REASONS ON BAIL REVIEW APPLICATION

I. Overview of the Charges

[1] The Applicant, Pritpal Singh seeks to be released on bail pending trial pursuant to section 522(3) of the Criminal Code.[^1] He is charged with two counts of attempted murder while using a restricted or prohibited firearm, two counts of discharging a restricted or prohibited firearm with intent to endanger life, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of use of a firearm while committing aggravated assault, two counts of pointing a firearm, unlawful possession of a loaded restricted or prohibited firearm, and breach of recognizance.

II. Chronology of Events as Provided by Counsel

[2] On September 17, 2010, Pritpal Singh met the two complainants at an Indian restaurant. A videotape taken in the restaurant shows Pritpal Singh leaving the restaurant with the complainants. Three other men also left the restaurant.

[3] Shortly after leaving the restaurant, the two complainants claim they were taken to an alley near the restaurant. According to the two complainants, Pritpal Singh pulled out a gun, pointed it at the first complainant, Manmohan Ghuman, and pulled the trigger. The weapon did not fire. Pritpal Singh reloaded the gun, ejected an unspent bullet and fired again.

[4] Mr. Ghuman was shot in the left side of his neck. As a result, he was paralyzed from the neck down. He has now regained movement in his upper body but remains paralyzed from the waist down.

[5] After the shooting, the complainant, Valkar Singh ran down the street. According to Valkar Singh, Pritpal Singh chased him with his gun. In an effort to speed his escape, Valkar Singh pulled off his jacket and threw it in the bushes.

[6] Valkar Singh called 911 and in the call, identified the person who shot Mr. Ghuman as Paul or Pritpal Singh.

[7] Valkar Singh had no contact with Mr. Ghuman before police arrived on scene.

[8] The first officer to arrive on scene approached Mr. Ghuman and asked him who had shot him. Mr. Ghuman replied that it was Pritpal Singh. After searching the scene, the police recovered one unfired round of ammunition, a shell casing from a fired round and Valkar Singh’s jacket containing his wallet and an asthma inhaler. They did not locate any weapons.

[9] The day after the shooting, Pritpal Singh turned himself in to the police and provided them with a typed written statement wherein he stated that he was at the restaurant on the night in question but did not shoot anyone. He stated that the shooter was Sukhpal Takhar.

[10] I am advised by counsel that Sukhpal Takhar denies he was at the scene at the time of the shooting. Telephone and highway 407 records show that his cellular telephone and his vehicle were on highway 407 at the time of the shooting. Moreover, there is a witness who claims he was with Mr. Takhar in his vehicle at the time the shooting took place.

[11] A more fulsome synopsis of the evidence as prepared by counsel is attached as Appendix “A”.

[12] At the time of the alleged shooting, Pritpal Singh was subject to a recognizance of bail granted in respect of gun and drug charges laid against him in the fall of 2007. One of the conditions of his release was that he not possess a weapon.

[13] Pritpal Singh was arrested on the current charges on September 18, 2010. A judicial interim release hearing was held over three days in December 2010 and January 2011. On January 12, 2011, the presiding justice of the peace detained Pritpal Singh on the primary, secondary and tertiary grounds.

[14] On June 30, 2011, after a four day trial, Pritpal Singh was acquitted of the gun and drug charges that were laid in the fall of 2007. O’Marra J. held as follows:

In this case, the accused was neither an owner nor occupier of the condominium unit. There is evidence he had access to the unit, as did at least one other person and perhaps a number of others. None of the prohibited items or substances was in plain view. The gun was in a CD case and the drugs were hidden in different areas of the apartment. There is no forensic evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA to connect the accused with any of the prohibited items and substances. The tax bills in the night table are evidence that they were being paid and that some were placed therein sometime after June 20, 2007. However, there were bankbooks and cards in the names of a number of individuals and there is no evidence as to who made the deposits and payments or who put the documents in the nightstand.

