parents, although she did tell her older sister in the U.K.; iii. The Defendant married another woman in 2013 or 2014 and the complainant “parted ways;” iv. The Defendant maintained good relationships with the complainant’s family and attended her sister’s wedding in 2016; v. The complainant did not tell her sister that the Defendant had engaged and married another woman in order to preserve the friendship between him and her sister; vi. The complainant’s parents entrusted the Defendant to bring the complainant clothes and gold when he came to Canada; vii. At one point, the Defendant helped the complainant and her two friends find a house in Brampton, when the house they had arranged to rent had bugs; viii. The complainant’s parents thought of the Defendant as a guardian who could protect her; ix. In June 2020, the complainant opened a cleaning and construction business and eventually took on contracts with the Defendant, shared tools with him, and in 2021 the Defendant put a $6000 downpayment on a truck she leased for the business, which she let the Defendant use; x. The complainant attended a lawyer’s office (“David”); the Defendant was trying to arrange his immigration status in Canada and the lawyer suggested that the Defendant marry someone already here; xi. The complainant printed business cards for her construction company and the Defendant had his name and phone number on business cards he used (see exhibit #3); xii. The Defendant could not understand nor read documents in English and the complainant helped him with this, including the meeting with David; xiii. In 2019, the complainant briefly agreed, at the suggestion of an immigration consultant who had previously helped her to become a Permanent Resident, to say that they were in a common law relationship, given that they lived in the same residence; after the initial agreement, the complainant realised that she could not do that; she explained that she had agreed because the Defendant was depressed, he was not sleeping well, and his visitor extension had expired; xiv. Because the complainant had changed her mind about lying to establish a common law relationship with the Defendant, he slapped her and called her “selfish;” xv. The Defendant also slapped the complainant once in a car in India when they argued about the “chats” he had been having with other women; xvi. The Defendant had asked the complainant’s mother for permission to marry her daughter, to obtain his “papers,” but the family was concerned that the complainant would then become a divorcée, which could affect her opportunity to marry; [3] xvii. When the complainant became engaged, the Defendant became so upset he left the residence for two days and was going to move away until the complainant convinced him to stay because she would move out; xviii. On the day of the alleged confinement, the Defendant asked about keeping the truck and the complainant refused; xix. The precipitating moment when the Defendant left the couch and went to the kitchen before his attack upon the complainant was preceded by her refusal to move back and to permit the Defendant to have the truck lease; xx. The complainant had recorded the audio of their conversation leading up until the alleged assault began, on her cell phone; in 2022, the complainant’s friend used the wrong password and her phone became locked; she now has another phone; to this day, the complainant has been unable to open the phone but she believes it still contains the recording and other “data” from that time period; xxi. The complainant testified that she did not remember that she had this recording on her phone when speaking with the police and that she only remembered this when answering questions while testifying; however, the complainant’s statement to police referred to the recording of the “normal” conversation preceding the alleged assaults and confinement; xxii. The Defendant wore gray trousers [4] and the complainant remembered the rope partially hanging from the pocket before the violence began; xxiii. The complainant told the police not to interview P. because she had experienced a miscarriage due to stress; she was now pregnant again; the complainant admitted that this was a “huge mistake I made;” xxiv. When the police arrived at the home and spoke with the Defendant, another house-mate, K., can be seen lying on the bed in the background; the complainant was unaware that he was home or when he had entered the home or why he had not intervened (some five hours earlier) when she was calling for help as she was being dragged to the basement; xxv. The complainant checked the locked bedroom door twice, including a time when her wrists were not tied to her knees; she was unable to open the door from inside the bedroom; they had not changed the locks when they moved into the house and she did not know why the house had that kind of lock (one that could not be unlocked from inside the bedroom) on the basement bedroom door; xxvi. The complainant noticed that cameras had been installed in the home that were not present before she had moved out; she was able to describe the Sony camera the Defendant showed her and threatened to use to make a video of them having sexual relationships; xxvii. During the call to the city about the marriage licence, the Defendant’s phone kept getting notifications from cameras that were installed in the home; xxviii. The complainant denied that she “wiped” the Defendant’s phone while she had it before the police came to retrieve it after the Defendant’s arrest; to her thinking this would have erased evidence of the allegations; xxix. The complainant had pictures on her phone of the marks on her following the last incident; she only showed the photographs to her fiancé; xxx. The Defendant called the complainant’s fiancé many times to say that the complainant and Defendant were living together and having a relationship; xxxi. The complainant had earlier said that her sweater had a small tear and then claimed that it was the jacket she had worn that became torn; xxxii. Although the complainant’s parents knew that she was living in the same house with the Defendant for a long time, when the Defendant sent photographs of the complainant to her fiancé, the complainant believed that the other relatives, the mediator between the families to arrange her marriage, and her future in-laws would not understand why she was living with the Defendant; xxxiii. The complainant’s parents begged the Defendant not to send images or videos of the complainant to her fiancé and eventually they told the complainant to “just file a complaint, deport him, do anything;” xxxiv. The complainant testified that if someone does something bad to her she does not fight or take revenge, instead, she steps back and stops sharing; xxxv. The complainant was asked by her family why she was protecting the Defendant after he tried to ruin her life; she explained that she disagreed with her parents and did not want to file any complaint; she did not want to be the reason anyone would suffer; and xxxvi. The complainant testified that she believes in Karma and she mused that perhaps the trouble the Defendant had caused her was due to some mistake that she made in the past or in a past life.

