Her Majesty the Queen v. Maneet Bajwa

OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CR-18-14930

DATE: 20191010

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

Maneet Bajwa

Defendant

COUNSEL:

Michael Hill, for the Crown

Sandip Khehra, for the Defendant

HEARD: October 7-8, 2019

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LEIBOVICH, J.

Overview

[1] The accused and Mr. Welch were charged with various gun offences relating to a December 12, 2017 purchase of two Glock firearms. On September 5, 2019, I severed the two accused. Ms. Bajwa’s trial proceeded before me, sitting without a jury, on October 7, 2019. Mr. Welch’s jury trial is scheduled to start on October 15, 2019. Ms. Bajwa, through counsel, admitted the Crown’s case, and an agreed statement of facts was filed with related exhibits. Ms. Bajwa testified on her own behalf and submits that she acted under duress. It is the defence’s position that Ms. Bajwa was acting under duress, as she was threatened with harm to herself, her fiancé, and her daughter from two unknown males if she did not obtain the two Glock firearms. The defence submits that I should accept Ms. Bajwa’s evidence, or it should at least raise a reasonable doubt, and her evidence supports the elements of duress. The defence submits that in the alternative, the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the offences set out in counts 3-6 of the indictment. The Crown submits that Ms. Bajwa’s evidence should be rejected and should not raise a reasonable doubt. If not outright rejected, the Crown then submits it has disproved beyond a reasonable doubt the defence of duress, namely that Ms. Bajwa had a reasonable avenue of escape, and there was no close, temporal connection between the alleged threat and its execution. Finally, the Crown submits that all the elements of the offences have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence called at trial

Agreed Statement of Facts

[2] The agreed statement of facts revealed the following:

1. Ms. Bajwa had a restricted firearm license that allowed her to buy firearms and transport them to her residence at 383 West Canal Bank Road in Bradford;

2. Mr. Welch did not have a firearm license of any kind. Ms. Bajwa knew this;

3. On October 27, 2017, Ms. Bajwa purchased two Glock handguns and paid $1769.07 in cash. Mr. Welch was with her at the time;

4. The firearms are understood in the community to be large calibre handguns with powerful recoil. On October 27, 2017 she did not perform any of the standard tests that one would expect of purchasers;

5. A search of Mr. Welch’s phone revealed that he was browsing Glock sites back on August 24, 2017;

6. After the Glocks were purchased, later that day there was a text exchange between Ms. Bajwa and Mr. Welch, which states, in part:

Welch: So r u teling me there is no glock 22 45

Bajwa: No

Bajwa: Glock 21 is the 45

Bajwa: Glock 22 is 40

Bajwa: Want me to change it?

Welch: No ok thanks

7. A forensic analysis of Ms. Bajwa’s phone did not reveal any other conversations relating to gun trafficking;

8. Ms. Bajwa picked up the guns on December 12, 2017 at 10:44 a.m. She drove to Mr. Welch’s residence and arrived at Benjamin Boake Trail at 11:47 a.m.;

9. On December 13, 2017, the police executed a dynamic entry of Ms. Bajwa’s mother’s house in Brampton at 7:00 a.m. and arrested Ms. Bajwa. The police arrested Mr. Welch at his residence at Benjamin Boake Trail at 5:00 a.m. A search of Mr. Welch’s residence uncovered the Glocks purchased by Ms. Bajwa in their original boxes with the trigger locks in the box but not attached to the handguns, and .4 grams of cocaine. Mr. Welch’s fingerprint was located on one of the Glocks; and

10. Ms. Bajwa’s cousin testified at the preliminary inquiry. Ms. Bajwa was raised in a traditional old school house. Ms. Bajwa’s family was upset that she had a child, especially since the father was black. Ms. Bajwa went to India to shop for her wedding. Indian weddings are a big deal.

Testimony of Ms. Bajwa

[3] At the time of trial, Ms. Bajwa was 27 years old. She was born in Etobicoke but raised in Brampton with her mother and brother. She was raised in a conservative Sikh home with few freedoms. She was not allowed to have any boyfriends, or date, or have sex. She was allowed to go to Barrie to attend college. She chose Barrie because she wanted more freedom. She took a dental hygiene course and completed the slightly lower dental assistant program. She was in Barrie for two years.

[4] She agreed in cross-examination that she was raised in urban Ontario and was taught to respect the law and trust the police.