In terms of the cardholder in the briefcase, it is unclear as to when those items were placed there or by whom. The cards with expiry dates, expired well before June 2007. Although proximity of the card holder containing many cards in the name of the accused in the brief case next to the CD case and the other documentation in the bedroom raises valid suspicions of the accused’s involvement, in my view, it would not be reasonable to infer from that evidence the accused had knowledge of a firearm enclosed in the other case. There is no evidence as to when the items were secreted in the various locations in the condominium.

[15] He concluded that, “Certainly, while all of the circumstances are highly suspicious, even a break and enter most unusual, in which a large quantity of cash and pills were apparently left out in the open, the evidence relied on by the Crown simply does not support the inference that the accused had the requisite control and knowledge of the prohibited items and substances in the condominium unit to support a finding of possession.”

[16] Pritpal Singh is a forty seven year old man with no criminal record who was engaged as a truck driver before his arrest.

[17] After his acquittal on the gun and drug charges laid in 2007, Pritpal Singh brought a bail review application on the basis that his acquittal on those charges constituted a material change in circumstances that justified his bringing a further application. Some new sureties were proposed and the amount pledged as security was increased.

[18] After hearing evidence from the proposed sureties as to the terms of bail and their relationship to the accused, Sachs J. held that on the secondary ground,

Not one of the sureties who testified demonstrated the kind of connection and understanding of Pritpal Singh that gave me the sense that he or she was a person that Pritpal Singh respected and would listen to. This is important, given that there is a strong case that Pritpal Singh has already violated an essential term of a previous release and that the consequences associated with that violation were devastating. For these reasons, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Pritpal Singh’s detention is not justified on the secondary ground.

[19] Given her findings on the secondary ground, Sachs J. saw no need to deal with the tertiary ground.

[20] It is accepted that Pritpal Singh has now spent almost twenty-three months in custody and, if convicted, this time would be credited towards any sentence he might receive. Although the trial could have commenced in January 2013, defence counsel has other trial commitments and therefore the trial will not commence until June 2013. If convicted, Pritpal Singh faces a prison sentence of at least eight to ten years before taking into account time spent in pre-trial custody.

III. The Proposed Plan of Release

[21] The proposed terms of Pritpal Singh’s release are essentially the same as the terms presented before Sachs J.

[22] Pritpal Singh proposes he be released on a surety bail with five sureties. Collectively, these sureties are prepared to put up $2,415,000 which represents all of the equity they have in their homes.

[23] Pritpal Singh would reside with one of those sureties, Gurnek Sahota. Mr. Sahota is 68 years old and has no criminal record. He is retired and lives with his wife, Sarvjit Singh who is also retired, his son, his son’s wife, (who is Pritpal Singh’s sister) and their three children.

[24] Pritpal Singh would be under house arrest and would not be allowed to leave the house unless accompanied by one of his sureties save for medical reasons.

[25] Mr. Sahota would be Mr. Singh’s principal surety and the other sureties, who all live within 30 minutes of Mr. Sahota, are prepared to help with this supervision. Mr. Sahota and his wife are both available to supervise Pritpal Singh as both are retired. Pritpal Singh is also prepared to pay for and wear an electronic ankle bracelet to monitor his whereabouts.

IV. The Positions of the Parties

[26] The defence submits that the Crown’s case on identification of the shooter turns on the evidence of the two complainants only. Moreover, there are credibility issues regarding their testimony as one admits there was some animosity toward the accused because he owed him money. (Pritpal Singh disputes that he owes any money to the complainants.) The defence suggests the shooting could have been an accident by one of the complainant’s own people (as one of the complainants admits he was involved in trafficking drugs). In the alternative, the complainants could be too intimidated to identify the real shooter.

[27] The defence submits that Pritpal Singh’s movements can be properly controlled by appropriating his travel documents, putting him on virtual house arrest and having him wear an electronic bracelet.