[36] During cross-examination it was also put to the complainant that she had told the police that following the Defendant’s divorce in November 2021, the lawyer cautioned that she had to wait 30 days to marry the Defendant. Despite this was what she told police, the complainant denied that the lawyer meant her, specifically. I took this to mean that she meant to say that the Defendant would have to wait 30 days following his divorce before he could marry anyone.

[37] In the analysis section below, I will detail why I accept the complainant’s testimony.

The Testimony of Officers Christopher Furlotte, Andrew Mintz and Angela Hartley

[38] The police officers testified about the execution of a search warrant the day after the Defendant’s arrest to find evidence supporting the complainant’s claims, including: condoms, cameras, video recording devices, and identification of the Defendant. Officer Furlotte searched the main floor of the home and the basement bedroom. Officer Mintz was the exhibits officer to whom seized items were given to be logged and processed. Officer Mintz also took a walk-through video of the residence and the main floor, but inexplicably his video camera is turned off as he attempted to open the door leading to the basement.

[39] Officer Furlotte found the black cloth rope on the floor of the basement bedroom. Also, on the bed he found a white napkin with blue ink indicating the address of the home and the words “marriage licence.” Within a backpack found in a suitcase were micro SD cards, phone sim cards, and identification of the Defendant.

[40] The execution of the search warrant did not uncover any condoms or a Sony video camcorder. The search officers did not take any witness statements.

[41] Officer Hartley is the Officer in Charge of this investigation. It appeared that she was called by the Defendant to testify about certain investigative steps taken or missed.

[42] Officer Hartley decided not to interview P. given her limited observations and the report that she was pregnant and had suffered a miscarriage in the past due to stress. This investigator was confident after interviewing the complainant that her evidence was “unwavering,” “not wishy-washy,” and “strong.” The officer explained that she was aware that the complainant had recorded a portion of the interaction with the Defendant before the assaults began. The officer determined that this recording was not pertinent and she did not request it from the complainant. Her view would have changed if the recording had included a discussion of the prior alleged assaults.

[43] With regard to the lack of DNA testing of the rope, the officer explained that it should have happened in “hindsight.” She felt that the seized SD cards would have evidence that would help establish the allegations.

[44] In cross-examination, Officer Hartley was asked of the results of an examination of “the phone”, the cameras and the SD cards, which all proved negative for evidence. The testimony failed to establish which phone had been seized and examined.

