Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-18-1087 Date: 2020-11-12 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen Mr. Morris, for the Crown

- and -

Amaar Verma Mr. Paradkar, for the accused

Heard: September 28, 2020

Reasons for Sentence

Petersen J.

INTRODUCTION

[1] On December 11, 2019, after a four-day trial, I convicted Amaar Verma of assault with a weapon, contrary to s.267(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-46.

[2] Mr. Verma’s sentencing hearing was delayed, initially because time was required for Defence counsel to obtain a psychiatric report, and later because of the suspension of the Court’s regular operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The sentencing hearing was conducted on September 28, 2020. Mr. Verma consented to a remote hearing via video-conference.

[3] This judgment sets out my ruling on sentence and my reasons for same.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE

[4] My findings of fact with respect to the offence are set out in detail in my Reasons for Judgment: R. v. Verma, 2019 ONSC 7131. I will provide only a brief summary here.

[5] The assault occurred at Mr. Verma’s residence in May 2017. The victim is a man named Rajbir Grewal. Mr. Verma had invited him for a barbecue dinner. They were lifelong friends who had recently reconnected after a period of estrangement. The rift in their friendship occurred as a result of a meeting in November 2015 during which Mr. Verma behaved antagonistically toward Mr. Grewal and accused Mr. Grewal of sleeping with his girlfriend.

[6] When Mr. Grewal arrived at Mr. Verma’s residence on May 22, 2017, Mr. Verma greeted him outside the home, shook his hand and hugged him. They entered the house and Mr. Verma closed the door behind them. Mr. Grewal then leaned forward to untie his boot laces, at which point Mr. Verma suddenly stabbed him in the back of the neck with a knife. Mr. Grewal tried to defend himself. A fight ensued. Mr. Grewal ended up face down on the ground with Mr. Verma on his back. He was able to immobilize one of Mr. Verma’s hands, which was holding a knife. Mr. Verma used his free hand and a second knife to stab Mr. Grewal in the back of his shoulder and head while he was on the ground. Mr. Grewal begged Mr. Verma to stop and cried for help. Mr. Verma’s brother arrived and pulled Mr. Verma off Mr. Grewal, which enabled Mr. Grewal to flee the residence.

[7] Mr. Grewal was lying face down on the grass of the neighbour’s lawn, covered in blood, when police cruisers and an ambulance arrived. He received first aid on site and was transported to hospital for further medical treatment.

IMPACT OF THE OFFENCE ON THE VICTIM

[8] At the hospital, Mr. Grewal was treated with a medication that is used to prevent excessive blood loss caused by major trauma. The doctors ruled out internal injury and cleaned and closed his wounds. He was given intravenous antibiotic medication to prevent infection and fentanyl for pain management.

[9] In addition to several minor cuts and scratches to his hands, fingers and nose, Mr. Grewal suffered four serious stab wounds that required staples or sutures: a 3 cm wound to the rear left side of his scalp, a 4 cm wound to the back of his left shoulder, a 3 cm wound to his left hand (between his thumb and index finger) and an 8 cm wound to the left side of the back of his neck. He received 7 stitches on his left hand, 6 staples on his left shoulder, 13 stables on the back of his neck and 8 staples on his scalp. He has physical scars from these injuries.

[10] Mr. Grewal also suffered significant psychological harm as a result of the assault. In his victim impact statement, he outlines how his decision to see Mr. Verma that day changed the entire course of his life. Up until then, he had been enjoying personal growth and success in his occupational pursuits and personal relationships. He was planning an elaborate wedding with his fiancée and looking forward to a bright future. He said, “everything came to a screeching halt” because of the “ambush-style attack” by Mr. Verma.

[11] The event was traumatic for Mr. Grewal. During the assault, he thought that he was going to die. Afterward, he was devastated that one of his closest friends had assaulted him in an unprovoked attack. He developed insomnia. The sleepless nights led to unproductive days. He was unable to work for two years. The loss of income negatively impacted his wedding plans.

[12] Mr. Grewal experienced fear, anxiety, and depression in the aftermath of the assault. He became irritable and emotionally detached. His personal relationships suffered.

[13] Mr. Grewal has been diagnosed with PTSD and continues to experience symptoms of anxiety and hypervigilance. His physical scars act as a constant unwelcome reminder of the nightmarish incident.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER

[14] Nine letters of support from Mr. Verma’s friends and family members were submitted by Defence counsel at the sentencing hearing. The authors describe Mr. Verma’s childhood as ordinary and uneventful. By all accounts, he was a happy and well-adjusted child, with many friends and loving and involved parents. He is now thirty-two years old. He has no record of prior convictions for criminal offences.

