COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-00001656
DATE: 2021 11 08
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
K. Slate & R. Prihar the Crown
DALWINDER SINGH
S. C. White & L. Sandhu for Dalwinder Singh
HEARD: October 15, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION
BARNES J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] After a judge alone trial, I convicted Mr. Dalwinder Singh of two counts of first-degree murder. The victims were his wife, Baljit Thandi, and his mother-in-law, Avtar Kaur. On the same date, Mr. Singh was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years.
[2] There were two main issues at trial. First, whether Dalwinder Singh had the intent for murder in killing each victim, and second, whether he forcibly confined either or both victims as part of the same series of events during the killing. I have answered both questions in the affirmative.
[3] The expertise of expert witnesses was unchallenged, and I accept the expert evidence proffered. The evidence of witnesses provided important context. Unless I indicate otherwise, I found all witnesses to be credible. The evidence in this case is both direct and circumstantial. The evidence establishing constructive first-degree murder is mostly circumstantial.
[4] I have carefully considered all of the evidence adduced at trial as well as the submissions of counsel; however, in this judgment, I only refer to the portions of evidence and submissions necessary to explain and provide context for the conclusions I have reached.
[5] I have relied on both circumstantial and direct evidence to reach a verdict in this case. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Dalwinder Singh’s guilt on two counts of first degree murder is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the whole of the evidence: R. v. Griffin, 2009 SCC 28, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 42, at para. 33; R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 32.
OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
[6] The background details in this case are uncontested. Dalwinder Singh and Baljit Thandi were married on May 14, 2016. The marriage was arranged by Mohinder Singh. After the wedding, Baljit’s parents, Kuldip Singh and Avtar Kaur, returned to India. They then returned to Canada after a few months and lived with the couple in a basement apartment.
[7] In the fall of 2016, Dalwinder and Baljit purchased a semi-detached residence. The couple shared an adjoining wall with neighbors Susan Archer and Gary Dupuis. Kuldip and Avtar also moved from the basement apartment into the house. Dalwinder and Baljit shared the master bedroom. Kuldip and Avtar shared the south bedroom also referred to as bedroom number three.
[8] On April 11, 2017, Dalwinder and Baljit’s son, Ranbir Samir, was born.
[9] Major Singh Samra, deceased at the time of the trial, arranged for Karnail Singh to hire Dalwinder as a truck mechanic. Dalwinder began working in this capacity in 2013. His boss, Karnail, became a family friend.
[10] On June 13, 2017, Baljit made a report to Peel Regional Police alleging that she had been assaulted by Dalwinder. Dalwinder was arrested and charged with two counts of assault. On June 14, 2017, he was released on bail with a surety and conditions, including a requirement to reside with his surety, Mohinder Samra, and a prohibition against contacting Baljit. He was also prohibited from attending the matrimonial home. Contrary to the terms of his release, Dalwinder lived with his surety for only two days and then moved out.
[11] Shortly thereafter, a meeting to discuss the possible reconciliation of Dalwinder and Baljit was held at the home of family friend, Paramjit Samra. Paramjit was the wife of Major Singh Samra who had died by the time this meeting was held. Dalwinder’s surety Mohinder Samra was present, as well Dalwinder, Baljit, Kuldip, Avtar, Karnail and Paramjit. As a result, Baljit agreed Dalwinder could return home.
[12] On August 25, 2017, Baljit swore an affidavit requesting that the charges against Dalwinder be withdrawn. She swore that she and Dalwinder had argued and struck each other during the incidents that formed the basis of the assault charges.
[13] From their observations of the interactions between Baljit and Dalwinder, Paramjit and Karnail believed that the relationship between Dalwinder and Baljit was fine. Dalwinder’s sister, Hardeep Kang, had the same impression. Dalwinder’s father-in-law, Kuldip, reached a different conclusion. He said the couple often had verbal fights.