[45] The testimony of the police officers was factual and unadorned. It was not challenged in any way. I accept all of the evidence of the officers as truthful and accurate.

Analysis of the Evidence

Credibility and Reliability Generally

[46] Triers of fact must consider both credibility and reliability in determining whether the allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Credibility is shorthand for truthfulness and believability. Reliability is the lens through which we evaluate the accuracy of evidence. Trial judges must be careful not to conflate credibility with reliability otherwise the fact-finding net could entangle even the least reliable piece of evidence.

[47] It is important to remember that in some cases credibility takes a back-seat to reliability. For example, there are prosecutions where the suspect is unknown to the complainant and the latter may be honestly mistaken about the identity of the perpetrator. In such a case, reliability concerns govern the analysis because credibility does not guarantee accuracy.

[48] While credibility is not a proxy for reliability, [5] where the evidence is highly credible, consistent, plausible, not inconsistent with other evidence, largely undisturbed upon a vigorous cross-examination, and not found to be otherwise unreliable, truth and accuracy are likely established.

[49] Assessments of credibility and reliability can be the most important and challenging judicial determinations in a criminal trial. As our Supreme Court wrote yesterday:

Credibility and reliability assessments are also context-specific and multifactorial: they do not operate along fixed lines and are “more of an ‘art than a science’.” With respect to credibility in particular, while coherent reasons are crucial, it is often difficult for trial judges to precisely articulate the reasons why they believed or disbelieved a witness due to “the complex intermingling of impressions that emerge after watching and listening to witnesses and attempting to reconcile the various versions of events.” The task is further complicated by the trial judge’s ability to accept some, all, or none of a witness’ testimony. [6]

[50] Judicial fact-finding is often based on inductive reasoning and evaluations of “probable interpretations of the evidence.” [7] It necessarily depends on common-sense inference-drawing. [8] To again quote our highest court:

Reasoning about how people generally tend to behave, and how things tend to happen, is not only permissible, it is often a necessary component of a complete testimonial assessment. [9]

[51] As a general observation in respect of the complainant’s testimony, although it was heavily challenged by cross-examination and during submissions, it remained uncontradicted. Nonetheless, I have undertaken a review of the evidence with a critical eye to determine the weight and value of the complainant’s testimony.

The Complainant was Credible

[52] For the reasons given below, I find that there was no successful challenge to any of the complainant’s testimony during her cross-examination. The answers the complainant gave to perceived inconsistencies or apparent areas of concern were reasonable, accorded with the complainant’s other evidence, and removed any suspicion respecting the authenticity of her testimony.

[53] In terms of credibility, the complainant presented as a balanced witness. At times, the complainant painted the Defendant in a sympathetic light. She was clear that he had been a good friend to her in the past, before the allegations arose. She did not deny that he had supported her in times of need. The complainant also pointed out that he had offered support to her parents, when her mother needed medical care back home. The complainant brought out the fact that the Defendant had found her and her two friends a house to rent when they had moved into a house that was crawling with bugs. It seems that the complainant hid many of her concerns about the Defendant from her family in order to preserve their positive view of him.

[54] Moreover, the complainant did not exaggerate her claims. She testified about a time when the Defendant was crying and he had again convinced her to come down to see him in the basement. He was apologetic for the prior incident (involving the partial removal of her leggings). They spoke and when she noticed condoms to the left of his bed, the complainant made up an excuse to go upstairs (she wanted some water). The complainant was candid that without objection, the Defendant permitted her to leave.

Circumstantial Evidence

[55] This case involves some circumstantial evidence. The Defendant is alleged to have confined the complainant with the cord found in the bedroom where the complainant said she was tied up and confined. A photograph of the door to the basement bedroom (exhibit #1B) shows a key in a lock on the front of the door. Though the evidence of the complainant is direct, the location of the rope and the presence of the key are circumstantial pieces of evidence which may assist to corroborate the complainant’s testimony.