[5] In Barrie, she met Mr. Welch, who is black. Her mother would not approve of her dating him because he was black. They dated for two years and she became pregnant. Mr. Welch convinced her that she should have the baby. She stopped visiting her mother after she was four months pregnant because she started to show. When she was eight months pregnant, she told her cousins, who were shocked but supported her. She moved to North York, as Mr. Welch’s family was there. They had an apartment near York University.

[6] Ms. Bajwa worked at Hugo Boss at Vaughan Mills while Mr. Welch had some labor jobs. They both cared for the baby girl, and they stayed in North York for three years, until they moved to Bradford because it was cheaper. She worked in Vaughan as a dental assistant.

[7] When her daughter was two, her brother found out and was angry at her. He stopped talking to her, but his fiancée did not. The fiancée convinced her to tell her mother. She did, and her mother was crying, heartbroken. Her brother, who was present, asked her mother if they should kill Ms. Bajwa. Ms. Bajwa bolted from the house.

[8] In Bradford, Ms. Bajwa obtained her PAL license. Mr. Welch suggested that shooting at the firing range would be a good way to reduce stress. She completed the appropriate course and obtained her firearm license.

[9] When the lease ended, she decided to move from Bradford. Her relationship with Mr. Welch was at an end. She spent the nights with her mother in Brampton, but she spent the days at Mr. Welch’s place on Benjamin Street to be with her daughter. The Welches accepted her daughter.

[10] In 2017 she met her now husband, Jivan, who is Punjabi, and is accepted by Ms. Bajwa’s mother. He is from British Columbia and has a family business and is financially secure. Their subsequent wedding cost approximately $60,000.

[11] In October 2017, a couple of days before the 27^th, she dropped off an Indian suit at her friend’s house. On the way back to her car, she was approached by two men who told her to get into the car. She sat in the driver’s seat, one was in the front passenger seat and the other was in the back behind her with a gun to her temple. They had ski masks on. She was scared. She thought she was going to be raped or killed. She could not run. She looked towards one of them and the male in the front said, “don’t fuckin look at me”. She had her hands on the steering wheel. He said “we know you have a gun license”, and that she needed to get two guns – a Glock 40 and a Glock 45. He asked her to repeat it, but she could not. He said, it is “Not that fuckin hard”. She then repeated it twice. He said, “think it’s a joke?” and placed a picture of her daughter at a playground in the cup holder. She testified that she thought her daughter was kidnapped, and that they had her daughter. She was scared. She was then shown a picture of Jivan. The pictures were from her Facebook account.

[12] The man said, “listen carefully you fuckin bitch, get a Glock 40 and Glock 45, take “Lo” [Mr. Welch] with you, go to an Ajax gun store and afterwards go to 151 Benjamin Street”. He said that they would return to Benjamin Street in two weeks. He told her not to go to the cops and that they were fuckin watching her. She explained that it takes longer than two weeks to get the gun and she was also going out of the country for a month. He asked her when she was returning. She said on the 12^th of December. He told her that they would see her December 13^th at “Benjamins”, and they left.

[13] She drove away. She could not see where they went. She was wondering if her daughter was okay. She was crying. She went the next day to see her daughter and told Mr. Welch what happened. They decided that they would tell the police about what happened, but only on the day the men were scheduled to pick up the guns. She could not tell the police before and risk her daughter. The police would not take her seriously, as she had no evidence, they would just take a report. She testified that she did not really know what the police do and in her mind lawyers and police were the same.

[14] In cross-examination she agreed that she was never told to write anything down, nor did the men object when she told them that she had a trip. After this night, she never received any texts or calls from these men again. The men did not explain to her why she had to go to a store in Ajax. She owned her own guns at the time, and they were not Glocks. She did not think of offering these guns to them instead.

[15] In cross-examination she stated that when she went to the gun store on October 27^th, she believed that she was always in their sights and being watched, and that she was being watched as she went to the gun store, and perhaps in the gun store, and possibly outside the store. It was stressful. She was played videos of her entering the store and in the store. She agreed that she looked fairly relaxed in the store, and she was laughing out loud at one point. She testified that she was trying to look casual and relaxed.

[16] On October 27^th, she went with Mr. Welch and purchased the two guns. She paid in cash. She testified in cross-examination that she did not have to make any special accommodations to obtain the cash, as she preferred to deal with cash as opposed to credit. On November 15, 2017, she went to India with her mother and future mother-in-law to shop for her wedding. She returned on December 12, 2017 at 5:00 a.m. On December 12^th, she went to the Firearms Outlet Canada store to pick up the two Glock handguns. The time was approximately 10:44 a.m. There were trigger locks on both guns. She brought them to Mr. Welch’s place on Benjamin Street and placed them in the safe. Mr. Welch had the combination. When they were discovered by the police, the locks were off. She did not remove the locks. She planned to call the police the next day and have them waiting for the men when the men showed up for the guns. She did not think she was doing anything illegal.

