COURT FILE NO.: CR-1109/18 DATE: 2018 07 04

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN T. Powell for the Crown

• and -

KARANVIR BASSI J. Lockyer for K. Bassi

HEARD: June 29, 2018

SECTION 522 BAIL APPLICATION: REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Woollcombe J.

Overview

[1] The applicant, Karanvir Bassi is charged with the first degree murder of Paviter Bassi, alleged to have taken place on March 21, 2018. He brings an application for judicial interim release pursuant to s. 522(2) of the Criminal Code.

[2] It is the Crown’s position that the applicant has failed to meet his onus on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

[3] The applicant’s position is that he comes before the court with an impressive array of sureties and supportive family and friends who are able to pledge, collectively, about $4.3 million dollars. The applicant says that the release plan is a careful one that would enable there to be supervision at his aunt’s home, the possibility of employment with his aunt or, in the alternative, full house arrest with or without electronic monitoring.

[4] Having reviewed the written materials filed, the evidence adduced on the application and the submissions of counsel, I have concluded that the applicant has discharged his onus and shown cause why he should be released from custody.

Facts Related to the Offence Alleged

[5] All of the facts relating to the offence that are before me are contained in a “Statement of Allegations” filed by the Crown on the bail hearing.

[6] Paviter Bassi was 21 years old when he was killed.

[7] At 5:35 pm on March 21, 2018, the deceased called I.B. and told him that someone in a white Pathfinder was following him. The deceased said that he stopped and got out of his vehicle and that the Pathfinder tried to run him over.

[8] I.B. said that five minutes later, the deceased called him again and was in a panicked state. He shouted for I.B. to hurry to where he was as there were cars trying to box him in. The call was disconnected. As I.B. approached the deceased’s last reported location, he saw a white car speeding in the opposite direction.

[9] Police were called at 5:51 pm and they and paramedics responded to a call about a fight at Sandalwood Heights Secondary School in Brampton.

[10] The police located the deceased’s Ford pick-up truck, which had mounted the curb and was running with the driver’s door open.

[11] The deceased was found lying in the grassy area nearby. He died later at hospital from stab wounds to the chest. He sustained a total of eight stab wounds, including two to the chest, one that struck his heart and one that penetrated his lungs. The wounds are consistent with having been inflicted by a knife. Before dying, Mr. Bassi told paramedics that he had been attacked and beaten by several males, who followed him after a road rage incident and blocked his vehicle.

[12] There were several witnesses to the attack. Not surprisingly, their descriptions of what happened vary slightly. There seems to be no question that the deceased’s vehicle was blocked by other vehicles, that he fled from his own vehicle and that he was chased by a group of males. He fell and was attacked. He was stabbed multiple times and left there. The males fled.

[13] Five witness’s evidence has been summarized for the application.

[14] K.D. saw the deceased exit and run from his truck. K.D. said that there were two males from a white car and one or two males from another car chasing him. One of the males had a bat.

[15] K.D.’s mother saw four males chase the deceased and said that the attack began after he tripped and fell.

[16] Both K.D. and his mother described three to four men kick, punch and strike the deceased.

[17] H.K. saw two men chasing a third male. One of the chasers tried to grab him and the other had a large stick.

[18] S.A. saw a black pick-up truck and a white SUV behind the deceased’s truck. The black pick-up pulled beside the deceased’s truck and the vehicles stopped. The deceased ran from his truck and was chased by four men. The man who pursued the deceased from the black pick-up truck had two bats in his hand. She saw all four of the chasers attacking the victim. She said that the man from the black pick-up truck struck the deceased with one of the bats until it broke. He then used the second bat.

[19] S.A. provided descriptions of three men she said came from the white car in front of the deceased’s car. During the attack, she heard such things as “beat him” and “grab him”.

[20] G.G. saw a white car and two trucks speeding in front of the school. He saw the white car stop in front of one of the trucks and four people exit. It appeared to him that the four people were trying to beat someone in the driver’s side of the truck. He believed that all four of the attackers had sticks and that one male had a black baton.

