Superior Court of Justice
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
v.
IQBAL SINGH
Reasons for Sentence
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE M. FAIRBURN
on June 17, 2016
at Brampton, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
N.J. Bridge C. Henderson, J. Sone Counsel for the Crown
B. Burgess Counsel for Mr. Singh
FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 2016 (Through official Punjabi / English interpreter for Accused)
Reasons for Sentence
FAIRBURN, J : (Orally)
On May 30th, 2016 upon completion of the trial, Iqbal Singh was convicted by a jury of the first degree murder of Anita Summan, the attempted murder of Gurcharan Doal, the aggravated assault of Gurcharan Doal, the attempted murder of Mayank Sandhu, and the unlawful confinement of Mayank Sandhu. The matter has returned before me for sentencing.
The parties have arrived upon a joint position. They take the position that a judicial stay of proceedings should be entered on count three, that being the aggravated assault of Gurcharan Doal, and count five, that being the unlawful confinement of Mayank Sandhu. I agree. The aggravated assault of Gurcharan Doal is subsumed in the finding of attempted murder of Mr. Doal. The unlawful confinement of Mayank Sandhu is subsumed in the attempted murder of Mr. Sandhu.
While Mr. Singh is clearly guilty of these offences, that being counts three and five on the indictment, there exists a factual and legal nexus between them. In accordance with the joint position put before me by counsel I will stay these findings of guilt. As such, I am called upon to sentence Mr. Singh for the first degree murder of Anita Summan and the attempted murders of Mr. Doal and Mr. Sandhu.
The Facts of the Offences
I will briefly review the facts involved in these offences.
Mr. Singh landed in Canada as a refugee claimant in 2003. He was denied refugee status and, despite repeated applications, both on humanitarian and spousal grounds, he was denied status every time.
Mr. Singh came to know Anita Summan not long after her husband died. She was a widow and treated Mr. Singh well. They were married on December 29th, 2007. While there was some dispute about whether Mr. Singh resided at Ms. Summan’s residence full time, there does not seem to be any doubt that he resided there for at least some time, and from time-to-time. Nor is there any doubt that they were married.
On January 21st, 2014 Mr. Singh was on a peace bond that included a condition that he have no contact with Ms. Summan, barring her prior written revocable consent. She had not provided this consent. The peace bond was entered into after an assault charge was withdrawn in November 2013. While Mr. Singh had been charged with assaulting Ms. Summan in early 2013, the charge was withdrawn when Ms. Summan failed to appear at his November 2013 trial.
Ms. Summan and Mr. Doal were business partners and friends. There was some evidence in the trial that Ms. Summan’s family was friends with Mr. Doal’s family.
During the evening of January 21st, 2014 Mr. Doal attended at Ms. Summan’s home for the purpose of discussing matters related to clothing that she had ordered for a large family birthday party that was to occur a few days later. This was to be Mr. Doal’s son Simon’s 18th birthday party and hundreds of people were to attend the party.
Also present in the Summan home that evening was Mayank Sandhu. He is the nephew of Mr. Doal, and rented a basement apartment from Ms. Summan. Sonali Summan is the daughter of Anita Summan and she was also present at the home.
Around 10:00 p.m. Mr. Doal and Mr. Sandhu were present in the kitchen with Anita Summan. Mr. Sandhu was eating pasta at the kitchen table. Mr. Singh, who had been sitting in the living room, entered the kitchen. There are different accounts about what happened next. I have reviewed them in my prior rulings in this case, including in the ruling pertaining to the partial defence of provocation which is found at R. v. Singh, 2016 ONSC 3739.
After Mr. Singh entered the kitchen he took a large kitchen knife from the sink. This large knife was entered as an exhibit in the trial. He said that he did this because he saw Mr. Doal’s hand placed on the upper right buttocks area of Ms. Summan just below her right waist area. He said that he was enraged by what he saw and so he wanted to threaten Mr. Doal and get him to leave the home. Ms. Summan stood between Mr. Singh and Mr. Doal. Mr. Singh stabbed her twice in the stomach.
