COURT FILE NO.: 14-2310
DATE: 2021/09/23
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Her Majesty the Queen
– and –
Bhupinderpal Gill
– and –
Gurpreet Ronald Accused
Jason Neubauer and Brian Holowka for the Crown
James Harbic and Robert Harbic for Bhupinderpal Gill
Michael Spratt for Gurpreet Ronald
HEARD: Trial: February 8-11, 16-18, 22-24, 25 March 1-4,8-11, 16-17, 31, April 1, 6-8, 12-16, 19, 22, 23, 26 2021
Oral Decision Given-August 10, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION
ANNE London-weinstein j.
Table of Contents
Introduction: 5
Overview: 6
Ms. Ronald’s Evidence: 9
Position of the Crown: 14
Mr. Gill’s Position: 15
Ms. Ronald’s Position: 16
Ultimate Findings: 17
Procedural Matters: 24
Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law: 26
The Presumption of Innocence: 26
The Assessment of Evidence: 27
Circumstantial Evidence: 27
Credibility Assessments: 29
Demeanour in Assessing Credibility: 30
Separate individuals in Law: 31
Reasonable Doubt and Circumstantial Evidence: 31
The Lens of Logic and the Light of Human Experience: 32
Joint Trial: 32
Self-interest is not relevant to my assessment of credibility of the accused: 33
Mr. Gill’s Evidence: 33
The Affair: 35
Clairvoyants and Psychic Predictions: 38
Jagtar Gill’s Hernia Surgery: 39
The Events of January 29th, 2014: 40
The Handling of the Knives: 47
The Evidence of Jason Nadeau: 60
The Evidence of Charles Bond: 60
The Evidence of Jason Ronald: 60
The Evidence of Gurpreet Ronald – Examination-in-Chief: 68
The Events of January 29th, 2014: 69
Cross-Examination by counsel for Mr. Gill: 74
Cross-Examination by Mr. Holowka: 78
The Evidence of Dilpreet Gill: 95
The Evidence of Harmanjeet Gill (Toor): 101
The Evidence of Harmesh Dhaliwal: 104
The Evidence of Avtar Singh: 107
The Evidence of Jasmel Gill: 108
The Evidence of Officer Sarah Marcantonio: 108
The Evidence of Aasim Ansari: 109
The Evidence of Harpreet Sidhu: 109
Crown Evidence: 109
The Evidence of Christopher Milroy: 109
The Sharp Force Injuries: 113
The Evidence of Staff Sgt. Ugo Garneau: 116
The Evidence of Kris Legate: 123
The Evidence of Melinda Matte: 125
March 31st, 2014: 128
April 3rd, 2014: 128
April 27th, 2014: 129
July 8th, 2014: 129
The Evidence of Tena Gallichon and Ian Matyas: 130
The Evidence of Susanne Shields: 133
The Evidence of Shawn Clarke: 140
The Evidence of Chantal Allain: 141
The Evidence of Erin Field: 142
The Evidence of Julie Dobler: 145
The Evidence of Kelly Menna: 151
The Evidence of John Monette: 152
Observations from the Surreptitious Video on February 7th, 2014 at 174 Brambling Way: 153
Observations from the Surreptitious Video on February 8th, 2014 at 174 Brambling Way: 154
Observations from the Surreptitious Video on February 9th, 2014, at 174 Brambling Way: 154
The Evidence of Gerry Kinnear: 156
The Evidence of Scott Fewer: 158
The Royal Enfield Motorcycle Expedition: 161
Hearsay Statement of the Deceased: 164
Events Surrounding January 29th, 2014: 167
The Evidence of Rosie De Marco: 170
The Evidence of Sgt. Alison Cookson: 173
The Evidence of Det. Elizabeth Hadden: 176
The Evidence of Dr. Brar: 178
The Evidence of Richard Guertin: 179
The Evidence of Krista Hill: 180
The Evidence of Sgt. Timothy Renwick: 180
The Evidence of Sgt. Coady: 181
The Evidence of Michael Deshaw: 183
The Evidence of Sheila Barbara Reynolds: 183
The Evidence of Chris Benson: 185
Findings and Analysis: 194
The Affair: 199
Psychic Predictions: 201
Hernia Surgery: Events of January 28th, 2014. 204
Ms. Toor: 205
Dilpreet Gill: 205
Circumstantial Evidence: 207
Discreditable Conduct, Propensity Reasoning and After-the-Fact Conduct Evidence: 207
After-the-Fact Conduct Evidence: 207
The Picking up the Knives and Washing the Knives: 210
The Hiding and Disposal of the Metal Bar: 213
Disposal of the Gloves and Knife: 217
Sobeys Meeting: 218
Exculpatory After-the-Fact Conduct: 221
Fabrication: 224
The April 13th Video Statement Regarding the Metal Weightlifting Bar: 225
The Governing Legal Principles: 236
Planning and Deliberation: 237
Ms. Ronald Murder Analysis: 238
State of Mind for Murder: 240
Murder Classifications: 241
Manslaughter, Mr. Gill: 241
Second Degree Murder, Mr. Gill: Analysis: 243
Modes of Participation: 245
A Final Observation About Motive: 246
Planning and Deliberation: Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald Together: 248
Mr. Gill Aiding to First Degree Murder: 251
Final Conclusions: 253
Introduction:
[1] Bhupinderpal Gill and Gurpreet Ronald are charged with the first degree murder of Jagtar Gill. [^1]
[2] Jagtar Gill was Mr. Gill’s wife of 17 years. She was murdered on January 29th, 2014, the couple’s 17th wedding anniversary. Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald met at OC Transpo where they both worked. They had an affair which I found was continuing at the time of Jagtar Gill’s death. It is the theory of the Crown that Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald planned the murder of Jagtar Gill so they could be together. Mr. Gill points to the lack of evidence of a sexual relationship after the fall of 2013 as proof that the affair had ended. However, there was also a lack of observable evidence of the affair prior to the fall of 2013 as the couple concealed the fact they were having an affair. Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill both testified that an affair occurred. They disagree as to when it ended. Their phone calls to each other continued at an astounding rate in the fall of 2013. The lack of observable romantic behaviour between Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill while under police surveillance in the aftermath of the murder of Mr. Gill’s wife is not surprising in the circumstances. Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill both knew there were rumours circulating that they were having an affair and that one or both of them had murdered Jagtar Gill.
[3] Jagtar Gill was home alone recovering from hernia surgery on the day she was murdered. Mr. Gill and the couple’s daughter Dilpreet stepped out to run some errands that morning. They were expected home within an hour. The trip took two hours. When they arrived home, Dilpreet found her mother stabbed to death in the middle of the family room floor.
[4] I have structured these reasons as follows:
• Overview of the evidence and ultimate findings. I have provided a summary form overview of the evidence along with my ultimate conclusions in this matter. My full reasons and complete review of all of the evidence is set out after the section dealing with general legal principles.
• Review of some of the procedural issues in this case;
• Review of the evidence;
• Findings of Fact and Analysis; and
• Conclusions as to whether the Crown has proven the guilt of Bhupinderpal Gill and Gurpreet Ronald of first degree murder or second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Overview:
[5] Jagtar Gill was home alone on her family room sofa when her husband and daughter left to run errands just before 11 a.m. on January 29th, 2014. The 43-year-old mother of three had hernia repair surgery the day before. She was groggy and taking pain killers. Earlier that day her sister-in-law Harmanjeet Toor called at around 9 a.m. to see how she was doing. Ms. Toor cooked for the family the day before as Jagtar Gill was weakened by her surgery.
[6] Mr. Gill drove Jagtar Gill to Kemptville District Hospital on January 28th. She was discharged to his care after her surgery. He knew she would be weak and groggy for a few days post-surgery. In the parking lot of the hospital, he spoke by telephone with Gurpreet Ronald. He also texted his friend Scott Fewer, inviting him to visit the next day. Mr. Fewer had been at the Gill’s Barrhaven home at 174 Brambling Way the previous Sunday. At that time, Mr. Gill showed Mr. Fewer the crown moulding he and Jagtar Gill were installing.
[7] Jagtar was supposed to remain in bed after her surgery, but that morning she had made her way down to the family room sofa. She was on the sofa resting when Mr. Fewer came by after 9 a.m. that morning. Mr. Gill texted Mr. Fewer to see if he was coming shortly before he arrived. Mr. Gill did not ask Mr. Fewer what time he was coming.
[8] Mr. Gill prepared an omelette and coffee for Mr. Fewer.
[9] Mr. Fewer left the home between 10:30 a.m. and 10:45 a.m. Mr. Gill had to run some errands. He asked Dilpreet to accompany him that day.
[10] Dilpreet wanted to stay home and care for her mother, but she acquiesced to her father’s request. They drove by the home of Gurpreet Ronald who lived just one street over from the Gills. As they drove by 303 Towhee Place, Ms. Ronald was having her morning tea and looking out her window. She saw Mr. Gill drive by, and she called him at 10:58 a.m. They spoke for two minutes.
[11] Mr. Gill says he told Ms. Ronald he was going to the bank and to the doctor for an allergy shot and he needed to get home soon. Ms. Ronald said she asked whether he would be at the overtime call that day.
[12] Mr. Gill and Dilpreet ran various errands. At around 12:20 p.m., Ms. Toor called Mr. Gill as her son Ishwar was ill at school. Jagtar Gill watched Ishwar for Ms. Toor early in the mornings so that Ms. Toor could go to work at the laundromat. Ishwar had been dropped off at the Gill house early that morning.
[13] Mr. Gill put him on the school bus with the youngest two Gill children. Dilpreet was home from school as she had a history exam to write the next day. Her friend Chantal Allain was scheduled to come by at 1 p.m. to study with Dilpreet.
[14] Mr. Gill agreed to pick up Ishwar at Jockvale Elementary School. Mr. Gill, Dilpreet and Ishwar went to Sobeys grocery store. At 12:36 p.m. and 12:38 p.m. Ms. Ronald called Mr. Gill. She drove to Sobeys to speak to him in person. A video compilation from the grocery store captured her arrival and her interaction with Mr. Gill. She enters the store and speaks to Mr. Gill. They leave the store with Dilpreet and Ishwar. Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill walk away from the children to her minivan and have a brief conversation. Mr. Gill then hurries to his vehicle.
[15] Ms. Ronald calls Mr. Gill again at 12:52 p.m. Mr. Gill arrives home. He takes a call from work at 12:56 p.m. for eight seconds. Dilpreet and Ishwar have entered the home through the front door. Dilpreet’s screams cause Mr. Gill to drop his groceries. He sees Jagtar Gill in the family room of the home. Her throat and wrist have been horribly injured.
[16] Mr. Gill picks up two knives which are near his wife’s head and he washes them in the kitchen sink. He tells Dilpreet to call 9-1-1. He washes the knives and then calls 9-1-1. His call to 9-1-1 is at 12:58 p.m.
[17] Mr. Gill picked up the bloody metal weightlifting bar which he said was near his wife’s body. He feared an intruder had been in the home. Homes in the neighbourhood had been targeted for their gold. He feared his wife may not have been able to manage the time delayed mechanism on the safe. Mr. Gill also said that he feared his wife may have harmed herself with the knives and he put them in the sink out of fear and nervousness. He also said that he worried his fingerprints might be on the knives.
[18] Mr. Gill’s brother-in-law made a false allegation against him in 2004 that he had threatened to kill Jagtar Gill. This allegation was not considered as evidence that Mr. Gill killed Jagtar Gill. It was admitted at the request of the defence to demonstrate Mr. Gill’s state of mind, and why he did certain things after the homicide, and did not do others, or why he said certain things and not others after the homicide. Mr. Gill is not under any onus or burden to prove anything. The burden of proof rests with the Crown throughout the trial.
[19] Mr. Gill raced upstairs, he said, carrying the metal weightlifting bar to see if there was an intruder upstairs. He went to the basement. When he reached the basement, he noticed the gold weights and the red collars from the weightlifting bar on the floor. The weights and collars were normally attached to the silver, two-foot-long weightlifting bar.
[20] Mr. Gill thought about the fact that the bar belonged to him and that his brother-in-law made false allegations against him about threatening to kill Jagtar 10 years earlier. Mr. Gill remained estranged from Jagtar’s family. He took the metal weightlifting bar and concealed it in a Christmas tree box.
[21] The bloody metal weightlifting bar would be later discovered by police. The bar was seized and forensically tested. Jagtar Gill’s blood was on that bar. A replica bar was created and placed back in the Christmas tree box. Police were granted judicial authorization for a camera to be installed above the Christmas tree box.
[22] Police conducted an extensive investigation. A significant body of forensic evidence was gathered at 174 Brambling Way. Police conducted surveillance of Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill. Police sought and were granted authorizations for intercepts of their phones.
[23] The blood pattern evidence in this case revealed a dynamic pattern of blood spatter. There were heavy saturation stains on the family room carpet where Jagtar’s body was located. There were stains on the sofa where Jagtar had been laying earlier. Her hair created wispy patterns in blood against the leather backing of the sofa.
[24] There were cut marks on the sofa. Cast-off blood spatter marked the ceiling.
[25] The forensic analysis in this case revealed a DNA profile in a diluted blood stain in the kitchen sink area. Ms. Ronald could not be excluded as the source of that DNA profile. Her blood was on the family room carpet near Jagtar Gill’s body. Her blood and the blood of Jagtar Gill were on the left ring fingertip of a piece of blue nitrile glove found on the hardwood floor near Jagtar Gill’s body. Blue nitrile gloves were later recovered by police in a rural location at Timm Drive. Jagtar Gill’s blood-sourced DNA was on the nitrile glove missing its left ring fingertip. The fingertip piece of glove and the nitrile glove missing a fingertip were found to have once been part of the same object by Kris Legate of the Centre of Forensic Sciences. Gurpreet Ronald’s blood-sourced DNA was on the intact glove. Those gloves did not come from the remaining box of Kimberly-Clark gloves in the Gill pantry. A large butcher style KitchenAid knife was also recovered from Timm Drive with the gloves. The knife had the blood-sourced DNA of Jagtar Gill on the blade.
[26] Ms. Ronald’s blood was also located on the baseboard upstairs, on the carpet upstairs, in the ensuite washroom, and on the door of the master closet.
[27] Ms. Ronald testified in this trial. Mr. Gill also testified in this trial. Neither are required to testify in a criminal trial. The burden of proof in a criminal trial rests with the Crown throughout the trial.
Ms. Ronald’s Evidence:
[28] Ms. Ronald indicated that she spoke to Mr. Gill that day at 10:58 a.m. She went to her sister’s home. She then stopped at the Gill home to pick up tools she needed as her interior decorator was visiting later that day. She knocked on the door and no one answered so she entered as was her habit. Ms. Ronald testified she witnessed a terrible sight when she entered the home. Jagtar Gill was laying on her back in the family room. Her throat was grievously injured. Her left wrist was severely wounded. Her body was riddled with knife wounds.
[29] Ms. Ronald felt faint. She picked up a knife underneath her feet. She got blood on her hand. She went to leave the home. She thought about her fingerprints being on the knife. She put on a pair of blue nitrile gloves on the dining room table where her tools were located. She tried to wipe her fingerprints from the knife. She nicked herself on the knife.
[30] Ms. Ronald said she went to the sink to get a drink. She went upstairs to look for a Band-aid. When she left, she took the large KitchenAid knife and the gloves with her and she said she took the box of gloves she had found on the dining room table.
[31] She called Mr. Gill. She asked him whether he knew what was going on at his home. She called him at 12:36 p.m. and 12:38 p.m. She could not recall the content of the 12:36 p.m. call or whether she left a message. She drove to Sobeys and asked him if he knew what was going on at his house. [^2]
[32] Ms. Ronald said she left Sobeys and disposed of the gloves she was wearing and the KitchenAid butcher style knife. The gloves and the knife were later recovered by police. One of the gloves was missing part of the left ring finger.
[33] She disposed of the knife and gloves at a wooded parking area on Timm Drive. On February 5th, 2014, she was observed by surveillance officer Elizabeth Hadden attending Ms. Toor’s home at 2477 Regatta Avenue. Mr. Gill was staying there at the time. Ms. Ronald arrived just before 10 a.m and left at 10:37 a.m. She drove to Timm Drive and was observed getting out of her car and walking into the woods. Nothing was observed in her hands. She texted and called Mr. Gill after leaving the area. She could not recall the content of this call.
[34] Ms. Ronald said she drove home from Timm Drive on January 29th and then stopped at the Gill home. She asked first responders if everything was okay. She returned to her home where she met with her interior decorator later that day.
[35] She was interviewed by police who conducted a neighbourhood canvass that evening. She provided an interview to police the next day, along with her husband Jason Ronald, who was separately interviewed.