[21] Video of the incident and a photograph taken by a witness shows that three cars boxed in the deceased’s Ford F150 truck: a white Pontiac G6 in front of the deceased’s truck, a Nissan Rogue parked directly behind the deceased’s truck and a Ford F250 parked on the driver’s side of the deceased’s truck.

[22] The photograph of the Nissan Rogue included its license plate. This license plate is registered to the address at which the applicant resided with his family. The police interviewed his mother. She said that the applicant’s cousin, Gurraj Bassi had dropped him off at home sometime after 4:00 pm that afternoon and that Gurraj was driving a white Pontiac sedan. Shortly after being dropped, the applicant left in the Nissan Rogue.

[23] The applicant was arrested and provided a statement to the police. The applicant said that as the vehicles arrived at the school, he was behind the deceased’s truck. He said that he stood at the rear of his truck with a bat in his hand. The deceased ran past him and he said he froze. The males from the Pontiac chased the deceased. These included Guryodh Khattra and two other males who he did not identify.

[24] He said he was the last to arrive at the altercation. When he did, Mr. Khattra had a knife, had already slashed the deceased’s face and was attempting to stab him. The applicant says that he was shocked that Mr. Khattra was stabbing the deceased and stated, “you don’t have to stab him”. He said that another male struck the deceased in the head with a black baton like weapon.

[25] The applicant refused to identify who drove the white Pontiac or the Ford F250 truck.

[26] Cell phone evidence reveals that the applicant had contact with Mr. Khattra 29 times on the offence date. The applicant was also speaking to Gurraj Bassi at the approximate time of the offence. The applicant also had a 245 minute conversation with Harminder Bassi. The police cellphone tower evidence suggests that the applicant guided Harminder Bassi to the offence location.

[27] The Crown theory as to motive appears to be that there was an altercation the day before between Gurraj Bassi and the deceased. The deceased followed Gurraj Bassi to a gas station with a group of people and assaulted him there. This incident was reported to Peel Police and is captured on video surveillance.

[28] Mr. Khattra was arrested for first degree murder. On May 14, 2018, Justice Andre released him on bail.

[29] Gurraj Bassi and Harminder Bassi have also been arrested for first degree murder. Their bail applications are to be heard on July 6, 2018.

[30] Harman Singh is a fifth person very recently arrested and charged with first degree murder.

The Proposed Release Plan

[31] The applicant is 22 years old. He was born in Canada and has no criminal record. He has never been charged as an adult or as a young person. At the time he was charged, the applicant was living with his parents, Balwinder Singh and Rajinder Kaur, in Brampton.

[32] The applicant has identified seven potential sureties, each of whom has provided an affidavit.

[33] The plan for the applicant’s release would have him living with his aunt, Rajwant Dhillon and her family at 13 Maple Valley Street in Brampton. This plan for the applicant to live there appears to be a carefully thought out one. The idea is that he would be further from his friends and would be well-supervised, but close enough to his parents (six to eight km) that they could see him regularly.

[34] Ms. Dhillon’s home is a spacious, six bedroom, busy home worth $1.1 million, with a $500,000 mortgage. Ms. Dhillon lives with her husband, Jasver Dhillon, her three children (Gurinder Dhillon, Tanjeet Dhillon and Harkamal Dhillon) and her husband’s retired parents (Gurmit and Nirmal Singh Dhillon).

[35] Ms. Dhillon co-owns the home with her daughter, Gurinder. Gurinder is 25 years old and works full-time in human resources in Etobicoke. While not a proposed surety, Gurinder would be in an effective position to supervise the applicant when she is not at work.

[36] Tanjeet Dhillon is 22 years old. While she is working now, she will begin law school in Ohio in August. She will not be living at the home and really will not be in an effective position to provide ongoing supervision beyond August.

[37] Harkamal Dhillon is 19 years old and is doing an apprenticeship with Hydro One. In her evidence, Ms. Dhillon explained that he was arrested on December 23, 2016. Ultimately he was convicted of uttering threats. He received a conditional discharge. Ms. Dhillon said that she did not speak to him for months because she was so ashamed about this and that she did not go to court because she was ashamed. She said that since those charges, he has completed a year at Humber College and has been working as an apprentice electrician for over 6 months.