[56] In order to be satisfied that the circumstantial evidence corroborates the complainant’s testimony, I must be satisfied that the only reasonable inference available in respect of the circumstantial evidence is that the Defendant used the rope that remained in the bedroom after he had bound the complainant during her forcible confinement in a locked room. [10] In assessing the case, I must consider the evidence cumulatively and as a whole. Given that individual circumstantial pieces of evidence may be insufficient on their own to support the required inference, I must consider all of the evidence together to determine whether the prosecution has met its high burden.

[57] I am satisfied that the only logical inference that flows from where the rope was found by the police is that it had been used to tie up the complainant during her forcible confinement. I am satisfied of this to the exclusion of any other inference for the following reasons:

i. The complainant was not in the basement bedroom when the police arrived; ii. If the complainant had concocted the forcible confinement allegation, it is unlikely that she would have pointed the police toward a potential witness (P.) that could undermine her narrative; and iii. If the complainant had concocted the forcible confinement allegation, there is no explanation for her peculiar knowledge of the presence of the rope in a bedroom that she believed was used by someone other than the Defendant when she had last been in the home two weeks prior; it is entirely unclear but for the truth of her allegations how she would have known that the black cord was in the basement bedroom where it was eventually found by police.

[58] The fact that a key was left in the lock of the basement bedroom door is compelling for two reasons:

i. The complainant testified that the Defendant took the key when he locked her inside the room; if the inside of the basement bedroom door contained a doorknob with a locking mechanism, this could explain how the complainant was able to see the Defendant engage the locking mechanism with a key before closing the door and it would explain her knowledge that the Defendant took the key as he left (something which may not have been otherwise visible to her from inside the room); the key could have been left in the locking mechanism on the outside of the basement bedroom door when the Defendant returned to the bedroom; and ii. The complainant testified that she was unable to open the door from inside the bedroom; a door with a key-lock doorknob on both sides of the door would fulfill the dual purpose of keeping anyone without a key from either entering or exiting the locked basement bedroom.

[59] The evidence was silent in respect of the doorknob or the presence (or absence) of any lock on the inside of the basement bedroom door. Thus, there is a complete lack of evidence to undermine the complainant’s testimony that she could not open the locked bedroom door from inside. It is trite to note that it was within the Defendant’s ability to call evidence to challenge the complainant’s testimony on this point, but he did call any witness or seek to introduce any photographs to contradict this testimony.

[60] On this basis, I am able to find that the presence of the key is sufficient as circumstantial evidence to corroborate a portion of the complainant’s testimony.

Demeanor Evidence

[61] What, if any, weight should a trial judge give to the presentation of the witnesses during their testimony? Many courts have cautioned triers of fact of the dangers of credibility assessments which rely too heavily upon the demeanour of a witness:

It is now acknowledged that demeanour is of limited value because it can be affected by many factors including the culture of the witness, stereotypical attitudes, and the artificiality of and pressures associated with a courtroom. One of the dangers is that sincerity can be and often is misinterpreted as indicating truthfulness. [11]

[62] Despite the dangers, triers of fact are not prohibited from reliance upon the manner of a witness’ presentation:

It is a settled axiom of appellate review that deference should be shown to the trier of fact on issues of credibility because trial judges have the “overwhelming advantage” of seeing and hearing from witnesses. [12]

This advantage comes from the ability to assess the demeanour of the witness, including observations of how the witness actually testified and especially how he or she responded to various parts of the cross-examination.

