COURT FILE NO.: CR-16-1987-00
DATE: 2018 03 06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
CARSON COUGHLIN, for the Crown
- and -
PRABHJEET SINGH,
ABHIJEET NAGRA, and
DILSHER SHINGH
LEO SALLOUM, for PRABHJEET SINGH,
ROOTS GADHIA , for ABHIJEET NAGRA, and
NIC ROZIER and KATERINA PERCHENOK for DILSHER SINGH
IAN SMITH and AMY OHLER, Amicus
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON PRABHJEET SINGH’S ADJOURNMENT AND SEVERANCE APPLICATIONS
DURNO, J.
[1] On January 15, 2018, I dismissed Prabhjeet Singh’s adjournment and severance applications with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.
[2] While a more detailed outline of the background appears in the ruling on the transfer issues, 2018 ONSC 1532, at paras. 37 – 125, the following summary will provide the context for this ruling.
[3] The accused are charged with manslaughter. They were committed for trial after 21 months and 9 days in the Ontario Court of Justice. Their jury trial was scheduled to commence on November 14, 2017 with a six week estimate.
[4] On their first appearance in Superior Court Assignment Court an announcement was made that because of a shortage of courtrooms anyone setting a trial date in Brampton should proceed on the basis the trial could be held in Kitchener, Orangeville, Guelph or Milton. When the trial date was being set counsel were told that it was not known if the trial would be in the Brampton Courthouse.
[5] On November 3, 2017, counsel were advised that the trial would be held in Kitchener.
[6] On November 7, 2017, Prabhjeet Singh and Abhijeet Nagra applied to adjourn the trial date – Prabhjeet Singh primarily because his counsel Gary Grill had been injured in a car accident in early October, 2017, and subsequently tore his calf muscles in another mishap. Driving or even being in a car to travel back and forth to Kitchener was not feasible. In addition, he had child care commitments for which he had not made alternative arrangement. Those arrangements could have been made for other non-winter months. Further, he taught at Osgoode Hall Law School Monday and Wednesday evenings. His affidavit included that he had several other personal and professional obligations that would make commuting to Kitchener impossible without judicial accommodations which would involve shortening many hearing days.
[7] Abhijeet Nagra’s counsel said that if she knew the trial would be transferred to Kitchener that she would never have taken the case.
[8] A tentative new trial date was set for February 12, 2018 subject to confirmation that the case could be accommodated. Before the next court date, the Regional Senior Judge and Brampton Trial Coordinator determined that with some re-arranging of schedules, the trial could be held in Brampton. Counsel were notified that based on Mr. Grill’s medical issues only the trial would be held in Brampton. Otherwise, the trial would have been in Kitchener.
[9] The next day, Mr. Grill had a doctor’s appointment and was told he had concussion symptoms as a result of the car accident. He was told he should not be working.
[10] Mr. Grill brought a second adjournment application that was granted with the trial to commence with pre-trial motions on January 29, 2018 if Mr. Grill was available. Otherwise the motions would start on February 12, 2018 and the trial would follow. Counsel were told that it was not known if the trial would be in Brampton.
[11] Mr. Salloum, who was appearing for Mr. Grill, said that he had just received a text from Mr. Grill who and he would add a new pre-trial motion to be argued at the end of January or February 12 – that he be removed as counsel of record if the trial was not in Brampton. After hearing from all counsel, I directed that the new motion had to be heard well in advance of the trial so as not to leave Prabhjeet Singh without counsel because his counsel of choice got off the record on the eve of trial as well as for the scheduling of this and other trials. Mr. Salloum said he could argue the motion if given a week to file his material. Dates were set for filing material and November 30, 2018 set for arguments.
[12] Two days later, Mr. Salloum wrote to the Crown and Trial Coordinator that Mr Grill had decided he would not comply with the court’s directions. He wanted to argue the motions himself. He had decided it was premature to bring the motions. He would await a Crown or court application for a change of venue. He reserved his right to oppose any Crown or court application and to apply to be removed as counsel of record. Independently of Prabhjeet Singh, he would bring a motion that preserved his right to practice law in a geographically-restricted fashion that does not include lengthy trips to distant parts of the province.”