[38] It was Ms. Dhillon’s evidence that since he was in trouble, Harkamal has totally changed his life for the better.

[39] Ms. Dhillon was cross-examined about what she knew about the circumstances surrounding the allegations against Harkamal. It was suggested to her that he was part of a group that was involved in a daytime attack where people chased down an unarmed victim. She said that since then, she felt he had changed his life around. She had not been aware that the police had previously cautioned him for marijuana in May 2016.

[40] The Crown put to Ms. Dhillon that despite raising her son not to fight, use weapons, and use drugs, he appears to have done so. She was asked how, when she had not been able to supervise her own son, she would be able to supervise the applicant. Her answer was that there was a lot at stake and that the applicant is aware of that.

[41] In view of his circumstances, Harkamal is not an appropriate person to supervise the applicant. But I am not concerned about them living in the same home.

[42] In terms of her ability to supervise the applicant. Ms. Dhillon said that she had known him since birth and that she had visited him at Maplehurst and talked to him about living with her. She was confident he would live by her rules and comply with any conditions imposed by the court.

[43] The Crown cross-examined Ms. Dhillon on how well she really knew the applicant. She could not name any of his friends and had not been aware he had a girlfriend until being told so by the applicant’s mother. She knew he had been working towards his truck license and that he had previously worked at Gate Gourmet at the airport and had been off for six months. She did not know why he had left that employment in 2016. She knew he had not completed high school, but did not know why.

[44] It was suggested to Ms. Dhillon that she did not know much about the applicant. She said that she had not asked him a lot of personal questions but that she felt she had known him and his family for a long time and did not like to pry. She was aware of the allegations against him in this case and said that they surprised her.

[45] In terms of daily supervision of the applicant, Ms. Dhillon works as a self-employed insurance broker. Her husband Jasver Dhillon works full-time for a foreign exchange company. She testified that they have flexible hours and that there could be 24 hour a day supervision of the applicant by her, her husband, her in-laws and her children. She also understood that there could be electronic monitoring, if required.

[46] Under cross-examination about the supervision plan, Ms. Dhillon acknowledged that her work required her to be out of the home. She said that if the applicant were permitted out of the home, she would be able to take him to work with her and that she would effectively create a position in which he could help in her office. If she had to leave, she said that she would have her husband or a surety stay with him. She was pressed as to what she would do if she could not find someone, and said that she knows her appointments in advance and that she could always contact the applicant’s father to supervise him or to find someone who could do so.

[47] The applicant’s other proposed sureties include a number of family members who are willing to put up their homes as security. None of these individuals have criminal records and all have, to varying degrees, close relationships with the applicant’s family and confidence that he will abide by any terms of release. These proposed sureties include:

• The applicant’s father, who owns a $1.1 million home that has a mortgage of $300,000. His father has no criminal record and while he and his wife wish to be part of the supervision plan, they think the plan for him to live with Ms. Dhillon is a good one.
• The applicant’s grandfather, Mohinder Singh, who owns with his wife a home valued at $650,000 with a $100,000 mortgage.
• The applicant’s aunt, Balbir Kaur Singh, who owns a home with her husband valued at $900,000 with a $170,000 mortgage.
• The applicant’s cousin, Amandeep Kaur Ghag, who with her husband owns a home valued at $620,000 with a $315,000 mortgage.

[48] As well, there are a number of proposed sureties who are friends of the applicant’s family. Again, these are working Canadians without criminal records and include:

• Dhananjay Mehta, a friend of the Bassi family who, along with his wife, owns a home valued at $850,000 with a mortgage of $35,000.
• Harpal Singh Otal, a friend of the Bassi family who, along with his wife, owns a home valued at $1,050,000 with a mortgage of $285,000.

[49] The applicant has proposed that he could be subject to electronic monitoring through a GPS ankle bracelet, as explained in materials filed from the Recovery Science Corporation. The bracelet could be installed either prior to his release from custody or in a window of time after his release at his residence.

[50] The system will monitor house arrest and any movement restrictions ordered by the court including surety accompanied leaves for specific purposes. If a violation is detected, Recovery Science Corporation contacts the police.