[28] The defence also claims his case is stronger than the case presented before Sachs J. as he now has the signatures of over two hundred members of his community who claim they are aware he is awaiting trial on charges of attempted murder and related weapons offences, and they believe he is a responsible member of their community and would abide by conditions of release. This, he suggests, should give the court comfort that Mr. Singh’s continued detention is not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

[29] The Crown’s position on this application is that the case against the accused is very strong. Both complainants have positively identified the accused as the shooter. Both did so within minutes of the shooting before having the time to speak with one another. Moreover it is clear from the surveillance video that Pritpal Singh was at the restaurant and met with the complainants minutes before the shooting in the alleyway near the restaurant.

[30] Pritpal Singh was on bail awaiting other gun related charges (which he was ultimately acquitted on). One of the terms of his bail was that he was forbidden from carrying a firearm. Given that the Crown has a strong case on the facts in this proceeding, there is a strong case that Singh breached a fundamental term of his bail on the previous occasion which should cause the Court concern.

[31] Finally, the Crown contends that although there are over two hundred signatures from the community suggesting Singh is a person of good character there is no evidence of the extension of their familiarity with Singh, or of these offences, or the fact that Singh was on bail at the time this offence was committed.

V. Analysis of the Three Grounds for Detention and Conclusion

[32] Where the charge against the accused is one of attempted murder involving a firearm, the Defence must establish on a balance of probabilities that he should be released. (Criminal Code, s. 515(6)(a)(vii))

(i) The Primary Ground

[33] The primary ground for detention is “where detention is necessary to ensure attendance in court.” (Criminal Code, s. 515(10)(a))

[34] Detention under the primary ground is warranted only where it is necessary to ensure the accused will attend at court when required. That necessity is met only where the Court finds the accused poses a flight risk which cannot be overcome by other conditions.[^2]

[35] Pritpal Singh has agreed to give up his passport and other travel documents and wear an electronic bracelet if released on bail. Moreover, five sureties have pledged in excess of $2 million among them. On this basis, the Crown concedes that, although Singh has family and property in India, there is no basis to continue to keep Pritpal Singh in custody on the primary ground.

(ii) The Secondary Ground

[36] The secondary ground for detention is where it is “necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice.” (Criminal Code, s. 515(10)(B))

[37] The Criminal Code provides that bail is denied for those who pose a substantial likelihood of committing an offence or interfering with the administration of justice, where this substantial likelihood endangers the protection or safety of the public.[^3] It is not justified where detention would merely be convenient or advantageous.[^4] In assessing the risk that the accused will offend in the future, the seriousness of the offence is a relevant factor. The strength of the Crown’s case must also be considered.[^5] Alternatively, the Crown may adduce evidence that the accused attempted to interfere with witnesses or evidence in the matter for which he is charged or otherwise tried to obstruct justice.[^6]

[38] This case involves a very serious offence with devastating consequences to one of the complainants who is paralyzed.

[39] In my view the case against Pritpal Singh on the evidence adduced thus far, is strong. It is agreed that the accused was with the complainants on the night and at the time of the shootings. Both complainants identify Pritpal Singh as the shooter and neither had the opportunity to collude after the shooting as Mr. Ghuman lay bleeding and Mr. Vikral Singh fled the scene and had no opportunity to speak to one another before they gave statements to police and a 911 operator. Furthermore, both complainants knew Pritpal Singh before the incident and both saw him at close range in the restaurant and accompanied him outside into the alleyway of the restaurant thereafter. There is no evidence as to why they were led to the alleyway.

[40] The defence contends one of the complainants may have had animosity toward Pritpal Singh because he claimed Singh owed him a great deal of money for which he had sought return on numerous occasions. This does not explain why having been shot by another, both he and a second complainant would independently attribute blame to Pritpal Singh.

