R. Sidhu

The defendant, Ranjit Singh, was charged with eight counts including assault, forcible confinement, and sexual assault against the complainant, S.K. The prosecution proceeded by indictment, and the defendant elected a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony, considering circumstantial evidence and the absence of forensic evidence.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be entirely credible, plausible, and unshaken by cross-examination, rejecting the defendant's theories of fabrication.

The defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all eight counts.

The Crown applied under sections 714.1 and 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for the complainant to testify by video link from New Brunswick in a criminal trial involving charges of assault, unlawful confinement, and sexual assault.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing unfairness, diminished solemnity, potential hindrance to cross-examination, and insufficient evidence regarding the complainant's inconvenience or medical issues.

The court considered eight factors from R. v. Young, including the impact on cross-examination, the integrity of the examination site, witness travel distance, convenience, and cost.

The application was dismissed, as the court found that potential issues with cross-examination and the appearance of fairness, coupled with a lack of precise evidentiary basis for the complainant's inconvenience, tipped the balance against granting the order.

The defendant, Ranjit Singh, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay in his criminal proceedings for assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement.

The total delay was 24 months and 4 days.

The court calculated defence delay, finding 206 days attributable to the defendant, resulting in a net delay of 17.4 months, which is below the 18-month Jordan ceiling for provincial courts.

The court also found that the defendant failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings, thus failing the second branch of the Jordan test for delays below the ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Gurpreet Singh, charged with dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to a violation of his s. 11(b) right to trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 52 months, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling for Superior Courts.

The Crown conceded presumptive unreasonableness but argued for exceptional circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the total defence delay to be 273 days, resulting in a net delay of 43 months.

Even if the Crown's claimed exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 administrative adjournments and ripple effect) were accepted, the remaining delay would still be 35 months, exceeding the threshold.

The court granted the stay of proceedings, finding a violation of the applicant's Charter right.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking to return his three-year-old son to Brampton after the applicant mother relocated to Scarborough for subsidized housing.

The mother had been living in a shelter and accepted the housing offer due to limited options.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding it was not urgent and that the mother's relocation was a reasonable, child-focused decision given her dire housing circumstances.

The court emphasized the importance of problem-solving and settlement efforts before litigation, especially before a Case Conference.

Costs were awarded against the father for unreasonable litigation conduct and lack of candour in his materials.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two charges under the Consumer Protection Act relating to a swimming pool contract.

The charges alleged failure to deliver a direct agreement containing required information and engaging in unfair practices by making false representations about completion timelines.

The trial proceeded ex parte as the appellant did not attend.

On appeal, the court found the trial judge's reasons inadequate and identified significant evidentiary gaps, including discrepancies regarding the contract date, uncertainty about the identity of the business entity, and insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the transaction.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.