[36] Mr. Ronald was at his girlfriend’s house at the time of the police canvass.
Mr. Gill’s Evidence:
[37] Mr. Gill spoke to police on January 29th. He spoke to Mr. Fewer in the aftermath of the homicide. He told Mr. Fewer he had moved his wife’s body and washed up some knives.
[38] Mr. Fewer encouraged him to be frank with police. Mr. Gill was interviewed by police on January 30th. He disclosed picking up the knives and said he was not sure if he washed them.
[39] Mr. Gill said he forgot about the knives when he spoke to police on January 29th. He claimed that he also forgot about what he had done with the weightlifting bar until meeting with the funeral director. Mr. Gill claimed he recalled the weightlifting bar only when the funeral director told him that Jagtar Gill could not have an open casket due to the damage inflicted to her face.
[40] Mr. Gill is protected by the right to silence. It is a powerful and inviolable right of every accused person. No negative inference regarding his credibility can be drawn from the fact he did not disclose something to police. He also has the right to selectively disclose information without a negative inference being drawn.
[41] However, having chosen to testify about why he did not talk about the knives or the bar, I am not required to accept his evidence if I find it not credible. I did not accept that Mr. Gill forgot about the knives. I did not accept that he forgot what he had done with the metal weightlifting bar until he spoke to the funeral director. I found that evidence not credible.
[42] Ms. Ronald, of course, is also afforded the same right to silence and enjoys the same protections.
[43] Mr. Gill had his home turned back over to him on February 6th. He immediately checked the Christmas tree box in the basement after another family member had been in the basement first.
[44] Police were monitoring the video feed from the basement and observed Mr. Gill from February 6th until February 9th.
[45] Mr. Gill checked the box on subsequent days. He handled the bar. He once looked at his hand to see if the blood from the bar transferred to his hand.
[46] On February 9th, Mr. Gill disposed of the replica weightlifting bar in a wooded area on Cedarview Drive. Police were monitoring the video feed and also had him under surveillance. They recovered the replica bar he had discarded.
[47] Police also obtained judicial authorization for intercepts which were granted in this case. Police continued surveillance. Police engaged in ruses to prompt a response from Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald.
[48] Police placed a note which said “Killer” on Ms. Ronald’s vehicle in the evening of April 3rd while she was at work at OC Transpo. She called Mr. Gill at 1 a.m. and the call went to voicemail. She called him the next day at 9:22 a.m. She walked over to his home at 9:30 a.m. and did not knock nor enter the home. She went home. Mr. Gill was observed by police attending Ms. Ronald’s home at 303 Towhee Place on April 4th at 11:05 a.m. He returned home just before 2 p.m.
[49] Mr. Gill denied that he and Ms. Ronald talked about the “Killer” note. He said he was interested in the door repairs Ms. Ronald was receiving. He had a similar problem with his door. Ms. Ronald said she called him regarding the note and she showed him the note and she sought his help in identifying the handwriting. She said there was not a discussion, as Mr. Gill did not say anything in response to her comments.
[50] I did not accept Mr. Gill’s evidence that the “Killer” note was not discussed. Given that Ms. Ronald called him at 1 a.m., again at 9:22 a.m., and that he went to her home on April 4th, I found that the topic of the “Killer” note was discussed by both Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill.
[51] On April 7th, Det. Benson called Mr. Gill and advised him police were close to making an arrest. On April 8th, Det. Benson advised Ms. Ronald that a female DNA profile had been recovered at 174 Brambling Way and police wanted a sample of her DNA.
[52] Ms. Ronald called Mr. Gill within two minutes of her conversation ending with Det. Benson. She initially asked Mr. Gill about work schedules. Mr. Gill was not working during this period. Ms. Ronald then let Mr. Gill know that police had requested that she provide a sample of her DNA.
[53] Ms. Ronald was later arrested and asked her lawyer to call her husband and Mr. Gill.
[54] On April 11th, police staged a press conference asking for information regarding a metal bar discovered at Cedarview Drive. This press conference was part of a ruse. Police were already well aware that Mr. Gill had disposed of the replica bar. They watched him as he tossed it away on February 9th.
[55] Mr. Gill called police on April 13th regarding the bar. He was arrested by Sgt. Edgar and transported to the police station at 474 Elgin Street.
[56] Mr. Gill provided a statement after his arrest. Det. Benson conducted what might be fairly regarded as a masterclass in how to conduct a police interview. Mr. Gill lied repeatedly regarding how he discovered the bar and when he disposed of it.
[57] His multiple lies on the subject of the weightlifting bar unravelled in layers. Det. Benson revealed first that police had photos of the basement, and then finally revealed that police had video footage of the basement. The video footage depicted Mr. Gill handling the bar on various days, putting it on his person to try and conceal it and finally removing it from the basement on February 9th. Mr. Gill also lied regarding his relationship with Ms. Ronald. He initially maintained they were just friends before revealing that they had an affair. Mr. Gill said the affair was over in the fall of 2013.
[58] Ms. Ronald maintained that the affair was over in 2010, although she admitted to sporadic, unsatisfying sex with Mr. Gill. She said she was not attracted to him. However, she also admitted to having sex with Mr. Gill as late as 2013. She characterized the affair as an emotional affair. There was some viva voce evidence in this trial from Ms. Ronald, and in her text messages, that she was having an affair with another man. This evidence is relevant to motive. It is the theory of the Crown that Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill wanted to be together, would do anything to be together and murdered Jagtar Gill to be together. If Ms. Ronald was involved with someone else, this is some evidence which would take away from the strength of the purported motive. The Crown is not required to establish motive to prove guilt.
Position of the Crown:
[59] The position of the Crown is that Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill were in a long-standing affair at the time of Jagtar Gill’s death and they planned and executed the murder of Jagtar Gill so they could be together. The Crown maintains that Mr. Gill did not wish to lose half of his marital assets in a divorce. The Crown alleges Mr. Gill knew his wife was having surgery and would be physically vulnerable. She was a strong woman and much larger than Ms. Ronald, so it was necessary that the homicide occur while she was in a weakened state. Mr. Gill shared information regarding Jagtar’s surgery with Ms. Ronald. Mr. Gill arranged for the murder to occur during the window of time when he knew he could have Dilpreet out of the house, before Chantal Allain arrived at 1 p.m.
[60] Mr. Gill prepared the metal weightlifting bar by removing the four red collars and the gold weights and bringing the metal weightlifting bar to the main level of the house so that Ms. Ronald could access the bar and murder Jagtar Gill.
[61] When Mr. Gill drove by Ms. Ronald’s home that morning it was a pre-arranged signal. Ms. Ronald called Mr. Gill at 10:58 a.m. as pre-arranged. He told her it was okay to go ahead. Ms. Ronald went to the home and entered the house through the front door Mr. Gill had left unlocked for her. She picked up the metal weightlifting bar that had been prepared for her by Mr. Gill and left on the main floor of the house for her. She bludgeoned Jagtar Gill repeatedly with the bar. Jagtar Gill fought back to the extent she could in her weakened state. She was not as easy to kill as Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald had anticipated. Ms. Ronald seized upon the knives in the kitchen. She repeatedly stabbed Jagtar Gill and finally slit her throat, killing her.
[62] Mr. Gill washed the knives to eliminate incriminating evidence for Ms. Ronald as they had planned the murder together. He hid and disposed of the metal weightlifting bar to conceal the identity of the killer as he knew it was Ms. Ronald; they had planned the murder together. Both Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill testified. They are not required to do so. It bears repeating that the burden of proof rests with the Crown throughout and never shifts.
Mr. Gill’s Position:
[63] Mr. Gill maintains that he had no idea Ms. Ronald was going to his home that day. She attended on her own. There was no plan to kill Jagtar Gill. Ms. Ronald was in a turbulent emotional state at the time. Something must have happened to provoke her into “going ballistic” on Jagtar Gill causing her to beat and stab Jagtar Gill in an adrenaline-provoked frenzy. Perhaps the two women got into an argument or a fight. Mr. Gill had ended his affair and disclosed the affair to his wife. In fact, Mr. Gill ended the affair with Ms. Ronald because he did not want the kind of turmoil which was going on in the Ronald home being visited upon his home.
[64] In the fall of 2013, Mr. Ronald was drunk and went to 174 Brambling Way and spoke to Jagtar Gill. Mr. Gill then realized the affair was wrong and he ended it. He confessed the affair to his wife. She said he should continue the friendship with Ms. Ronald. Mr. Gill promised not to sleep with Ms. Ronald again. The Gills were planning to move away. They were installing crown moulding the weekend before Jagtar Gill was murdered. This renovation was done to prepare the house to sell so they could move away. Mr. Gill was still working on the project on January 29th, 2014. There were tools on the dining room table, including a hammer. Mr. Gill had no plans to be with Ms. Ronald. He continued to drive her to work and call her as she needed his help with her divorce.
[65] Ms. Ronald drove to Sobeys that morning and was joking with him and asking him to go to IKEA. If he knew Jagtar was murdered, he would not have allowed his child to see her mother in that condition. He panicked and threw the knives in the sink.
[66] When Ms. Ronald came to Sobeys she was joking about cauliflower and flowers. Ms. Ronald asked him repeatedly to go to IKEA. Ms. Ronald never asked him if he knew what was going on at his house. He went home and found his wife murdered. He panicked. He was nervous and scared. He initially thought Jagtar may have harmed herself. He thought a burglar might have been in the house. He feared being blamed for the murder because of the many false allegations levelled against him by his brother-in-law. He hid the metal weightlifting bar because he feared being blamed for the homicide due to the false allegations made against him.
Ms. Ronald’s Position:
[67] Ms. Ronald stumbled into a terrible scene on January 29th, 2014. Jagtar Gill’s injuries were horrible. Ms. Ronald felt as though she was going to faint. She felt a knife under her foot. She picked up the knife. She tried to wipe her fingerprints from the knife wearing blue nitrile gloves she found on the Gill dining room table. She cut herself and bled. At some point she got a drink of water. She went upstairs to look for a Band-aid. She left with the knife, the box of gloves and the gloves she was wearing.
[68] She feared being blamed for the murder because of her association with Mr. Gill, although the affair was only emotional. She could not call 9-1-1 as she feared being blamed. She could not tell Mr. Gill what she witnessed as she feared he would tell police. Mr. Gill was her close friend and that is why she contacted him when the “Killer” note was left on her car, and when police asked for her DNA.
[69] She did not kill Jagtar Gill and had nothing to do with planning the murder of Jagtar Gill. When she went to the home that day it was to recover her tools. She left the box of gloves stained with Jagtar’s blood at her home, maybe in her kitchen or maybe in the basement, she could not recall exactly. She disposed of the butcher style large KitchenAid knife and the blue nitrile gloves on January 29th. On February 5th, she merely paid her condolences to Mr. Gill. There was no discussion of the disposal of evidence. When she attended Timm Drive on February 5th, it was not to dispose of evidence, but to try and retrieve the gloves and the knife as she feared the items being discovered. The affair had been over since 2010. She did not wish to divorce her husband and her marriage was not over. She had no plan to be with Mr. Gill in the future.
Ultimate Findings:
[70] The Crown bears the burden of proof in every criminal trial. An accused person is presumed innocent and that presumption is not discharged until the Crown has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden is heavy by design to prevent the wrongful conviction of the innocent. If I think Mr. Gill or Ms. Ronald are probably or likely guilty, they are to be acquitted. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is much closer to absolute certainty than it is to probability.
[71] I explain the process by which evidence is assessed and analyzed at a later point in my reasons.
[72] I found that I did not accept the evidence of Mr. Gill and the evidence of the defence did not leave me in a state of doubt. I did not find Mr. Gill to be a credible witness. I found that he was not honest in many instances. I deal with them in detail in my full analysis of the credibility and reliability of his evidence. I did not accept his evidence that he forgot about washing the knives. I did not accept that he forgot about hiding the metal weightlifting bar until his memory was jogged at the funeral home.
[73] Mr. Gill said that he was so full of fear of being blamed, despite the fact he was provably absent from the home at the time of the homicide, that he hid the bar on January 29th and promptly forgot that he did so.
[74] It was not until the funeral director informed him his wife could not have an open casket that his memory was jogged regarding the weightlifting bar. That evidence from Mr. Gill is palpably false. Mr. Gill linked the false allegation made by his brother-in-law to his decision to conceal the bar. I found it implausible that he would forget such a significant event.
[75] Mr. Gill also claimed Ms. Ronald was joking about cauliflower and flowers when she approached him at Sobeys. Ms. Ronald had cut her hand on a knife in his home. She bled at the scene. Even on her evidence, which I did not accept, she had witnessed horrific injuries to Jagtar Gill. She said she was worried she would be blamed for the homicide. I did not accept she would be joking about produce with Mr. Gill.
[76] Mr. Gill also was not honest when he said Ms. Ronald kept asking him to go to IKEA. Ms. Ronald attended Sobeys to speak to him personally. She did not need to attend in person to ask him to come to IKEA. They also walked away from the children to have a private conversation. This walking away by the two of them is captured on video camera. There was no need for privacy to discuss IKEA. These are just a few of the credibility issues related to Mr. Gill’s evidence. Ms. Ronald mentioned IKEA once at the cash when the children were present. She could not disclose the true reason for her attendance in the presence of the children she said.
[77] I also did not accept the defence evidence. Mr. Gill’s family members testified that Ms. Ronald only expressed her condolences when she visited on February 5th. I did not accept that Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill did not discuss the disposal of evidence at that 37-minute meeting on February 5th. Mr. Gill disposed of the bar in a rural area four days after Ms. Ronald disposed of the gloves and the knife at Timm Drive. The similarity of the weapon disposal method advances the inference that they discussed this disposal. Ms. Ronald was under surveillance when she attended Timm Drive on February 5th. She texted and called Mr. Gill after leaving the Timm Drive P4 area. I accepted this evidence. I considered but did not accept the evidence of Mr. Gill’s family, who testified that Ms. Ronald only expressed her condolences and nothing else was discussed on February 5th. I am aware that I must not simply choose between which version of events I accept as to do so is to reverse the burden of proof which rests with the crown throughout a criminal trial. See R v. W.D, 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742.
[78] I did not accept that Mr. Gill hid the bar out of fear of being wrongly blamed for the homicide. Mr. Gill offered to show his receipts to Sgt. Kinnear in January. He knew he could prove he was elsewhere at the time of the homicide. Dilpreet discovered her mother’s body when Mr. Gill took that work call at 12:56 p.m. Mr. Gill had a rock-solid alibi. It could not even be said of him that he discovered his wife’s body.
[79] My complete analysis regarding the after-the-fact conduct evidence is set out fully in my reasons. I concluded that I could not accept as plausible the inferences suggested by the defence when I considered the whole of the evidence. I found the strongest, most logical and most plausible inference arising from the various items of after-the-fact conduct evidence, when considered as a whole with all of the evidence and not in isolation, to be that Mr. Gill washed the knives and hid and disposed of the bar because he knew the identity of the killer. He wished to conceal the identity of the killer. He wished to conceal the identity of the killer because he had planned and deliberated the murder of his wife with the killer, and the killer was Gurpreet Ronald.
[80] I concluded that Mr. Gill knew the killer was Ms. Ronald and he and Ms. Ronald had planned and executed the murder of Jagtar Gill together. I also considered Mr. Gill’s offer to take the polygraph, his three cautioned statements, his offer to turn over his computer and his allowing police to search his home without a warrant.[^3] While I considered this after-the-fact evidence of innocence as part of the evidence as a whole, I also considered that Mr. Gill lied repeatedly in his April 13th statement to police where he offered to take the polygraph test. He permitted police to search his home where he had concealed a murder weapon.
[81] I did not find Ms. Ronald credible. She demonstrated a selective memory, forgetting conversations which were inconvenient, such as Mr. Gill’s response to her asking whether he knew what was going on in his house. She also claimed she could not tell him she had been in his house, yet her very question betrayed her presence in the home. As soon as Mr. Gill walked into his family room he would realize she had been in the home and witnessed Jagtar Gill’s condition. That portion of Ms. Ronald’s evidence defied credulity.
[82] I did not accept that Ms. Ronald would leave a box smeared with Jagtar Gill’s incriminating blood in her home yet dispose of the gloves she wore and the knife she took from the home. Ms. Ronald also was dishonest when she testified that Jason Ronald and Mr. Gill were friends. Mr. Ronald attended the Gill home in the fall of 2013 to confront Mr. Gill about the affair. Ms. Ronald claimed she could not recall any of the details of that incident. Mr. Gill was not home and Mr. Ronald spoke to Jagtar Gill. Ms. Ronald certainly knew that her husband and Mr. Gill were not friends. Mr. Ronald kicked Mr. Gill out of his home for flirting and giggling with his wife. I accepted his evidence on that issue.