[41] Moreover, I am advised that there is a great deal of evidence to refute Pritpal Singh’s allegation that Sukhpal Takhar was the shooter. Mr. Takhar claims he was not there. There is no claim that he was one of the people on the video shown to be in the restaurant moments before the shooting. Mr. Takhar’s phone records, highway 407 records and corroborating evidence from another witness, corroborate Mr. Takhar’s statement that he was driving on highway 407 when Pritpal Singh claims he shot Mr. Ghuman.

[42] I agree with Sachs J. that the sureties seem to be well meaning upstanding citizens with no criminal records who are prepared to pledge all of the equity in their homes to secure Pritpal Singh’s release. However, I agree with Sachs J.’s determination that on the basis of their testimony before her (there was no viva voce evidence before me) I am not satisfied that they are persons Singh would listen to, who know him sufficiently well, and therefore could control his behaviour.

[43] Pritpal Singh is presumed innocent of the charges he is facing, but in assessing whether the defence has satisfied its onus with respect to the secondary ground, I cannot ignore the fact that the Crown has a strong case and that part of that case includes the allegation that Pritpal Singh violated an essential term of his previous bail conditions.

[44] For these reasons, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Pritpal Singh’s detention is not justified on the secondary ground.

(iii) The Tertiary Ground

[45] Section 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code provides that an accused may be detained where the detention is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all of the circumstances, including:

i. the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case,

ii. the gravity of the nature of the offence,

iii. the circumstances surrounding its commission, including whether a firearm was used, and

iv. the potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment, or, if the case involves a firearm, minimum punishment of three years or more.

[46] The tertiary ground provides a separate and independent basis to refuse bail. The tertiary ground applies to all accused persons seeking judicial interim release.

[47] The court must consider whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to the four factors listed above. The question to be answered is whether, in light of these factors and related circumstances, a reasonable member of the community would be satisfied that the denial of bail is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.[^7]

[48] Where the charges include two counts of attempted murder with a firearm, the gravity of the offence and the potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment are necessarily assessed at a high level.[^8] No one factor is determinative. There must be an evaluation of the combined effect of the four factors.[^9]

[49] In R. v. Hall, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that the tertiary ground for detention must be used sparingly. In denying bail, courts must never succumb to public opinion.

[50] The Ontario Court of Appeal in E.W.M adopted the premise articulated by the Supreme Court in Hall, that the prism through which the judge must engage the objective analysis of all four factors of the tertiary ground is that of “the ordinary, reasonable, fair-minded members of society” who are informed about the philosophy of the legislative provisions, Charter values and the actual circumstances of the case.[^10]

[51] In this case, given the charges, the circumstances in which one person was shot at close range and the dire consequences for Mr. Ghuman, the requirements for the “gravity of the nature of the offence” and the “potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment” are met.

[52] However, as Cronk J.A. noted in R. v. LaFramboise,[^11] “[t]he nature of the offence charged, by itself, cannot justify the denial of bail.”[^12] The remaining factors must therefore also be addressed: that is, the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence.

[53] In this case, for reasons already articulated, I find the Crown case on the charges of possession of a prohibited firearm, attempted murder and breach of the terms of probation to be strong.

[54] With respect to an assessment of the circumstances, there is no exhaustive list of factors which must be considered. Some examples that have been considered by the courts include the level of violence, the circumstances surrounding the offence and the motive for committing the offence.[^13]

[55] The claim is that the shooting was directed at persons who were unarmed and was a reaction to a request for monies owed as a result of drug trafficking. The shooting of Mr. Ghuman resulted in his paralysis from the waist down.

[56] Although there are over two hundred signatures from members of Pritpal Singh’s community suggesting Singh is a person of good character, there is no evidence of the extent of their familiarity with Singh or of all of these offences including breach of recognizance. As such, they do not satisfy me that a fully informed reasonable member of society would be satisfied that Mr. Singh’s continued detention is not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

[57] In my view, the combined effect of the four statutory factors in all the circumstances of the case indicates that the detention of the respondent is necessary to maintain public confidence in the way justice is administered.

[58] For these reasons, the application is denied, and Pritpal Singh shall remain in custody pending trial.

