COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-0001669
DATE: 2020 10 09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Paul A. Renwick, for the Crown
- and -
ALAN KUMAR
Jag Virk, for Alan Kumar
Heard: May 15, 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION
Section 7 Application
BARNES J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] At approximately 8:08 pm on January 30, 2018 Peel Regional Police sent out a broadcast message over police radio. There was a report of a home invasion in progress at 33 Mellowood Avenue in the city of Brampton. Constable Bothman was driving an unmarked police vehicle. His passenger was Constable Mahal. Together with other police units, they rushed to the address. This police action led to the arrest of Andy Chey, Allan Kumar, Song Sin and Hashmatullah Lutfi. They were jointly charged with various charges related to the alleged home invasion.
[2] Constable Bothman arrested Mr. Alan Kumar. Mr. Kumar alleges that after he was handcuffed, Constable Bothman smashed his head on the ground five times. Constable Bothman has denied the allegations. Counsel for Mr. Kumar submits that racial prejudice and an unrestrained adrenalin rush were the reasons for Constable Bothman’s actions. Mr. Kumar’s alleges a breach of his section 7 and 12 Charter rights as a result of the use of excessive force by Constable Bothman. He seeks a stay of the proceedings against him or a reduction in sentence should he be convicted of the charges.
[3] For reasons articulated below, Mr. Kumar’s application is dismissed. Mr. Kumar bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. His own actions as well as the medical evidence he proffered do not support his allegation that Constable Bothman bashed his face against the ground five times. Mr. Kumar sabotaged his own application by embellishing the degree of force applied by Constable Bothman in arresting him.
[4] I have carefully reviewed the evidence and the submissions of counsel; however, I only refer to portions of the evidence or the submissions that are necessary to provide context for and explain the conclusion that I have reached on this motion.
LAW
[5] The law in this area is well settled. Sections 7 and 12 of the Charter place the following constraints on state action:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamentals justice.
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
[6] Section 25 of the Criminal Code places constraints on the use of force by the police. Police use of force must be:
authorized by law;
based on reasonable and probable grounds; and
be no more than is necessary, in the circumstances, to achieve the lawful purpose.
[7] Section 25 (3) prohibits a police officer from using force which is “intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, unless he or she believes that it is necessary to protect him or herself, or another person under his or her protection, from death or grievous bodily harm.” The analysis focuses on the officer’s belief. That belief is measured against an objective standard. Current jurisprudence applies the test of objectively reasonable in all the circumstances. Objectively reasonable in this context means an assessment of the use of force on a subjective–objective basis: R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at para. 34; Chartier v. Greaves, [2001] O.J. No. 634 (ON SC), at para. 59. Section 25 (4) excuses a police officer from liability where the force used is no more than is necessary in all the circumstances: Nasogaluak, at para. 34.
[8] It is trite to observe that police work can be dangerous and unpredictable. Society expects police officers to demonstrate a high level of professionalism. The nature of police work and police interaction with the public does not easily lend it self to a rigid categorisation of all the factors to consider in assessing whether force applied in a particular circumstance is excessive.
[9] As one of the custodians of public safety, police officers are under a duty to keep all members of society safe. In so doing they confront dangerous and difficult situations. Police work can be dangerous and demanding. It can be unpredictable and exigent. Therefore, police conduct should not be held to an exacting standard of perfection. A certain degree of latitude should be accorded police officers who have a duty to confront difficult and dangerous situations. However, any force used by police should still be no more than is reasonably necessary to achieve the lawful objective: Nasogaluak, at para. 35; R. v. Bottrell (1981), 1981 CanLII 339 (BC CA), 60 C.C.C. (2d) 211 (B.C.C.A.), at p. 25; R. v. Asante-Mensah, 2003 SCC 39, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 51 and 52; R. v. Genest, 1989 CanLII 109 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59, [1989] S.C.J. No. 5 (QL), at p. 89; R. v. Walcott, 2008 CanLII 11374, [2008] O.J. No. 1050 (ON SC), at para. 23.
