Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR14-2310 DATE: 2016/07/14 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – Gurpreet Ronald and Bhupinderpal Gill Defendants

Counsel: Brian Holowka and Jason Neubauer, for the Crown Michael Smith and Jessica Abou-Eid, for the Defendant, Gurpreet Ronald James Harbic, for the Defendant, Bhupinderpal Gill

HEARD: July 13, 2016

Parfett J.

Ruling on Conspiracy and Second Degree Murder

[1] Counsel for Gurpreet Ronald argued that if her co-accused, Bhupinderpal Gill was acquitted then she had to be acquitted as well based on the law regarding conspirators as set out in the case of R. v. Guimond, [1979] 1 SCR 960.

[2] I disagree. The case of Guimond dealt specifically with accused persons charged with conspiracy. That case gives a thorough review of the law of conspiracy. The old common law rule was that if only two persons were charged with conspiracy and one conspirator had been acquitted, then the other conspirator also had to be acquitted. The court goes on to state that this rule was no longer good law. For that reason alone, I could not accept counsel’s submission. However, in the present case, the accused are not charged with conspiracy. They are charged jointly with murder and the old common law rule regarding conspirators does not apply even if it was still good law.

[3] I have given careful consideration to counsel for Gurpreet Ronald’s request that second degree murder be left with the jury. With all due respect, and for the following reasons, I have concluded that I cannot do so. The general rule with respect to leaving included offences to a jury is that the availability of an included offence is not absolute, rather it is conditioned upon an air of reality in the evidence adduced at trial to permit a reasonable jury, properly instructed, to conclude that the essential elements of the included offence have been established. (See R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29, [2002] 2 SCR 3, at paras. 50-55 and R. v. Luciano, 2011 ONCA 89 at para.75.)

[4] In this case, I find there is no air of reality to evidence that could permit leaving the included offence of second degree murder to the jury. If the jury has rejected Ms. Ronald’s assertion that she had nothing to do with the death of Jagtar Gill and they have found beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed Jagtar Gill, it is accepted by defence that the evidence demonstrates an intention to kill. There is incontrovertible evidence indicating the following:

• The assailant unplugged the phone jack in the den rendering Jagtar Gill unable to call for assistance. Mr. Gill could not have done this and there is no evidence anyone else did this. There is no one else who would have done this other than the assailant; and
• The assailant either used the bar prepared by Mr. Gill or it was retrieved and prepared by the assailant. There is no evidence that this bar was ever left without its weights attached. To suggest it is possible someone else took off the weights for reasons not associated with the murder is to speculate.

[5] This evidence, both separately and taken as a whole, leaves no air of reality to the proposition that the killing was both intentional and spontaneous.

Madam Justice Julianne Parfett Released: July 14, 2016

Ruling on Admissibility of Statements

COURT FILE NO.: CR14-2310 DATE: 2016/07/14 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – Gurpreet Ronald and Bhupinderpal Gill Defendant Ruling on admissibility of statements Parfett J. Released: July 14, 2016