Thorburn J.

Dated: August 10, 2012

Appendix “A”: SYNOPSIS

Both of the complainants in this matter, Valkar Singh and Manmohan Ghuman, had known the Accused, Pritpal Singh for a number of years prior to September 17, 2010, the date of the alleged offences.

Approximately six weeks prior to September 17, 2010, Valkar Singh met with Pritpal Singh to discuss an outstanding debt owed to him by the accused. Valkar Singh has testified at the preliminary inquiry that the accused, at that time, owed him between $600,000 and $700,000.

In his original video statement to police, given immediately following the shooting, Valkar Singh advised the police that the debt was owed to him by the accused as a result of “dispatch” trucking work that Valkar Singh had performed for the accused between 2004 and 2007. In his testimony at the preliminary inquiry, Valkar Singh, after receiving independent legal advice, testified that on a number of occasions he was asked by the accused to drive to a location to pick up illegal narcotics (specifically marihuana and cocaine) and deliver those items to the accused. Valkar Singh was paid by Pritpal Singh for performing this service. It has been the testimony of Valkar Singh at the preliminary inquiry that he had not been fully paid by the accused for the work he had performed, thus the outstanding debt which Valkar Singh estimated to be $600,000 to $700,000. Further, Valkar Singh has testified that he had conversations with the accused in which Pritpal Singh acknowledged the amount of the outstanding debt he owed to Valkar Singh. It is Valkar Singh’s belief that Pritpal Singh also owed Manmohan Ghuman a quantity of money, however, Valkar Singh was unable to state an amount or specify how that debt had arisen. In testimony at the preliminary inquiry, Manmohan Ghuman denied that he was owed any money by the accused.

During his initial meetings with the accused, Pritpal Singh advised Valkar Singh that he would pay the outstanding debt, although no precise figures were discussed. Further arrangements were made for that purpose. The accused did not follow through with those arrangements. The accused then ceased contact with the victims, specifically Valkar Singh. Worried about what was happening with the accused, Valkar Singh and Manmohan Ghuman attended the home of Pritpal Singh located at 16 Deer Chase Circle in Woodbridge on a number of occasions in the three weeks leading up to the shooting. On multiple occasions, Valkar Singh and Manmohan Ghuman were accompanied by other persons when they attended the home, specifically an individual by the name of Sukhpal Takhar.

Sukhpal Takhar has given evidence at the preliminary inquiry and has testified that he attended the residence of the accused along with Manmohan Ghuman and Valkar Singh for the purpose of acting as a “peace maker”. He advised that he had spoken with the accused in the past about the outstanding debts owed by the accused to others. He testified that his conversations with the accused were always friendly in nature and that he considered the accused to be a friend. Sukhpal Takhar testified at the preliminary inquiry that the accused owed him approximately $2,000,000 which had accumulated over a number of years, however, he had not sought to obtain this money from the accused. Sukhpal Takhar testified that this money was owed as a result of work he had performed for Pritpal Singh in the past. When questioned concerning the nature of that work, Sukhpal Takhar testified that he had transported quantities of illegal narcotics for Pritpal Singh.

Each time the complainants attended the home of the accused, Pritpal Singh had not been present. On one occasion, the victims entered the residence with at least 3 other individuals (including Sukhpal Takhar) and had tea with the wife of the accused. The adult children of the accused were present in the home on this occasion. Valkar Singh and the other individuals urged the wife of the accused to have Pritpal Singh contact them.

On Friday September 17, 2010, at approximately 4:00 p.m., the accused contacted Valkar Singh by phone and advised him that they would meet later that night. He requested that Valkar Singh contact Manmohan Ghuman, Sukhpal Takhar and another individual and have them attend the meeting. Pritpal Singh advised Valkar Singh that he would call him later in the day and arrange a location for the meeting. Valkar Singh contacted the other individuals as requested. Only Manmohan Ghuman was available for the meeting.

