ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026·02·24

NEWMARKET

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

VINAY PRAKESH CHAND

APPLICATION FOR SENTENCING IN ABSENTIA

Heard and Delivered: February 24, 2026.

Ms. Zenia Sethna.................................................................................... counsel for the Crown

Mr. Arvin Ross .................................................................................. counsel for the defendant

KENKEL J.:

Introduction

[ 1 ] Mr. Chand was convicted at trial of Aggravated Assault s 268 and four other counts on June 27, 2025. The matter was adjourned for sentencing on September 12, 2025.

[ 2 ] On the date set for sentence Mr. Chand failed to appear. He did not keep in contact with his lawyer and all efforts by counsel to locate him failed. A bench warrant for Mr. Chand’s arrest was issued. His bail was noted for estreat proceedings. The Crown applied to have Mr. Chand sentenced in absentia , but the application was dismissed. The circumstances of the case showed that Mr. Chand was not employed, was entirely dependent upon his parents for support and had no means of his own to flee the jurisdiction. There was reason to believe that the police would be able to execute the warrant within a reasonable time.

[ 3 ] On December 16, 2026, the court sent an email to both counsel indicating that it had been more than three months since the accused failed to appear for sentencing. The initial application for sentencing in absentia was dismissed in the hopes that Mr. Chand might surrender or be apprehended but that did not happen. Both counsel were advised that the court’s ruling in September was an interim ruling, not final. It would be open to the Crown to re-apply for sentencing in absentia if the circumstances required it.

[ 4 ] The Crown now applies under s 475 for a finding that Mr. Chand has absconded, and if that finding is made to continue with sentencing in the absence of the accused. For the reasons that follow, I find it necessary to grant the application.

Absconds

[ 5 ] Section 475 is engaged when an accused “absconds”. That term means more than a simple failure to appear or a loss of contact with counsel. It requires proof that the accused has voluntarily absented himself from the trial for the purpose of impeding or frustrating the trial, or with the intention of avoiding its consequences – R v Garofoli, 1988 ON CA 3270 , [1988] OJ No 365 (CA), at para 110 , affirmed on this issue for the reasons of Martin J.A., but reversed on other grounds 1990 SCC 52 , [1990] SCJ No 115.

[ 6 ] Mr. Chand has not appeared in court since June. He did not keep in touch with his counsel. D.C. Wang testified on this application that Mr. Chand’s surety advised the police he has not seen Mr. Chand since January of 2025 even though Mr. Chand is required to reside with him. Officers have attended Mr. Chand’s family address and have called phone numbers associated with him. The High-Risk unit of the York Regional Police was engaged to assist but with no success.

[ 7 ] It has now been 8 months since the matter was adjourned for sentencing. Mr. Chand ceased all contact with his surety, probation and his lawyer after that point. The only reasonable conclusion is that Mr. Chand has absconded in order to avoid and defeat the sentencing process.

Sentencing in Absentia

[ 8 ] Proceeding to sentence under s 475 is discretionary, “may … impose sentence”. The Crown must show that it is necessary in the interests of justice to proceed to sentence in the absence of the accused.

[ 9 ] I find the Crown has proved that it is necessary to proceed with Mr. Chand’s sentencing in his absence for the following reasons:

• The victim in this case suffered severe and long-lasting injuries. His input on sentence is essential. He moved to another country for his safety after the accused was released on bail pending trial. The location of the victim is known to the Crown at this time, but adjourning sentence to await the arrest of Mr. Chand at an unknown future date risks the loss of that important information. Preservation through victim impact statement is not the same as the direct input available at this time.
• The attack on the victim occurred three years ago. Mr. Hutchinson attended the trial on several dates. He attended for the sentencing in September and attends again today. He deserves closure – R v S.S., 2025 ONSC 6113 at para 31 .
• While a pre-sentence report would assisted, Mr. Chand chose flight knowing that the court may proceed without him. He has waived his right to be present. – R v S.S. , at para 32, s 475(1)(a).
• The principles of general deterrence and denunciation are paramount in this case given the very serious level of violence. Those principles are best served by proceeding to sentencing. Timely sentencing is itself an objective of sentence – s 720, R v Carr, 2023 ONCJ 22 at para 21 .
• This court is not left without information about Mr. Chand. Unlike the situation in R v Singh, 2015 ONSC 904 , where the court had little information about the accused other than his age and that he was a first offender (para 13), this trial was entirely focused on Mr. Chand’s personal circumstances in the years leading up to the incident and at the time of the incident. The court heard from his sister, his father, his mother, his former brother-in-law and from Mr. Chand himself. Evidence heard at trial can provide a sufficient basis to determine the application of the principles of sentence – R v Gallardo-Madrid, 2025 ONCJ 487 , R v Touray, 2024 ONSC 3574 at paras 4-5 and the cases cited therein.
• Particularly in cases of violent crime where serious injury was caused, there is a strong public interest in seeing that justice is not delayed or defeated.

Conclusion

[ 10 ] The Crown’s application is granted. The court finds that Mr. Chand has absconded within the meaning of s 475 of the Criminal Code . The Crown has proved that it is necessary in the interests of justice to proceed with sentencing in absentia .

Delivered: February 24, 2025.

Justice Joseph F. Kenkel