[63] The complainant’s testimony included a stoic appearance and periods of expressed emotion (tears, runny nose, flushed face, furrowed brow, and hiding her face in her hands, similar to her presentation in the video taken by the Defendant, exhibit #2). I am ever mindful that emotions are susceptible to manipulation or misinterpretation. However, after having seen the complainant testify over a significant period of time I can make the following observations about her demeanor:

i. The complainant is extraordinarily patient; she never lost her patience with her cross-examiner despite lengthy and sometimes repetitive inquiries; ii. The complainant’s displays of emotion were subtle and restrained, as though she was trying not to show her sadness when recollecting difficult parts of her testimony; iii. The complainant’s apparent sadness while testifying seemed to follow the testimony naturally; I did not have any sense that she was trying to manipulate her emotions or perceptions of same; and iv. The complainant’s apparent sadness while testifying occurred not only throughout detailed recollections of her alleged abuse, but also when she spoke about the support she had received from the Defendant when she needed it and the support she had given him in return.

[64] Though it can be given little weight in the final analysis, the complainant’s demeanor while testifying was consistent with her narrative and added to the compelling nature of her testimony. Her demeanor enhanced her truthfulness.

Some Corroboration Found in Two Other Pieces of Evidence

[65] There are two pieces of evidence that support the credibility of the complainant at various points of her testimony.

[66] First, S.B.’s testimony of her perception of the female caller corroborates to a limited extent the emotional demeanor of the complainant during the latter part of her alleged confinement. According to S.B., the caller sounded emotional, as if she had been crying. This observation is telling because it supports the complainant’s claim of an aggressive encounter where she had been dragged, taken to the basement, tied up, partially undressed (her jacket had been removed, her sweater had been partially lifted), threatened with sexual assault while video recording, and confined against her will. By the time of the phone call, the complainant had convinced the Defendant that she would marry him. She would not have been crying at that point, but it is not insignificant that S.B. could detect a level of emotionality in her voice.

[67] Second, exhibit #2, the video of the complainant on the floor of her bedroom hiding her face, also tends to corroborate her account of what happened after the assault on that day. At approximately nine seconds after the start of the video, the complainant’s head appears to be visibly shaking, in a manner consistent with someone crying, as the Defendant points the camera toward her, prior to his attempt to put his arm around her.

[68] At the conclusion of this trial, through counsel’s closing submissions, there were no specific credibility concerns identified arising from the complainant’s testimony. In fact, she was said to have had a good recollection of dates. Instead, the reliability of the complainant’s testimony was directly challenged by the Defendant.

Specific Reliability Concerns are Completely Resolved

[69] Several reliability concerns were raised by the Defendant: testimonial inconsistency, evasiveness or reticence, improbability, poor memory, and motive to fabricate.

[70] According to the Defendant, one of the major inconsistencies within the complainant’s testimony was her descriptions of her relationship with the Defendant throughout the time that she knew him and leading up to the allegations.

[71] Despite that the complainant’s earlier engagement to the Defendant ended abruptly when he married another woman in India, the complainant described their relationship in Canada as “friends” or “acquaintances” when testifying in chief. During cross-examination, it was put to her that she told the police that they were “best” friends.

[72] I have carefully reviewed the digital audio recording of the complainant’s testimony at this point of her cross-examination. In fairness to the witness, it was the officer who interpreted what the complainant was saying and suggested that they were “best friends,” and the complainant agreed. When asked what she had meant during this part of her police statement, the complainant explained that they had been “very good friends” and she did not mean to say, “best friends.” After this, the complainant readily agreed with counsel’s suggestion that leading up to 2022 the complainant and the Defendant had been best friends.

[73] I agree with the Defendant that this is an apparent inconsistency within the whole of the complainant’s evidence. It does not affect my assessment of her reliability, even in concert with other apparent inconsistencies, for several reasons.

[74] First, the complainant and the Defendant knew each other for almost a decade before the allegations. Their relationship went from acquaintances to dating to engagement to friends to house-mates to construction co-workers. It would be appropriate, depending on context, to use a variety of terms to describe their relationship.