At approximately 8:00 p.m., the accused contacted Valkar Singh over the phone. Valkar Singh suggested that they meet at either his home or the home of the accused. Pritpal Singh rejected these suggestions and advised that they would meet at the Exotic Indian Cuisine Restaurant located at 1850 Albion Road. Valkar Singh agreed to meet the accused there at approximately 9:00 – 9:30 p.m.

Video surveillance obtained from the restaurant shows Manmohan Ghuman and Valkar Singh entering the Exotic Indian Cuisine Restaurant at approximately 9:40 p.m. Once inside, they sat at a table to await the arrival of the accused. They are not accompanied by anyone else.

At approximately 10:04 p.m., the accused entered the restaurant in the company of three other males.

Two of the three men in the company of Pritpal Singh have been identified as Charnjit Bains and Karamjit Mahal. Both individuals were called by the Crown as witnesses at the preliminary inquiry. Though neither of these individuals denied being at the Exotic Indian Cuisine Restaurant on September 17, 2010, both men denied attending with Pritpal Singh and, further, both men denied any having any direct knowledge concerning the shooting that occurred immediately after they left the restaurant in the company of the accused. This is contrary to the statement of Valkar Singh who testified at the Preliminary Inquiry that Charnjit Bains actually attempted to prevent the accused from shooting Manmohan Ghuman.

On the surveillance video, the accused and all three males are seen to approach the table where the complainants were seated. Both Valkar and Manmohan Ghuman testified that Pritpal Singh then urged them to leave the restaurant and go outside. The complainants complied with this request by the accused.

At approximately 10:08 p.m., all 6 men exited the restaurant. Once outside, the group moved to an alley way to the side of the restaurant. At that time, Pritpal Singh began to question the two victims, asking them why they had come to his home. Valkar Singh, who knew one of the men in the company of Pritpal Singh, Charnjit Bains, walked a short distance away with this individual and began to speak with him. During this time, the accused began to speak with Manmohan Ghuman.

Valkar Singh and Manmohan Ghuman both testified that, a short time later, Pritpal Singh removed a semi-automatic handgun from the waistband of his pants and pulled the “slide” of the weapon back. He then raised the firearm, pointing it directly at the upper chest area of Manmohan Ghuman. As he did so, the accused stated words to the effect of “I’ll give [it to] you”. Valkar Singh and Manmohan Ghuman testified that the accused then pulled the trigger, however the weapon did not fire. Both of the complainants testified that they observed the accused to then lower the weapon, again pull the “slide” of the weapon back and that a bullet was ejected from the weapon. Both complainants testified that the accused again raised the weapon and pointed it directly at the upper chest of Manmohan Ghuman and fired the weapon. The accused was approximately 3’ – 7’ from Manmohan Ghuman when the shot was fired.

The bullet entered the left side of Manmohan Ghuman’s neck and exited the rear side of his right shoulder. In traveling through his body, the bullet shattered a portion of Mr. Ghuman’s vertebrae causing paralysis. After extensive treatment, Mr. Ghuman remains paralysed from the waist down. He is not expected to be able to ever walk again.

After shooting Manmohan Ghuman, the accused turned and pointed the firearm at Valkar Singh. Valkar Singh testified that, fearing for his life, he began to run from the scene. As he did so, he turned and saw the accused chasing after him for a distance of approximately 20’ with the gun raised and pointed in his direction. Valkar Singh testified that, in an effort to speed his escape, he stripped off the jacket he was wearing and discarded it in the parking lot of the building directly adjacent to the site of the shooting. Valkar Singh did not testify to hearing any further shots beyond the one fired at Manmohan Ghuman, however, Manmohan Ghuman has testified that he heard at least 1 – 2 more shots fired after he was shot in the neck.

Following the shooting, the accused and the other three males fled the scene.

Valkar Singh ran to a nearby industrial building where he immediately contacted the police. While on the phone with the emergency operator, Valkar Singh identified the accused as the individual who had shot Manmohan Ghuman.