[15] According to the character references from his friends and relatives, Mr. Grewal had tremendous potential as a young adult. They describe him as caring, compassionate, empathetic, polite, thoughtful, generous, family-oriented, community-rooted and supportive of others. He displayed no violent tendencies, no anti-social behaviour and had no conflicts with the law. He was smart, motivated, and possessed a strong work-ethic and good leadership qualities. He completed a diploma in police foundations at Humber College, then studied psychology for two years at York University. He went back to Humber College and graduated with a diploma in digital media, then planned to continue his education in graphic design in New York.

[16] Days prior to his departure for New York, in late September 2013, Mr. Verma’s mother died at the age of 47. He was emotionally devastated by her death. He left for New York immediately after her funeral and was alone, far from home, during his grieving period. He did not cope well with the loss. He came back to the Greater Toronto Area to visit friends and family on occasion, but he continued to struggle emotionally.

[17] His close friends and relatives believe that his mother’s death changed the trajectory of his life. They all observed a profound transformation in his personality and demeanour. They noticed that he lacked focus, was devoid of motivation, and at times exhibited irrational thinking and non-sensical speech. They attributed these changes to his grief.

[18] A report from Mr. Verma’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Senthelal, confirms that Mr. Verma was experiencing psychosis in the years following his mother’s death. It is unclear whether her death was a trigger for the deterioration of his mental health. Whatever the cause, the evidence submitted by Defence counsel establishes that he had a psychotic episode while working as an intern in an office in New York in the fall of 2015.

[19] In September 2015, Mr. Verma was sent back to Mississauga by relatives in New York who were concerned about his mental health. He was taken to hospital by his father and cousin, where he was assessed and was found to be delusional. He was admitted to the psychiatric unit of the hospital and was treated with antipsychotic medication. He was discharged five days later. He did not continue taking the prescribed medication.

[20] It was around this time, in November 2015, that Mr. Verma had a confrontational meeting with Mr. Grewal in which he accused Mr. Grewal of having an affair with his girlfriend. At trial, Mr. Grewal testified that, during their meeting in November 2015, Mr. Verma “seemed not in touch”. Mr. Grewal stated that their conversation did not have a regular flow. He said Mr. Verma was just blurting out random things with no structure or coherence.

[21] Mr. Verma’s family took him to a hospital emergency department again in May 2016 because he was having paranoid thoughts and persecutory delusions, including the idea that his girlfriend was cheating on him with Mr. Grewal. He was admitted to hospital, treated as an inpatient, and then discharged to an out-patient day program. It is unclear whether he was compliant with his prescribed medication treatment protocol.

[22] After his arrest in May 2017 for the assault on Mr. Grewal, Mr. Verma was referred to the psychosis program at Mississauga Hospital. He was assessed there in July 2017. He was still having paranoid thoughts about Mr. Grewal and his girlfriend. During the assessment, he exhibited disorganized speech, lack of focus, and disordered and delusional thinking. The psychiatrist who assessed him concluded that he had a psychotic disorder, possibly schizophrenia.

[23] Dr. Senthelal started treating Mr. Verma as an out-patient of the Mississauga Hospital psychosis program in September 2017. He initially observed that Mr. Verma was alert and oriented, did not have any auditory hallucinations or other perceptual disturbances, but had disorganized thoughts and paranoid ideations. He prescribed anti-psychotic medication, but Mr. Verma showed little improvement over the next fourteen months. Mr. Verma was able to maintain a job as a manager at a Tim Horton’s restaurant, but was likely given considerable leeway in his employment because he was working for his own father. Dr. Senthelal states in his report that Mr. Verma was only able to function superficially because his psychosis persisted.

[24] Based on the lack of improvement in Mr. Verma’s mental health, Dr. Senthelal was unsure whether Mr. Verma was taking his oral medication and whether he was taking the prescribed dose. Dr. Senthelal started treating him with intramuscular anti-psychotic medications in November 2018 to ensure compliance with the treatment regime. The dosage of the medication was adjusted in December 2018 and Mr. Verma began to show gradual improvement by May 2019. According to Dr. Senthelal’s report, Mr. Verma continues to improve steadily.