[83] There were many other instances which demonstrated Ms. Ronald’s lack of credibility which I refer to in my reasons.
[84] I did not accept that Ms. Ronald put on gloves to wipe fingerprints from the knife when there were towels in the kitchen. She knew that kitchen. She spent time there when Jagtar Gill was at work. It was the same design as her own kitchen. I did not accept that Ms. Ronald stepped on a knife and picked it up. Putting on gloves to wipe her fingerprints from the knife is not logical given the towels nearby. Ms. Ronald also agreed with the Crown that the “true killer” could have been in the home. Yet she took the time to put on gloves to wipe her fingerprints from a murder weapon, drink water and go upstairs in a futile search for a Band-aid. I rejected Ms. Ronald’s evidence and the evidence of the defence did not leave me with a reasonable doubt.
[85] The fact that I reject the evidence of Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill and the evidence of the defence does not end the matter. A reasonable doubt can arise from the evidence itself, or in the absence of evidence. A reasonable doubt does not need to be based only on evidence which is accepted by the trier of fact. In assessing inferences which can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence, I must consider not only the portions which I do accept, but also the portions which I do not entirely reject. Again, an assessment of the potential available competing inferences does not need to be based on accepted facts.
[86] Ms. Ronald’s blood was on the carpet near Jagtar Gill’s body. Ms. Ronald’s blood was also on the fingertip piece of blue nitrile glove recovered near Jagtar Gill’s body. Her blood was also located on the intact glove which was recovered from Timm Drive. The fingertip piece of glove and the glove without its fingertip recovered from Timm Drive were once part of the same object according to Kris Legate of the Centre of Forensic Sciences.
[87] The intact glove had Ms. Ronald’s blood-sourced DNA on it. The glove missing the finger had Jagtar’s blood-sourced DNA on it. I considered Ms. Ronald’s evidence as to how her blood came to be at the crime scene and I rejected it. Ms. Ronald had a cut on her hand, which she said she received picking up the murder weapon. I did not accept her evidence regarding how she injured her hand. I did not accept that she would put on gloves to wipe fingerprints from a knife when there were towels nearby. Ms. Ronald’s blood was in the kitchen and upstairs on the second level. She disposed of the murder weapon and the gloves she wore. I was satisfied that the inescapable inference of the evidence as a whole is that Gurpreet Ronald murdered Jagtar Gill. I explain my reasons more fully further on throughout this decision.
[88] I found that Jagtar’s killing was an unlawful killing.
[89] I found that Ms. Ronald had the state of mind required for murder, which I explain more fully later in my reasons. Ms. Ronald intended to kill Jagtar Gill or to cause her grievous bodily harm being reckless as to whether death ensued as a result.
[90] I found the nature of the wounds themselves are reflective of an intent to kill. Jagtar’s throat was sliced wide open in a 15-centimetre (cm) wound. The stab wounds to the abdomen are deep.
[91] Two types of weapons were used, a blunt force weapon and a sharp force weapon.
[92] More than one knife was used.
[93] There were 20 blunt force injuries and 25 sharp force injuries.
[94] Ms. Gill received several lacerations to her skull caused by being struck repeatedly with a heavy object which I found to be the weightlifting bar.
[95] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Gurpreet Ronald’s killing of Jagtar Gill was an unlawful killing, that she killed Jagtar Gill and that she intended to kill her or cause her grievous bodily harm and was reckless as to whether death ensued.
[96] Mr. Gill is as culpable as Ms. Ronald in the murder of his wife. While he was not present at the time Ms. Ronald murdered his wife, they planned the murder together. Mr. Gill is guilty of the murder of his wife as an aider. I explain what an aider is and why I came to that conclusion more fully later in my reasons. Briefly, I found that Mr. Gill assisted Ms. Ronald in the killing of his wife, knowing that Ms. Ronald intended to kill his wife and that she planned and deliberated on that murder. Mr. Gill not only knew that Ms. Ronald planned and deliberated on the murder, but the two of them planned and deliberated upon the murder together.
[97] I found that Gurpreet Ronald and Mr. Bhupinderpal Gill planned and deliberated upon the murder of Jagtar Gill based on the following:
• The murder was planned to coincide with Jagtar’s weakened state, which was known to Mr. Gill. He shared that information regarding Jagtar’s weakened state with Gurpreet Ronald. Jagtar Gill was a much larger woman than Ms. Ronald. It was necessary that the murder be arranged when Jagtar Gill would be physically vulnerable in order that she could be overcome. I found that this element of the plan was calculated in advance of the murder.
• Ms. Ronald brought her own gloves on the day of the murder to conceal her identity. Bringing gloves to the home demonstrated not only planning, but an appreciation for the consequences of the undertaking being embarked upon.
• Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald arranged in advance that he would drive by her home and she would call to ensure it was safe to proceed with the plan. Whatever the signal which was exchanged between them in that two minute phone call at 10:58 a.m. had to be indiscernible to Dilpreet.
• Mr. Gill convinced his daughter to leave with him that morning so her mother would be left vulnerable and alone. Mr. Gill knew he had to do this in advance, and he planned for it.
• He left the front door unlocked so that Ms. Ronald could access the home. I have inferred from the unlocked door that Mr. Gill planned the door being left unlocked in advance of the homicide.
• Mr. Gill took the golden weights and four red collars off the metal weightlifting bar. He left them in the basement. I found that it was Mr. Gill who planned the metal weightlifting bar as the instrument of his wife’s demise. It was his bar. He had to remove the weights and collars from the bar before it could be used. The process of preparing the bar to be used as the murder weapon clearly reflects that Mr. Gill was deliberating on his plan in advance of the murder.
• Mr. Gill brought the metal weightlifting bar to the main floor and concealed it. Mr. Gill planned this aspect of the homicide with Ms. Ronald and advised her where she could find the bar to murder Jagtar.
• I found that Mr. Gill dismantled the Smartbox when he was in the basement that morning when he said he was moving his compressor and his saw. The dismantled Smartbox made it appear that someone who was not familiar with the way the phone system worked in the house had burglarized the house, as the Smartbox was already not operational. This dismantling of the Smartbox reflects an appreciation of the consequences of the murder plan.
• Ms. Ronald pulled the VOIP COMWAVE connection disconnecting the phone service upstairs. Mr. Gill advised her that the portable phone was left near Jagtar.
• The careful timing required to take advantage of the window of opportunity demonstrates both planning and cautious deliberation.
[98] Counsel for Mr. Gill argued that this murder was a second degree murder, or a manslaughter. I found the evidence in this case to be inconsistent with an intentional, but unplanned and un-deliberated upon killing. I also found the evidence in this case to be inconsistent with manslaughter.
[99] In this scenario, Mr. Gill is not involved in any way and Ms. Ronald is under the assumption he could be home at any time. I did not accept that Ms. Ronald would, under time pressure, go to the basement to strip the weightlifting bar of the weights and collars when a hammer was nearby on the dining room table where her tools were located. Det. Benson’s demonstration of how the weights are taken on and off the weightlifting bar satisfied me that the process is a bit cumbersome and takes a bit of time.
[100] I also did not accept that Ms. Ronald went over to the home that day to get her tools. I found she brought her own gloves. I also found that the COMWAVE wires were disconnected by Ms. Ronald. The phone was working at 11:37 a.m. when Jagtar Gill was speaking to the surgeon’s office. When Mr. Gill got home the portable phone was not working. Ms. Ronald’s pulling of the wires before Jagtar Gill could access the portable phone is not consistent with a spontaneous provoking event which set Ms. Ronald off, as suggested by the defence.
[101] I found the evidence of planning and deliberation to be compelling and persuasive. There also was no basis for a manslaughter verdict in this case. I explain why fully in my reasons. There is no air of reality to provocation which would reduce murder to manslaughter. There is no evidence that Jagtar committed an unlawful provoking act such that Ms. Ronald would lose control on the sudden. Provocation was not even raised in this case by counsel for Ms. Ronald. It was counsel for Mr. Gill who suggested manslaughter. I considered and rejected a verdict of manslaughter or second degree murder for reasons I explain fully in my analysis and findings.
[102] I found that the Crown has proven the guilt of Gurpreet Ronald of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I found that the Crown has proven the guilt of Bhupinderpal Gill of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I found both Gurpreet Ronald and Bhupinderpal Gill guilty of the first degree murder of Jagtar Gill.
Procedural Matters:
[103] This trial is a retrial of the 2016 trial. Many of the evidentiary issues were not contested. There was no challenge to the qualifications of any of the expert witnesses in this case. Ms. Sylvie Gill, a specialist from Rogers Communications, testified regarding the cell phone records.[^4] The Gill house phone records produced by COMWAVE were admitted. There was no challenge to the accuracy of the records themselves. Counsel sought by way of pretrial motion to completely exclude the evidence of Susanne Shields. I denied this motion, but having heard her evidence, rejected much of it, and gave the remainder little weight, unless it was corroborated by others, or accorded with common sense within the specific facts of this case. I also made pretrial rulings with respect to hearsay statements of the deceased, discreditable conduct evidence relating to both Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald, and an application by Mr. Gill to adduce evidence of discreditable conduct in relation to Ms. Ronald. I also gave rulings in relation to the voluntariness of Ms. Ronald’s statements. These rulings have been released separately. All of the statements of Mr. Gill were conceded by the defence to be voluntary. I found that the statements made by Ms. Ronald were voluntary. I made rulings at various points during the trial regarding the admissibility of opinion evidence by Mr. Fewer, which I found to be not admissible. I also admitted a hearsay statement of the deceased by Mr. Gill to Mr. Fewer regarding Jagtar Gill telling her husband to stay away from Ms. Ronald. Mr. Gill testified in this trial and was cross-examined. He also testified that his wife said he could continue his friendship with Ms. Ronald after he disclosed his affair. This trial was held at the end of the second wave of COVID-19, but we reached the apex of the third wave by the time the trial completed. Due to the pandemic, this was a judge alone homicide trial with a waiver by Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald of their right to be tried by a jury. The Attorney General consented to proceeding in this manner. After the re-election to a judge alone trial, pretrial motions regarding the editing of Mr. Gill’s statement, a motion for severance by counsel for Ms. Ronald, and an application by Mr. Harbic to open after the Crown became moot after argument, and I did not deliver my rulings in those matters.
[104] The lawyers, myself, Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill were in the courtroom, along with court staff for the duration of the trial. Many witnesses testified in person. Some witnesses testified remotely. We all wore medical masks everyday. We recessed court after every in-person witness testified in order that the witness box could be sanitized. My assessments of credibility in this case are based on the substantive evidence, and not on facial appearance or demeanour. I did not find that the presence of the masks interfered with my ability to make credibility assessments.
[105] At times we were in two courtrooms. We were separated from one another by plexiglass. We used a Zoom webinar platform to communicate between courtrooms. We had interpreters at times. Mr. Gill used an interpreter for giving his evidence. He used a simultaneous translating device during the trial, but I observed he often did not use it. He indicated he preferred not to use it. When he gave his evidence, he only wished to use the interpreter as needed without having to answer in Punjabi. We briefly tried this approach, but it proved problematic. Counsel agreed that we would proceed with full translation and we did.
Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law:
The Presumption of Innocence:
[106] Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill are presumed innocent. The presumption of innocence is both a constitutional guarantee to every accused person and is a foundational cornerstone of our criminal justice system. An inextricable and related principle in criminal trials is that the Crown Attorney carries the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence bears no burden, nor any onus. The burden of proof rests on the Crown throughout the trial and it never shifts to the accused. A reasonable doubt is not based on sympathy or prejudice, rather it is based upon reason and common sense. It is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence. It is not proof beyond any doubt, nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt: see R. v. Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt lies much closer to absolute certainty than to a balance of probabilities. If I find that Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald are probably, or likely guilty, the Crown will have not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: see R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144.
[107] A reasonable doubt can arise from the evidence itself, or in the absence of evidence. A reasonable doubt does not need to be based only on evidence that is accepted by the trier of fact: see Lifchus at para. 36; R. v. Darnley, 2020 ONCA 179, 61 C.R. (7th) 302, at paras. 31-35. All of the evidence must be considered in assessing whether a reasonable doubt remains at the end of the case: see R. v. Miller (1991), 1991 CanLII 2704 (ON CA), 5 O.R. (3d) 678 (C.A.).
[108] This case has a considerable body of after-the-fact conduct evidence. When dealing with after-the-fact conduct evidence, I used the word “explain” or “explanation” to describe the stated rationale by the defence for things the defendants did or did not do, or things the defendants said or did not say. The analysis is centred squarely on which inferences are most plausible when viewed through the light of logic, human experience and common sense. While I occasionally used the word “explain” or “explanation” in that narrow context, and the word “explain” or “explanation” could otherwise connote an onus or burden, there is no onus or burden on the defence. The burden of proof rests with the Crown throughout the trial. I used the words “explain” or “explanation” in the same manner and context in which they were used in R v. Calnen 2019 SCC 6, [2019] 1 S.C.R. 301 at paragraphs 144, 145, 117 and 126.
The Assessment of Evidence:
[109] The Crown must prove each and every essential element of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this standard of proof is not applied to individual facts underlying the elements of an offence, except in the instance where the Crown’s burden is carried by a single fact: see e.g. R. v. Pham, 2019 ONCA 338, 377 C.C.C. (3d) 64, at para. 22. Individual facts are assessed cumulatively and in context of the evidence as a whole to determine whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt: see R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCA 25, 333 C.C.C. (3d), at para. 82.
Circumstantial Evidence:
[110] Where the evidence arising in a case is circumstantial, the Crown must prove that the accused’s guilt is the only reasonable inference available on the evidence: see R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000. The consideration of circumstantial evidence requires that reasonable inferences be drawn which are based on logic, experience and common sense. Speculation and conjecture are impermissible. The line between speculation and reasonable inference may at times be difficult to draw. However, the ease of drawing the inference is not the standard. The standard is whether the inference is based on logic and reason.
[111] If, after all of the evidence is considered, a reasonable inference which is inconsistent with guilt on any essential element of the offence exists, the accused is entitled to an acquittal or a conviction on a lesser and included offence. An inference which is not consistent with guilt must be reasonable, not merely possible. The Crown is not required to negative every possible inference conceivable. However, an inference inconsistent with guilt does not need to arise from “proven facts”: Villaroman at para. 35. It can arise as a matter of logic and experience based on a consideration of all the evidence and the absence of evidence.
[112] Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald both testified in this trial. They were not required to do so. In addition, three statements by Mr. Gill were introduced into evidence by the Crown. Those statements were dated January 29th, 2014, January 30th, 2014 and April 13th, 2014. Ms. Ronald gave a statement to police during a neighbourhood canvass on January 29th, 2014 and a statement to police on January 30th. Counsel for Mr. Gill conceded the voluntariness of the statements Mr. Gill made. I found the statements which Ms. Ronald made to be voluntary. Mr. Gill also called several witnesses who testified for the defence.
[113] In assessing inferences which can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence, I must consider not only the portions of the evidence of Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald which I do accept, but also those portions which I do not entirely reject, either. Again, an assessment of the potential available competing inferences does not need to be based on “accepted facts”.
[114] In assessing Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald’s evidence, including their statements, I must guard against using the fact that I rejected some evidence as positive evidence of guilt. Rejected evidence is simply rejected evidence. It does not establish anything.
[115] An exception to the above principle is where the Crown is able to point to independent evidence of fabrication capable of demonstrating the falsity of a statement: see R. v. O’Connor (2002), 2002 CanLII 3540 (ON CA), 62 O.R. (3d) 263 (C.A.); R. v. Bradey, 2015 ONCA 738, 127 O.R. (3d) 721. The independent evidence can come from other evidence in the case, but it must be “independent of the evidence tending to show the falsity of the statements”: O’Connor at para. 30. It can also be found in the content of the impugned statements, including instances of self-contradiction by the accused: see R. v. Shafia, 2016 ONCA 812, 341 C.C.C. (3d) 354; R. v. Al Enzi, 2021 ONCA 81.
[116] Where independent evidence of fabrication exists, it is open to the court to consider the fabricated statement as a form of after-the-fact conduct supporting an inference that the accused fabricated the statement because he or she was conscious of having committed an offence. The resort to independent evidence of fabrication serves to protect against weaponizing the rejection of evidence, or mere disbelief, of an accused’s statement, into affirmative evidence of guilt: see R. v. Johnson-Lee, 2018 ONCA 1012, 369 C.C.C. (3d) 72, at para. 41. I declined to conduct an analysis of fabrication in my reasons. My reasons for declining to do so are set out at the conclusion of the after-the-fact conduct analysis portion of this judgment. While I did not rely on evidence of fabrication in reaching my conclusions in this case, I did find that Mr. Gill’s comments regarding how and when he found the weightlifting bar and when he disposed of it in his April 13th video statement to Det. Benson to be evidence of fabrication. The video recording from the camera installed in Mr. Gill’s basement provides the required independent evidence of fabrication. While I did not rely on evidence of fabrication in reaching my conclusion in this case, it was available on the evidence had I chosen to rely on it.