Police Constable Craig was the first officer to arrive at the scene of the shooting. Upon ascertaining that the victim had been shot, Police Constable Craig asked the Manmohan Ghuman who had shot him. His answer was unequivocal. He stated, “Pritpal shot me. Pritpal shot me.”

At the scene of the shooting police located the following:

• A complete, unfired round of ammunition

• A shell casing from a fired round

• The jacket of Valkar Singh containing his wallet and an asthma inhaler

There were no weapons located in the possession of Manmohan Ghuman or Valkar Singh. No weapons were located at the scene of the shooting.

The police were unable to locate the accused at his residence.

On September 18, 2010 the accused turned himself in at 23 Division of the Toronto Police. When the Accused turned himself in to police he handed over a typed statement in which he admitted to being present at the scene but stated that another individual, Sukhpal Thakar, had been responsible for the shooting. Sukhpal Thakar was interviewed by police and called as a witness by the Crown at the preliminary inquiry. He denied being present at the time of the shooting and stated that the complainants had actually called him to ask him to come and be present during their conversation with the Accused. Phone records as well as records from the 407 Highway obtained in relation to Mr. Thakar’s vehicle support his assertion that he was not present at the time of the shooting.

At the time of the alleged offences, Pritpal Singh was subject to a recognizance of bail granted in respect of charges of:

Possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition and offences related to that possession;
Possession of Proceeds of Crime;
Possession of a Controlled Substance for the Purpose of Trafficking
Possession of a controlled substance (2 counts)

COURT FILE NO.: CR-11-500000338

DATE: 20120810

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

PRTIPAL SINGH

– and –

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

REASONS ON BAIL REVIEW APPLICATION

Thorburn J.

Released: August 10, 2012

[^1]: R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

[^2]: R. v.A.B. (2006), 2006 CanLII 2765 (ON SC), 204 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) at para. 15.

[^3]: R. v. Qaiser, [2003] O.J. No. 3668 (Sup. Ct.) (QL) at para. 22.

[^4]: R v. A.B., supra note 2 at para 15, referring to R. v. Morales, 1992 CanLII 53 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711 at para. 39.

[^5]: R. v. R.H., 2006 ONCJ 116, [2006] O.J. No. 1447 at paras. 29-30.

[^6]: Qaiser, supra note 3 at paras. 23-24.

[^7]: R. v. Hall, 2002 SCC 64, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 309, at para. 41.

[^8]: R. v. B.S., 2007 ONCA 560, [2007] O.J.No.3046, at paras. 9-11.

[^9]: R. v. E.W.M.,[2006] O.J. No. 3654, 2006 CanLII 31720 (Ont.C.A.) at para. 31 ; Qaiser, supra note 3 at paras. 25-26 and R. v. Stevenson, 2007 ONCA 378, 224 O.A.C. 129 at para. 7.

[^10]: E.W.M, supra note 9 at para. 27 and paras 30-32, citing R. v. Nguyen (1997), 1997 CanLII 10835 (BC CA), 119 C.C.C. (3d) 269 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 18; and B.(A.), supra note 2 at para. 19.

[^11]: (2005), 2005 CanLII 63758 (ON CA), 203 C.C.C. (3d) 492 (Ont. C.A.) [LaFramboise].

[^12]: Ibid. at para. 31.

[^13]: R. v. B.S., supra note 8 at paras. 14-15.

Pritpal Singh v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2012 ONSC 4714

Case Summary

REASONS ON BAIL REVIEW APPLICATION

I. Overview of the Charges

II. Chronology of Events as Provided by Counsel

III. The Proposed Plan of Release

IV. The Positions of the Parties

V. Analysis of the Three Grounds for Detention and Conclusion

(i) The Primary Ground

(ii) The Secondary Ground

(iii) The Tertiary Ground

Appendix “A”: SYNOPSIS

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Statutory Provisions 5

Legal Tests 1

Legislation 1