[25] Mr. Verma’s father, brother and uncle all commented, in their supporting letters, about Mr. Verma’s enhanced mental health over the past year. His uncle described notable improvements in his clarity, focus, demeanor and mental stability. His brother stated that he is on the mend.

[26] Mr. Verma is now in a stable serious relationship with a new girlfriend. He continues to work for his father as a manager at a Tim Horton’s restaurant. He started working there at the age of 16, initially as a front-line server, and later as a supervisor. According to his father, he has proven to be an asset to the business. He has been involved in charitable undertakings that assist disadvantaged children and in sponsoring children’s sports in the community.

[27] It is clear from the letters submitted by Mr. Verma’s relatives and friends that his life has not been defined exclusively by his unlawful actions on May 22, 2017. Although the offence he committed had a serious negative effect on Mr. Grewal, it is apparent that he has also had a positive impact on the lives of others.

POSITIONS OF THE CROWN AND DEFENCE

[28] Crown counsel submits that incarceration for ten to twelve months, plus two years probation, would be a fit sentence in this case. Defence counsel argues for a suspended sentence pursuant to s.731(1) of the Criminal Code, with a two-year probation order. In the alternative, if the court concludes that a custodial sentence is necessary, Defence counsel submits that an intermittently-served sentence of between 45 and 90 days would be appropriate.

ANALYSIS

Statutory Framework

[29] Mr. Verma’s offence is punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment: Criminal Code, s.267(a). His sentence must reflect any mitigating and aggravating circumstances pertaining to him or to his offence, and it must be consistent with the principles of parity and restraint: Criminal Code, s.718.2.

[30] Mr. Verma’s sentence must serve one or more of the objectives set out in s.718 of the Criminal Code. Those objectives include denunciation of unlawful conduct and of the harm done to victims; promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims; reparations for harm done; separation of offenders from society, where necessary; individual and general deterrence; and rehabilitation.

[31] The statutory sentencing objectives are not equally important in every case. Rehabilitation and individual deterrence typically play a more significant role in sentencing a first-time offender, whereas the weight to be placed on denunciation, separation and general deterrence typically increases with more serious or violent offences: R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114, at para.34.

Aggravating Factors

[32] There are two significant aggravating factors in this case. The first is the serious nature of the assault on Mr. Grewal. Mr. Verma committed a deliberate and calculated act of violence, using two knives as weapons. It was a sudden and unprovoked attack on an unarmed victim who had no opportunity to retreat and little chance to defend himself. Mr. Verma lured Mr. Grewal to his house and greeted him warmly, then closed the door behind them, waited until Mr. Grewal bent forward to untie his boot laces, and stabbed him in the back of the neck. The assault did not end until Mr. Verma’s brother intervened and physically pulled him off Mr. Grewal.

[33] The physical injuries caused by Mr. Verma and the lasting harmful impact of his unlawful actions on Mr. Grewal’s psychological health is the other aggravating circumstance in this case. Mr. Grewal did not suffer any permanent disability, but he has physical scars and his victim impact statement details the devastating psychological effects of the incident on his mental and emotional well-being.

Mitigating Factors

[34] There are several mitigating factors in this case.

[35] First, Mr. Verma has no record of prior offences. The absence of a criminal record makes the principle of restraint a more important consideration in this case: R. v. Batisse, at para.32.

[36] Second, Mr. Verma’s compliance with bail conditions since his arrest in May 2017 is another factor in his favour. However, his interim release conditions were not particularly onerous, so I give this factor limited weight.

[37] Third, when Mr. Verma was given an opportunity to address the court during his sentencing hearing, he apologized for his actions. He expressed regret for how he conducted himself and remorse for having harmed an individual who he considered to be his best friend. He also expressed a desire to make amends and to move forward from the situation in which he now finds himself. These statements, which appeared sincere, also constitute a mitigating factor but one that is tempered by the fact that Mr. Verma’s remorse was only expressed post-conviction.

[38] Finally, there is compelling evidence that Mr. Verma’s psychosis played a role in the commission of his offence. In his psychiatric report, Dr. Senthelal confirms that from the fall of 2015 through to the summer of 2017, Mr. Verma sincerely believed his paranoid suspicion that his girlfriend was having an affair with his best friend, Mr. Grewal. He was experiencing persecutorial delusions that they were trying to hurt him. I do not, in any way, mean to condone his violent assault on Mr. Grewal, but the paranoia and delusions informed his motivation. Moreover, Dr. Senthelal confirms that, because of his psychosis, Mr. Verma had disordered thinking at the time of his offence. I infer that his judgment was impaired at the time and that his psychosis contributed to his aberrant and unlawful conduct. In these circumstances, Mr. Verma’s mental health problems constitute an important mitigating factor in sentencing: R. v. Pioriello, 2012 ONCA 63, at para.11; R. v. Barham, 2014 ONCA 797 at para.8.