[13] On November 24, 2017, I released an endorsement directing that any motions in relation to the location of the trial or for counsel to be removed from the record had to be argued by December 15, 2017, with material filed by December 1, 2017. While Mr. Grill’s concussion symptoms were regrettable and other counsel would have to argue the motions, waiting until he decided if and when applications would be argued was unacceptable.
[14] On November 30, 2017, Leora Shemesh appeared for Mr. Grill and sought more time to prepare the motions. She would argue the applications if Mr. Grill was unable to do so. However, it was not possible for her to argue any motions the week of December 18 as she was going to be out of the country. New dates were set to accommodate Ms. Shemesh’s schedule.
[15] On December 2, 2017, Ms. Shemesh appeared for Mr. Grill and applied for him to be removed as counsel of record as his condition had deteriorated in the previous 24 hours and he felt he had to get off the case.
[16] As a result of the Order of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice on December 8, 2017, the trial will be held in Kitchener because of the courtroom shortage in Brampton. That Order is subject to the Court’s commitment to take all reasonable steps to have trials held in Brampton, including this one.
[17] Prabhjeet Singh brought several applications commencing January 5, 2018. The first was a recusal application that was dismissed: 2018 ONSC 1532. In a second ruling, 2018 ONSC 1532, I dismissed Prabhjeet Singh’s application for judicial review of the Order of the Chief Justice and for a change of venue order under s. 599 of the Criminal Code. returning the trial to Brampton,
[18] If those applications were unsuccessful, Prabhjeet Singh also sought to adjourn his trial date and if necessary, for severance from his co-accused with a waiver of his s. 11(b) Charter rights. At the conclusion of the oral submissions in regards to judicial review and change of venue, Mr. Salloum submitted that the adjournment and severance applications could be argued on the written material filed, provided very brief submissions and answered several questions from the Court.
[19] On January 12, 2018, I dismissed the applications with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.
The Positions of Counsel
[20] Mr. Salloum submitted that while Prabhjeet Singh had retained him as counsel for his trial, that Prabhjeet Singh should be given additional time to find more experienced counsel. Mr. Salloum was called to the bar in June, 2016 and has never conducted a jury trial. Since the co-accused wish to proceed to trial in February, Prabhjeet Singh should be granted severance. If his trial is adjourned, he waives his s. 11(b) rights to have his trial within a reasonable time.
[21] The Notice of Application included that Prabhjeet Singh is represented by Leo Salloum. However, his counsel of choice is Gary Grill who, while not counsel of record, “has voiced a willingness to represent [Prabhjeet Singh] if his trial is held in Brampton.” However, Mr. Salloum said during submissions that that did not mean Mr. Grill would come back as counsel of record if the trial was in Brampton. If there is no adjournment and the trial is in Kitchener, Mr. Salloum will represent Prabhjeet Singh. The Grounds for the Application include that Prabhjeet Singh was willing to make an explicit waiver of s. 11(b) so that he can find a lawyer prepared to travel to Kitchener and schedule a trial with that lawyer’s availability dates. The affidavit filed in support of the application does not reference any desire or position of Prabhjeet Singh.
[22] In his Notice of Application, Prabhjeet Singh seeks the following relief: that “the endorsement of November 24, 2017 be re-visited and reversed,” or, in the alternative, “directions be issued in relation to the numerous motions that will be argued, with particular reference to the order that these issues must be heard “no later than December 15, 2017.” The Notice of Application is dated January 4, 2018.
[23] An associate counsel at Grill Barristers, Elizabeth Bingham, swore an affidavit noting that Mr. Grill tried to supervise various agents including Leo Salloum to ensure Prabhjeet Singh’s interests were protected, including his desire to be tried in Brampton. However, it became clear that Mr. Grill could not concentrate sufficiently to supervise Mr. Salloum. He then reluctantly asked to be removed as counsel of record. While Prabhjeet Singh said he did not want to be represented by anyone but Mr. Grill, he later spoke to Mr. Grill and Mr. Salloum and agreed that they could assist him in finding other counsel. As I understand the submissions and material filed, Prabhjeet Singh relied completely upon Mr. Grill to locate new counsel.