She suffered two very deep stab wounds to her abdominal cavity. One of the wounds went right through her stomach and ended in the soft tissue surrounding her aorta. The other travelled through her small intestines and stopped in her psoas muscle next to her spinal column. These two stab wounds caused Ms. Summan to bleed to death. She died en route to the hospital.
Mr. Singh then moved toward Mr. Doal and stabbed him. Mr. Doal suffered significant injuries. Like Ms. Summan, Mr. Doal had nothing to protect himself. His right chest suffered a deep wound below his collarbone. This area of the body has an important nerve centre. His pleural cavity had been penetrated by the knife. This is the membrane that surrounds the lungs. His intercostal muscles between his ribs had been cut. Mr. Doal also suffered a right forearm injury. This was a through-and-through stab wound. Mr. Doal also suffered a left mid-abdomen injury just below his rib cage to just below his belly button. One portion of his small intestines had to be removed because they were completely severed, and there were three major injuries incurred by the small intestines. There was also a five centimetre cut to the front of Mr. Doal’s left kidney. It had to be removed as well. The kidneys are located at the back of the abdominal cavity, behind the stomach and intestines. Notably, when the emergency personnel arrived at the home, they observed Mr. Doal’s intestines outside of his body.
As for Mayank Sandhu, he ran from the kitchen when he saw Mr. Singh moving toward Mr. Doal with the knife he had used to stab Ms. Summan. The last thing he saw was his uncle raising his arms, presumably in an effort to protect himself from the knife. Mr. Sandhu ran out the front door of the home and back in the side door to the basement. He wanted to call for help and warn the other tenants about what was happening.
He and Mr. Punit Sharma, another tenant in the basement, went into Mr. Sharma’s room and locked the door. Shortly after, Mr. Singh came to the door and started pounding on it, insisting that he come out. Despite the knife being plunged through the door two times, Mr. Sandhu managed to keep the door from opening. He did this by keeping his hands and a foot on the door.
Mr. Singh eventually left the door, discarded the knife in a downstairs closet and went back upstairs. While there is some dispute about how he arrived back upstairs, what is clear is that when he got there he entered the front hallway area. At that point, Ms. Summan was on the floor of the hallway, internally bleeding to death. While it is not clear whether Mr. Singh would have seen where Mr. Doal had come to rest on a couch in the family room, with his intestines visible outside of his body, that is where in fact Mr. Doal was at the time when Mr. Singh entered the front hallway on the first floor, where Ms. Summan had come to rest.
Sonali Summan had come to her mother’s side and assistance, and was positioned with her on the floor of the front hallway when Mr. Singh entered. The pictures filed at trial reveal a blood-soaked scene. Rather than rendering assistance to the victims or, at a minimum, Ms. Summan, who was in the same hallway, Mr. Singh took his jacket from the front hallway banister and retrieved his shoes that were located by the front door. He put his shoes on in the same hallway where Ms. Summan was dying. He then left the residence.
The police arrived very shortly after. Mr. Doal lived, but by any account, based on the medical evidence heard at trial, he is exceptionally lucky to have survived this attack. But for the very good and fast work of multiple emergency personnel, I have no doubt that he would not have survived.
From beginning to end, this was a terrifying incident and scene. Not only do the injuries suffered by Ms. Summan and Mr. Doal, as well as the evidence of Mr. Doal, Sonali Summan, Punit Sharma and Mayank Sandhu demonstrate the terror felt by all who were present that evening, but the 9-1-1 calls also reveal the sheer terror experienced by everyone present.
The Circumstances of Mr. Singh
Mr. Singh is a 49-year-old man. He has been in Canada since August 3rd, 2003. As above, he was denied refugee status. Every claim for landing has been refused. His last claim was made in November, 2013. Mr. Singh is from India. He testified that he left India because he was in danger there and this is why he made a refugee claim. He testified that while he was in danger when he first arrived in Canada and for some years after, this danger no longer persists today. Mr. Singh was offered the opportunity to make a statement to the Court at the sentencing hearing. He declined to do so.