Deterrence and Denunciation

[39] As the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated in R. v. Batisse, at para.38, where (as here) an offender’s mental health problems played a central role in the commission of an offence, deterrence and denunciation assume less importance:

As this court emphasized in R. v. Robinson, [1974] O.J. No. 545, 19 C.C.C. (2d) 193 (C.A.), at p. 197 C.C.C., where offenders commit offences while they are out of touch with reality due to mental illness, specific deterrence is meaningless to them. Further, general deterrence is unlikely to be achieved either since people with mental illnesses that contribute to the commission of a crime will not usually be deterred by the punishment of others.

[40] I do not mean to suggest that deterrence and denunciation are irrelevant, but they are not the primary purposes of sentencing in this case. The Court, of course, denounces Mr. Verma’s conduct and the harm that it caused to Mr. Grewal. The sanction imposed on Mr. Verma must ultimately convey that denunciatory message.

Rehabilitation

[41] As the Court of Appeal stated in R. v. Batisse, at para.38, where an offender’s mental health played a central role in the commission of an offence,

… the primary concern in sentencing shifts from deterrence to treatment as that is the best means of ensuring the protection of the public and that the offending conduct is not repeated. This is especially so where a lengthy prison term may be regarded as counterproductive.

[42] The success of Mr. Verma’s treatment and ongoing recovery are not sentencing objectives per se, but his rehabilitation to a law-abiding lifestyle is an important sentencing objective, and his rehabilitation will be undermined if he is given a sentence that jeopardizes the improvements he has made toward mental health.

[43] Several individuals have expressed apprehension about the potentially counterproductive effect of a lengthy jail sentence on Mr. Verma’s recovery. Mr. Verma’s father urges the court to consider that any term of imprisonment could “break him” and trigger a mental health crisis. Mr. Verma’s grandmother similarly implores the court to consider that Mr. Verma has just begun to recover from his mental illness and any jail time could cause a set back. These are legitimate concerns.

[44] Mr. Verma’s psychosis played a role in his offence. He has exhibited steadily improving mental health while under medical treatment since May 2019. He has been working productively for his father at Tim Horton’s. He has been abiding by his bail conditions and keeping the peace. He is in a stable intimate relationship with his girlfriend. He has the full support of his extended family and of close friends who are aware of his offence and of his mental health problems. A lengthy sentence of imprisonment, as proposed by the Crown, would remove Mr. Verma from his family and support network. It could derail his recovery. It risks extinguishing his rehabilitation prospects (i.e., the prospects of him returning to his former law-abiding life).

Separation of Offender from Society

[45] Mr. Verma has no history of violence prior to this offence. Given that his psychosis played a role in his unlawful and violent conduct, and that his psychosis is being treated successfully, his risk of violent recidivism is low. His separation from society to protect public safety is therefore not a primary sentencing objective in this case.

Responsibility and Acknowledgement of Harm

[46] Two of the statutory purposes of sentencing are the promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims. These are important objectives in the circumstances of this case.

[47] While Mr. Verma’s psychosis was a contributing factor in his offence, it does not relieve him of responsibility for his actions. He must accept responsibility for his unlawful conduct. The sentence imposed on him must acknowledge and reflect the lasting harmful impact of his actions on Mr. Grewal. A suspended sentence, as proposed by Defence counsel, would not accomplish these goals.

Parity

[48] The principle of parity means that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; Criminal Code, s.718.2(b).

[49] Crown counsel referred me to R. v. Horner, 2018 ONCA 971, [2018] O.J. No. 6917, a case involving a first-time offender who was convicted of an assault with a weapon for an incident involving a knife. The offender received a 13-month sentence of imprisonment. The offence in that case bears some similarity to the circumstances of Mr. Verma’s offence, but it is distinguishable by the fact that it was a situation of domestic violence. Intimate partner violence is a statutory aggravating factor (s.718.2(a)(ii)) that is absent in this case. Moreover, the offender in R. v. Horner did not have mental health issues, an important mitigating factor in this case.