[24] In Ms. Bingham’s affidavit, it notes that Mr. Grill contacted over a dozen competent lawyers without success. Some were unwilling to travel to Kitchener. One would have accepted the retainer if given additional notice and freedom to schedule the trial. Legal Aid Ontario also tried to assist but “no suitable counsel could be located that was acceptable” to Prabhjeet Singh.
[25] Mr. Grill spoke to “as many senior lawyers as he was able to reach,” but primarily due to the trial being scheduled in Kitchener all but one was unwilling to accept the retainer. One was willing to go to Kitchener but not on short notice. Several lawyers “sourced by Legal Aid Ontario also declined to take on the case.” One lawyer agreed to take the case in Kitchener but never went to Mr. Grill’s office to pick up the file. Prabhjeet Singh felt he could not continue with that lawyer.
[26] Mr. Grill remained unable to conduct the trial in Kitchener because of his continued recovery, childcare responsibilities and the responsibilities to his practice including other clients who he would not be able to assist if he was travelling for four hours daily for a six week trial. Mr. Salloum would represent Prabhjeet Singh in regards to the pre-trial motions that I ordered must proceed in early January.
[27] The Crown and counsel for the co-accused oppose the adjournment of the trial. The Crown argues that Prabhjeet Singh “made his choice” to retain Mr. Salloum despite having the opportunity to retain two more experienced lawyers. Mr. Coughlin strongly opposes severance. Ms. Rozier, speaking for Ms. Gadhia and herself opposed the adjournment application and “insofar as if this court is considering the application for an adjournment, obviously my position would be sever him please because we want to continue.”
Analysis
[28] First, dealing with the stated Relief Sought in Prabhjeet Singh’s Notice of Application, he seeks to “revisit and revise” the November 24, 2017 endorsement in which it was ordered that all material for the transfer-related applications be filed not later than December 1, 2017 and that the applications be argued by not later than December 15, 2017.
[29] It is somewhat difficult to determine what the applicant seeks. This adjournment application was filed on January 4, 2018. By that date, the November 24, 2017 endorsement had been revisited and revised – twice. Both times to accommodate counsel for Prabhjeet Singh. Once on November 30, 2017 when Leora Shemesh appeared and agreed to argue the applications if Mr. Grill was unable to do so in early January. The filing dates were changed again on December 20, 2017, to accommodate Ms. Shemesh who said that she would argue the motions and conduct the trial in Kitchener if the applications failed. That was provided she was able to adjourn an Ontario Court trial scheduled in Toronto for four or five days. She committed to bring that adjournment application but two days later wrote to the Crown that her Toronto client would not allow her to bring the application that she had committed to bring. Accordingly, she could not assist Prabhjeet Singh.
[30] In these circumstances, I am unable to see what remedy could be provided. It has already been granted.
[31] The second relief sought is that “directions be issued in relation to the numerous motions that will be argued, with particular reference to the order that these issues must be heard “no later than December 15, 2017.” Again, the dates have already been revised.
[32] I turn next to the contents of the adjournment and severance applications, as well as the effect of Prabhjeet Singh’s willingness to waive his s. 11 (b) rights. The trial is scheduled for 5 to 6 weeks and there are already significant Jordan s. 11(b) concerns. Accordingly, there are a number of issues that have to be addressed: Prabhjeet Singh’s choice of counsel; severance, including s. 11(b) Charter implications for Abhijeet Nagra and Dilsher Singh, and the effect of Prabhjeet Singh’s offer to waive his s. 11(b) rights. I turn first to Prabhjeet Singh’s choice of counsel.
Prabhjeet Singh’s Choice of Counsel
[33] There is no doubt that Prabhjeet Singh’s first choice of counsel is Gary Grill. However, Mr. Grill asked to be removed as counsel of record on November 7, 2017 because, in the words of Leora Shemesh, his condition from a concussion he suffered in early October, 2017, had deteriorated in the previous 24 hours to the extent that he felt he had to be removed as counsel. It was clarified a couple of days later by Mr. Salloum that Mr. Grill had been removed from the record because he could not meet the filing deadlines imposed by the Court with regards to several pre-trial motions in relation to the transfer of the trial from Brampton to Kitchener. On the same day that he was removed from the record, the previously scheduled filing and argument dates were adjusted to accommodate Ms. Shemesh’s stated personal and professional schedule. She had been working diligently on the applications and was prepared to argue the motions if Mr. Grill had not sufficiently recovered.