[14] On November 17, 2017, Baljit and her father, Kuldip, booked Saturday, January 13, 2018, as the date for a special lohri celebration for her young son, Ranbir Samra. The celebration was to take place at a Sikh temple in Brampton. The reservation was for 100 people, though this number was later reduced to 10 people.
[15] On Wednesday, January 10, 2018, Paramjit went to Dalwinder and Baljit’s house for dinner. No mention was made of the lohri celebration planned for that coming Saturday and Paramjit was unaware that it was scheduled. Dalwinder told Paramjit that the family would go to India to have the lohri celebration for Ranbir. In her testimony, Hardeep Kang confirmed that the plan was to have the lohri celebration in India.
[16] Somewhere between January 10, 2018, and January 12, 2018, Paramjit found out about the lohri celebration was planned for January 13, 2018. On the Friday morning of January 12, 2018, Paramjit called Baljit to see if she needed any help with preparations for the Saturday lohri celebration.
[17] At 9:38 p.m. that evening, Paramjit also called Dalwinder to find out if he needed help with the Saturday lohri celebration. Dalwinder told her that he did not know about the lohri celebration planned for the next day. Baljit got on the phone and insisted that Dalwinder knew about the Saturday lohri celebration. Dalwinder and Baljit started to argue with each other. Dalwinder was angry. Paramjit tried to calm the couple down. She was not successful. Paramjit’s phone call lasted for five minutes. This phone call sparked an argument between Dalwinder and Baljit about whether she had told Dalwinder about the lohri celebration.
[18] Dalwinder called Paramjit back to plead his case at 9:55 p.m. This call was 1 minute and 47 seconds long. Baljit called Paramjit at 9:59 p.m. seeking her help to resolve the conflict. This call lasted 2 minutes and 39 seconds. The couple continued to argue during the phone calls.
[19] Baljit called Karnail to plead her case at 10:04 p.m. Karnail could hear the couple arguing and tried to calm them down. This call lasted 1 minute and 56 seconds. Dalwinder then called Karnail at 10:10 p.m. Dalwinder was angry. He told Karnail that the lohri had been arranged without his knowledge. He had not been able to invite anyone. Karnail’s spouse, Mandip Mand was present. She overheard the phone conversation and the couple arguing. Once again, Karnail tried to calm down the feuding couple. They would not listen to him, so he hung up the phone. This phone call lasted 4 minutes and 48 seconds.
[20] At approximately 10:05 to 10:10 p.m., the neighbour, Susan Archer, heard unusually loud voices coming through the adjoining wall. She was alone in her bedroom at the time. Dalwinder, Baljit, Kuldip, and Avtar were usually quiet neighbors. Susan heard a male and female voice. The male voice was angry and demanding. The female voice was quieter but frequently speaking over the male voice.
[21] At 10:20 p.m., Baljit again called Karnail. Karnail and Mandip could hear Baljit and Dalwinder having the same argument. The couple again did not listen to anything Karnail said. This call lasted 1 minute and 21 seconds long. Concerned about this situation, Karnail called the couple back. He called between 10:22 p.m. and 10:28 p.m.; there was no response.
[22] Susan Archer went into the washroom as her husband, Gary Dupuis, came out. Gary heard thumping and banging noises. The noises sounded like people running up and down the hall and banging. The noises lasted 10 to 15 minutes. Susan came out of the washroom and heard the noises. She described the noises as someone moving furniture, picking up a heavy object and putting it down. Shortly after 10:30 p.m., the noises stopped.
[23] Dalwinder called Karnail at 10:32 p.m. In this call he said, “I killed them both, call 911.” Karnail was shocked and said, “What are you saying? What did you do?” Mandip grabbed the phone from Karnail and Dalwinder said to her, “I killed them both. I could not tolerate it anymore. I was tired of their lying, so I killed them.” Mandip asked him how he did it. He said he used the knife from the kitchen. He told her to take care of his son and then he hung up.