[75] Second, the complainant introduced the fact of her engagement to the Defendant. When asked about their introduction and eventual courtship in India, she testified:

He gave me, I’m not sure like how he helped, but I later found a room by myself. He suggested that these are the areas where you can find a room. I got a room. And later, we started talking, like just as a friend. After few days, or few weeks, I’m not sure, it could be February 2013 when he proposed and I said “yes.”

[76] Lastly, the complainant testified that the Defendant had supported her and been there for her as a friend in the past.

[77] For me, this apparent inconsistency respecting the labels used by the complainant to describe her relationship with the Defendant was completely understandable if not entirely immaterial to the complainant’s reliability in respect of the core of her evidence.

[78] One of the Defendant’s main complaints respecting the complainant’s reliability related to the lack of substantiation. There was no forensic evidence, recordings, documented injuries, or other witnesses to bolster the complainant’s testimony. Images and recordings of potential corroborative value had become irretrievable when the complainant lost access to her phone, but they could have been gathered by police before this and they were not. This is as accurate as it is insignificant. Long gone is the requirement for corroboration of these or similar allegations before they can be accepted as true. There is no evidence to suggest that the complainant has been untruthful about the existence of potentially corroborative evidence which is no longer accessible. To the contrary, the fact that she mentioned the evidence without the ability to establish that it exists is a hallmark of her candour. Moreover, the complainant cannot be faulted for potential evidence that the police did not obtain. Lastly, as indicated above, there was some corroboration of the complainant’s evidence, which enhanced her reliability.

[79] I am not troubled by the lack of a police recovery and seizure of a Sony camcorder, a camera in the clothing in the basement bedroom corner, or condoms. The complainant testified that the video camera had been retrieved by the Defendant from the living-room in the basement. Perhaps it was returned there after the Defendant’s threat to use it. I did not hear evidence from any officer who searched that area of the home and I decline to make any findings respecting the apparent absence of a Sony camcorder. Likewise for any other camera. As for condoms, they had not been seen in the basement by the complainant for several weeks before the execution of the search warrant. There was also no evidence about the continuity of the basement bedroom after the police first entered the home until it was searched some 15 hours later.

[80] The complainant’s testimony respecting her memory and why she had added to the allegations of assault for two additional slapping incidents was acceptable: She had forgotten about these incidents when speaking with the police. This is not so unusual. When the additional allegations were made there was a spontaneous aspect to the complainant’s testimony. Likewise, when Defence counsel suggested there were grand flaws and inconsistencies in her testimony, the complainant respectfully disagreed without even a hint of deception, embarrassment, or concern that she had been revealed. At no time was she flustered or hesitant. I did not take any minor inconsistencies (whether it was her sweater or jacket that was slightly torn, whether the Defendant wore gray or black sweatpants) or the suggestion of a shifting narrative (her word choice to describe her relationship with the Defendant, the content of the discussions on the couch preceding the assaults and confinement) as indicative of the complainant’s unreliability.

[81] The Defendant pointed to the improbability that the basement bedroom door would also have locked the complainant while inside the bedroom. For the Defendant, this improbability and the lack of proof uncovered during the investigation was a serious flaw in the prosecution. I agree, there is a gap in the evidence gathered by the police. There are no photographs nor any testimony from the two officers who attended the home whether the basement bedroom door could also be locked to keep anyone inside the bedroom.

[82] The complainant testified that she was unable to open the door to leave the bedroom when the Defendant had briefly locked her alone in the room. This evidence, while unusual, stands uncontradicted. Accepting for a moment the truth of her allegations, it is perhaps explainable given the stress of the situation: perhaps the complainant had lost her dexterity due to her likely anxiety and fear of discovery while trying to escape. [13] The gap in the evidence does nothing to diminish my confidence in the complainant’s evidence on this point.

[83] Did the complainant have a motive to fabricate her evidence? In this case, the Defendant asserted that the complainant had two motives to fabricate her allegations:

i. The complainant wanted revenge because the Defendant was trying to scuttle her impending marriage and he had caused her and her family shame and embarrassment; and ii. Following the Defendant’s communications with her fiancé, the complainant wanted to save her engagement to J.S.