[10] Justice Brown in Walcott, at para. 24, provides a helpful list of some of the factors to consider:
In assessing the reasonableness or necessity of the force used in any particular situation a court must take into account all the circumstances, including whether:
(i) the suspect was acting in a hostile manner towards the police, resisting arrest or failing to comply with an officer's arrest procedure;
(ii) the relative sizes and weights of the officer and the suspect;
(iii) the officer was at risk of harm;
(iv) the police knew the suspect had a history which might represent a threat to them; or,
(v) the police understood that weapons might be on the premises.
[11] Contemporary understanding of police work acknowledges that the police services are not immune from the perils of racism. The Ontario Human Rights Commission found that Black persons experienced a disproportionate use of excessive force in their interactions with some Toronto Police officers: A Collective Impact: Interim Report on the Inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black persons by the Toronto Police Services, at p. 30. Thus, an additional consideration in the assessment of the reasonableness and necessity of police use of force must include a consideration of whether the use of force was influenced by any discriminatory or prejudicial beliefs. For example, whether the decision to apply force and the extent of force applied was influenced by discriminatory and prejudicial beliefs held against Black, Indigenous or other persons of color. In other words, whether the decision to apply force and the extent of force applied influenced by the fact that the subject of the force was Black, Indigenous or other person of color.
[12] Mr. Kumar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that his section 7 and 12 Charter rights have been breached: Walcott, at para. 70. I have carefully considered several cases provided by counsel. The applicable legal principles are not in dispute. Each case turns on its own facts. On the facts of this case, if Constable Bothman smashed Mr. Kumar’s face into the ground five times, then this will constitute excessive force.
ANALYSIS
Analytical summary of the evidence:
(a) Allan Kumar
[13] Mr. Kumar has failed to meet his onus to demonstrate that Constable Bothman used excessive force while arresting him.
[14] According to Mr. Kumar, on the evening of January 30, 2018 he was on foot when he observed a van driving towards him at high speed. He said he ran towards the van. While running, he slipped and fell to the ground. He fell on his side. He said there was snow on the ground, and he braced his fall with his arm. He said Constable Bothman yelled “police,” got out of the van and attacked him while he was on the ground.
[15] Mr. Kumar said Constable Bothman sat on him while he lay on the ground, handcuffed him and bashed his face into the ground five times. Mr. Kumar said that while bashing his face into the ground, Constable Bothman said “you thought you can rob people’s houses? I live to fuck people like you up.” Counsel for Mr. Kumar suggested to Constable Bothman that this comment demonstrates that his decision to apply force and the extent of force that he applied were influenced by racial bias and prejudice. Constable Kumar denied this allegation. Mr. Kumar said that as result of the bashing, his nose was bleeding, and he suffered injures to his eyes and forehead.
[16] After the arrest, Constable Bothman handed Mr. Kumar over to Constable Pileggi, who placed him in her marked police vehicle. Mr. Kumar said he asked Constable Bothman to take him to hospital for treatment. He was not sure whether he made this request at Constable Pileggi’s cruiser, at Constable Bothman’s police van or while on route from the van to the cruiser. He said Constable Pileggi was not present when he made this request. Constable Bothman told him he would be looked at later on.
[17] Mr. Kumar said that while seated in the cruiser and in the absence of Constable Pileggi, Constable Bothman returned and told him he would “pin a gun charge on him.” Constable Bothman denied making this statement. Constable Pileggi also contradicts Mr. Kumar. Constable Pileggi said she placed Mr. Kumar in her police vehicle. She never left him alone in the vehicle and did not hear or see Constable Bothman make any comments to Mr. Kumar. She said once Mr. Kumar was in her custody, Constable Bothman left to assist other officers in the arrest of other suspects. Constable Bothman returned a short time later and told her that he had recovered a gun and Mr. Kumar should face an additional charge in relation to the gun.
[18] Mr. Kumar did not tell Constable Pileggi that he was injured and needed medical attention. Constable Pileggi said she never observed any injuries on Mr. Kumar. Constable Pileggi transported Mr. Kumar to the police station. Mr. Kumar said that while at the station, a male police officer asked him who had done this to him, i.e. who had caused his injuries. Mr. Kumar said he responded, “the police.” The male officer was Staff Sergeant George Douglas. He contradicted Mr. Kumar. Staff Sergeant George Douglas said he never had that conversation with Mr. Kumar. He noticed that Mr. Kumar had some dried blood on his nose, but did not have any conversation with Mr. Kumar about the injury.