[34] There were efforts made to obtain new counsel for Prabhjeet Singh, primarily, if not exclusively by Mr. Grill, who had told the Law Society that he was not practicing in December. Legal Aid had provided a list of roughly twenty lawyers from the Serious Case Panel. The material filed noted that some were not prepared to go to Kitchener and others were not “acceptable to Prabhjeet Singh.”
[35] One experienced criminal lawyer from Kitchener contacted Legal Aid Ontario (LAO), offered to become involved, appeared in Brampton on an earlier date and met with Prabhjeet Singh with Mr. Salloum present. Prabhjeet Singh did not follow through with contacting the lawyer. The Crown mentioned in court the name of another very experienced criminal lawyer who had expressed an interest in representing Prabhjeet Singh. Nothing more was said about that lawyer.
[36] What is known is the following:
(i) Mr. Salloum feels that he is competent and qualified to conduct this trial. He knows the case well, having prepared for the November 14, 2017 trial date with Mr. Grill.
(ii) Mr. Grill, who will be supervising Mr. Salloum and had prepared for the November trial date with him, feels that Mr. Salloum is competent and qualified to conduct this trial.
(iii) LAO is aware of the situation and approves of Mr. Salloum conducting the trial with Mr. Grill supervising “every step of the way.”
(iv) Most importantly, Prabhjeet Singh has agreed to have Mr. Salloum as his counsel. He told LAO that his first and apparently only choice is to be represented by Grill Barristers. Mr. Salloum is a lawyer at Grill Barristers. Prabhjeet Singh has retained Mr. Salloum and signed a direction that he knows of Mr. Salloum’s year of call to the bar and agrees to have Mr. Salloum represent him.
(v) Prabhjeet Singh is not saying he cannot or will not proceed with Mr. Salloum as counsel. There is no indication he is re-thinking his retainer of Mr. Salloum. He is not discharging his counsel. He has counsel.
(vi) There have been experienced criminal law lawyers who were prepared to accept the retainer but Prabhjeet Singh found them unacceptable, as is his right. The suggestion in the affidavit that there are no other counsel available is more accurately phased that there are no other counsel available who are suitable to Prabhjeet Singh. Of significance, there is no indication that any efforts were made after January 3, 2018, by Prabhjeet Singh, Grill Barristers or anyone else to attempt to find a more experienced counsel prepared to accept the retainer. On this record, it is reasonable to conclude that the search for counsel ended on January 3, 2018.
(vii) Mr. Grill has described the case as serious but not particularly complex. There are no Charter issues. Much of the preparation had already been completed by Mr. Grill and Mr. Salloum. The only pre-trial applications are a Crown application for the jury to take a view of the warehouse where the incident occurred and defence applications to challenge for cause. All material for the applications was filed before the November, 2017, trial date.
(viii) While positions and strategies can be reassessed, twice Mr. Salloum said that severance was not in Prabhjeet Singh’s best interests - once when Mr. Grill was on the record and once when Prabhjeet Singh had no counsel.
[37] While counsel of choice is important, it is not absolute: R. v. McCallum (1999), 1999 CanLII 3685 (ON CA), 43 O.R. (3d) 56 (C.A.), at para. 40. Many accused persons go to criminal law firms, appear in Assignment Courts and say they are going to retain a senior counsel and a junior counsel competently conducts the trial. There is no law or presumption that an inexperienced lawyer will not conduct a trial competently.
The Effect of a s. 11(b) Waiver
[38] I appreciate that Prabhjeet Singh was prepared to waive his s. 11(b) rights to a trial within a reasonable time if an adjournment was granted. While an important consideration, in these circumstances, it is not determinative in itself. Even where an adjournment would be “defence delay” in the Jordan framework, a court may deny an adjournment request because it would result in an unacceptable delay: R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31, at para. 37. Whether to grant an adjournment can also be determined taking into consideration the court time required for one joint trial and two trials if severance was ordered, the s. 11(b) Charter concerns of all accused and the public interest in trials held in a reasonable time.
