Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-10000128-00BR
DATE: 20210602
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
RAVI SHANKER
Counsel:
Christina Malezis, for the Crown
Alan Gold, for Mr. Shanker
HEARD: May 31, 2021
BEFORE: R.F. GOLDSTEIN J.
Supplemental Reasons For Judgment On Application To Vary Bail
[1] On April 29, 2021 I dismissed an application to vary Mr. Shanker’s bail: R. v. Shanker, 2021 ONSC 3274. On May 7, 2021 Mr. Gold’s office brought two factual errors in my judgment to my attention.
[2] The first error is that I indicated that Ms. Hundal, the proposed surety, lives at 10 Clarke Haven Road in Mississagua. In fact, she lives at 16 Clarke Haven Road. That was a typographical error, solely my own, and not material.
[3] The second error is that on his first set of charges, I noted that Mr. Shanker was required to live with his brother at 15 Clarke Haven Road, Mississauga. In fact, Mr. Shanker’s brother lives in Woodbridge. During the original bail hearing before Justice Porter, counsel mentioned 15 Clarke Haven Road as being the address. I picked that up from the transcript, which made it into my judgment.
[4] One of my reasons for rejecting the proposed variation was that Mr. Shanker would be proximate to his brother. His brother had, allegedly, helped facilitate or at least turned a blind eye towards Mr. Shanker’s violations of his first bail. Mr. Gold argued that because this was a factor in my decision, I should reconsider it and find that the variation is, in fact, appropriate.
[5] Respectfully, the error makes no difference to the outcome. A judge has the discretion to revisit a ruling due to a material change in circumstances as long as he or she is not functus: R. v. La, 1997 309 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680 at para. 28. See also: R. v. Malicia (2006), 2006 31804 (ON CA), 82 O.R. (3d) 772 (C.A.).
[6] Leaving aside the question of whether or not I am functus – a debatable point – I would not revisit the ruling because I do not think that the error was material. In other words, even if I had known of Mr. Shanker’s brother’s true address, I would have made the same decision.
[7] As I pointed out in my original reasons, Mr. Shanker’s proximity to his brother was not a decisive factor. The considerably more important factors were Mr. Shanker’s long history of bail violations, the long distance from Mr. Sidhu in Kitchener, and the alleged commission of further serious drug offences. I also noted Ms. Hundal’s unsuitability as a surety, the risk that Mr. Shanker would commit further criminal offences if permitted to work in his liquidation business, and the fact that Mr. Shanker only achieved bail by the skin of his teeth. I would have made the same decision to reject the proposed vail variations even had I known of the correct address for Mr. Shanker’s brother. The application to revisit is dismissed.
Released: June 2, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-10000128-00BR
DATE: 20210602
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
RAVI SHANKER
SUPPLEMENTAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION TO VARY BAIL
R.F. Goldstein J.