Applicable Legal Principles

[51] Everyone has the constitutional right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause pursuant to s. 11(e) of the Charter.

[52] Pursuant to s. 522 of the Criminal Code, a person charged with an offence enumerated in s. 469 of the Code (as murder is) must be detained unless he shows cause why his detention is not necessary.

[53] The factors to be considered in determining whether detention is justified are set out in s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code. They are as follows:

Primary Ground: “where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law [s. 515(10)(a)]”;

Secondary Ground: “where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years, 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 [s. 515(10)(b)]”; and

Tertiary Ground: “if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including

(i) the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case, (ii) the gravity of the offence, (iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used, and (iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more [s. 515(10)(c)]”.

[54] There are no category of offences for which bail is not available: R. v. Blind (1999), 1999 SKCA 12305, 139 C.C.C. (3d) 87 (Sask. C.A.); R. v. LaFramboise, 2005 ONCA 63758, [2005] O.J. No. 5785 (C.A.). Bail may be granted, even in the context of the most serious and violent offences, including murder. Assuming that the applicant meets his onus of demonstrating why his detention in custody is not justified, bail should be granted. In coming to this determination, the court must stay focused on the criteria set out in s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

Analysis

i) The Primary Ground

[55] The factors to be considered under the primary ground include the strength of the Crown’s case, the accused’s ties to the community and the accused’s record of compliance with previous court orders: Justice G. Trotter, The Law of Bail in Canada (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2010 at pp. 3-4 and 3-12).

[56] Although assessing the strength of the Crown’s case at this stage can be difficult, this is one of important factors to consider when assessing both the primary and tertiary grounds.

[57] The applicant faces a count of first degree murder. The Crown’s position is that the murder is first degree both on the basis of being planned and deliberate and because it was committed in the course of a forcible confinement. The Crown submits that this is an overwhelming case against the applicant.

[58] I do not agree with the Crown that the evidence before me presents an overwhelming case of first degree murder against the applicant.

[59] There is no evidence that the applicant had any motive to kill. There is no evidence that he had any involvement in the incident involving Gurraj Bassi the day before.

[60] I accept that there is evidence that the applicant was part of the group that boxed the deceased in with the three cars and that he boxed the deceased in from the rear. There is his own evidence that he had a bat with him outside the truck. The Crown submits that the applicant admitted in his statement to being involved in the chase. I observe that this fact is not included in the Crown’s Statement of Allegations, though I did not hear defence counsel to object to it. There is evidence that at least one bat was used in the attack on the deceased, although it is unknown how many bats were present and whether others also had bats or sticks. It is also clear that the applicant was present at the time of the killing, close enough, on his own statement, to see Mr. Khattra using the knife and to see the deceased bleeding.

[61] There is also evidence that the applicant was in contact many times with the person he alleges was the stabber, Mr. Khattra, and that he was also in contact with two of the other co-accused, Gurraj Bassi and Harminder Bassi. And there is evidence that the applicant fled with these individuals after the killing.

[62] From this, I think it can fairly be inferred that there was, at least, a plan to ambush and confront the deceased. It seems very likely that there was also a plan to assault him, likely using the bat and possibly other weapons. That makes the applicant, at a minimum, a party to an assault with a weapon and probably to a manslaughter.

[63] The Crown says that the fact that there were multiple individuals armed with weapons strongly suggests that they had the intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily injury that they knew was likely to kill the deceased, particularly given the incident the day before involving Gurraj Bassi and the deceased.

[64] I cannot conclude from these circumstances that there is an overwhelming case that the applicant was a principal or party to a planned and deliberate intentional killing or an intentional killing in the course of a forcible confinement. While that may be one inference to draw from the circumstances, it is certainly not the only available inference.

[65] I do accept, however, that the Crown has a strong case that the applicant was present and had at least some involvement in the boxing in and subsequent chase and attack and that he had a bat with him. He also had a motive to minimize his own role in his statement to the police. While I do not think the case against him for murder is as strong as the case appears to be against Mr. Khattra, the alleged stabber, there is every reason to believe that the Crown has a compelling case for the applicant to answer.