Victim Impact
Four Victim Impact Statements have been filed and I have reviewed them all. They come from Sonali Summan, Gurcharan Doal, Mayank Sandhu and Punit Sharma. They were all marked as exhibits. In addition, Sonali Summan personally delivered her statement in court.
To say that the impact that these offences have had on the victims is extensive would be to embarrassingly undershoot the true impact. The impact of Mr. Singh’s conduct has been grave. It has been permanent and it has been unforgiving. I have read the impact statements with great care and I take them into account in this sentencing proceeding. I will highlight only a few points.
As for Sonali Summan, she had already lost her father and her brother. Her father was lost in a medical procedure during her early teen years and, as for her brother, he passed away in a plane crash not long before her mother was killed. The effect of Mr. Singh’s conduct has left Sonali Summan both parentless and family-less.
Sonali had to experience firsthand the brutality of Mr. Singh’s crime. She sat with her mother while waiting for the police to arrive. When the police arrived she was removed to another room and the emergency personnel took over. At that time, Sonali did not know that it would be the last time she would ever see or communicate with her mother again.
Her sadness and loss is profound. She expresses the fact that her mother will not be there for important events in her life, like her wedding and the birth of her children. As Sonali put it, this is particularly important in her culture because mothers play a very distinct role in these very important life milestones. Sonali will now be left alone to experience what should otherwise be entirely joyous family moments for a woman when these things ultimately happen for Sonali.
Aside from the emotional void that has been visited upon her, she has also suffered huge financial loss. By all accounts, she was living in a beautiful home. There is evidence of this at the trial. A home that was provided by her mother. She now lives in a basement apartment and carries a debt load that she struggles to clear.
The offences had a direct impact on her ability to pursue post secondary education. It has impacted on her ability to work at a steady rate and job. And it has impacted her psychologically, emotionally and physically. She has been off of work for months on end, trying to cope with the devastating impact of her mother’s murder.
As for Mr. Doal, he too has suffered in an almost incomprehensible manner. He had a successful business prior to January 21st, 2014. That night changed everything for Mr. Doal and for Mr. Doal’s family.
The party that was planned for his son Simon, a party with hundreds of family and friends attending and that was to happen days later, had to be cancelled. This otherwise happy event in the Doal family life, the 18th birthday of their first son, which is a critically important event in Mr. Doal’s culture, was overtaken by the terror of what happened to Mr. Doal. Forever, the Doals will have to live with this reality.
Mr. Doal’s business has all but failed. Before the offence it was thriving. The Doals were doing very well financially. With Mr. Doal’s injuries his wife has had to go to work at the business and take over much of what he used to do.
They used to travel as a family and those family trips have all but stopped.
Mr. Doal’s therapy has been long; it has been expensive and it has been tortured. He still does not have hardly any use of the right hand. This was obvious when he testified at trial and could not mark exhibits. Someone else had to mark them for him. He struggles to continue to gain strength and come back from the injuries he suffered at Mr. Singh’s hand and he is to be commended for doing so, but he is nowhere close to where he was prior to 10:00 p.m. on January 21st, 2014. The impact of the crime on Mr. Doal, is permanent, lasting and cruel.
As for Mr. Sandhu, he recounts the fact that he was so emotionally taxed by what occurred that he had to move from the Province of Ontario to try and escape the memories. In addition to the emotional pain and suffering he has felt as a result of seeing what occurred in the kitchen and then being on the other side of the door when a knife was penetrating through it, when he was bravely and quite literally fighting for his life, he speaks of the guilt he feels and that he carries with him for having run from the kitchen that night.
Mr. Sandhu should feel no guilt about this. Anyone in his position would have and should have done the same thing. He was well motivated in attempting to get help which he ultimately succeeded in getting. Despite the fact that he should have run from the kitchen and, on any objective level did the right thing, it does not diminish the fact that he continues to suffer from guilt about leaving his uncle behind in the kitchen that night, and about the fact that his uncle was present in the home that night because Mr. Doal had driven Mr. Sandhu home.