Credibility Assessments:
[117] In general terms, it is not open to the Crown to cross-examine the accused or other defence witnesses on other disreputable conduct in order to demonstrate bad character and a moral disposition to lie. The overwhelming policy interest in ensuring a fair trial for the accused militates against permitting this approach. The same policy considerations do not apply when counsel for a co-accused is cross-examining and making full answer and defence on behalf of that jointly charged accused: see David Watt, Watt’s Manual of Criminal Evidence 2020 (Scarborough: Carswell 2020) at 32.02. The subject of marital infidelity was relevant to a material issue in this trial—motive: see R. v. Rallo (1978), 44 C.C.C.(2d) (Ont. C.A.). Evidence of marital infidelity was not admissible to demonstrate bad character, or a moral disposition to lie. I did not consider the fact that Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill engaged in an extramarital affair as evidence that they would be the type of person more likely to commit murder. The fact that they lied to police is also not relevant to the likelihood that they would be the type of person more likely to commit murder. Mr. Harbic was permitted to lead evidence from Jason Ronald regarding Ms. Ronald’s resort to knives during long arguments with Mr. Ronald. This evidence was only admissible to exculpate Mr. Gill. It was not admissible to inculpate Ms. Ronald.
[118] There is no presumption that witnesses are credible, that their testimony is accurate, or that evidence once admitted will be accepted and relied upon: see R. v. Thain, 2009 ONCA 223, 243 C.C.C. (3d) 230, at para. 32. This statement of the law is true even of evidence that has been admitted pursuant to an admissibility threshold which includes a preliminary reliability assessment, such as hearsay evidence admitted under the principled approach. I am able to accept some, none, or all of the admissible evidence offered by a witness: see R. v. S. (R.), 2017 ONCA 141 at para. 7. I admitted a hearsay statement of the deceased, Jagtar Gill, to Ms. Shields. Having heard Ms. Shields’ evidence I gave no weight to that hearsay statement. I gave little to no weight to the evidence of Susanne Shields. Where the evidence was corroborated by other witnesses or accorded with common sense inferences within the specific facts of this case, without reliance on generalizations, or stereotypes, I was able to accept some of the evidence of Susanne Shields.
[119] In determining what weight to assign to testimony, I evaluated the evidence at the end of the case in the context of all of the other evidence. When deciding whether to accept testimony as being accurate, I have considered the credibility, that is the honesty of the witness when relating testimony, and reliability, the accuracy of the testimony given by an honest witness.
Demeanour in Assessing Credibility:
[120] I am entitled to use observations made when assessing the testimony of a witness: see R. v. S. (N.), 2012 SCC 72, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726. The caveat is that much care must be taken in the assessment of demeanour evidence. Demeanour evidence is of limited value as it can be impacted by many factors including the culture of the witness, stereotypical attitudes and the artificiality and pressures of a courtroom: see R. v. Rhayel, 2015 ONCA 377, 324 C.C.C. (3d) 362, at para. 85. Both Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill were under pressure as they gave their evidence. The stress of the trial was exacerbated by the fact we were conducting the trial during a world-wide pandemic. We all had to wear masks. Ms. Ronald had a dental problem mid-trial which had to be addressed under circumstances dictated by the pandemic. In the circumstances of this trial, I found demeanour evidence to be of no assistance to me in assessing the credibility of Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill. I made my credibility assessments based on the substantive evidence.
[121] One possible potential useful application of demeanour evidence is to determine if a witness is more hesitant to answer questions which present difficulty for their recounting of the matter. This hesitancy may indicate that the witness is being tactical, rather than being candid: see David Paciocco, Palma Paciocco & Lee Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, 8th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2020) at p. 595.
[122] There was an example of such hesitancy in this trial. Mr. Gill was more co-operative with Mr. Spratt then with Mr. Neubauer answering the same question regarding whether he was aware of rumours of his affair with Ms. Ronald.
[123] Care should also be exercised when drawing inferences from demeanour arising from videotaped hearsay statements. These statements are not subject to contemporaneous cross-examination: see Rhayel. Det. Benson noted in Mr. Gill’s April 13th video statement that Mr. Gill was smirking at various points. Mr. Gill said that he was laughing at his luck. Mr. Gill also asked Det. Benson if he was going to slap him or hit him. Det. Benson had behaved completely appropriately and had done nothing to warrant that question by Mr. Gill.
[124] While living in India, Mr. Gill was punched in the face for failing to stand up when a senior police officer entered the room. Mr. Gill was at the police station to get a clearance certificate for immigration to Canada. I found Mr. Gill’s facial expressions and demeanour during the video statement, including asking Det. Benson if he was going to slap him, were understandable given his prior experience with police in India, and the stress he was experiencing during the lengthy interview with a senior homicide detective who was obviously well prepared. I was guided by the comments of my brother Schreck J., albeit in a different context, that persons under stressful and unusual circumstances may not always react in a usual or predictable manner: see R. v. Senthamilselvan, 2019 ONSC 3884, 57 C.R. (7th) 143, at paras. 37-38.
Separate individuals in Law:
[125] Despite the fact that Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald have both been charged and are being tried together, each is a separate individual in law who cannot be found guilty of any offence unless the evidence relating to him or to her proves his or her guilt of that offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
[126] Each person receives separate consideration. Each is entitled to have his/her case decided on the basis of his/her own conduct and state of mind and from the evidence that may apply to him or her.
Reasonable Doubt and Circumstantial Evidence:
[127] A reasonable doubt must not be imaginary or frivolous. It need not be proof to an absolute certainty and must be based on reason and common sense: see Lifchus at paras. 31-36. The burden on the Crown does not extend to “negativing every conjecture”: Villaroman at para. 50, citing R. v. Paul, 1975 CanLII 185 (SCC), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 181, at p. 191.
[128] In assessing circumstantial evidence, inferences consistent with innocence do not have to arise from proven facts: Villaroman at para. 35, citing R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 104, at para. 58. Requiring proven facts to support explanations other than guilt wrongly puts an obligation on an accused person to prove facts. It is contrary to the rule that whether there is a reasonable doubt in any given case is determined only after considering all of the evidence. This rule exists as the burden of proof rests with the Crown; that burden is never shifted to the defence.
[129] In a case of circumstantial evidence, the guilt of the accused must be the only reasonable conclusion on all of the evidence: see R. v. Debassige, 2021 ONCA 484, at para. 156, citing Villaroman at paras. 55-56.
[130] In determining what inferences can be drawn from the evidence I must distinguish between what Cromwell J. called “plausible theory” versus “speculation” in Villaroman.
[131] The line between plausible theory and speculation is not always an easy line to draw. The basic question is whether the circumstantial evidence, viewed logically and in light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that the accused is guilty: Villaroman at para. 38.
The Lens of Logic and the Light of Human Experience:
[132] In assessing inferences through the lens of logic and in the light of human experience, I tried to put myself into the shoes of Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill to the extent possible. I avoided generalizations about human behaviour. In assessing circumstantial evidence however, I am required, to a degree, to assess what is reasonable. A part of my job as the trial judge in this case is to determine whether Mr. Gill’s and Ms. Ronald’s actions give rise to an inference of guilt, or whether they do not.
Joint Trial:
[133] This trial was a joint trial and the trial testimony of both Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald is available to me to use for and against both. While the statements or admissions made by each individual accused jointly charged are admissible at trial only against their maker, the testimony of both at trial is admissible against both: see Debassige at para. 140.
[134] Jason Ronald’s evidence relating to Ms. Ronald’s alleged history of resort to knives during argument is solely admissible to exculpate Mr. Gill. It is not admissible against Ms. Ronald for any purpose.
Self-interest is not relevant to my assessment of credibility of the accused:
[135] It is improper to consider Mr. Gill’s or Ms. Ronald’s interest in the outcome of this trial when assessing credibility, as to do so violates the presumption of innocence. This principle was the subject of brief comment in this trial. Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald are both clothed with the presumption of innocence, until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt by the Crown.
[136] If I believe the evidence of Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald, and the defence evidence, it is self-evident that I must acquit them. If I do not believe the testimony of Mr. Gill, and Ms. Ronald, and the defence evidence, but I am left in a reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit. Even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald, and the defence evidence, I must ask myself whether, on the basis of the evidence which I do accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald. R v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742
[137] I must also not focus on individual pieces of evidence in isolation but consider all of the evidence as a whole in determining whether the Crown has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[138] It is an error for me to decide this case by simply adopting an either/or approach and choosing which of the conflicting stories I accept. The either/or approach excludes the legitimate possibility that I may not be able to select one version of the evidence in preference of another and yet, on the whole of the evidence, I could be left in a reasonable doubt. The either/or approach results in a wrongful shift of the burden of proof to Mr. Gill or Ms. Ronald of demonstrating innocence. The evidence which Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald gave, along with all of the defence evidence lead in this case, need not be believed in order for Mr. Gill or Ms. Ronald to be acquitted. In deciding which evidence I accept, I can accept all, some or none of the evidence of any witness.
Mr. Gill’s Evidence:
[139] Mr. Gill was born on January 12th, 1976 in Punjab, India. His three sisters, Harmesh Dhaliwal, Harmanjeet Toor and Harpreet Sidhu testified in this trial.
[140] His parents both testified in this trial. Avtar Gill worked for the electricity board in Punjab for 35 years. His mother Jasmel is a homemaker.
[141] Mr. Gill finished high school in India. He studied electronic engineering for two years in high school.
[142] Mr. Gill and Jagtar Gill were married on January 29th, 1997. The marriage was arranged by his parents and Jagtar’s parents. Jagtar was murdered on the couple’s 17th wedding anniversary. She was seven years older than her husband and the mother of three children on whom she doted.
[143] Jagtar sponsored Mr. Gill’s immigration to Canada. He arrived in December of 1997. His daughter Dilpreet Gill was born in 1998, Jagtot Gill, in 2004 and son Beant Gill, was born in 2005.
[144] Jagtar Gill worked at Filtran for 20 years. The company closed shortly before her murder and she lost her job. Mr. Gill studied to improve his ability to speak English. He obtained his driver’s license. He delivered pizzas on weekends. The couple both delivered flyers and papers early in the morning. He began driving a bus for OC Transpo in 2007.
[145] Mr. Gill and Jagtar Gill sponsored his parents to Canada. Avtar Gill and Jasmel Gill moved in with their son and his wife and their young family. The arrival of Mr. Gill’s parents was unwelcomed by Jagtar. The family were living on Burntwood Drive. Jagtar left the home for four days. Jagtar’s brother accused Mr. Gill of threatening to kill her.
[146] This false accusation weighed heavily on Mr. Gill’s mind in the aftermath of the homicide. He deeply feared being blamed for Jagtar’s murder due to her brother’s false claim ten years earlier. Mr. Gill remained estranged from Jagtar’s family at the time of her death. He did not attend his wife’s family events with her. He denied threatening Jagtar in 2004. This evidence was part of the defence case for Mr. Gill.[^5] His wife was a very good mother who would do anything for her children, he agreed.
The Affair:
[147] Mr. Gill met Gurpreet Ronald at their mutual workplace, OC Transpo. Ms. Ronald sought Mr. Gill’s advice regarding her sister. Mr. Gill began speaking with Ms. Ronald. They spoke frequently over the phone. They began an affair. The length of the affair is in dispute. Mr. Gill said the relationship began in 2010 and lasted until the fall of 2013. After the fall of 2013 it continued as a friendship. Contact in person was greatly reduced, but telephone contact was frequent. Ms. Ronald described the affair as an emotional affair. She initially said the sexual aspect of the relationship ended in 2010, but changed her evidence in cross-examination to include incidents of sexual activity as late as 2013.
[148] Mr. Gill worked night shifts. Shifts lasted for 8 to 10 hours. He and Ms. Ronald spoke over the phone during breaks. They shared an interest in home renovations. They would see each other at the Sikh Temple. Ms. Ronald visited Mr. Gill’s home from 2008 onward. She was invited to extended Gill family events. She cut his wife and daughter’s hair and she also cut his sisters’ hair.
[149] Ms. Ronald professed feelings for Mr. Gill in August of 2010. He found her good looking, happy and pleasant. He never loved her. He did not refuse her when she indicated interest in him. The physical aspect of the relationship began in Ms. Ronald’s home. He was happy with his wife, had no feelings for Ms. Ronald but began an affair anyway. They also enjoyed doing renovations together.
[150] Mr. Gill had returned from a family trip to India just before the affair began. The affair continued until September or October of 2013. He disclosed the affair to his wife after Ms. Ronald’s husband, Jason Ronald, visited when Jagtar was home alone in the fall of 2013. He feared his wife would learn of the affair from someone other than him. He therefore disclosed his infidelity. He did not think the affair was wrong before Jason Ronald came to his home. He realized that what was going on in the Ronald family could happen in his family. Mr. Ronald was having an affair at this time. Mr. Gill apologized to his wife.
[151] He remained good friends with Ms. Ronald when the sexual aspect of the relationship ended.
[152] Although there were problems with Mr. Ronald’s excessive drinking and smoking, not working, and infidelity, Ms. Ronald wanted to spend the rest of her life with Mr. Ronald for the sake of her children, according to Mr. Gill. He never asked Ms. Ronald if she told Jason Ronald about their affair.
[153] Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill spoke of problems in the Ronald home. She shared her private thoughts with him. She needed his help and support as she was getting a divorce.
[154] They continued to travel to work together when their schedules matched. They went to each other’s houses, although this was reduced to a bare minimum in the fall of 2013. He went to her home to accompany her to work, or to pick up a tool from her. When Ms. Ronald would come to his house, for example, if she needed a tool, he did not observe any problems between Ms. Ronald and Jagtar Gill.
[155] Mr. Gill denied that Jagtar being home and no longer working reduced opportunities to see Ms. Ronald. The contact was reduced because he ended his relationship with her, he said.
[156] Jagtar Gill had Crohn’s disease with associated symptoms which interfered with sexual intimacy. They did not sleep together.
[157] Mr. Gill slept on a mattress on the floor next to the bed where Jagtar slept in their bedroom. He took the mattress on the floor so Jagtar would be more comfortable.
[158] In cross-examination by counsel for Ms. Ronald, Mr. Gill agreed he was aware that there were rumours that he and Ms. Ronald were very close, although no one ever questioned him. He shared a car ride with Ms. Ronald which he agreed may have fuelled those rumours. When Mr. Spratt said, “Am I right in saying that you thought people were talking about your relationship with Ms. Ronald?” Mr. Gill responded, that yes, he felt that way, but no one confronted him about the affair.
[159] In cross-examination with Mr. Neubauer for the Crown, Mr. Gill was asked if he was aware that there were rumours that he and Ms. Ronald were very close. Mr. Gill said, “Nobody informed me, therefore, I’m not aware what others were talking about, I have no clue.”
[160] Ms. Ronald needed his help when her home was for sale. He helped her install shingles on the roof of her home. He and Ms. Ronald and Scott Fewer went together to buy a motorcycle in Rockland in spring or summer of 2013.
[161] Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald bought new homes in Barrhaven which were quite close to one another. Mr. Gill’s home was at 174 Brambling Way, on the corner lot. Ms. Ronald purchased 303 Towhee Place, which was on the next street over and a two-to-three-minute walk from Mr. Gill’s home. Ms. Ronald moved into her new home in the summer of 2012.
[162] When Mr. Gill booked his property, Ms. Ronald visited the same builder and wanted to buy a home immediately behind his property with adjoining backyards. There was trouble in the Ronald home at this time.
[163] The Gills had decided to sell their home and move away after Mr. Gill disclosed his affair to Jagtar Gill. They had already begun to prepare for the sale of the home in the days before her murder. They were installing crown moulding on the weekend before she was murdered. He later spoke to an agent about selling the home. He arranged with interior decorator Rosie De Marco to help him stage the house for sale after his wife’s death.
[164] At the time of Jagtar Gill’s death, the Gills owned two homes in both of their names. Jagtar Gill had expensive jewelry in the safe. They had $4,500 in the safe which they were saving for a family trip to Niagara Falls. They had two cars. He had a taxi license which was valued at $300,000. They had a joint chequing account.
Clairvoyants and Psychic Predictions:
[165] Susanne Shields is a self-described clairvoyant, medium, life coach and feng shui practitioner. Mr. Gill first met her at Gurpreet Ronald’s home. He later attended her office on MacLaren Street with Gurpreet Ronald. Ms. Shields then visited his home three times. He denied disclosing the fact his marriage was arranged to Ms. Shields.