[39] Abhijeet Nagra and Dilsher Singh understandably want the trial to proceed with motions and jury selection the week of January 29, 2018 and the evidence to commence on February 12, 2018. They strongly oppose the adjournment. In those circumstances, to adjourn the trial for all accused would result in Abhijeet Nagra and Dilsher Singh’s rights to a trial within a reasonable time as guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the Charter being in serious jeopardy. I reach that conclusion for the following reasons.
[40] Before Jordan and Cody, for trials involving co-accused, s. 11(b) was viewed as a collective, not an individual right. If one accused caused delay, the others could not complain. The delay was neutral time in the Askov analysis: R. v. Brissett, 2017 ONSC 401; R. v. Lg., 2007 ONCA 654.
[41] But that has changed. In R. v. Gopie, 2017 ONCA 728, the Court of Appeal found that s. 11(b) rights are individual rights for each accused. In doing so, the Court adopted the reasons of Fairburn J., as she then was, in R. v. Ny and Phan, 2016 ONSC 8031, at paras. 37-38:
As for the second component of defence delay, it requires an assessment of the "accused's acts" and whether his or her acts directly caused the delay: Jordan, at para. 63. It also requires an assessment of whether "the acts of the accused" can be shown to be a "deliberate and calculated tactic employed to delay the trial". Like waiver, these are concepts attaching to a specific individual and his or her decisions to act in a certain way.
The inquiry into whether a party is the sole cause of delay is not conducive to then turning around and cloaking others with that delay. A decision by an accused to waive the right to a timely trial, or to behave indifferently toward the right through the actions he takes, is an individual choice. It is a choice that cannot be directly visited on a co-accused in the sense that the net delay faced by the co-accused will change. [Cited in original.]
[42] Because Prabhjeet Singh waives his s. 11(b) rights and wants to adjourn the trial, does not extinguish Abhijeet Nagra’s and Dilsher Singh’s s. 11(b) rights to a trial within a reasonable time. Accordingly, an adjournment for Prabhjeet Singh would effectively sever Prabhjeet Singh or result in a stay of proceedings against Abhijeet Nagra and Dilsher Singh as their s. 11(b) rights would be violated.
[43] The law of severance also has some bearing on the decision. While I previously dealt with severance applications by Abhijeet Nagra and Dilsher Singh, the applicable principles bear repeating.
[44] Severance is permitted pursuant to s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code:
(3) The court may, where it is satisfied that the interests of justice so require, order
(b) Where there is more than one accused or defendant, that one or more of them be tried separately on one or more of the counts. [emphasis added]
[45] Watt J.A. has referred to the “interests of justice” as an “ubiquitous phrase that takes its meaning from its context: R. v. Adams, 2016 ONCA 413, at para. 25. The “interests of justice” in this context requires a consideration of the interests of each accused and the public interest. The application judge has a broad discretion considering those factors: R. v. Suzack (2000), 2000 CanLII 5630 (ON CA), 141 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.) In R. v. Last, 2009 SCC 45, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 146, the Supreme Court of Canada referred to the interests of justice being served in a particular case with an injustice being avoided: at para. 18.
[46] The “interests of justice” include but are not synonymous with the interests of each accused. It includes the preservation and promotion of the integrity of the criminal justice process as well as the interests of the prosecution as essential components of the analysis: R. v. Manassari 2016), 2016 ONCA 703, 132 O.R. (3d) 401 (C.A.), at para. 53; R. v. Zvolensky, [2017] ONCA 273 at para. 250.
[47] That the trial involves three accused is an important consideration. Where two or more persons are charged with committing the crime in concert, there is a presumption in favour of trying them together: R. v. Al-Enzi (2014), 2014 ONCA 569, 121 O.R. (3d) 583 (C.A.); Gopie, at para. 139. This case involves an allegation the three accused acted in concert, two holding the deceased while the third used an air hose that inflicted the fatal injury.
[48] The benefits of joint trials has repeatedly been expressed by higher courts. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. S.J.L., 2009 SCC 14, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 426, at para. 49.
Quite apart from the extra cost and delay involved, it is undeniable that the full truth about an incident is much more likely to emerge if every alleged participant gives his or her account on one occasion. If each alleged participant is tried separately, there are obvious and severe difficulties in arranging for this to happen without granting one of them immunity. In view of this, in all but exceptional cases, joint trial will be resorted to, despite the double bind inevitably involved.