[19] As will become apparent later, I have concluded that Mr. Kumar is prone to embellishment, however, one of Staff Sergeant Douglas’ responsibilities was to assess whether prisoners brought into the station required medical attention. Within that context, it is unreasonable to conclude that upon noticing that Mr. Kumar had blood on his nose that he did not ask Mr. Kumar about the injury. Staff Sergeant Douglas’ response that he assumed that the injury was caused during the arrest is reasonable, but his evidence that he did not ask any questions about the injury is unreasonable.
[20] Constable Bothman agreed that Mr. Kumar had a bloody nose after the arrest. He said he used Mr. Kumar’s clothing to wipe blood coming from his nose because he had nothing else to use. As previously noted, Staff Sergeant Douglas observed dried blood on Mr. Kumar’s nose. The day of the arrest, January 30, 2018 was a Tuesday. Mr. Kumar testified that on Wednesday, which was the next day, his lawyer took a picture of injuries to his face prior to a bail appearance. The picture shows Mr. Kumar with two dark circles around his eyes, and a bruise on his forehead and nose. Mr. Kumar also alleged that one day during the preliminary inquiry, Constable Bothman directed a menacing look at him and gave him the “middle finger.” Constable Bothman denied this allegation.
(b) Police Evidence
[21] Constable Bothman testified that on January 30, 2018 he was travelling with his partner Constable Mahal when he heard a police radio call at 8:08 pm reporting a potential break and enter in progress at 33 Mellowood Avenue in Brampton. He said as he arrived on scene, he saw three individuals running in a park or parkette. Two individuals ran eastbound towards the backyards of a row of houses. The third person was carrying a white hat. This person threw a black object into a garbage bin and continued running. This individual was Mr. Kumar. He was able to cut Mr. Kumar off with his vehicle as Mr. Kumar fell on the ground, which was covered in snow. Constable Bothman said as he pulled up to Mr. Kumar, Mr. Kumar threw the white hat he was holding away. In the white hat was a balaclava.
[22] Constable Bothman testified that Mr. Kumar was still on the ground when he got out of the vehicle. He identified himself as the police and told Mr. Kumar that he was under arrest. He said Mr. Kumar was flailing on the ground. He did not know what Mr. Kumar’s intentions were, so he jumped on him to prevent him from getting up.
[23] Constable Bothman said he did not smash Mr. Kumar’s face against the ground. He placed his knee in Mr. Kumar’s lower back. He was trying to get control of Mr. Kumar’s hands so that he could handcuff him. Mr. Kumar did not initially heed his instructions to produce his hands for handcuffing. Constable Bothman said he had to repeat the instruction two or three times. He said he and Mr. Kumar engaged in a short struggle as he tried to get control of his hands. The struggle lasted about 10 seconds. Mr. Kumar eventually complied. He said after the arrest he noticed that Mr. Kumar had a minor bloody nose.
[24] Constable Bothman said he escorted Mr. Kumar to his police van. He asked Mr. Kumar how he got the bloody nose and Mr. Kumar said he got the bloody nose when he was taken down during the arrest. He described Mr. Kumar’s injury as a small cut. He said he asked Mr. Kumar if he required medical assistance and he declined. Constable Bothman said Mr. Kumar told him that his face hit the snow and ice when he fell.
[25] His partner Constable Mahal did not assist him in the arrest. She watched him arrest Mr. Kumar. He said when he had Mr. Kumar handcuffed, he asked Constable Mahal to go and help other officers to arrest the other suspects. She complied. He estimated that Constable Mahal was with him for about 10 to 20 seconds before she left.
[26] Within seconds of Mr. Kumar’s arrest, Constable Brietenbach arrived on scene. Constable Bothman told Constable Brietenbach that he did not need assistance. He told Constable Brietenbach to proceed onward to help the other officers with the arrest of the other suspects. Constable Brigtenbach complied.