[166] The meeting with Ms. Shields was only to discuss selling his home. The feng shui services interested Mr. Gill. Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill consulted with Susanne Shields on April 22nd, 2012.
[167] Ms. Shields advised him it would cost $1,500 for his home to be sold and the home would be sold in two to three weeks.
[168] He did not hear Ms. Ronald say anything negative about his wife. She never said they wished to be rid of his wife. He never said he wanted to be rid of his wife. He loved his wife. He wanted to be in a relationship with his wife. There was no plan for Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald to be together. The consultation with Ms. Shields was only to sell his home. The topic of Ms. Ronald and himself as a couple was not discussed. He never called his wife Hitler or Nazi. No one else in his family called her Hitler or Nazi either.
[169] Ms. Shields and her partner Mr. Tony Gyenis hung crystal balls inside his house and moved the furniture. A wind chime was hung on a tree. Jagtar was experiencing pain in her knee. They did something to Jagtar’s knee, but it did not help. Ms. Shields promised the cost would be $1,500. She charged $2,500. Ms. Shields told him the house will not sell if they did not pay. The house never sold. He paid a total of $2,500 from Jagtar Gill’s credit card.
[170] Mr. Gill denied paying Susanne Shields for anything other than feng shui services. He did not have life coaching from Ms. Shields, or a clairvoyant or psychic session.
[171] The original payment of $565 was made on his wife’s credit card. In the following days Ms. Shields withdrew $500 each day to reach a total of $1,500. Mr. Gill said that he and Ms. Ronald both went to Ms. Shields house to pay $1,000 and in total paid $2,500.
[172] Mr. Gill denied that Ms. Shields ever spoke to him about 68 past lives or his deceased grandparent. He never knew his grandparents. He sent her a text accusing her of lying to him. He texted: don’t call me again and I won’t call you.
Jagtar Gill’s Hernia Surgery:
[173] Jagtar Gill suffered from a hernia requiring surgical repair. She attended the pre-surgical consult on her own on January 9th as her surgeon, Balpreet Brar, speaks fluent Punjabi so she could communicate freely. She said she would get a call in two to three days with her surgery date. After two to three days his wife called and said the surgery was booked for January 28th. He was at the Pinecrest OC Transpo garage when he received her call. He then booked January 28th off work. He denied his wife told him that the surgery was scheduled for January 28th on January 9th.
[174] Mr. Gill told Gurpreet Ronald about Jagtar’s surgery on January 27th. He thought he had disclosed the surgery to his sisters.
[175] The Crown pointed out that between January 12th, three days after January 9th, and January 26th, he spoke to Ms. Ronald several times.[^6] He denied that he discussed Jagtar’s surgery with Ms. Ronald prior to January 27th, 2014. He and Ms. Ronald were not planning the death of Jagtar Gill during this period. He denied that he planned to kill his wife so he would not lose half of his marital assets.
[176] Jagtar Gill was admitted to the hospital at 1 p.m. on January 28th, 2014. Her surgery began just before 2 p.m. and finished at 2:40 p.m. She was later discharged to Mr. Gill’s care. Ms. Ronald’s number appears at 1:53 p.m., 1:54 p.m. and 2:04 p.m. These calls went to voicemail as at 2:04 p.m. he received a notification advising him that he had voicemail. Mr. Gill testified that at 2:05 p.m. he called Ms. Ronald back and they spoke for just under 29 minutes. During that call he also received a call from his sister. At 2:58 p.m. he called Ms. Ronald for an eight second call.
[177] Ms. Ronald called at 3:07 p.m. and they spoke for just over 46 minutes. Mr. Gill denied Jagtar Gill’s surgery was discussed with Ms. Ronald during this call. He did not tell Ms. Ronald the kind of surgery Jagtar was having. He himself was unaware of the type of surgery. When challenged on this point by Mr. Neubauer, Mr. Gill admitted that he knew the nature of the surgery but did not know how the surgical procedure would be conducted.
[178] He then agreed that he knew the surgeon would be making an incision and completing the procedure. Mr. Gill said he worried about his wife during the surgery. He spoke to Gurpreet Ronald for 75 minutes while his wife was in the hospital.
[179] He did not think he told Ms. Ronald that Jagtar Gill had been checked into the hospital. He then testified that he may have been mistaken and told Ms. Ronald that Jagtar had been admitted to hospital. It was hard to recall if he told Gurpreet Ronald about Jagtar having a surgical procedure, given the passage of time. He thought he told her the day before.
[180] In a conversation with Ms. Ronald on January 27th, he discussed his wife’s surgery and told Ms. Ronald he would not be coming to work on January 28th. He drove Jagtar to and from her surgery. He went to Costco to get her medicine that night.
[181] From the date of Jagtar’s murder on January 29th, 2014 until his arrest in April, Mr. Gill did not return to work. He received 80 per cent of his regular pay. He resided with his sister at 2477 Regatta Avenue in the immediate aftermath of his wife’s murder.
The Events of January 29th, 2014:
[182] Mr. Gill rose at 5:15 a.m. that morning as his sister, Ms. Toor, dropped off her son Ishwar. He went back to sleep until 6:45 a.m. He wished his wife a happy anniversary. Whatever she needed he would bring to her in bed, he said.
[183] He took the children downstairs. Jagtar Gill came down to the main floor on her own. He prepared breakfast for himself and for Jagtar. The younger children and Ishwar went to their school bus at 8:15 a.m. or 8:30 a.m.
[184] His eldest daughter Dilpreet was staying home that day to study for an exam. On January 30th, all of the children would have been in school.
[185] Mr. Gill sent a message to Mr. Fewer at 8:52 a.m. asking him if he was coming to his home for coffee. Sometimes Mr. Fewer would visit after dropping his son off at school. Most of the time he would come to see him at 11:00 a.m. or 11:30 a.m.
[186] Mr. Gill did not know what time Mr. Fewer was going to be coming by on January 29th. Mr. Gill texted him on January 28th asking if he was coming for coffee the next day, but his friend had not replied.
[187] Mr. Gill said he did not need to know when his friend was coming, as it was their habit to have coffee together. On January 28th, when he was arranging the coffee meeting with Mr. Fewer for the next day, his wife was in surgery. Mr. Gill agreed that he had been told that his wife would be in pain, groggy and taking painkillers for the first 24 to 48 hours post-surgery. He knew she would not be able to move very well and needed to rest and to stay still.
[188] He invited Mr. Fewer for coffee because on January 23rd, Mr. Fewer had asked if he could come for coffee.[^7] If Mr. Fewer had arrived at 10 a.m. or 11 a.m., Mr. Gill said he would not have left the house. He pointed out that he did not ask Mr. Fewer what time he was coming over. He later changed his evidence and said he meant to say if Mr. Fewer arrived at 10 a.m. or 11 a.m., he would have run his errands later. Mr. Gill sent Mr. Fewer a text at 8:51 a.m. asking if he was coming for coffee. Mr. Fewer arrived at about 9:30 a.m.
[189] Mr. Gill made a sandwich and coffee for Mr. Fewer.
[190] He used a knife to cut onions for Mr. Fewer’s breakfast. He thinks he used two knives to prepare breakfast. These knives were the smaller knives retrieved by police from the kitchen sink identified as Exhibit 13 (the Wiltshire knife) and Exhibit 14 (the smaller KitchenAid knife).
[191] Ms. Toor called before 9 a.m. to ask how Jagtar was doing. Ms. Toor said she would come by between 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. to cook a meal for Jagtar.
[192] Mr. Gill showed Mr. Fewer the progress made installing crown moulding in the front area of the house—the dining room and living room area.
[193] Mr. Fewer exited through the front door of 174 Brambling Way. He left between 10:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. The front door was not locked when Mr. Fewer left as Mr. Gill was at home.
[194] After his friend left, Mr. Gill went upstairs to retrieve money from his safe. While he was checking his bank account, he thought there may not be enough money to pay the mortgage of the two houses.[^8] He planned to go to the bank while going for his allergy shot. He also was thinking of going to Home Depot. He expected to have completed his errands in 45 to 60 minutes.
[195] Mr. Gill planned to go the bank, the doctor’s office, Home Depot and Tim Hortons. Jagtar Gill advised they needed groceries and Dilpreet’s books needed to be returned to the library.
[196] They went from his home to the bank, to the doctor’s office, to the library, to Food Basics and then to Jockvale School to pick up Ishwar. After leaving the school, he stopped at Sobeys and then went back home. They did not stop at the Home Depot and Tim Hortons because there was not enough time.
[197] When he planned to leave that morning, he planned to go alone. When he saw Dilpreet was home, he asked if she would accompany him. Usually when he goes grocery shopping either all the children, or one or two of them accompany him.
[198] Dilpreet indicated that she wanted to stay with her mom. However, Jagtar told Dilpreet to go with her dad and return her library books as Jagtar would not be able to drive for a few days. There was food which the children needed. Jagtar asked him to pick up three cauliflowers, he said.
[199] His wife was the one who knew what foods should be purchased. Whenever he had to go for groceries she provided him with a list of foods to purchase. If Dilpreet went with him, her mother told Dilpreet what was required.
[200] His wife was left with a glass of water, medicine that she needed and a portable phone which was left beside her if she needed help for any reason.
[201] He exited the house from the side door as the car was parked in the garage. The garage is attached to the house. He thinks Dilpreet exited the house through the front door. He asked her to lock the front door.
[202] He drove a route along Brambling Way to Towhee Place to Egret Way and to Greenbank Road. He chose this route as there are less stop signs and the route is slightly shorter than the alternate route.
[203] He drove by Ms. Ronald’s house. At 10:58:40 a.m. she called him. He was near St. Joseph’s school when he received the call. She wanted to know if he would be attending the overtime call later that day. Dilpreet was sitting in the front seat when the call was received. Ms. Ronald inquired where he was going. He said he was going to the doctor and the bank and he had to get back soon.
[204] Mr. Gill received a call at 12:20:40 p.m. and 12:35:15 p.m. from his sister Ms. Toor. He was at the Food Basics grocery store. Her son Ishwar was sick and needed to be picked up at Jockvale Elementary School. Mr. Gill had been to the library, the bank, his doctor and Food Basics.
[205] Mr. Gill advised Sgt. Kinnear he planned to take four days off work when Jagtar had her surgery.
[206] Ms. Ronald had called him three or four times on January 29th. He went to Sobeys to get flowers and cake.[^9] His sister, Ms. Toor, had called him at 12:20:40 p.m. and 12:35:15 p.m. At 12:35:44 Mr. Gill checked his voicemail. He did not miss any calls from 10:58 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. He denied he was expecting a call from Ms. Ronald. Mr. Gill missed a call from Ms. Ronald at 12:36:24 p.m. The call went to voicemail while Mr. Gill was checking his voicemail. She called again at 12:38:47 p.m. They spoke for 33 seconds. Ms. Ronald asked where he was located. He told her he was at Sobeys.
[207] He purchased three cauliflowers at Sobeys. He bought flowers as it was his anniversary.
[208] Exhibit 63 is the compilation video recording from Sobeys. Ms. Ronald appears at 12:52:34 p.m.
[209] When Ms. Ronald arrived at Sobeys she cracked jokes. Her first joke was about why he had purchased so many cauliflowers. She cracked a second joke about the flowers. He did not think Ms. Ronald was aware it was his anniversary. She asked him to come to IKEA with her.
[210] Mr. Spratt suggested that when they were in the parking lot Ms. Ronald asked if he knew what was going on at his house. The pair are depicted on video walking alone away from the children toward Ms. Ronald’s minivan. Mr. Gill denied that Ms. Ronald ever asked this question. He insisted that Ms. Ronald asked him again to attend IKEA.
[211] She had already asked this question a few minutes earlier at the cash register in Sobeys. He gave no reason for refusing to go to IKEA. Mr. Gill hurried to his car so that Jagtar Gill would not have to get up to answer the door when Dilpreet’s friend Chantal Allain arrived at 1 p.m.
[212] It was agreed between the parties and I found as a fact that the video recorded by Sobeys security cameras on January 29th, 2014 at 1581 Greenbank Road in Barrhaven was a compilation of five different security cameras at Sobeys which tracked the movements of Ms. Ronald, Mr. Gill, Ishwar Toor and Dilpreet Gill while they were at the Sobeys store. There is some variation in the time-of-day settings between the various cameras. The time setting in the parking lot camera is about four minutes faster than the time setting on the cameras inside the front entrance.
[213] Gurpreet Ronald called him at 12:52 p.m. on January 29th while he was at the traffic light at Greenbank Road. Dilpreet and Ishwar were in the car. Ms. Ronald again asked him to go to IKEA with her.
[214] Mr. Gill was parked in his garage and about to unload his groceries at 12:56:02 p.m. when his employer called. The call lasted eight seconds. Mr. Gill indicated that this call came at 12:58, but the phone records indicate the call was received at 12:56:02. Ishwar and Dilpreet exited the car before Mr. Gill parked in the garage. The children entered the front door of the house.
[215] Mr. Gill heard Dilpreet screaming. He dropped the groceries he was carrying. He saw Jagtar on the floor face down. He tried to make her sit up. He was not aware whether Jagtar tried to kill herself or what was happening. Two knives lay close to her head.
[216] He panicked and picked up the knives and threw them in the sink. He was upset. The portable home phone did not work. He used his cell phone to call 9-1-1. Dilpreet was also trying to call 9-1-1 using Chantal Allain’s cellphone.
[217] A bloody steel bar lay near Jagtar’s body. He did not initially realize that the steel bar was his own weightlifting bar from the basement.
[218] A small table lay broken under Jagtar’s body. He thought an intruder had entered his home. In the summer of 2012 and 2013 there were thefts occurring in Asian homes in his neighbourhood by thieves who believed the homes contained large quantities of gold. The Gills had a large quantity of gold in the safe.
[219] He thought the intruder might have tried to take the password to the safe from his wife. The safe had a time delayed opening mechanism which Jagtar could not master.
[220] He picked up the metal bar near his wife’s body. He picked it up to protect himself, Dilpreet, Chantal Allain and Ishwar.
[221] Armed with the metal bar in his hand, he went upstairs to see if anyone was there. He left the children on the main floor while he went upstairs to also check the safe.
[222] Mr. Gill believed the Wiltshire knife and the smaller KitchenAid knife which were Exhibit 13 and 14 in this trial were the same ones he moved from near his wife’s head and put in the kitchen sink. He believed they were the same knives he had used to make breakfast sandwiches that morning.
[223] Mr. Gill was upstairs for a few seconds. He realized the blood-stained weightlifting bar was his own. He went to the basement to see if someone was in the basement. No one was there. The weights that used to be attached to the metal bar were on the floor. He felt upset and nervous.
[224] He thought about the bloody metal weightlifting bar being his own bar. He thought of his fingerprints on the bar. He also thought about Jagtar’s brother falsely accusing him of threatening to kill Jagtar in 2004.
[225] Fear gripped him. He pushed the bloody metal weightlifting bar into the Christmas tree box in the basement. He did not notice that the face plate of the Smartbox had been removed and the wires pulled out. He returned to the main floor.
[226] He had blood on his hand. There had been blood on the metal bar. He washed his hands. The knives he had thrown in the sink may have been there when he washed his hands.
[227] Mr. Gill denied cleaning up the crime scene by washing the knives. He said it was because of nervousness—as those two knives were very close to Jagtar—that he threw the knives away. Mr. Gill denied that he placed the bloody weightlifting bar into the Christmas tree box for the purpose of cleaning up after the homicide.
[228] Mr. Gill said he might “faint on himself” in his 9-1-1 call. He said that he meant he was upset and felt like he might pass out. He did not recall the knives when he spoke to Sgt. Kinnear on January 29th.[^10] No one asked him either, he said. The many cuts on Jagtar made him feel like he might faint.
[229] He did not remember if he told police about moving Jagtar’s body, or if police had asked about it. He said he just tried to shake Jagtar to see what happened to her. He did not intend to interfere with the investigation by touching her.
[230] The Crown suggested that he knew on January 29th that the police were investigating Jagtar’s death. He had no information and he did not think about it, he said.
[231] The Crown suggested that he interfered with important evidence in the case. Mr. Gill denied that he realized at the time that the knives next to Jagtar’s head were important evidence.
[232] He thought that Jagtar may have tried to cut herself, so he was upset and picked up the knives and threw them in the sink. The metal bar was close to Jagtar somewhere. He was not a doctor or a policeman therefore he did not realize that the police investigation would benefit from examining those knives.
[233] He had no clue that the metal bar was an important piece of evidence at that time.