As for Mr. Sharma, I have also taken his victim impact statement into account. The horror he felt being on the other side of his bedroom door as it was being pounded upon and seeing the knife come through the door is more than understandable. The impact of that horror and the fact he has suffered tremendous emotional effects is also understandable in the circumstances. It should not be forgotten that this bedroom was the room that he rented and constituted his home at the time that the offence occurred.
In short, the victim impact in this case is grave and each of the victims, in their own ways, will live with these crimes for the rest of their lives.
The Joint Position of Counsel
In addition to the fact that Mr. Singh must receive a life sentence for the first degree murder of Ms. Summan, counsel make a joint submission on the attempt murders.
First, the joint submission is that a 10-year sentence be imposed for the attempt murder of Mr. Doal concurrent to the life sentence on the first degree murder of Ms. Summan. Second, counsel jointly submit that an 8-year sentence should be imposed in relation to the attempt murder of Mr. Sandhu, concurrent on the life sentence of the first degree murder of Ms. Summan but consecutive to the 10-year sentence on the attempt murder of Mr. Doal.
Combined with the life sentence on the first degree murder, I agree that this is a fit disposition in respect to the attempt murders.
As before, counsel have asked that counts three and five be stayed.
Mr. Singh, would you please stand?
I find that your conduct on January 21st, 2014, when you took the life of Anita Summan and you attempted to kill Gurcharan Doal and Mayank Sandhu, must be denounced. I have taken into account all of the sentencing principles in section 718 of the Criminal Code and I have taken into account the joint submissions of counsel. I find those submissions are entirely appropriate in the circumstances of this case, bearing in mind your conduct and the findings of guilt made by the jury.
Sentencing
I sentence you as follows:
On the first degree murder of Anita Summan I sentence you to imprisonment for life, without eligibility for parole until you have served 25 years of that sentence.
On the attempt murder of Gurcharan Doal I sentence you to 10 years of imprisonment. That sentence will run concurrent to the life sentence on the first degree murder of Anita Summan.
On the attempt murder of Mayank Sandhu I sentence you to 8 years concurrent to the life sentence for the first degree murder of Anita Summan but consecutive to the 10-year sentence on the attempt murder of Gurcharan Doal.
For clarity, this means that your sentence in respect to the attempt murders which constitute counts two and four on the indictment are a total of 18 years.
In addition, I make a D.N.A. order pursuant to Section 487.051 of the Criminal Code. That order will be made in respect to all three of the offences upon which I will enter convictions, which are the first degree murder and both attempt murders.
In addition, I make a weapons prohibition order. Pursuant to Section 109(2)(a) of the Criminal Code I make a 10-year weapons prohibition order that will commence when and if you are released from imprisonment.
Pursuant to Section 109(2)(b) of the Criminal Code I make a lifetime weapons prohibition order with respect to prohibited and restricted firearms, weapons, devices and ammunition.
Pursuant to Section 743.21 of the Criminal Code I make a non-communication order so that you are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly with any of the following people, or any person who you know to be a member of their family. The people are as follows: Gurcharan Doal, Sonali Summan, Mayank Sandhu and Punit Sharma.
I direct that convictions be entered in respect to counts one, two, and four on the indictment. Again, to be clear, these are the first degree murder of Anita Summan, the attempt murder of Gurcharan Doal, and the attempt murder of Mayank Sandhu.
I direct that a stay be entered with respect to counts three and five.
MATTER CONCLUDED
Certificate of Transcript (Subsection 5 (2))
I, Tricia Rudy, C.C.R., A.C.T. certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Iqbal Singh in the Superior Court of Justice, held at Brampton, Ontario, on June 17, 2016 taken from Recording 3199-211-091522/16 which has been certified in Form 1.
(Date) ( Signature of authorized person)
Transcript Order Received: June 20, 2016 Transcript Completed: July 7, 2016 For judicial review Notified Ordering Party: July 12, 2016
NOTE: Photostat or Electronic copies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid for unless they bear an original signature in blue and accordingly, are in direct violation of Ontario Regulation 587/91, Administration of Justice Act, May 2014.