[49] There is an important policy rationale for keeping joint accused’s trials intact: R. v. Ny and Phan, 2016 ONSC 8031, at para. 45. In Ny and Phan, Fairburn J. held:
42 The jurisprudence is replete with sound policy reasons for conducting joint trials. It is a well-recognized principle of law that the interests of justice are most often best served by having people who are alleged to have committed crimes together, tried together and their guilt or innocence determined together. As Laskin J.A. held in R. v. Whylie (2006), 2006 CanLII 9037 (ON CA), 207 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 24: "A single trial for two or more accuseds generally conserves judicial resources, avoids inconsistent verdicts, and avoids witnesses having to testify more than once." See also: R. v. L.G., 2007 ONCA 654, at paras. 62-62.
43 The presumption of a joint trial, particularly where individuals are said to have worked in concert, will only be displaced where the interests of justice require separation, as per s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code. See also: R. v. Savoury (2005), 2005 CanLII 25884 (ON CA), 200 C.C.C. (3d) 94 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 22; R. v. Last, 2009 SCC 45, at paras. 16-18; R. v. Crawford, 1995 CanLII 138 (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 858, at paras. 19, 31; R. v. Chow, 2005 SCC 24, at para. 47. As Doherty J.A. held in Savoury, at para. 22: "The interests of justice encompass those of the accused, the co-accused, and the community as represented by the prosecution."
[50] There is an additional reason for keeping joint trials intact in Brampton, as Fairburn J. noted in Ny and Pham,
46 The implications of proceeding too quickly to sever accused, simply because the ceiling is approaching, are obvious and striking. This is particularly true in jurisdictions like Brampton, where judicial and courthouse resources are long stretched to beyond their limits. The implications of conducting virtually the same trial more than once would be profound and potentially add to delay in the system: R. v. Koruz, 1992 ABCA 144, at para. 83, aff'd R. v. Schiewe, [1992] S.C.C.A. No. 299
[51] Turning next to some of the issues from Last, if there are two trials there is a possibility of inconsistent verdict. Further, the desire to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings is a very realistic concern here. This is not a case like Jordan whose trial lasted 3 days, or Williamson whose trial lasted two weeks. This would be two 5-6 week jury trials. The witnesses would all have to testify twice. Two juries would be required. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that justice must be done in a reasonably efficient manner and in a way that avoids inconsistent verdicts: Last, at para. 16.
Conclusion
[52] I am not prepared to grant the adjournment. Prabhjeet Singh has retained a lawyer he has agreed to have represent him knowing his year of call. He wants to be represented by Grill Barristers. Mr. Salloum works at Grill Barristers and is very familiar with the case. Gary Grill will supervise Mr. Salloum at every step.
[53] Mr. Salloum suggested that there would be some prejudice to Prabhjeet Singh if the trial were in Kitchener although I could find it was minimal prejudice. I am unable to find any prejudice. That a lawyer is junior does not equate with inadequate representation in these circumstances or that another more experienced lawyer would provide better representation.
[54] If the trial remains in Kitchener, Mr. Grill will not be counsel either by his choice or for medical reasons. On November 7, 2017, he said that if the trial was in Kitchener that accommodations would be required to the sittings hours so that he could attend to his childcare issues. He never asked for the accommodations. If the trial is in Brampton and he does not represent Prabhjeet Singh, it is either because he is not medically able to do so which was a possibility Prabhjeet Singh was repeatedly warned of (there was no suggestion on this record that that was so as of January 8, 2018) or he is otherwise unavailable. That would also be his choice.
[55] I also have to consider the implications for the administration of justice if Prabhjeet Singh’s adjournment was granted and the others proceed to trial. The result would be two trials with the inherent difficulties that would pose as noted earlier. The public interests and the interests of the administration of justice strongly support that one trial should be held.
[56] The adjournment application is dismissed.
DURNO, J.
Released: March 6, 2018
COURT FILE NO.: CR-16-1987-00
DATE: 2018 03 06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
PRABHJEET SINGH, ABHIJEET NAGRA, and DILSHER SHINGH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON PRABHJEET SINGH’S ADJOURNMENT AND SEVERANCE APPLICATIONS
DURNO J.
Released: March 6, 2018