[234] He recalled that in 2004 Jagtar’s brother levelled an allegation against him that he wanted to kill Jagtar. He was upset and put the bar in the Christmas tree box. He knew that Jagtar did not hit herself with the bar. He had no clue that the bar could be evidence, although it had blood on it.
[235] He knew he had not killed Jagtar so he was not worried that the police would see him as a suspect.
The Handling of the Knives:
[236] Mr. Gill washed his hands in the same sink where he had placed the knives. In his January 30th statement to police, he said the knives were in the sink. He said twice in that statement that he was not sure if he washed the knives. He indicated in the statement that he had blood on his hand, and he washed his hand and soaked it up with the towel.
[237] He denied discussing the knives with anyone. In his April 13th statement he said he discussed the knives and the metal bar with Dilpreet. In this trial, Mr. Gill could not recall the conversation with Dilpreet.
[238] In his April 13th statement he said he saw his wife’s neck cut. He became nervous and scared. He touched the knives and then thought “why did I touch them?” He saw blood on his hand and washed it. He picked up those knives because he was nervous and because they were the knives he used that morning. He later thought it was possible that his fingerprints were on the knives. In the 2016 trial he agreed he said he had no way of knowing that one of those knives next to Jagtar was the one that he had used in the morning. He acknowledged that his answer at that time was, “Nobody can tell that—what’s the difference in these four knives.”
[239] In this trial Mr. Gill said that his prior answer referred to four knives, but there were two knives that he used that morning. The Crown pointed out that the KitchenAid knife in the photo is identical to the ones remaining in the block and there is no way that Mr. Gill could have known whether it was the same knife he had touched that morning. Mr. Gill repeated that he only used two knives not four. The Crown pointed to his January 30th statement to Sgt. Kinnear where he was asked whether he used both knives when cutting the onions and he said, “so I do not know I used the same knife again or a different knife.” Sgt. Kinnear said, “So but you find two knives, you may have only used one knife, but you find two knives?” Mr. Gill replied to the detective, “Yes sir.”
[240] Mr. Gill then said that he forgot to mention to Sgt. Kinnear that one of the knives he used gave him trouble when he cut onions, and as he made a sandwich for Scott Fewer he used the KitchenAid knife. He denied that he washed the knives as part of a plan with Ms. Ronald to get away with this murder.
[241] Mr. Gill advised Det. Benson he disposed of the metal bar immediately after discovering it. In his April 13th statement he said that he discovered the bar beside the box when he brought down Christmas decorations from the laundry room. As Det. Benson revealed he had photographs and finally revealed he had a video camera installed in Mr. Gill’s basement, Mr. Gill admitted that in fact, he had not been putting away Christmas decorations. The bar was in the box, not beside the box. He did not dispose of the bar on the day he discovered it but spent time on subsequent days checking on the bar and concealing it on his person before he finally disposed of it on February 9th.
[242] Mr. Gill asked Ms. Ronald if she was involved in Jagtar’s death. He believed she had nothing to do with the murder as the same false claims had been made against him. He heard rumours that Ms. Ronald killed Jagtar, and later heard that he and Ms. Ronald killed Jagtar together. Ms. Ronald had always been nice to his family. She not only cut the women’s hair; she attended their family events.
[243] When Mr. Fewer visited him at 2477 Regatta Avenue on January 30th, Mr. Gill confided in his friend that he had thrown the knives into the sink. He asked Mr. Fewer what he should do. Mr. Fewer told him he should get a good lawyer as the spouse is always a suspect and that maybe he should tell the police.
[244] Mr. Gill said he did not disclose anything else to Mr. Fewer and did not discuss the matter any further with his friend.
[245] Mr. Gill went to speak to police after speaking to Mr. Fewer. He told police he threw the knives into the sink. He thought he received the keys to his home on February 5th, 2014. In fact, he received the keys to his home on February 6th, 2014 from Sgt. Kinnear at the Elgin Street Police Station. A male family member of the Gill family, not Mr. Gill, entered the basement first on February 6th and left. Mr. Gill then entered the basement.
[246] He went to the funeral home on February 5th to meet with the funeral director. The funeral director advised him that Jagtar’s face could not be viewed at the funeral due to many injuries caused by a heavy object striking her face. At that moment, he thought that the object which caused the injuries to his wife’s face, precluding an open casket, could be the same bar he placed in the Christmas tree box in his basement. When access to the house was restored to him, he wanted to check to see if what he was thinking about the bar was correct or not. He had no memory of the metal weightlifting bar until he spoke to the funeral director. He was upset because the bar belonged to him. He said he did not know whether police were able to recover it by that time or not.
[247] Ms. Ronald attended 2477 Regatta Avenue on February 5th to pay her condolences. Mr. Gill denied that he and Ms. Ronald were alone on February 5th when she attended his sister’s home. Mr. Gill considered Ms. Ronald a close friend. Jagtar appeared to be friends with Ms. Ronald. Ms. Ronald spent quite a bit of time at his home with Jagtar and himself. Sometimes she spent time with Jagtar. During these interactions, Mr. Gill never observed any arguments between Jagtar and Ms. Ronald.
[248] Mr. Gill recognized himself on the basement video checking the bar in the box in the February 6th, 2014 video compilation.
[249] The second clip from the basement video collected by police was February 6th, 2014 at 15:10:12 on the video time stamp. Mr. Gill is depicted on the video. Mr. Dhaliwal, his brother-in-law, is also captured on the video in the basement. Mr. Gill said he did not know why Mr. Dhaliwal was in the basement at that time.
[250] The household groceries were stored in the basement. On February 6th, 2014 at 15:11:30, Mr. Dhaliwal and Mr. Gill are in the basement. On February 7th, 2014 at 19:11:55, Mr. Gill’s father Avtar Gill and his nephew Taj Hans are in the basement.
[251] Mr. Gill’s two sisters, Ms. Toor and Harpreet Sidhu, are also in the basement video. On February 7th, 2014 at 19:41:12, Mr. Gill’s two sisters and his nephew are in the basement. Mr. Gill’s nephew carries a bag of milk upstairs at 19:14:50.
[252] Mr. Gill’s father carried a pair of winter boots upstairs. On February 8th, 2014 at 18:58:45, Mr. Gill and his sister Harmesh Dhaliwal are in the basement.
[253] Jagtar’s brother accused Mr. Gill of murdering Jagtar when they were at the funeral home. Mr. Gill thought about the fact that the metal weightlifting bar which was used to kill Jagtar was the same bar he placed in the box. He said that at that moment he would not allow the bar in his house because Jagtar’s brother had levelled many allegations against Mr. Gill.
[254] Mr. Gill said he did not remember what he was doing behind the furnace in the February 8th clip at the 19:00:31 video time stamp. Mr. Gill said he went to the stairs, came back and went down again.
[255] Mr. Gill is on the camera again in the basement carrying two bags of flour upstairs on February 8th, 2014 at 19:01:37.
[256] He lifted the metal bar from the Christmas tree box and took it from the home on February 9th, 2014.
[257] He threw the metal bar away in the woods. He gave a statement to police on January 29th, 2014, January 30th, 2014 and April 13th, 2014.
[258] While he spoke to the police on January 30th and disclosed what he had done with the knives, he had no memory of the weightlifting bar. He had no memory of the weightlifting bar until he had the conversation with the funeral director about Jagtar’s facial injuries.
[259] In his January 29th statement to police he advised that Ms. Ronald called him the morning of the homicide. He provided police with Gurpreet Ronald’s phone number and name. He was not sure if he told them she called him that day. In fact, he did tell police that he had spoken to Ms. Ronald that day.
[260] Mr. Gill indicated the affair was over when he gave his statement to Det. Benson in April, therefore he did not say anything about the affair in his first two police statements. Mr. Gill is protected by the right to silence and is protected from self-incrimination. He is not required to disclose information to police, and he can be selective in what he discloses without a negative inference being drawn in relation to his credibility.
[261] He initially denied an affair with Ms. Ronald in his statement to Det. Benson. He gave this answer as he was not having an affair with Ms. Ronald at that time. The second time he was asked whether he had an affair with her, he did not want his children or any family member to find out about the affair, so he did not tell the truth. The third time he was asked, he admitted that he had an affair with Ms. Ronald, but said it ended in September or October of 2013. At the conclusion of the statement, Mr. Gill was charged with first degree murder.
[262] There was no plan to get rid of Jagtar. Mr. Gill never wanted to be rid of his wife, and he wanted to be in a relationship with his wife. Ms. Ronald never said anything about wanting to get rid of Jagtar. There was no plan for Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill to be together. No one in the family called Jagtar Hitler, or called her a Nazi, or Nazi woman.
[263] Mr. Gill did not tell police of the other calls he received from Ms. Ronald that day, or that he had met her at the Sobeys. Again, he is not required to disclose information to police. He is protected against self-incrimination. He can selectively disclose information without a negative inference arising.
[264] Mr. Gill looked at photograph JLT0293 at page 128 of Exhibit 7, the photobook. The photograph is of the Smartbox containing telephone wires and internet connections to the house without the cover. The wires were ripped out of the box.
[265] The Smartbox normally has a cover on it. The Smartbox was installed by Tamarack builders and the installation included three months of free internet, which was connected to Rogers in the summer of 2013.
[266] Mr. Gill had transferred his phone service to COMWAVE. Disconnecting the Smartbox in the basement did not disconnect phone service to 174 Brambling Way. Only one wire had to be disconnected from the adaptor, which was not in the basement, but the main floor office. At 11:34:32 a.m. on January 29th, 2014 there was a call between 174 Brambling Way to Dr. Brar’s office. There was a second call with Dr. Brar’s office at 11:37 a.m. No one was home at the time except Jagtar Gill.
[267] Mr. Gill said he did not dismantle the Smartbox in the basement. He also did not pull the wire from the COMWAVE adaptor.
[268] Mr. Gill did not work after Jagtar’s murder. He received 80 per cent of his pay. He was at home and wondering how he would take care of his children. He lived at 2477 Regatta Avenue. He arranged counselling for himself and for his children.
[269] Mr. Gill agreed to take a polygraph test when Det. Benson unexpectedly asked him to during his April 13th statement. The lawyer he consulted, not Mr. Harbic, provided him no legal advice pertaining to the polygraph.
[270] He understood in providing a cautioned statement whatever he said would be admissible in court. Mr. Gill did not know what a polygraph was, and Det. Benson explained that it was a machine which could discern whether he was speaking the truth or not.
[271] Mr. Gill agreed to the polygraph test during his statement to Det. Benson. He reaffirmed this position at trial. During the interview, Mr. Gill also asked Det. Benson if he was going to slap him. Mr. Gill said an officer slapped him in India for failing to stand up when a senior officer entered the room. Mr. Gill has no criminal record, in Canada nor in India.
[272] Mr. Gill could not recall Ms. Ronald waving from her front door when he drove by her house at around 11 a.m.
[273] Dilpreet initially wanted to stay home with her mom. Mr. Gill told Sgt. Kinnear he believed she did not want to go with him on January 29th. At trial he said he did not make her come with him. He said her mom wanted her to return library books and get groceries.
[274] He did not go to his basement and take the weights and collars from his weightlifting bar. He did not bring that bar to the main level of the home. He did not leave the bar for Gurpreet Ronald to attack his wife as part of a murder plan.
[275] When he was on the 9-1-1 call, he went upstairs to check the bedroom and went to the basement. Mr. Gill denied Ms. Ronald had hidden the bar upstairs for him to retrieve.
[276] He was concerned his fingerprints were on the bar. His brother-in-law had made allegations against him regarding Jagtar in 2004. The Crown pointed out that he must have known that the bar was a weapon used in a very serious crime against his wife. Mr. Gill was evasive in his answer. He first said he was upset and nervous about what had happened to Jagtar. Mr. Neubauer repeated the question. Mr. Gill then said that he was very upset and nervous, and it was hard for him to understand what was going on and what he was doing. Mr. Neubauer repeated the question again, and Mr. Gill responded, “Because I didn’t commit any crime, that time I was very much nervous because that time Jagtar in a very critical condition. Whatever I did that time I did it because I was nervous.” At that point I intervened and directed Mr. Gill to answer the question which was whether he was aware the bar was used in the crime against his wife.
[277] The question was repeated a number of times before Mr. Gill finally admitted he understood someone other than him had used the bar to hurt his wife. He said that he did not know who had used this bar because he picked up the bar for his protection or safety.
[278] Although he agreed Jagtar did not use the bar on herself, he also said that he did not know if someone had hit or killed Jagtar, or she did it to herself. First responders thought she had committed suicide as well, he said. However, by the time the first responders arrived, Mr. Gill had already hidden the bar in the Christmas tree box. Mr. Gill said he hid the bar not to conceal it from police, as suggested by the Crown, but because he was extremely scared as his brother-in-law had made a false allegation about him threatening to kill Jagtar in 2004. Mr. Gill admitted that the weightlifting bar could connect him to what happened to Jagtar because his fingerprints were on it. He denied thinking that the weightlifting bar was a useful piece of evidence to help determine what happened to Jagtar. He said he hid the bar because of fear and nervousness.
[279] When he went to the basement the first time, he did not go there to hide the weightlifting bar. When he realized the weightlifting bar belonged to him, out of fear and nervousness, he hid the bar. Mr. Gill resisted admitting that he hid the weightlifting bar hoping no one would find it. He said he did not think of that at the time.
[280] Mr. Gill said if he had any idea what had happened to Jagtar, he would not have let Dilpreet enter the house. She saw her mother in a terrible condition. As a result of what she had seen, she was suicidal for two years. She may have to consult a doctor for the rest of her life.
[281] The Crown pointed out that Mr. Gill did not stay with Dilpreet and Ishwar and Chantal Allain but left the children to go through the house. The Crown suggested that if he thought an attacker was still present, he would have cleared the children out of the house. Mr. Gill said he was nervous at the time. He admitted that he did not tell the 9-1-1 operator that he was going upstairs and into the basement while on the call.
[282] In cross-examination, Mr. Gill admitted that he knew his fingerprints were on the bar. However, he resisted acknowledging that he knew the killer’s fingerprints could be on the bar. Mr. Gill resisted admitting that the weightlifting bar would be very useful to the police in investigating his wife’s murder. Mr. Gill said he was thinking about himself and his children exclusively and was not aware of the importance, or unimportance of that weightlifting bar.
[283] Mr. Gill agreed that he had bank records and store receipts which would prove that he was not at home when Jagtar was killed. He acknowledged he knew he had Dilpreet as a witness to say where he was that morning. He also agreed that his fingerprints would be expected to be on household items in his own house.
[284] He denied disposing of evidence and tampering with evidence to help the killer get away with murder and to help himself get away with this murder. He denied that it was his assigned role to dispose of evidence related to the murder.
[285] Mr. Gill denied telling Ms. Shields at the MacLaren Street meeting that he had an arranged marriage and three children. He said that the purpose of the MacLaren Street meeting was only to sell his home. He initially said he could not remember if he had ever used the services of a psychic. He did not believe in such things he said.
[286] He admitted that he had a friend named Pawan Kumar in India who he helped with money. That friend told him that with astrology any future problem can be resolved. Mr. Gill denied being interested in what an astrologer could tell him as he does not trust such things. However, he provided his date of birth just to check whether the astrologer could make accurate predictions, or if the claim was false.
[287] Mr. Gill denied paying Mr. Kumar any money for the reading. He paid Mr. Kumar approximately $2,000 in 2010. He denied that he approached Mr. Kumar seeking information from astrological sources. Mr. Kumar was the one who offered to get the information. Mr. Gill denied that he wanted any information about Ms. Ronald from the astrologer. He said that the astrology report pertained to himself, Jagtar and the children. Ms. Ronald had nothing to do with it. Ms. Ronald learned about his discussions with Mr. Kumar when Ms. Ronald walked on to his bus and learned what he was talking about.
[288] This conversation took place around Christmas of 2013. Jagtar Gill was still alive. Mr. Gill denied that he had discussed Mr. Kumar with Ms. Ronald before the day that she overheard them speaking. He and Ms. Ronald discussed Mr. Kumar either later the same day or within a few days of his conversation with Mr. Kumar. He told Ms. Ronald that he had provided Jagtar Gill’s date of birth and the children’s date of birth to Mr. Kumar. Ms. Ronald told him she wanted to get readings for herself, for her children and for Jason Ronald.
[289] He received a reading on January 27th. The astrologer’s prediction was that there could be a big problem in Jagtar’s abdomen. It was possible that Jagtar could die for any reason. Mr. Gill should divorce and remarry again.
[290] Mr. Gill shared this dire prediction with Jagtar as they drove to the hospital before her surgery. Mr. Gill could not remember the astrologer telling him that his second marriage would be a happy and safe one. He recalled being told Jagtar may die and that his work might change. Mr. Gill denied paying money to Mr. Kumar for the reading.