[84] Despite the Defendant’s concern that the complainant had two motives to fabricate these allegations, I find that this concern was completely extinguished for the following reasons:

i. The apparent motive was specifically denied by the complainant; on the whole of her evidence, I accept as truthful her testimony that she did not want to be responsible for causing anyone to suffer and she specifically did not want the Defendant to lose his status in Canada; her denials were natural, consistent, and apparently genuine; ii. The complainant claimed to be religious and to believe in Karma, neither of which was challenged or contradicted and both undermine the likelihood of a motive so powerful that she would concoct a story to get the Defendant arrested after she had already moved away from him and any potential future mistreatment; iii. It is unknown on the evidence what effect if any the Defendant’s communications with the complainant’s fiancé had or continue to have in respect of her plan to marry J.S.; and iv. The suggestion of reporting the Defendant or having him deported came from her family in response to the Defendant’s interference with the complainant’s engagement; the complainant was completely forthright about her family’s suggestion; while the motives for revenge or to remedy her family embarrassment always existed, they were weaker before the complainant revealed her personal communications thus providing valuable ammunition to the Defendant’s attack.

[85] In the end, I find that the complainant was entirely credible, her narrative was plausible, and she was not shaken in any material way during a thorough testing of her evidence. I have considered and rejected every challenge to the complainant’s reliability even if unmentioned in these reasons. I am completely satisfied that the complainant gave a thorough, unembellished, truthful, and accurate account of the allegations she made against the Defendant.

[86] I have also assessed whether the evidence as a whole leaves me with a reasonable doubt about the allegations. I find that neither the evidence nor the gaps in the evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt in any respects. I agree that there are gaps in the investigation, however, for the most part, the shortcomings of the investigation likely inure to the Defendant’s benefit (the lack of DNA for instance). Shortcomings or gaps in the evidence also include the true state of the inside doorknob of the basement bedroom door and P.’s or K.’s potential observations or lack thereof. These pieces of potential evidence could have significantly undermined the complainant’s testimony. None of the evidence presented or missing leaves me in a state of reasonable doubt in respect of any of the allegations.

[87] In the end, after a careful and reasoned analysis, I accept as true and accurate the testimony of the complainant that the Defendant assaulted her on several occasions, he sexually assaulted her (partially removed her clothing, touching her thigh and implying a more intrusive sexual assault), and he assaulted her, forcibly confined her, and sexually assaulted her on the date of his arrest.

[88] On the basis of my acceptance of the testimony of the complainant and my complete rejection of the Defendant’s theories of fabrication and complainant unreliability, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the Defendant’s guilt on all charges.

Conclusion

[89] For these reasons, I find Ranjit Singh guilty of all eight counts on the Information.

Released: 09 March 2024 Justice G. Paul Renwick

[1] R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 at para. 59. [2] R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] S.C.J. No. 40 at para. 242. [3] The underlined words were added after the judgment was released before the decision was filed in court for comprehensibility. [4] Exhibit #4 is a video clip from the day of the Defendant’s arrest, moments after the police entered the home. In the video, he was wearing dark blue or black sweatpants. [5] R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56 at para. 41. [6] Kruk, supra, at para. 81. [7] Kruk, supra, at paras. 71 and 75. [8] Ibid. [9] Kruk, supra, at para. 72. [10] R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] S.C.J. No. 33 at paras. 17, 18, 22, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 41, 42, 55, and 56. [11] R. v. Rhayel, 2015 ONCA 377, [2015] O.J. No. 2675 (C.A.), at para. 85. [12] R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72, [2012] S.C.J. No. 72, at para. 25. [13] I am curious whether the abrupt end of the video walk-through of the home at the start of the execution of the search warrant captured Officer Andrew Mintz in an equally challenged moment as he approached but seemed unable to open the door to the basement.