[66] But, in assessing the primary ground, I observe that the applicant poses a low risk of flight. He is a Canadian citizen who appears to have strong family ties to the community. There is no evidence that he has ever been subject to a court order. The Crown does not suggest that he has failed to meet his onus of establishing that his detention is not necessary to ensure his attendance at court.

[67] I am satisfied that the applicant has met his onus and established that his detention is not necessary on the primary ground.

ii) The Secondary Ground

[68] The secondary ground requires the court to consider whether the applicant’s detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public. All of the circumstances must be taken into consideration including any substantial likelihood that the applicant will commit an offence or interfere with the administration of justice if released.

[69] In assessing the risk of the applicant offending, some of the factors that may be relevant are those set out by Proulx J.A. in R. v. Rondeau, 1996 QC CA 6516, [1996] J.Q. 1090 at para. 15:

(1) the nature of the offense (2) the relevant circumstances of the offences, which may put in issue events prior to and subsequent to the offence; (3) the likelihood of a conviction; (4) the degree of participation of the accused; (5) the relationship between the accused and the victim; (6) the profile of the accused i.e. his occupation, his lifestyle, his criminal record, his family situation, his mental state; (7) his conduct prior to the commission of the alleged offence; and (8) the danger which interim release of the accused represents to the community specifically affected by the matter.

[70] It is the Crown’s position that of these factors, (1) through (4) and (7) are applicable. As I understand the Crown’s position, it is that there are real concerns about the substantial likelihood of the applicant re-offending given that he is alleged in this case to have participated in a group attack of this severity, with weapons, in broad daylight, in front of a school, where there were witnesses around. The Crown suggests that anyone who participates in this sort of activity in these circumstances, where there is such a petty reason for the attack (that being retaliation for the deceased’s actions the day before) poses a real risk of committing further offences.

[71] In my view, while no release plan can foreclose the possibility of further offences being committed, a very stringent release plan can greatly reduce the risk.

[72] As a starting point, the Crown raises concerns about how effectively Ms. Dhillon will be able to supervise the applicant when she really does not know him on a personal level very well. It is true that the Crown was able to identify a number of personal details about the applicant that Ms. Dhillon did not know. She could not name his friends or say why he had dropped out of high school. She had not known if he had a girlfriend. But, this does not seem surprising, given his age and the fact that she is an aunt. A young man might well not share with his parents or his aunt the details as to whom he was dating or the names of his friends. That does not speak to Ms. Dhillon’s inability to effect control and supervision as a surety.

[73] More important than knowing the intimate details of the applicant’s life, in my view, is the fact that the applicant and Ms. Dhillon have had a conversation while he was in jail about him living with her and obeying her rules. They did so in the context of having known each other for a long time and knowing that their families were close. If there is a release plan that is clear and easy for the applicant to follow while living in Ms. Dhillon’s home, I am confident that she will take the steps she needs to try to ensure that he complies with the terms imposed by the court.

[74] The Crown has raised a number of concerns about the proposed release plan. The Crown says that Ms. Dhillon has proposed that her son Harkamal be part of the supervision plan and that this decision, knowing his history, speaks to her judgment and ability to effectively supervise the applicant.

[75] I did not understand that Harkamal, Ms. Dhillon’s 19 year old son, was proposed to be a person who would supervise the applicant, despite the fact that Ms. Dhillon referred to supervision by her children. Plainly, in this case, I agree that Harkamal should not take on that role.

[76] There is some reason for concern about the evidence Ms. Dhillon gave about what happened with her son. I am not particularly troubled by the Crown’s suggestion that because her own son did not follow her teaching to abstain from fighting and marijuana, the applicant is unlikely to do so.

[77] What is potentially more disturbing, however, is the manner in which Ms. Dhillon dealt with the criminal allegations her son faced. She testified that her response was to feel ashamed, and that she chose not to speak to her son, and declined to attend at court with him. If I thought she was going to conduct herself in this manner as a surety, it would give me pause about her ability to supervise the applicant. As a surety, she needs to be actively engaged in his day-to-day supervision and cannot step back from that role because of shame or embarrassment.