[291] His friend paid for the astrology reports, not him. A report would cost $100 to $200 rupees, which is about four Canadian dollars.
[292] The name Satpal was on the bottom of the astrological report dated January 14th, 2014. The report was in Hindi. He would have received the report in March or April of 2014.
[293] A WhatsApp text sent on November 21st, 2013 from Mr. Gill to Mr. Kumar was recovered by police. The text confirmed cash and a code had been sent to Mr. Kumar. Mr. Gill then said he sent 65,200 rupees, about $1,185 in Canadian currency, to Mr. Kumar in November of 2013. This payment of money was not for astrology but was a further offer of financial help to Mr. Kumar.
[294] Ms. Ronald wanted readings for herself, her children and Jason Ronald. He passed on Mr. Kumar’s number to Ms. Ronald so that she could call directly. Mr. Gill received the reading after he spoke to Mr. Kumar the first time.
[295] Mr. Gill denied belief in astrology. He said he just wanted to check whether it was true or untrue. In his April 13 statement to Det. Benson, Mr. Gill said he did not receive the astrological information until after Jagtar Gill had already died. He also made reference to his karma.
[296] At trial, he testified that he learned of the astrologer’s prediction two days before Jagtar died. When asked about this discrepancy in his evidence, he said he may have forgotten about the discussion on January 27th and the discussion which took place afterward when he spoke to Det. Benson. There were a few things he could not remember. He spoke to his friend Mr. Kumar on January 27th, but he did not believe anything, feeling that everything is “bogus”. After the death of his wife, he called the astrologer directly himself. The astrologer indicated that he had already explained everything to his friend.
[297] He may have told his sisters about the astrology reading after Jagtar’s death. It was possible that he may have told someone else about it. He could not remember who he told. Ms. Ronald had no involvement in the astrology readings. He spoke to Mr. Kumar after Jagtar’s death. He wanted to know what would happen. He did not ask him for anything else, but Mr. Kumar had some explanations that he was going to provide. It was possible that he might have asked Mr. Kumar to speak to an astrologer for him because he wanted to know what else can happen in the future. He did not want to know about his future with Ms. Ronald. He provided his ring size to Mr. Kumar, as putting on a ring can decrease problems.
[298] He agreed that he called Mr. Kumar on April 7th, 2014. He asked Mr. Kumar whether he had gone to the priest astrologer again.
[299] Ms. Ronald’s sister and brother were going to pick up the reports in India. Mr. Gill denied that he and Ms. Ronald sought out the reports together. He admitted that he told Ms. Ronald he had astrology reports prepared. He knew that Ms. Ronald’s sister and brother were to pick up the astrology reports. However, when asked whether Ms. Ronald told him that she also had astrology reports prepared by Mr. Kumar, he said it was possible, but he cannot remember everything that happened seven years ago.
[300] The phone records in this case establish that Gurpreet Ronald called Mr. Gill at 1 a.m. on April 4th. She had received the “Killer” note. Mr. Gill was observed by surveillance officers as he attended her home. Ms. Ronald’s sister was home at the time. Mr. Gill indicated he had an interest in the resolution of the door problem which Ms. Ronald was having addressed by Tamarack.
[301] On April 7th, Det. Benson called Mr. Gill to tell him police had made progress and were about to make an arrest in the death of his wife. Mr. Gill says, “okay.” Det. Benson then said that the police will be making an arrest sometime this week. Mr. Gill says, “okay.”
[302] Det. Benson asked Mr. Gill to keep this information to himself until an arrest was made. Once an arrest was made and a charge laid, Det. Benson said that police would be in contact to follow up. There was no evidence that Mr. Gill ever told Ms. Ronald about this pending arrest.
[303] Mr. Gill says, “Alright, that’s good news.” He then says “all right so basically I can get my stuff back from you guys like safe and my monies which I needed. Thank you so much for calling me.” Mr. Gill does not ask any questions regarding the identity of the killer. No inference can be drawn from Mr. Gill not asking about the identity of his wife’s killer. Conduct after a crime is admissible as post-offence conduct where it provides circumstantial evidence of guilt. The fact that the law imposes no duty to speak or to cooperate with the police severs any link between silence and guilt: see R. v. Turcotte, 2005 SCC 50, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 519.
[304] There were no intercepts between Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald relating to Mr. Gill telling Ms. Ronald that police were closing in on the killer. Police also arranged a sting where they hoped to capture conversations between Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald at the Chateau Laurier hotel. Neither Ms. Ronald nor Mr. Gill attended the hotel.[^11]
[305] Det. Benson asked Ms. Ronald for her DNA on April 8th, 2014. Ms. Ronald was on the phone to Mr. Gill within minutes of getting off the phone with Det. Benson. Mr. Gill does not ask Ms. Ronald why police would request her DNA. He indicated in his evidence he did not think it would be Ms. Ronald who killed Jagtar.
[306] In his statement to Det. Benson, Mr. Gill said that he told Ms. Ronald he was not working and would not be able to help her choose her work. He did not say that in his conversation with Ms. Ronald.
[307] Ms. Ronald was arrested on April 8th. Her lawyer called Mr. Gill. Mr. Gill called his sister, Ms. Dhaliwal. The conversation was captured by intercept and tendered as part of the Crown’s evidence against Mr. Gill. He told his sister, Ms. Dhaliwal, it was “bad news”; Gurpreet had been charged with first degree murder.
[308] Ms. Dhaliwal said, “Gurpreet, why?” Mr. Gill said he did not know why. He said he had received a phone call from police yesterday. Mr. Gill indicated that the detective told him to keep a pending arrest in confidence and not tell anyone before the weekend. Ms. Dhaliwal said, “oh like how?”
[309] Mr. Gill said he did not know, the police officer called him yesterday, he was gone to counselling today. He said the lawyer called to tell him that police had charged her. He told his sister not to tell anyone yet, not to even tell anyone at home yet. He said, “don’t know I am going to see Jagmel for now.” Ms. Dhaliwal asked, “What should we do now?” Mr. Gill replied, “What do I know now Ramesh what to do and what not.” Ms. Dhaliwal said “okay”. Mr. Gill said, “right” and Ms. Dhaliwal responds by saying “huh?” Mr. Gill said, “so no need to panic yet.” Ms. Dhaliwal say,“okay” and Mr. Gill said “let see what we do and what not.” Ms. Dhaliwal said “okay.” Mr. Gill said, “something bad will happen.”
[310] Mr. Gill offered to take a polygraph during his interview with Det. Benson. He allowed his home to be searched without a warrant before police sought a warrant. He agreed to a request for his computer by Sgt. Kinnear. He gave three voluntary cautioned statements to police.
[311] Mr. Gill maintained that he had nothing to do with the murder of his wife. His affair with Ms. Ronald was over by the fall of 2013. He put the knives in the sink and washed his hands; he did not wash the knives. He put the knives in the sink out of fear and nervousness. He hid the bar out of fear. He feared he would be blamed for the homicide because of allegations made against him by his brother-in-law that he threatened to kill Jagtar. His wife’s family still bore him animus. He disposed of the bar, but not because he was involved in the homicide. He would not have allowed his daughter to witness her mother’s body in such a terrible condition if he knew Jagtar had been murdered.
[312] Police held a press conference on April 11t asking for the public’s help in relation to the “located” weightlifting bar. Mr. Gill called regarding the bar on April 13th. He was arrested by Sgt. Edgar on the same day. He was provided his right to counsel and taken to the police station at 474 Elgin Street. He gave an interview exceeding five hours to Det. Benson.
The Evidence of Jason Nadeau:
[313] Det. Nadeau testified on behalf of the defence remotely by Zoom. On January 29th, 2014 he attended the home of the extended Gill family at 2477 Regatta Avenue along with Constable Dirado. They arrived around 6:30 p.m.
[314] He attempted conversation with Ms. Toor. There was a language barrier. He spoke to Ms. Dhaliwal first without difficulty. He could not interview Ms. Toor due to language difficulties.
The Evidence of Charles Bond:
[315] Charles Bond is a firefighter who attended 174 Brambling Way on January 29th, 2014. He observed Mr. Gill to appear dazed and confused and spaced out. He relayed his observations to police. He said Mr. Gill appeared shocked.
[316] Mr. Bond is an experienced firefighter with almost 27 years of experience. He did not immediately observe Mr. Gill when he entered the home. As he left the home, he noted Mr. Gill’s demeanour and appearance. Mr. Bond did not move Jagtar’s body. He did not observe knives near the crime scene.
The Evidence of Jason Ronald:
[317] Mr. Ronald is the former husband of Gurpreet Ronald. They have two daughters. He married Gurpreet Ronald on February 1st, 2001 after dating for a few months. They are divorced.
[318] Both sets of parents disapproved of the marriage. The first child was born in 2002 and the second child in 2004. The relationship deteriorated after the birth of the second child.
[319] Having two small children caused pressure within the family. Mr. Ronald was working at 3M in Perth after the JDS plant closed. He then remained home with the two children.
[320] Ms. Ronald left her work as a hairstylist to work at OC Transpo. Mr. Ronald drank too much at times. He began working at OC Transpo and continues to work there. The nature of his work schedule caused stress in his marriage, as it does for many bus drivers, he said.
[321] He did not start formal divorce proceedings until Ms. Ronald was arrested for murder. He thought there was hope the marriage would prevail and that they would remain together. He held this hope even during the months of March and April of 2014. He wanted to stay with his wife until the children were older. He suspected Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill were having an affair.
[322] His wife stopped sleeping with him or being affectionate to him after she began working with Mr. Gill. She denied cheating.
[323] He did not notice any change in his wife’s behaviour in October, November, December and January.
[324] He was fed up and could not provide the emotional support she needed.
[325] He testified to prior incidents where Ms. Ronald was alleged to have come at him with a knife during argument. This evidence was only admissible as exculpatory evidence in relation to Mr. Gill and was not admissible against Ms. Ronald.
[326] Mr. Ronald testified that the incidents were similar. A long argument took place. He walked away from Ms. Ronald and she came toward him with a knife in her upraised hand.
[327] He was not injured in these fights. Ms. Ronald never connected with the knife blade. The knife attacks were eerily similar he said. She always used the largest knife available.
[328] In one of the attacks, her child, who was 10 at the time, said, “What’s with the fucking knife Mommy?” The child observed her parents from the bottom of the stairs. The child was crying. Ms. Ronald immediately stopped and went to comfort the child.
[329] The final incident happened at 303 Towhee Place. The Ronalds were arguing about how they were going to divide their finances. Mr. Ronald was ready to walk out the door. He wanted to split everything evenly. Ms. Ronald came at him with a knife. She fell down the stairs, injuring her back. [^12]
[330] The arguments were always about money. He did not want to move to 303 Towhee Place. The same Tamarack builders who installed the Smartbox in the Gill home installed it in the Ronald home. The box in the Ronald home was operational.
[331] Mr. Harbic reviewed a number of text messages between Ms. Ronald and Jason Ronald. I have summarized only the most relevant.
[332] Ms. Ronald threatened to kill herself on December 29th and complained Mr. Ronald would not answer her call.
[333] Mr. Ronald texted that Ms. Ronald is unbelievable. Ms. Ronald texted that Mr. Ronald attacked her when she said she wanted to be married, and she had been left hanging. Mr. Ronald responds by text that they can talk in the morning. He chides her for not being willing to wait to talk. He calls her a control freak and asks her to just let it rest. Ms. Ronald texts back that she is not a control freak; that it is going to be his decision to leave her and that she still thinks it is a bad idea, but she cannot force him to love her. She texts come home; we can together fix it. And then she asks him if he is with someone. These particular texts were generated between January 10th and January 12th, 2014.
[334] Mr. Ronald responded that he wanted some time and he would be home soon, and he did not want to talk before bed; they could talk in the morning. They agree to talk.
[335] Ms. Ronald texts that they need to talk; this is going too far. Ms. Ronald texts that she loves Mr. Ronald very much, that she and the kids miss Mr. Ronald; she asks that he talk to them.
[336] Mr. Ronald indicates that his phone had died, that he would be home and asks where Ms. Ronald would like him to sleep. Ms. Ronald observed Mr. Ronald at his girlfriend’s home and was angry.
[337] Ms. Ronald sent a text about feeling insecure about the finances and indicated that she had withdrawn the money to be safe. This text was sent on January 18th. She indicated she could not trust him. She texted that if he did not come home, they would go from there.
[338] Mr. Ronald texted back that they had already agreed to speak in the morning. He asks if this is a “knife night.” He points out that he feels Ms. Ronald just threatened to throw him out with nothing. He asks if he should pack his clothes, or sleep at a friend’s house. This reference to a “knife night” is not admissible against Ms. Ronald.
[339] Mr. Ronald said the reference to a knife night is a reference to the incidents discussed earlier in his evidence. I did not consider this reference except in terms of exculpatory evidence in regard to Mr. Gill.
[340] Mr. Ronald texted that he thought they were going to keep things reasonable. He called her a crazy, mad woman in a text. He said the worst part is she was going to take his car and phone away.
[341] The reference to Ms. Ronald being a “crazy, mad” woman is relevant to Mr. Gill’s defence. It makes it more likely as a matter of logic that Ms. Ronald was in a crazed state and was more likely to lose control of herself. This evidence is material to whether the killing of Jagtar Gill was a spontaneous act, or a planned murder. The reference is also pejorative. It was introduced by the defence, where prejudice must substantially outweigh probative value to warrant exclusion. I admitted this evidence only to exculpate Mr. Gill. It is the theory of Mr. Gill’s defence that Ms. Ronald flew into a sudden and unpredictable rage and killed Jagtar. Ms. Ronald, according to Mr. Gill’s defence, was under a tremendous amount of stress. She was overcome with anger which may have been sparked by something Jagtar said or did. I did not consider this evidence as inculpatory evidence against Ms. Ronald.
[342] Mr. Ronald texted that he is talking to someone now and will get up with the girls the next day. Ms. Ronald said she needs to speak to him. She asked him to call and not ignore her. He asked her what she got at IKEA and she said nothing.
[343] Ms. Ronald asked him to calculate what he brought to the marriage financially. She asked him to make a list of the things he wants. They will sit down and go over them.
[344] Ms. Ronald said they can only work it out if he is calm. She came to the same decision he proposed weeks ago. There is no need to bash each other; the past is the past, deal with the future. She sends him a list of the bills.
[345] After a further exchange, she texts that she was too angry to speak to Mr. Ronald. She called him a liar and self-centred. She did not want to discuss anything with him as he had ignored her for all these years, and he could go fuck himself. She texted that he would regret this one day, but it will be too late, she did not want hope from him anymore. Each week she would take $850 out of the account and the rest was his to do what he wants. Have a nice life without me, she texted.
[346] Mr. Ronald responded that after the first month he should be able to pay all at once. He said he did not lie. Ms. Ronald texted that the financial arrangements will be on the terms she suggested, and she is not going to chase him for money.
[347] The texts indicate that while Mr. Ronald thought they had an agreement; they did not agree on the terms. He indicated that he had been home and put the kids to bed but was staying at a friend’s house after their conversation today. She texted back that she hoped he was happy and at least one of them was getting laid; glad to know he was happy. She then asked him to call her and said it was urgent.
[348] On January 29th, Ms. Ronald sent Mr. Ronald a text saying, “call me it’s urgent.” Mr. Ronald called her back. His records show the call was made, but he could not recall it without reviewing his statement to police.
[349] Ms. Ronald texted Mr. Ronald on January 29th that the police were there investigating and that she told them that he was sleeping at a friend’s house. They have his number and are going to call. She then texted: “Call me when you have a chance.”
[350] He texted back that he stayed out because she asked him to do so, and he was giving her space. She asked if they can talk.
[351] She texted: “Call me please. I need your help babe. She texted that she misses him too much.”
[352] She texted: “Call me please, detectives had called me for both of us to do an interview at Elgin Street tonight before 8 p.m.”
[353] The went to the police station together on January 29th. Ms. Ronald’s sister drove them. Ms. Ronald was visibly nervous. Mr. Ronald said he felt weirded out and asked her why she was so nervous. He asked her whether she had killed Jagtar. Ms. Ronald said, “no.” Mr. Ronald told her to calm down.
[354] I drew no inference from the evidence of Ms. Ronald’s nervousness. It is to be expected that she would be nervous in a murder investigation, especially when she knew she had an affair with the deceased’s husband.
[355] Mr. Ronald sent a photo of his girlfriend to Ms. Ronald, who had asked for the photo. He texted that he was going to break it off with his girlfriend and come home.