[24] At 10:38 p.m., Dalwinder called Paramjit. He told her, “Bhabi, I have killed them both.” He told her that he used a knife and that they had died. He said, “I am only with my son.” He told her to call 911. She was shocked and told him to call 911 himself.
[25] At 10:39 p.m., Karnail called Kuldip, Baljit’s father, and told him to go home. Mandip called 911 at 10:44 p.m. to report what Dalwinder had told her. At 10:47 p.m., Dalwinder called 911 and, through a Punjabi interpreter, stated, “My wife and mother-in-law are fighting each other,” and “My son is with me, I need help.” When asked where his wife and mother-in-law were, as the interpreter and operator could not hear voices, he said, “I don’t know. I was drunk. I was trying to separate them.” Police were already on route because of Mandip’s call.
[26] Constable Brar and Constable Aparcio arrived on scene at the same time. Dalwinder was holding Ranbir in one hand and his cellphone in the other. The police officers discovered the bodies of Baljit and Avtar in the kitchen and arrested Dalwinder. Dalwinder had some minor scratches, including a scratch on his forehead.
[27] Paramedics Sean Horan, Ajeetpal Kalsi, and Supervisor Tara Pettit arrived at the house. The bodies of Baljit and Avtar were in the kitchen. Sean Horan and Ajeetpal Kalsi dealt with Avtar. She was not breathing and had no pulse. They observed Avtar on her left side facing the stove. There was a knife close to her hand. They rolled Avtar onto her back, cut her shirt, and placed cardiac pads on her. The exhibit pictures show Avtar laying on her back.
[28] Supervisor Tara Pettit attended to Baljit. Baljit was not breathing and had no pulse. Baljit was lying on her chest with a pink scarf by her side. Tara Pettit moved the scarf out of the way. Baljit’s right hand was “on top of a knife.” Baljit’s socks were rolled up. Tara Pettit rolled up Baljit’s shirt to check for injuries. She uncrossed Baljit’s legs to check for a cardiac rhythm then recrossed Baljit’s leg. Except for Baljit’s pulled-up shirt, the exhibit picture of Baljit on the kitchen floor depicts how Tara Pettit found her. Ajeetpal Kalsi called the hospital and reported the condition of Baljit and Avtar and received the pronouncement of their deaths.
[29] Kuldip’s calls to his daughter at 11:02 p.m. and 11:31 p.m. went unanswered. She was already dead.
[30] Dalwinder provided statements to Constable Saran on January 13, 2018, in the police cruiser and in the police station. The voluntariness of the statements is not in issue. Admissibility of the statement is conceded.
[31] In the statements he confirmed the phone calls to Paramjit and Karnail. He said Baljit and Avtar were saying bad things about his mother and sister, and he could not tolerate it.
[32] Dalwinder said he and Baljit began the argument downstairs and then took it upstairs. In the police interview in the cruiser (Exhibit 11, pp. 4-5), he explained the sequence as follows:
A: First it was downstairs, then we had an argument upstairs in the room.
Q: Who? You and your wife?
A: Yes.
Q: And mother, where was your mother-in-law? Downstairs?
A: My mother-in-law was downstairs, then she came. Then I came downstairs. She said to me, “Get out of the house, get lost, this is my house”…she kept saying bad things about my mother and sister and then my mother-in-law also started…Her mother said you harass our daughter, you got married to get your papers, you want to become permanent here, this and that. It is like instigating. She started saying too much.
[33] Dalwinder said he felt betrayed. He said Baljit and Avtar were dishonest and said bad things about his sister and mother. He described Baljit and Avtar as relentless; he could not take it anymore.
[34] Dalwinder told the police that his son began to cry. He pushed Baljit. Avtar got involved, pushing and punching. He hit Avtar. He took their son upstairs and then the argument continued. He said Baljit threatened to kill him, and he told her to go ahead and try. He dared her to hit him. He said Baljit hit him in his hand with a knife, which cut his hand. He described himself as too angry. He pushed and slapped Baljit. He tried to pick up the knife and he made “a mistake.” He said he did not remember whom he stabbed first. He said he acted because Baljit was going to stab him.