[78] However, in her testimony, Ms. Dhillon appeared to me to understand her role as a surety and satisfied me that she would take this role very seriously. I do not think she would refuse to make appropriate inquiries if the applicant did something that raised concerns for her. She fully appreciates that there is a great deal at stake in becoming his surety.

[79] The Crown has also suggested that the proposed release plan has frailties in that it is unclear what would happen if Ms. Dhillon and her husband both had work commitments and were unable to supervise the applicant. While the suggestion was made that the plan seemed hastily put together and poorly thought out, I do not agree. I think that there are a number of possible options as to how release might work, and that Ms. Dhillon’s commitment to the applicant may be seen by the fact that she was willing to effectively create an employment opportunity for him.

[80] That said, I am not satisfied that the release plan involving the applicant working for her, either on a full-time or part-time basis, and having someone supervise him when she needs to attend at clients’ offices, is a comprehensive and effective method of reducing the risk of the applicant committing further offences. There are, in my view, too many potential gaps in the plan that could challenge Ms. Dhillon and the other sureties and create risks of periods of time without appropriate supervision of the applicant. It seems to me that a far superior and effective release plan would involve house arrest with supervision and electronic monitoring.

[81] I am satisfied that a release plan with the proposed sureties, house arrest with supervision and electronic monitoring will reduce the risk of the applicant re-offending to an acceptable level such that his detention is not justified on the secondary ground.

iii) The Tertiary Ground

[82] The tertiary ground is concerned with the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. While the court is to consider all of the circumstances, four in particular are highlighted for consideration.

Strength of the Crown’s case

[83] The Crown submits, as I have set out, that the case for first degree murder is very strong. As I have already indicated, while the Crown has a strong case that the applicant was armed, was actively engaged in the boxing in of the deceased’s vehicle and was present for the attack on the deceased, I do not see it is a strong case for his involvement in a planned and deliberate murder or an intentional killing in the course of a forcible confinement.

[84] Thus, I do not accept the Crown’s assertion that this case can be fairly characterized as “overwhelming” insofar as the murder is concerned. The case is very strong that the applicant was involved in a plan to confront the deceased, in the boxing-in of the deceased’s vehicle, in the lead up to the attack and that he may have been involved in an assault with a weapon.

Gravity of the Offence

[85] There is no dispute that first degree murder is the most serious offence in the Criminal Code.

Circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence

[86] In St-Cloud, Wagner J. held, at para. 61, that there is no exhaustive list of possible circumstances that might be relevant, though it listed as possible factors to consider, “the fact that the offence is a violent, heinous or hateful one, that it was committed in a context involving domestic violence, a criminal gang or terrorist organization, or that the victim was a vulnerable person.” If the offence was committed be several people, the extent of the accused’s participation in it may be relevant. The aggravating and mitigating factors that are considered on sentencing may also be taken into consideration.

[87] Further, at para. 71, Wagner J. went on to add the following as relevant: “the personal circumstances of the accused (age, criminal record, physical or mental condition, membership in a criminal organization).”

[88] In this case, the relevant circumstances include the fact that the applicant is relatively young and without a criminal record. He has a wide circle of support from his family and from family friends.

[89] On the other hand, the circumstances also include that this was a group attack on a person who appears to have been unarmed and vulnerable. Weapons were wielded and the deceased was stabbed multiple times and then left to suffer from his injuries. There is a brazenness about such an attack, occurring as it did in the late afternoon, in view of witnesses, at a high school.

The potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment

[90] If convicted of first degree murder, the applicant, of course, faces a life sentence without parole for 25 years.

Other considerations

[91] Even if the four statutory criteria set out in s. 515(10)(c) are met, this does not mean that detention should necessarily be ordered: St-Cloud, paras. 69-70 and 87. The court must consider all of the circumstances and determine whether detention is necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

[92] I recognize that in St-Cloud at para. 88, the court observed that “if the crime is serious or very violent, if there is overwhelming evidence against the accused and if the victim or victims were vulnerable, pre-trial detention will usually be ordered”.

[93] I do not accept the Crown’s submission that this case fits that description. As I have said, the Crown’s case against the applicant for first degree murder is some distance short of being overwhelming.

