Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: October 17, 2025

Information No.: 121102200942

Central West Region - Burlington

Parties

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

Jugrag Bajwa

Before the Court

Justice: Brian G. Puddington

Reasons for Judgment released on: October 17, 2025

Counsel

H. Somal — counsel for the Crown

S. Hutton — counsel for Jugrag Bajwa

Table of Contents

• OVERVIEW
• LEGAL PRINCIPLES
  • i) The Presumption of Innocence
• FACTS
• ANALYSIS

Judgment

Puddington J.:

OVERVIEW

[1] Mr. Bajwa is charged with a number of counts. The Crown proceeded on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 16 and 17. During the trial, the Crown invited me to dismiss count 16. After a directed verdict motion, I found Mr. Bajwa not guilty of count 2 (possession of a stolen vehicle). At the end of the trial, I am left to determine if Mr. Bajwa stole some mail, damaged a Canada Post box, possessed tools for a break and enter, possessed someone else's driver's license and assaulted a police officer while they tried to arrest him.

[2] This trial was somehow scheduled for 4 days. One of the reasons for this, presumably, was because the accused required a Punjabi interpreter. Regardless, the trial did not take the 4 full days, but still involved 6 witnesses for the Crown – two civilians and 4 police officers.

[3] The defence did not call any evidence.

[4] For the reasons that follow, I find that the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bajwa committed any of the offences.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

i) The Presumption of Innocence

[5] It is important to remember at the outset and throughout that Mr. Bajwa is innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence, and along with it the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, are important safeguards to ensure that no innocent person is convicted of an offence and deprived of his or her liberty. Without these protections, there would be a serious risk of wrongful convictions – an outcome that cannot be accepted in a free and democratic society.

FACTS

[6] I will not spend too much time reviewing the facts in this case. The record is clear and discloses what happened. In summary, on March 24, 2022 in Georgetown, Ontario, the two civilian witnesses were woken up in the middle of the night to the sound of someone trying to pry open a community mailbox. They looked out the window and saw two men at the mailbox, and could see one had a crowbar. The police were called and they watched from their window as the police effected the arrest nearby. They were not able to identify Mr. Bajwa as either of the two people at the mailbox.

[7] The police arrived. The first officer, Cst. Wentzell, arrived at the area but did not have the mailbox in sight. Instead, he rolled down his window while he awaited backup and heard the sound of metal hitting metal, confirming in his mind that someone was breaking into a mailbox. Eventually, backup arrived and a pursuit of a Blue GMC Terrain ensued. The GMC fled from police but went down a dead end and was trapped by the police cars. It tried to escape but hit a concrete lamp post. The occupants then fled. Cst. Wentzell did not see Mr. Bajwa that night. He dealt with the driver of the car.

[8] Officer Lowery was involved in the search of the GMC. He gave very detailed evidence of what was in the car, including tools that appeared to be for breaking and entering purposes, and various pieces of ID and mail, but never saw Mr. Bajwa that night.

[9] Officer Pinkney was part of the swat team. He chased someone. He does not know where that someone came from, but they eventually fell and resisted arrest. When asked if he saw that person he arrested that night in court, he pointed at Mr. Bajwa, not only the only male of East Indian descent in the courtroom, but the only other person in the courtroom other than the court staff and lawyers. Mr. Bajwa was also sitting next to his lawyer. After taking this male he said was Mr. Bajwa back to the cruiser, he had no further contact with him. He also did not testify as to who he handed this male over to.

[10] Officer Lean testified as well and described the damage to the mailbox. Photos of that damage were filed as exhibits. He also described how he was tasked to attend the hospital to deal with a Mr. Bajwa, though he could not say (other than through hearsay evidence) how he knew the name "Jugrag Bajwa". He was not there when the arrest took place. He also identified Mr. Bajwa by pointing to him in court.

[11] I never heard from any officer who identified Mr. Bajwa that night, cautioned him or gave him his rights to counsel. I do not know how Mr. Bajwa got to the hospital. I do not know when he was booked. I do not know how the name "Jugrag Bajwa" was obtained and if he spoke to a lawyer. Essentially, Mr. Bajwa was sitting in my courtroom as an accused person with very little evidence as to how it was he got there. The only identification evidence in this trial is as described above.

ANALYSIS

[12] It is very dangerous to convict somebody, beyond a reasonable doubt, based solely on the accused being pointed at in court. This is particularly the case when the last time the officers saw the accused was in the middle of the night, 3 ½ years ago.

[13] Almost 3 decades ago in R. v. Myers, 1997 O.J. 4185, our Court of Appeal warned about the significant frailties of identifying the accused in the courtroom. Our Supreme Court of Canada, adopting the dissenting reasons of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, also warned against these frailties in R. v. Reitsma, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 769.

[14] Evidence of Mr. Bajwa's presence at the scene of the mailbox that night can be summarized as follows. Officer Pinkney arrested and was assaulted by someone in the middle of the night. He never described what that person looked like, what they were wearing or how tall they were. He placed them in a police cruiser and never saw him again. In court, 3 ½ years later, he pointed at the only other person in the courtroom, Mr. Bajwa, and said that was him. Officer Pinkney was the only officer to identify Mr. Bajwa as being at the scene that night. While Officer Lean spent more time with Mr. Bajwa at the hospital, I have no connection or continuity before me as to how it was Mr. Bajwa ended up at the hospital, nor what happened after he was released.

[15] I am not criticizing the police in this matter. I am pointing out that the Crown has not met their onus. It may very well be that a plethora of other identification evidence exists. I would assume there was, as somehow Mr. Bajwa was arrested and brought to court. I doubt that was done arbitrarily. But I am left with an evidentiary record that provides we with nothing as to who formally arrested Mr. Bajwa, why he was allegedly taken to a hospital, what happened after the hospital, and how he came to be identified as "Jugrag Bajwa". To convict this presumed innocent individual on that basis would not only be dangerous, it would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

[16] Being unable to identify Mr. Bajwa beyond a reasonable doubt as one of the men at the scene that night, he is found not guilty on all counts.

Released: October 17, 2025

Justice B.G. Puddington