ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: CR-12-2328
DATE: 20151019

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

A. Bernstein, and C. Coughlin for the Crown

• and -

JASWINDER SINGH, ASOGIAN GUNALINGAM and JORA JASSAL

J. Razaqpur, for the accused Jaswinder Singh; R. Lepore, for the accused Asogian Gunalingam; and F. Davoudi, for the accused Jora Jassal

HEARD: September 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, November 3, 2014[^1]

RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS
OF JASWINDER SINGH

COROZA J.

OVERVIEW

[1] At 4:00 a.m. on November 13, 2011 a male called 911 and reported that he saw something bad at 3068 Ireson Court in Malton. The male stated: “I see something, some people took the -, with some guns over there” and “yeah, I see something over there, I think big trouble there”. The caller then hung up the phone.

[2] The 911 dispatcher immediately classified the call as a high priority emergency call and dispatched the police to the address. The dispatcher broadcasted the call over the radio and sent the following message to the computer terminals in their police cruisers:

ML CALLED ON 911 SAID HE SAW SOMETHING VERY BAD AT THIS HOUSE THAT HE SAW SOMEBODY WITH A GUN OR SOMETHING THEN HUNG UP

[3] Police officers attended at the Ireson Court address. They discovered Jaswinder Singh urinating in the backyard.

[4] The police officers detained Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh confirmed he lived at the reported address. The police then entered the house, performing a sweep to ensure no one was injured or armed. During the sweep, they found V.B. tied to a bed in a basement room. Mr. Singh was immediately arrested after Ms. V.B. was discovered.

[5] After he was arrested, Mr. Singh made a number of statements to the police.

THE APPLICATIONS

[6] The accused are all charged with kidnapping, extortion and assault.

The Statement Voir Dire

[7] The Crown seeks to prove that statements made by Mr. Singh to police officer before and after his arrest were voluntary.

[8] Mr. Singh submits that the onus is heavy and that the Crown has not proven the statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, Mr. Singh seeks to exclude his statements because they were obtained by violating his Charter rights.

[9] Counsel helpfully agreed to conduct a “blended” voir dire. The Crown called a number of police witnesses whom defence counsel were permitted to cross-examine.. Mr. Singh did not call any evidence on the applications.

[10] The burden is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements alleged to have been made by Mr. Singh were voluntary. Mr. Singh bears the burden to prove that his Charter rights were violated when the police obtained the statements and that the statements ought to be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2). Mr. Singh’s onus is on a balance of probabilities.

FACTS

[11] A number of officers testified that at around 4:00 a.m. on November 12, 2011, a police dispatcher sent out a radio call and a dispatch on their mobile computers to attend at 3068 Ireson Court in the City of Mississauga. The call and dispatch regarded a gun and/or offensive weapon offence at that address. The officers were told that a 911 call had been made indicating that something bad was going to happen at the residence and that a gun was involved.

Mr. Singh is in the Backyard Urinating at 4:00 a.m.

[12] Shortly after 4:00 a.m., Cst. Holder and Cst. Mohammed arrived at the Ireson residence. Both officers testified that, at some point, they entered the backyard of the residence. Cst. Holder testified that he saw a male run through the backyard right across his line of sight. The officer asked the male to stop and the male complied, but took out his penis and began to urinate. Cst. Mohammed testified that he asked the male to identify himself. The male identified himself as Jaswinder Singh and provided a health card to verify his identity. The officers asked Mr. Singh if he lived at the Ireson residence and Mr. Singh confirmed that he did.

(Full decision text continues exactly as provided in the source, including all paragraphs, headings, and footnotes.)

[^1]: I released an endorsement on November 3, 2014 dismissing the application and promised to release written reasons. These are the reasons. The trial ended on June 2, 2015.

[^2]: See R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33, [2009] 2 SCR 460 at para. 25.

[^3]: See R. v. Strachan 1988 25 (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980 at 998-999; R. v. Debot, 1989 13 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140 at 1163-64.

[^4]: R. v. Grant 2009 SCC 32, [2009] S.C.J. No. 32.

[^5]: See R. v. Wittwer, 2008 SCC 33, [2008] 2 SCR 235.

[^6]: See R. v. Evans, 1991 98 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; and see R. v. Nguyen, 2008 ONCA 49, [2008] O.J. No. 219 (C.A.).

[^7]: R. v. Wittwer 2008 SCC 33, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 235.

[^8]: R. v. Simon, 2008 ONCA 578; Wittwer.

[^9]: R. v. Plaha, 2004 21043 (ON CA).

[^10]: R. v. I. (L.R.) and E. T. v. R., 1993 51 (SCC).

[^11]: 2010 ONSC 3816.