[27] Constable Mahal confirmed Constable Bothman’s testimony on the arrest. She said she was delayed in exiting the police van because the front passenger door was blocked by a snow bank. She was standing next to Constable Bothman during the arrest. He did not need her assistance. Mr. Kumar initially resisted the arrest. She heard Constable Bothman tell Mr. Kumar, two to three times, to stop resisting. She said Mr. Kumar had his hands underneath his body and he was moving from side to side. This action was not consistent with an effort to run away. Constable Bothman kept telling him to show his hands. She said it took about 10 to 20 seconds for Constable Bothman to arrest Mr. Kumar.
[28] Constable Mahal said she did not see Constable Bothman struggle with Mr. Kumar. She did not see Constable Bothman smash Mr. Kumar’s face into the ground. Constable Breitenbach testified that by the time he arrived on scene, Constable Bothman had already arrested Mr. Kumar. Constable Breitenbach then ran in the direction of other officers who were trying to arrest the other suspects.
[29] Constable Mahal was hampered by a snow bank in exiting the police van. She was delayed such that she did not witness the moment when Constable Bothman first made contact with Mr. Kumar. Constable Breitenbach arrived seconds after the arrest was already complete. After Mr. Kumar was handcuffed and Constable Mahal and Constable Breitenbach had left the scene, Constable Bothman was alone with Mr. Kumar and had the opportunity to apply the force described by Mr. Kumar. The only people who know what happened at that time are Constable Bothman and Mr. Kumar.
[30] Constable Bothman testified that shortly after Constable Brietenbach left, Constable Pileggi arrived. He handed over custody of Mr. Kumar to Constable Pileggi and then ran to help the other officers with the arrest of the other suspects. He returned a short time later and looked in the garbage bin in which he had observed Mr. Kumar discard a black object. He retrieved what he believed was a gun. He walked over to Constable Pileggi’s police cruiser and told her that Mr. Kumar should be charged with an additional offence related to his discovery. Constable Bothman denies ever speaking to Mr. Kumar while Mr. Kumar was in the police cruiser. As previously noted, Constable Pileggi confirmed his testimony on this point.
Concerns with Mr. Kumar’s evidence
[31] Mr. Kumar provided no admissible medical evidence in support of his injuries. All the medical evidence he put forward was hearsay. He did not articulate or satisfy any statutory or common law hearsay exception. However, even if the medical evidence were admissible it fails to support his claim that Constable Bothman bashed his face against the ground five times.
[32] Mr. Kumar testified that as a result of Constable Bothman’s actions his face, particularly his nose, was in significant pain. Mr. Kumar said he suffered a fractured nose and injuries to his forehead and face. The video recording of Mr. Kumar’s police booking does not support his testimony. Mr. Kumar exhibited no signs of pain by demeanor or action. He was cooperative and communicative with the police officers. He did not demonstrate any signs of discomfort either by speech, action or any other means. He did not demonstrate any signs of pain or injury. He did not tell Constable Pileggi that he was injured or required medical attention. In fact, Mr. Kumar’s interaction with the police is inconsistent with a person in pain. Mr. Kumar explained that he was scared of the police because of the assault. Constable Bothman had attacked him, and he wanted to diffuse the situation. His apparent relaxed and cooperative conduct was an attempt to prevent the police from taking additional violent action against him.
[33] At first blush, it appears reasonable to dismiss Mr. Kumar’s explanation as implausible and inconsistent with his demeanor and conduct as recorded in the booking video. However, a dispassionate and informed assessment of the context leads me to conclude that it is reasonable for a person who has been assaulted by the police to conduct themselves in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of further assaults. I do not make a definitive finding of an assault at this juncture except to accept Mr. Kumar’s explanation of his behavior as plausible.
[34] The video recording depicts one occasion where Mr. Kumar is seen wiping and cleaning his nose.. The precision and vigor with which he wiped his nose does not support his claim of a broken nose and pain in his nose or face. Absent medical evidence to the contrary, it is unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Kumar’s injuries included a broken nose. In addition, absent medical evidence to the contrary, it is unreasonable to conclude from the “nose wiping event” that Mr. Kumar had suffered injuries consistent with Constable Bothman bashing his face five times into the ground.
[35] Further when the “wiping nose” observation is considered together with all the images on the booking video, including Mr. Kumar’s interaction with the police and the police record of his injuries, I conclude that Mr. Kumar had a minor bloody nose. He was not in immense pain as he alleged on the day of his arrest.