[17] In cross-examination she tried to explain that she did not think it made sense for her to call the police earlier. It made sense to call on December 13^th because the events would happen the same day. She also testified that she did not know what the police would do.

[18] In cross-examination, Ms. Bajwa testified that she did not think of taking her daughter to India with her. Her mother would not accept it, and her daughter would not be safe. She would be killed. She did not discuss with Mr. Welch that perhaps they should split up as both of them could not be followed. They did not discuss any other plans.

[19] Ms. Bajwa told Mr. Welch when she left for India to keep on eye on her daughter. She testified in cross-examination that her daughter actually spent a lot of time with Mr. Welch’s sister but Ms. Bajwa did not warn the sister or ask Mr. Welch to warn his sister. She then testified that the sister did not look after her daughter a lot. In cross-examination, she was asked when she was going to call the police on December 13^th. She said 8:00 a.m. When pressed if this was something she was just making up now, she responded that it was going to be sometime in the morning, but no time had been set, but she thought it would be around 8:00 a.m.

[20] She received a threatening text the day of trial, threatening her not to blame Mr. Welch for everything. It was filed as Exhibit 9 at trial. I will discuss Exhibit 9 later in these reasons.

[21] She testified that she has no knowledge that Mr. Welch was involved in the extortion scheme. She thought that maybe it was someone close to them, who knew them, perhaps his family, because they have been in trouble before with the law. Mr. Welsh’s brother had been charged with murder.

Law and Analysis

[22] Ms. Bajwa has testified in her own defence. She does not dispute the allegations, but she states that they were morally involuntarily as she was acting under duress. If I accept Ms. Bajwa’s evidence, or if it raises a reasonable doubt, I must then consider whether the elements of the defence of duress are met based on her evidence or, put another way, whether the Crown has disproven any element of the defence of duress beyond a reasonable doubt. If I reject the defence of duress I must still look at the evidence that I do accept to see if the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt; R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.

Has the Crown disproven the defence of duress beyond a reasonable doubt?

[23] We refer to duress as a defence but it is really an excuse based upon “the principle of moral involuntariness”: R. v. Ryan, 2013 SCC 3, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 14, at para. 23; R. v. Ruzic, 2001 SCC 24, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687, at para. 47. As stated recently by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Foster, 2018 ONCA 53, at para. 92:

The concept that underpins the excuse of duress is normative involuntariness, said differently, that there is no legal way out: R. v. Ryan, at para. 23; R. v. Hibbert, 1995 CanLII 110 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973, at para. 55.

[24] The defence of duress has the following elements, as explained in R. v. Ryan, at para. 81:

(1) There must be an explicit or implicit threat of present or future death or bodily harm directed at the accused or a third party.

(2) The accused must reasonably believe that the threat will be carried out.

(3) There can be no safe avenue of escape. This element is evaluated on a modified objective standard.

(4) There must be a close temporal connection between the threat and the harm threatened.

(5) There must be proportionality between the harm threatened and the harm inflicted by the accused. The harm caused by the accused must be equal to or no greater than the harm threatened. This is also evaluated on a modified objective standard.

(6) The accused cannot be a party to a conspiracy or association whereby she is subject to compulsion and actually knew that threats and coercion to commit an offence were a possible result of this criminal activity, conspiracy or association.

See also R. v. Ruzic, 2001 SCC 24, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687, at paras. 56-67; R. v. Hibbert, 1995 CanLII 110 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973, at paras. 18-25; and R. v. Meecham, 2019 ONSC 561, [2019] OJ No 284.

[25] Ms. Bajwa testified that she, her daughter, and her fiancé were threatened by two males and told to buy two Glock guns. She bought the guns out of fear of these men. Mr. Khehra submits that I should accept his client’s evidence or that it should at least raise a reasonable doubt. He makes the following arguments in support of Ms. Bajwa’s credibility: 1) If Ms. Bajwa was not threatened, why would she buy the Glocks? She was about to start a new life with her fiancé. There is no motive for her to buy the Glocks; 2) The possibility that Mr. Welch was behind the plan could explain some of the difficulties with the unusual aspects of it. Mr. Khehra states that it was in consultation with Mr. Welch that Ms. Bajwa made the plan to only call the police on December 13^th; and 3) The threatening text to Ms. Bajwa, while not directly confirmatory, is some evidence of what she has been going through.