[356] Ms. Ronald was insisting that he break off the relationship. There were also texts where Ms. Ronald is asking where Mr. Ronald is at and asking what is going on. Mr. Ronald texted that Ms. Ronald had taken his bank card. This taking of the bank card was not established on the evidence. Ms. Ronald denied it and I found it just as likely that Mr. Ronald had misplaced his bank card.
[357] Mr. Ronald texted that he was not in the mood to talk and then indicated he was sick of this shit. Ms. Ronald asked why he was always taking it out on her. This text was on January 9th. She then asked him to call.
[358] On January 9th, 2014 at 9:57:40 p.m., Mr. Ronald had a 33-minute phone conversation with Ms. Ronald.[^13] His marriage was in shambles at this time. They were debating and arguing over how they were going to separate and look after the kids. There were debates about the bills and how Mr. Ronald would pay his share.
[359] Things were off and on and a lot of mind games were being played, he said. The relationship was off until it was convenient for Ms. Ronald, and then suddenly, he was necessary and wanted again. This pattern had been going on for years, he said.
[360] On one occasion he went over to Mr. Gill’s house as he wanted to tell him if he wanted Ms. Ronald, he could take her. Mr. Gill was not home. Only Jagtar was home.
[361] Ms. Ronald asked him to lie to the police about being at his girlfriend’s house on the night of the homicide. Mr. Ronald indicated he would not lie to police in a murder investigation. Mr. Ronald agreed that he was not completely candid with police as he thought police would be looking at his wife. He believed at the time that she was innocent of any involvement. Ms. Ronald did not ask him to mislead the police regarding whether she was having an affair. Mr. Ronald told Det. Cookson in his interview that he spent the prior night at his girlfriend’s, and he was there until around 1 a.m. He then said he went to Jamie’s house, returning later to his girlfriend’s house. He was there all night and went to work the next day.
[362] Shortly after Mr. Gill was hired at OC Transpo all sex between the Ronalds ceased and they slept separately. He was not aware that Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill saw each other before and after work and that they talked on the phone with each other constantly. They spoke in Punjabi. Mr. Ronald felt they spoke in Punjabi so he could not understand what was said. He felt there was something going on by the way that Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald looked at each other. Mr. Ronald felt his wife and Mr. Gill were flirting with each other in his presence.
[363] He kicked Mr. Gill out of his home one day because Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald were giggling together. He was told that if he wanted to understand what they were saying, he should learn to speak Punjabi. This incident occurred when he was living at 303 Towhee Place about four months before the murder of Jagtar Gill.
[364] When Ms. Ronald asked him to do something, he would say get your boyfriend to do it.
[365] He was only living in the home for the sake of the children toward the end. Ms. Ronald gave him false hope that things could be repaired in the marriage. Ms. Ronald made threats regarding what she would do to prevent him seeing the children. I disregarded this part of Mr. Ronald’s testimony completely. It was discreditable conduct evidence and inadmissible. Mr. Ronald also described his wife as greedy. I also disregarded this part of his testimony completely.
[366] Mr. Ronald said he made up his mind that he wanted his freedom in January of 2014. Ms. Ronald had some type of document drawn up, and there was back and forth negotiation regarding terms.
[367] Mr. Gill was still in and out of his home at this point. Ms. Ronald was cold toward Jagtar. The two women did not speak to each other and did not interact with one another at the few social gatherings that he attended at the Gill home.
[368] Ms. Ronald never told Mr. Ronald about being in the Gill home on the day Jagtar was murdered. She did not disclose she had cut her hand or disposed of the knife. She did not tell her husband about receiving the killer note.
[369] There was an admission in this case that UTC is the primary time standard by which the world regulates clocks and times. It does not observe daylight saving time. UTC is five hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time. UTC is four hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Savings Time. UTC is converted to local time according to the following schedules:
March 10 to November 3, 2013 local time is UTC minus four hours. For example, 10 a.m. UTC is 6 a.m. local time. November 3, 2013 to March 0, 2014 local time is UTC minus five hours, for example 10 a.m., UTC, 5 a.m. local time. March 3 to November 2, 2014 local time is UTC minus four hours so again, 10 a.m. UTC is 6 a.m. local time.
[370] I found Mr. Ronald to be credible witness. He was candid in his evidence. He was not seriously challenged in cross-examination.
The Evidence of Gurpreet Ronald – Examination-in-Chief:
[371] Ms. Ronald met Mr. Gill when she began her training as a bus driver for OC Transpo in 2007. She was 28 at the time. Like Mr. Gill, she had young children. Ms. Ronald’s two daughters were born in 2002 and 2004 respectively. She has not seen them since she was charged with the first- degree murder of Jagtar Gill.
[372] Ms. Ronald is from an area of India close to Punjab. She came to Canada with her father in 2000. Her sister Harpreet Dhesi was already living in Ottawa, Ontario. Ms. Ronald and her father lived with her sister. She attended hair dressing school and worked at a spa in Ottawa. When she began working at OC Transpo she worked primarily at night. This involved doing relief work to get a straight shift instead of a split shift. This working arrangement had good pay, and she could spend time with her children.
[373] Ms. Ronald met her future husband Jason Ronald while she was still living with her father in the summer or fall of 2000.
[374] She described feeling “love at first sight”. She married Jason Ronald on February 1st, 2001 after dating for a few months. Her family was unhappy she married a man outside of their culture. The relationship with her family eventually improved. Her marriage was happy until the birth of her second child in 2004. Mr. Ronald drank too much. He received treatment but relapsed. Her marriage was worsening in 2013. They frequently argued.
[375] She did not wish to separate, but Mr. Ronald raised the subject many times.
[376] The sexual aspect of the relationship with Mr. Gill was for a short period. The sex ended in 2010. In cross-examination, Ms. Ronald’s admitted that she had sex with Mr. Gill in 2013. She and Mr. Gill were sexually incompatible. Mr. Gill testified he had a sexual relationship with Ms. Ronald because he was not having sex with his own wife. He continued to have sex with Ms. Ronald until the fall of 2013. He testified that they had sex at his house, and at Ms. Ronald’s house. Ms. Ronald testified that they only had sex in the car.
[377] Ms. Ronald testified that while the physical challenges of sex made it difficult, her friendship continued with Mr. Gill. She spoke frequently to him while at work. Her husband was distant and drifting deeper into alcoholism. He sometimes “took off” and attempts to talk to him were thwarted by Mr. Ronald’s refusal to communicate. Arguments inevitably ensued.
[378] She was aware how frequently she was speaking to Mr. Gill. Jagtar Gill was her friend. She did not tell Jagtar Gill how frequently she spoke to her husband so as not to hurt her.
[379] Ms. Ronald felt her husband suspected she and Mr. Gill were more than friends. She did not disclose her infidelity to him. There were rumours of an affair between herself and Mr. Gill circulating. The affair was an emotional affair, not sexual. She received emotional support from Mr. Gill which she did not receive from her husband.
[380] She did not wish to leave Mr. Ronald to be with Mr. Gill. As far as she was aware, Mr. Gill did not want to leave his wife.
[381] Both Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald were interested in renovating their homes. They saw Susanne Shields, the psychic/clairvoyant, feng shui and life coach for a feng shui consultation only. In cross-examination, Ms. Ronald agreed that the meeting was not just for feng shui. The session at MacLaren Street was scheduled when the first clairvoyance session was unsuccessful.
[382] During the MacLaren Street meeting, Ms. Shields moved the conversation from feng shui to clairvoyance. Ms. Shields began discussing Ms. Ronald’s past lives, not with Mr. Gill, but with Jason Ronald. Ms. Ronald told her to stick to the subject of interest, which was feng shui. Ms. Ronald did not care about psychic predictions or information about past lives. She was only interested in feng shui so she could sell her house. She did not speak negatively about Jagtar in the presence of Susanne Shields.
The Events of January 29th, 2014:
[383] Ms. Ronald testified that she was not working on January 29th, 2014. She attended her sister’s house to check on her trailer and visit her father. On her way home from her sister’s home where her father lived, she stopped at the Gill residence. She wanted to pick up her tools which Mr. Gill had borrowed either a few days before the murder, or on the prior weekend. He was renovating his home.
[384] She learned of Jagtar Gill’s surgery on January 27th. Mr. Gill told her that he would not be coming to work tomorrow, so she should be mindful of the ride and how she booked her work.
[385] Ms. Ronald spoke to Mr. Gill that morning at 10:58 a.m. on January 29th, 2014. She did not tell him she would be coming to the house to retrieve the tools. She was installing shelves at her home with her interior designer later in the day.
[386] Ms. Ronald knocked on the door. No one answered. She entered the home. She said hello in Punjabi. She received no response. She heard audible voices which she thought might be emanating from the television. She noticed her tools on the dining room table. She walked toward the back of the house. Jagtar was laying on the floor. Ms. Ronald may have screamed.
[387] As she stood close to Jagtar’s body she observed a deep cut to Jagtar’s throat and a cut on her wrist. Jagtar Gill was laying flat on her back. Her head was touching the love seat. There was a lot of blood.
[388] Ms. Ronald was shocked and scared. She was transfixed by the extent of Jagtar’s injuries. She stared at Jagtar. Somehow, she touched her hand on the rug. She realized she was standing on a knife. She picked it up without even thinking. There was blood on her hand probably from the rug. She did not know if she threw the knife or if she placed the knife. She was panicking as she stood there. She did not call 9-1-1 as it was a bad scene; she had probably touched the murder weapon. She was thinking of herself. People already thought she was having an affair with Mr. Gill, and although it was only an emotional affair, this was his wife, and no one was there except her.
[389] She wanted to flee, and act as though this horrible scene had not happened. She then recalled that she had touched the knife and she thought she left her fingerprints on the knife. The only thing she could think of was that she needed to wipe her fingerprints from the knife.
[390] She came across the dining room table where her tools were sitting. Ms. Ronald said there was a box of gloves on that table. She put on the gloves and attempted to go back and wipe her fingerprints from the knife, intending to then leave the knife. As she was wiping the knife, she cut herself.
[391] Ms. Ronald was in a panic. She cursed herself as she removed the glove to see where the cut was located. She tucked the glove between her pants and her top. She felt as though she may faint. She needed water so she went to the sink to get a sip of water. She began to look for a band-aid.
[392] She was bleeding from her cut. She went upstairs to the master bedroom where she saw a light in the walk-in closet. She observed a whole bunch of clothes which were on the floor. She walked into the bathroom. She did not find a band-aid. She came downstairs. There was a towel visible in the kitchen which Ms. Ronald could have used to staunch the bleeding in her hand. Her lawyer asked her why she did not simply put her hand in her pocket or wrap it in her clothing. Ms. Ronald said she did not think to do that. She grabbed the knife which she said was still in the same area. On her way back she said she recalled that she had touched the box of gloves which she said, “had my blood on it, which—not my blood but there was blood on my hands and when I was grabbing the gloves it has come to the box of gloves, so I did not want to leave that there. I grabbed it and along with the knife, I left.” Ms. Ronald said she got in her car and drove home.
[393] When Ms. Ronald got home, she washed her hand and applied a band-aid. She was freaking out and still in shock at what she had seen. She was panicking. She was thinking, “what the fuck have I just seen?” She called Mr. Gill.
[394] She did not unplug the phone at Jagtar Gill’s house and never went into the basement that morning. She denied planning the murder of Jagtar Gill or talking about harming Jagtar Gill. She denied killing Jagtar Gill.
[395] When she called Mr. Gill, Ms. Ronald could not recall exactly what she said to him. She asked whether he knew what the fuck is going on. Mr. Gill told her he was at Sobeys grocery store. She must have said she was coming to the grocery store, but she could not recall exactly what she said to Mr. Gill.
[396] Ms. Ronald observed Mr. Gill as he drove by her house that morning. She saw him for the second time that morning at the cash register at Sobeys. Ms. Ronald agreed that she had asked Mr. Gill to go to IKEA when she was at the cash register in Sobeys. She did this as she could not ask him questions about what she had seen in front of the children. When Mr. Gill, Ms. Ronald, Dilpreet and Ishwar exited the Sobeys, Ms. Ronald was able to speak to Mr. Gill in the parking lot briefly in the absence of the children. As much as she wanted to tell him what she had seen, she could not say it. She could not admit what she had seen, or that she had been in the home. Ms. Ronald asked whether he knew what the fuck is going on.
[397] She could not tell Mr. Gill she had been at his house or tell him what she had seen for the same reason that she did not call 9-1-1. If she told Mr. Gill that she was in the home, Mr. Gill would tell the police that she had been there and left. Ms. Ronald never told Mr. Gill she was inside the house.
[398] Ms. Ronald also wanted to distance herself from what she had seen.
[399] She left the Sobeys parking lot, driving aimlessly toward the west end where she came across a parking lot. This was the P4 parking lot on Timm Drive. She was panicking and shoved the gloves and knife in the snowbank. She wanted to get rid of them. Ms. Ronald did not think she wiped the blood off the items.
[400] Ms. Ronald testified she later went back toward the parking lot as she realized she would be connected to those items if they were left in a place like that. Her interior decorator, Rosie De Marco called her. She returned home without retrieving the items. Surveillance officer Elizabeth Hadden observed Ms. Ronald at the Gill family home at 2477 Regatta Avenue for 37 minutes before she drove to Timm Drive on February 5th, 2014.
[401] Ms. Ronald testified she was not hiding the evidence on February 5th, but had gone to recover the items as she feared they would be discovered. She was unable to recover the items.
[402] Mr. Spratt pointed out that the knife and gloves were recovered by police from a snowbank in that parking lot area. He asked Ms. Ronald what happened to the box of gloves. Ms. Ronald said the box of gloves was left at her home. She did not know why she did not throw the box away when she threw away the knives and the gloves she used.
[403] On January 29th, as Ms. Ronald drove home from Timm Drive, she said she saw an ambulance and police cruiser at 174 Brambling Way. She stopped her car on the road. She approached the home and asked the police officer if everything was okay. The officer told her Jagtar died. Ms. Ronald said the reality of the situation hit her and she began to cry. She offered to help with the Gill children but was told to leave.
[404] Ms. Ronald later met with Ms. De Marco. She felt zoned out and she did not have much recollection of what happened during her time with Ms. De Marco. Police later came to her house conducting a neighbourhood canvass. Ms. Ronald said she was panicking. She did not tell the truth to Sgt. Cookson. Ms. Ronald denied that she expressly told Jason Ronald to lie to police about his girlfriend. His affair embarrassed her and for that reason she did not want it disclosed to police. She did not tell the truth during her January 30th interview. She did not think anyone would believe her due to the number of phone calls she and Mr. Gill made, the conversations they had, the existing rumours and people believing that they were having an affair. Although it was only an emotional affair, this did not take away the stigma that this is Mr. Gill’s wife, and there was no other person, only her, she said.
[405] Ms. Ronald also thought about the fact that time had passed, she had lied, no one would believe her and that she will be blamed for the murder of Jagtar Gill.
[406] The communication between Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill after the murder of Jagtar dropped significantly. Mr. Gill was not working, and much of their talking had taken place at work. Mr. Gill was also grieving the loss of his wife. There was some contact between them, but there was no specific reason that she did not have contact with him. She never disclosed the truth about what she knew to Mr. Gill. After January 29th, she never told anyone else about the nature of her relationship with Mr. Gill. She feared losing her marriage and children. After Jagtar’s murder, rumours about Ms. Ronald and Mr. Gill having an affair persisted.
[407] It was rumoured that Mr. Gill and Ms. Ronald murdered Jagtar Gill. Ms. Ronald did not wish to be pulled into those rumours.[^14] She wanted to live as normal a life as possible. She denied that Mr. Gill left the weightlifting bar out for her, or that she used the bar and knives to murder Jagtar Gill.
[408] She attended 174 Brambling Way on January 29th, 2014 not to murder Jagtar Gill because she knew she was vulnerable after surgery, but to pick up tools she needed later that day and to say a quick hello to Jagtar. She did not bring a pair of gloves with her to try and cover her tracks and not leave evidence behind. She had nothing to do with the death of Jagtar Gill.
Cross-Examination by counsel for Mr. Gill:
[409] Ms. Ronald agreed she was under a tremendous amount of stress in January 2014. She was having an affair with another man.[^15] Ms. Ronald agreed the evidence in her text messages between herself and this other man demonstrated more romantic affection for him than anyone else in her messages.
[410] Ms. Ronald never had the keys to the Gill residence when the family lived at 28 Burntwood Drive or 174 Brambling Way. Ms. Ronald testified that she was never alone with Mr. Gill during the period when she was under police surveillance. She agreed her relationship with Jason Ronald was troubled in the immediate time frame before the homicide but had also been troubled at various times in her marriage. In 2010 she found condoms in a taxi which her husband was driving. In late summer through early fall and into January of 2014 her marriage to Jason Ronald deteriorated.
[411]