[94] Having considered the specific four factors set out in s. 515(10)(c), as well as all of the circumstances, I am persuaded that the applicant has shown cause that his detention is not necessary. In reaching this decision, I am influenced by the fact that there is an excellent release plan proposed with sureties that reassure the court that society will be protected from the risk of the applicant committing further offences. That release plan will include that the applicant be under house arrest at the home of his aunt. In addition, he will have, at all time, a person supervising him in the home. The purpose of that supervision is to monitor what he is doing in the home and who may come to visit him there.

[95] The applicant will also be subject to electronic monitoring. Of course, electronic monitoring is no guarantee that the applicant will comply with the terms of his release, including the house arrest. However, it does provide some greater confidence that he will comply with the terms imposed.

[96] I do not think that a reasonable member of the public, familiar with the basics of the rule of law in Canada and with the fundamental values of the criminal law, including those enshrined in the Charter, would have their confidence in the administration of justice undermined by the release of the applicant in this case with this release plan.

[97] I am mindful of the fact that the applicant’s co-accused, Mr. Khattra, has been released by Andre J. after a contested bail hearing. The Crown has not sought to review that decision under s. 680 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Khattra is the alleged stabber. I view the case against him for first degree murder to be stronger. Neither accused has a criminal record. Like the applicant, Mr. Khattra put forward a compelling release plan with a wide family network to supervise him.

[98] In R. v. Dang, 2015 ONSC 4254, Trotter J., as he then was, was asked to conclude that the justice erred in adverting to the fact that other individuals arrested in the same project had been released. He observed, at para. 59, that parity, as a sentencing concept, is “largely foreign to the bail context” and that it certainly plays no role in the primary and secondary grounds, which are focused on the assessment of individual risks. He declined to comment on whether the decision of one judge or justice should ever impact on another’s assessment of the tertiary ground in a companion case.

[99] While I place little reliance on this factor, I do think that the public’s confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined if the accused who is said to have wielded the knife that killed the deceased was released on bail, and the individual whose involvement appears, at least at this point, less culpable, was denied release.

Conclusion

[100] Mr. Bassi will be released on a recognizance of $2,680,000 with the following sureties:

1. Rajwant Dhillon in the amount of $600,000
2. Balwinder Singh in the amount of $800,000
3. Mohinder Singh in the amount of $550,000
4. Balbir Kaur Singh in the amount of $730,000.

[101] All of these conditions are without deposit.

[102] The other conditions are to be:

1. Remain in the Province of Ontario.
2. Deposit any passport with the officer-in-charge and not to apply for a passport.
3. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
4. Reside at 13 Maple Valley Street, Brampton, ON L6P 2E8, with Rajwant Dhillon, and be amenable to the rules and discipline of the home.
5. Be subject to electronic monitoring where police are to be directly notified of any non-compliance with the terms of the recognizance. The electronic monitoring bracelet is to be installed at the applicant’s home within 48 hours of his release from custody.
6. Remain in your residence at all times except to attend at court, to meet with counsel, or for scheduled medical appointments or medical emergencies and then only if accompanied by one of your sureties.
7. Be supervised in your residence at all times by either one of your sureties or another appropriate supervisor. The names of appropriate supervisors are: your mother Rajinder Kaur, your uncle Jasvir Dhillon, Gurmit and Nirman Singh Dhillon, Gurinder Dhillon, Tanjeet Dhillon, Dhananjay Mehta and Harpal Singh Otal.
8. Not to have any association or contact directly or indirectly with any of the following persons: a. Gurraj Bassi b. Harminder Bassi c. Guryodh Singh Khattra d. Harman Singh e. Any member of Paviter Bassis’ family, if known f. Jarnail Bassi g. Davinder Brar h. Douglas Carson i. Krishu Dupar j. Harvinder Kaur k. Rajinder Kaur l. Randeep Mann
9. Do not be in possession of any weapon as defined in the Criminal Code;
10. Carry a copy of your recognizance when absent from your residence and produce it on request by a police officer.
11. Present yourself at the front door of your residence within five minutes of any such request made by any police officer.

Woollcombe J. Released: July 4, 2018