[26] I have considered Mr. Khehra’s helpful submissions carefully, but after considering all of the evidence, I do not accept Ms. Bajwa’s evidence, nor does it raise a reasonable doubt. I say this for the following reasons:

1. The story of the threat itself is illogical and improbable. Ms. Bajwa described two masked men, one armed, the other threatening, who accosted her late at night. Based on her evidence, they seemed very intent on acquiring the two Glock guns. Yet, when, again based on her evidence, she told them that it would take a few weeks, and she would be out of the country for a month, they were content on waiting for her return, which was six weeks later, to receive the guns;

2. She never heard from the men again. It is illogical to me that the men would give Ms. Bajwa such a long time to complete the task without any interim follow up to ensure that she was still on board with the plan;

3. Ms. Bajwa acted inconsistently with someone who was worried about her daughter and fiancé. With respect to her daughter, she testified that she thought she was kidnapped. When she drove away after the incident, she was worried if her daughter was okay. She did not call her daughter that night to see if she was okay but waited until the next day to see her. But, more importantly, she left the country for a month while her daughter was under this threat, without taking any real precautions. She testified that as long as she did what the men said, her daughter would be safe. I do not know how she could have any confidence in that thought, if she was in fact threatened at gun point. She was cross-examined on this point. In response, she testified that her daughter often stayed with Mr. Welch’s sister, at a different location. She agreed that the sister was often responsible for the daughter’s childcare. However, she did not tell the sister to be wary of the men or tell Mr. Welch to tell his sister to be wary. She then changed her evidence and said that Mr. Welch’s sister did not look after her daughter a lot. In addition, going with Ms. Bajwa’s first answer on this point, I do not see how the fact that Mr. Welch’s sister was watching her daughter could be much comfort to Ms. Bajwa, given her testimony that she believed that the men who threatened her were close to her and knew details about her, and perhaps it could be someone from Mr. Welch’s family;

There is no evidence that Ms. Bajwa ever told or warned her fiancé about the possible danger he faced even though it would have been easy for her to call him to do so;

4. It seems odd that the men would direct Ms. Bajwa to a specific gun store. Why would they care where she obtained the guns?

5. Ms. Bajwa’s testimony that her and Mr. Welch planned to only call the police on December 13^th, and only at that time, to tell the police what had happened so they could come and trap the two men is, with respect, nonsensical. She testified that she was raised to respect the law and trust the police, but she did not want to call the police earlier because they would just file a report, not take her seriously and she did not have any evidence. Ms. Bajwa is not unintelligent. She could have told the police weeks in advance and told them when she was going to pick up the guns and when the men were set to retrieve the guns on December 13^th. Ms. Bajwa also waffled back and forth on what time on the 13^th she was going to call the police when pressed in cross-examination. Based on Ms. Bajwa’s evidence she was a victim of poor timing as she was about to call the police before she was arrested. Ms. Bajwa was never going to call the police because she was never threatened.

In respect of Mr. Khehra’s submission that the poor plan could be blamed on Mr. Welch, when Ms. Bajwa explained her reasons for the plan, she did not blame it on Mr. Welch, but rather sought to explain based on her own beliefs and her own thoughts;

6. The October 27^th text between Ms. Bajwa and Mr. Welch does not support Ms. Bajwa’s assertion that she was following the directions of the men who simply asked for a Glock 40 and Glock 45. The exchange goes, in part, as follows:

Welch: So r u teling me there is no glock 22 45

Bajwa: No

Bajwa: Glock 21 is the 45

Bajwa: Glock 22 is 40

Bajwa: Want me to change it?

Welch: No ok thanks;

I do not see why Ms. Bajwa would be asking Mr. Welch if she should change the guns if it was her that received the instruction from the men, not Mr. Welch. She testified that she just wanted to make sure she got the right guns, but the only direction she received was to obtain a Glock 40 and Glock 45. That is what she obtained from the store. The text exchange with Mr. Welch looks like the two of them discussing the specific models bought, even though, according to Ms. Bajwa, those specifics were never given to her by the two men. The text exchange is consistent with Ms. Bajwa ensuring that Mr. Welch was happy with the guns.