[36] The picture taken by Mr. Kumar’s counsel, the day after the arrest, depicts a bruise on his forehead, bruise on his nose and two black circles under his eyes. To the lay person, the bruising to his fore head and nose seem minor and the black circles around his eye do not demonstrate trauma to his eyes. The extent of his injuries is not obvious from the photograph and absent medical evidence to the contrary, the injuries depicted are not consistent with the bashing of his head five times into the ground. Thus, the photograph alone is insufficient to support the degree of trauma to the face described by Mr. Kumar.
[37] As previously noted, the medical documents from doctors filed by Mr. Kumar are hearsay; therefore, I cannot consider them in making a finding on the extent of Mr. Kumar’s injuries. However, even if the medical documentation were admissible, I have concluded that without an interpretation from a medical expert, there is no notation to support a reasonable inference that Mr. Kumar’s injuries are consistent with the trauma that one would expect from the forceful application of the human face against the ground on five consecutive occasions. For example, it is reasonable for a lay person to expect that the action described by Mr. Kumar should at least result in a deviated septum, a broken nose, etc. If this lay opinion is misguided, there is no reliable medical evidence to assist me in making that determination. I will briefly comment on each document.
[38] Mr. Kumar was arrested by Constable Bothman on January 30, 2018. He went to a hospital emergency department on February 6, 2018. Dr. Nguyen examined him. Dr. Nguyen diagnosed Mr. Kumar with nasal trauma and epistaxis. No diagnosis of a broken nose and no deviated septum. No evidence was led from which I can reasonably conclude he suffered injuries consistent with the violent action he described. Dr. Nguyen asked Mr. Kumar to see his family doctor and gave him a requisition for chest x-rays. Mr. Kumar’s chest was x-rayed on February 6, 2018. Nothing abnormal was detected.
[39] Mr. Kumar said, after the emergency room visit, he followed up with his family doctor, who diagnosed him with a broken nose and a deviated septum. This diagnosis contradicted the diagnoses of Dr. Nguyen. No evidence was filed from the family doctor in support of Mr. Kumar’s assertion.
[40] Almost two years after his encounter with Constable Bothman, Mr. Kumar consulted Dr. Saeed. In a letter dated January 20, 2020 Dr. Saeed wrote that he saw Mr. Kumar on that date for problems with his nose including obstruction and pain. Dr. Saeed speculated that this was likely caused by a broken nose in 2018 and had developed into a deviated septum. He referred Mr. Kumar to an ear, nose and throat surgeon for treatment. Unlike Dr. Nguyen, Dr. Saeed did not have the opportunity to examine Mr. Kumar just a few days after Mr. Kumar’s arrest. Dr. Saeed’s speculative diagnosis contradicts Dr. Nguyen’s diagnosis. I give Dr. Saeed’s letter very little weight because it was prepared two years after the alleged injuries. Overall, the medical evidence is contradictory, dated, unsubstantiated, insufficient and most importantly, hearsay.
Concerns with Constable Bothman’s evidence
[41] At the preliminary inquiry, Constable Bothman did not mention Mr. Kumar resisting arrest or any difficulties arresting him; any concerns that Mr. Kumar would run around the van; or the need to ground Mr. Kumar. He made references to these matters at trial.
[42] At trial, Constable Bothman testified that at some point Mr. Kumar told him that when he initially fell he hit his face against the snow and ice. Constable Bothman made no notation of this statement. Instead, he wrote down a different statement as an “add on” at the end of his notes. He noted that Mr. Kumar had a bloody nose after arrest and declined medical attention. In the transcribed statement, Constable Bothman noted that Mr. Kumar told him that the injury was sustained when he was taken down during the arrest. Constable Bothman said his transcription was not verbatim. This notation was at the end of the last two pages of Constable Bothman’s notes. These two pages were not disclosed to the defence prior to cross-examination. This omission became apparent as defence counsel was cross-examining Constable Bothman.