[50] Defence counsel referred me to R. v. Vu, [2015] O.J. No. 4217 (O.C.J.), R. v. Naraindeen, [1990] O.J. No. 1645 (C.A.) and R. v. Shobo, [1991] O.J. No. 2356 (O.C.J.), all cases involving assaults with a weapon (knife). In R. v. Naraindeen, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a 45-day intermittent sentence. In R. v. Vu, the trial judge suspended the passing of a sentence of 180 days and imposed a three-year probation period. In R. v. Shobo, the trial judge imposed a sentence of 90 days’ imprisonment, to be served intermittently, plus two years’ probation.

[51] There are distinguishing features in each of the cases cited by the Defence. For example, in R. v. Vu, the offender pleaded guilty, which is a significant mitigating factor that is not present in this case. While none of the Defence cases is directly on point, the authorities suggest that the appropriate range of sentence for Mr. Verma’s offence includes the alternative position advanced by Mr. Paradkar, namely a short sentence of incarceration served intermittently and followed by a lengthy period of probation.

Restraint

[52] The principle of restraint articulated in s.718.2(e) of the Criminal Code requires me to consider all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims. In my view, a suspended sentence would not be consistent with the lasting harm that Mr. Verma’s actions caused to Mr. Grewal. A period of incarceration is necessary to acknowledge and to denounce that harm.

[53] Despite the fact that this is Mr. Verma’s first offence and notwithstanding the significant mitigating impact of his mental illness, a sentence of imprisonment is required in order to acknowledge the lasting harm experienced by Mr. Grewal and to promote Mr. Verma’s sense of responsibility for his actions and for the harm he caused.

[54] Having concluded that incarceration must be imposed, the restraint principle dictates that the term of imprisonment must be as short as possible and should be tailored to the individual circumstances of the offender: R. v. Priest (1996), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), at p.545.

Proportionality

[55] Proportionality is the cardinal principle of sentencing: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para.12. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the specific offence and the degree of responsibility and moral blameworthiness of the particular offender: Criminal Code, s. 718.1. Mr. Verma’s offence was violent and caused significant harm. The gravity of his unlawful conduct necessitates a custodial sentence.

[56] However, as the Court of Appeal noted in R. v. Batisse, at para.38, “severe punishment is less appropriate in cases of persons with mental illnesses since it would be disproportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender.” Mr. Verma’s degree of responsibility and moral blameworthiness are reduced by the fact that his psychosis contributed to the commission of his offence.

DISPOSITION

[57] Taking all the above into consideration, I conclude that an appropriate and proportionate sentence in this case is one of 90 days’ imprisonment, served intermittently, with a two-year period of probation. An intermittent sentence is tailored to Mr. Verma’s individual circumstances because it will provide him with a meaningful opportunity for rehabilitation.

[58] Mr. Verma, please stand.

[59] For the offence of assault with a weapon, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment for ninety (90) days. You shall serve your sentence intermittently, commencing with your surrender at or before 8:00 PM on Friday November 13, 2020 and release at or about 6:00 AM on the following Monday, and on every weekend thereafter (from Friday at 8:00 PM to Monday at 6:00 AM). When not in custody under the sentence, and for a period of two (2) years thereafter, you shall be bound by the statutory terms of a probation order.

[60] In addition to the statutory conditions of probation, during the period of your intermittent jail sentence, you will be subject to the following conditions on the days when you are not in custody:

(a) You must abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Grewal;

(b) You must refrain from going to any place that is within 500 metres of any location where Mr. Grewal is known to reside, work or frequent;

(c) You must refrain from possessing or carrying a weapon; and

(d) You must comply with the treatment regimen prescribed by your psychiatrist.

[61] Upon completion of your intermittent 90-day sentence, in addition to the statutory conditions of probation and the conditions listed in the preceding paragraph, you will be required to comply with the following conditions for two years:

(a) You must report to a probation officer within two working days of your release, after completion of your intermittent custodial sentence, and report thereafter when required and in the manner prescribed by your probation officer; and

(b) You must sign a consent form authorizing your psychiatrist to discuss your treatment compliance with your probation officer.

[62] Pursuant to s.743.21(1) of the Criminal Code, I order that you are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Grewal during the custodial period of your sentence.

[63] Pursuant to s.109(2) of the Criminal Code, you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for a period of ten years. You are also prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.

[64] Pursuant to s.487.051 of the Criminal Code, I order you to provide samples of bodily substances for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

Petersen J.

Released: November 12, 2020