In addition, I do not agree with Mr. Khehra when he submits that Ms. Bajwa was mistaken when she testified that the reference to “he” in the earlier part of the text (not reproduced above) was a reference to the store clerk. I find that this is exactly who was being referenced and not the man who threatened her, as Mr. Khehra submitted;

7. Ms. Bajwa testified that she thought she was being followed to the gun store on October 27^th, when she bought the guns. She said it was stressful. The videos of her entering the store and purchasing the guns show her relaxed, in control, and at one point laughing. Mr. Khehra cautions against relying on the demeanour evidence from the store, especially without the benefit of audio. However, there is no factual dispute that she in fact looked relaxed, as Ms. Bajwa testified that she was pretending to be relaxed so as not to arouse suspicion. I agree that by itself, her demeanour at the gun store does not render her unbelievable, but in conjunction with the other points above, it does not support her testimony;

8. The possibility that Mr. Welch was the mastermind does not make Ms. Bajwa’s account any more plausible and in many ways makes it less plausible;

9. Exhibit 9 is an angry text threatening Ms. Bajwa not to try and blame Mr. Welch for what happened and stating that he didn’t do anything. The text also states that it is Mr. Welch who takes care of her daughter. The author of the text also says that he will be watching everything that goes on in the courtroom. There was no one else in the courtroom when Ms. Bajwa testified apart from the intermittent attendance of Mr. Welch’s counsel. The author of the text is unknown. Crown counsel suggested to Ms. Bajwa that she could have sent it. She denied that. The text does not assist me in deciding this case. If it was sent by someone close to Mr. Welch, then it possibly shows a poor relationship between the Welches and Ms. Bajwa today but it doesn’t make Ms. Bajwa’s testimony more or less believable regarding what happened in between October to December 2017; and

10. There is no evidence why Ms. Bajwa would voluntarily enter this scheme with Mr. Welch. The Crown does not have to prove motive but in some cases the absence of motive can leave a reasonable doubt. In my view, having regard to all the evidence, the fact that I do not know why Ms. Bajwa would have entered into this scheme with Mr. Welch does not make her evidence with all of its problems any more believable or capable of raising a doubt.

[27] Even if I found that Ms. Bajwa’s evidence raised a reasonable doubt, in my view, the Crown has disproven beyond a reasonable doubt two critical elements of the defence of duress:

1. That there can be no safe avenue of escape, and

2. That there must be a close temporal connection between the threat and the harm threatened.

[28] In order to avail oneself of the defence of duress there must be no safe avenue of escape and there must be a close temporal connection between the threat and the harm threatened. The two concepts are naturally linked to each other. The no safe avenue of escape element is evaluated on a modified objective basis, the court must look at a reasonable person that is similarly situated as the accused. The defence does not apply to persons who “could have legally and safely extricated themselves from the situation of duress.” R. v. Ryan, at para. 47. As explained recently in R. v. Foster at paras. 93 and 94:

The excuse of duress consists of several elements. Among those elements, and of importance here, is the absence or non-existence of a safe avenue of escape for the person charged. This element is evaluated on a modified objective basis, that is to say, a reasonable person similarly situated: Ryan, at paras. 55 and 65; Ruzic, at para. 61. A trier of fact must take into account the particular circumstances in which an accused found herself and her ability, with her background and essential characteristics, to perceive a reasonable alternative to committing a crime. What is involved is a pragmatic assessment of the position of the accused, tempered by the need to avoid negating criminal liability on the basis of an excuse which is at once wholly subjective and unverifiable: Ruzic, at para. 61.

The "safe avenue of escape" analysis involves a reasonable person in the same situation as the accused and with the same personal characteristics and experience as the accused. The issue is whether such a person would conclude that there was no safe avenue of escape or legal alternative to committing the offence. If a reasonable person, similarly situated, would think that there was a safe avenue of escape, this element or requirement has not been met. The excuse of duress would fail because the accused's commission of the crime cannot be considered morally involuntary: Ryan, at para. 65.