[43] The defence submits that the last two pages of Constable Bothman’s notes were withheld for a nefarious purpose. This submission is unreasonable. These pages contained a portion of Constable Bothman’s version of events in defence of Mr. Kumar’s allegations. The first statement attributed to Mr. Kumar provides a possible explanation for the injury linked to Mr. Kumar’s own action of falling in the snow and ice. The second statement links the injury to the action of Constable Bothman during his arrest of Mr. Kumar. Of the two statements attributed to Mr. Kumar on his injury, Constable Bothman choose to note down the one least favourable as a defence to any allegation of excessive force. In any event, it is unreasonable to conclude that Constable Bothman would conceal pages that provide an explanation for any allegation of excessive force. I conclude that the late disclosure was inadvertent.
[44] Constable Bothman observed that Mr. Kumar had a bloody nose. He said he had a conversation with Mr. Kumar about the injury. It was apparent that there was a real possibility that the injury had been caused during the arrest. Within this context, it is rather curious that Constable Bothman made the notation presumably as an afterthought. For all these reasons, it is apparent that Constable Bothman minimised the amount of force he used in arresting Mr. Kumar.
Collusion
[45] I have carefully considered inconsistencies among the testimonies of the police officers. These include those referred to by counsel for Mr. Kumar. I conclude that these inconsistences are minor. Counsel for Mr. Kumar suggests that the inconsistencies suggest police collusion. I disagree. In fact, inconsistences of significant points suggest otherwise. For example, Constable Bothman testified that after he had arrested Mr. Kumar, he observed that he had a bloody nose. Constable Mahal did not observe a bloody nose. Constable Pileggi did not observe any injuries on Mr. Kumar. Staff Sergeant Douglas observed Mr. Kumar to have dried blood on his nose. Not all the officers were on the same page regarding the nature of Mr. Kumar’s injuries — a significant piece of evidence. Absent impermissible speculation, it is unreasonable to conclude that the police officers colluded with Constable Bothman to mislead the court. I have no reason to reject their evidence.
[46] Mr. Kumar embellished his injuries. There is no medical or other evidence to support the excessive force that he attributes to Constable Bothman. I conclude that Constable Bothman did not smash Mr. Kumar’s face into the ground five times. Constable Pileggi refutes Mr. Kumar’s statement that Constable Bothman came and spoke to him after she placed Mr. Kumar in her police car. For all these reasons, I do not accept Mr. Kumar’s testimony about his interaction with Constable Bothman or how he fell on the snow and ice, unless it is corroborated by other evidence.
[47] I have concluded that Constable Bothman minimised the extent of force he applied in arresting Mr. Kumar. Therefore, unless corroborated by other evidence, I do not accept Constable Bothman’s testimony describing his arrest of Mr. Kumar. I accept Constable Mahal’s description of Mr. Kumar’s arrest. For reasons previously articulated, I conclude that Constable Bothman did not smash Mr. Kumar’s face in the ground five times.
The use of force
[48] Mr. Kumar was arrested by Constable Bothman. After his arrest he had a bloody nose and bruise to his forehead. The deficiencies in the evidence described are such that it is not clear whether the injuries were caused as a result of Mr. Kumar’s fall in the snow and ice or whether it was caused during the arrest of Mr. Kumar or some combination of both. There is no basis to conclude that the amount of force used was racially motivated.
[49] Constables Mahal and Bothman were responding to a report about a potential break and enter. This was an emergency that required urgent and quick action. Upon arrival on scene, Constable Bothman saw three persons in flight. He focused on Mr. Kumar. Mr. Kumar fell to the ground. Constable Bothman jumped on Mr. Kumar and placed his knee in his back. Mr. Kumar initially resisted instructions to produce his hands for handcuffing. He complied after two to three commands from Constable Bothman. It is reasonable to infer that Constable Bothman believed that Mr. Kumar was a suspect from the break and enter who was trying to get away and who he needed to apprehend. The force Constable Bothman applied was not excessive.
CONCLUSION
[50] Mr. Kumar failed to discharge his burden. He embellished the extent of his injuries and the degree of force utilised by Constable Bothman. The circumstances were urgent and exigent. Constable Bothman’s conduct was objectively reasonable in all the circumstances. The application is dismissed.
Barnes J.
Released: October 9, 2020
COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-0001669
DATE: 2020 10 09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
ALAN KUMAR
REASONS ON DECISION
Section 7 Application
Barnes J.
Released: October 9, 2020