[29] In assessing these elements, I must, as noted above, take into account the characteristics of the accused. The accused was, at the time of the offences, a 25-year-old college educated woman who was raised in a traditional Sikh family in Ontario. She, at the time of the offence, was engaged to be married to a financially secure Punjabi man who lived in British Columbia, who was accepted by her family. She was working and had lived independently from her family with Mr. Welch for a number of years, but at the time of the offence was living with her mother. She had a positive relationship with her mother as it related to her upcoming marriage, but she did not talk to her mother about her daughter. In my view, a reasonable person with the personal characteristics and experiences of the accused would think that there was a safe avenue of escape having regard to the following:

1. There was a lengthy gap between the threat and the date the accused was supposed to deliver the guns, a gap of over 6 weeks. Put another way there was not a close temporal connection between the threat and the harm threatened;

2. During this period the accused was able to leave the country and travel to India with her mother and future mother-in-law. There is no evidence that the accused believed she was being watched or under surveillance while out of the country;

3. While the accused believed that she was being watched at home she believed that she was able to call the police;

4. I do not accept the defence submission that the accused had no one, except Mr. Welch, to turn to in times of turmoil. While the rest of the accused’s family did not want to discuss her daughter that is a very different thing then not wanting to discuss a threat to kill her daughter. But the threat was more than a threat to Ms. Bajwa’s daughter, it was to Ms. Bajwa and to her fiancé and maybe the rest of her family. Surely the accused could have discussed the broader threat with her mother and future mother in law, especially when they were alone in India. I also do not see why she could not talk to her fiancé about the threat to him. He was in BC, a safe distance. Furthermore, it is evident that her fiancé and his family had financial means at their disposal. Ms. Bajwa herself had easy access to money. She testified that she did not have to make any special arrangements to get the $1700 cash that she used to buy the Glocks; and

5. The accused testified that despite the men’s threats and warnings not to call the police she was prepared to call them, but only at the last moment. I appreciate defence counsel’s cautions not to play “Monday morning quarterback” but this was an unreasonable approach. The accused had ample opportunity to call the police, without anyone knowing, without endangering her or her family, before she picked up the guns and brought them to Mr. Welch’s house. I accept the Crown’s characterization that Ms. Bajwa who spent a month, after the threat, shopping in India for clothes and jewellery was not paralyzed with fear and confusion.

Has the Crown proven the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt?

[30] I have explained above why I have rejected Ms. Bajwa’s evidence and why it does not raise a reasonable doubt. However, I must still consider the evidence that I do accept to see if the Crown has proven the elements of each of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

[31] The accused faces six counts, but three offences, one for each Glock. The three offences are:

a. Counts 1 and 2, storing the guns, without lawful excuse, at a place other than a place indicated on the authorization license;

b. Counts 3 and 4, trafficking in the two guns while knowingly not being authorized to do so; and

c. Counts 5 and 6, transferring the two guns to another person otherwise than under the authority of the Firearms Act.

[32] The Crown’s case was entered through an agreed statement of facts. The defence concedes that if I reject the accused’s evidence and the resulting defence of duress then the Crown has proven counts 1 and 2. I agree, and I find the accused guilty of those counts.

[33] Mr. Khehra submits that the Crown’s case only shows that the accused stored the guns in an unauthorized place, it does not show that she knowingly trafficked or transferred the guns.

[34] I disagree. Section 84 of the Criminal Code defines “transfer” for the purposes of that part of the Criminal Code including section 99 and 101 of the Criminal Code. “Transfer” is defined as meaning to “sell, provide, barter, give, lend, rent, send, transport, ship, distribute or deliver.” In order to find Ms. Bajwa guilty of counts 3 and 4 I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she intentionally transferred, or offered to transfer, the two Glock guns while knowing that she was not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other act of Parliament or any regulations made under any act of Parliament. The agreed statement of facts and Ms. Bajwa’s evidence of driving the Glocks to Mr. Welch’s house and placing them in his safe clearly showed that she intentionally transferred, as defined in the Criminal Code, those guns to Mr. Welch. The agreed statement of facts further states that she knew that Mr. Welch did not have a firearm license. The evidence does not support the notion that she was simply storing her guns at the wrong location. The agreed statement of facts show that she did not perform the basic tests of a person interested in buying a gun or guns for their own use. In addition, the text exchange between Ms. Bajwa and Mr. Welch shows that these were the guns that Mr. Welch wanted. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Bajwa intentionally transferred the guns to Mr. Welch knowing that she was not authorized to do so.

[35] I am similarly satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, for the same reasons, that Ms. Bajwa transferred the guns to Mr. Welch contrary to section 101(2) of the Criminal Code.

[36] As a result, I find Ms. Bajwa guilty of all counts in the indictment.

The Honourable Justice H. Leibovich

Released: October 10, 2019

OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CR-18-14930

DATE: 20191010

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

Maneet Bajwa

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Honourable Justice H. Leibovich

Released: October 10, 2019