[35] Dalwinder told the police that he did not remember exactly what happened after he had the knife. He also told the police he did not remember telling anyone that he killed the women.
[36] Dr. Pickup performed the post-mortem examinations on both women. For Baljit, the cause of death was stab wounds to her neck. There were 72 distinct injuries, including fractures to her face and nose, many stab and/or incised wounds to her face, head, neck, torso, and hands. She had defensive wounds to her forearms and hands.
[37] Avtar sustained several fatal stab wounds. She had 44 documented injuries including multiple blunt force injuries to her face, head, and neck, as well as sharp force injuries to her face, head, neck, torso, and hands.
[38] Two knives were discovered in the kitchen. Blood samples from Dalwinder, Baljit, and Avtar were discovered on the knives, in the south bedroom, in the hallway, and on the stairs leading from upstairs to the kitchen.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
[39] The Crown’s prosecution of first-degree murder for the deaths of both Baljit and Avtar is through s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, which provides a constructive route to first degree murder. In this case, the Crown alleges that the killing occurred during Dalwinder’s forcible confinement of both women. Specifically, Dalwinder began his attack of both women in the upstairs south bedroom, then he forcibly dragged them down to the kitchen where he continued his vicious attack and administered the fatal injuries.
[40] Dalwinder concedes he killed both women; however, he submits that he was intoxicated and did not have the intent required for conviction. In addition, he submits there is insufficient evidence to support any finding of constructive first-degree murder, and he is, therefore, guilty of manslaughter.
THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE
[41] Dalwinder Singh is charged with committing first-degree murder, contrary to s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code for killing Baljit Thandi, in the City of Brampton, Ontario, on January 12, 2018. He is further charged with committing the first-degree murder for killing Avtar Kaur, in the City of Brampton, on January 12, 2018.
[42] The offence of murder is committed when a person causes another person’s death by means of an unlawful act. The person causing death must intend to cause death or intend to cause bodily harm that he or she knows is likely to cause death and is reckless whether death ensues or not: Criminal Code, ss. 222(5)(a) and 229.
[43] Murder can involve a series of acts as part of a continuing transaction leading to the death of the victim. The offence of murder crystallises where the intent to murder is formed, at some point, during the series of acts causing death: R. v. Cooper, 1993 CanLII 147 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146, at paras. 28-30.
[44] The Crown relies on s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code as the path to first degree murder. This is called constructive first-degree murder. Section 231(5) states:
Irrespective of whether murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:
(e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement).
[45] In effect, the Crown alleges that Dalwinder committed murder while committing or attempting to commit the offence of forcible confinement of his victims, and thus is guilty of the offence of constructive first-degree murder. To establish this offence, the Crown must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, there was a forcible confinement; second, the forcible confinement was part of the same transaction as the killing; and third, the killing was a distinct act within the same transaction: R. v. Smith, 2015 ONCA 831, 344 O.A.C. 22, at para. 11; R. v. White, 2014 ONCA 64, 305 C.C.C. (3d) 449, at paras. 54-55; R. v. Johnstone, 2014 ONCA 504, 313 C.C.C. (3d) 34, at paras. 42-43; R. v. Kimberley (2001), 2001 CanLII 24120 (ON CA), 56 O.R. (3d) 18 (C.A.), at para. 108; R. v. Alexis, 2020 ONCA 334, 388 C.C.C. (3d) 226, at paras. 17-18; R. v. Parris, 2013 ONCA 515, 300 C.C.C. (3d) 41, at para. 53.
[46] A forcible confinement occurs where, for any significant amount of time, the victim is forcibly restrained against her will such that she could “not move about according to her own inclination or desire”: R. v. Pritchard, 2008 SCC 59, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 195, at para. 24. In effect, this act creates a “continuing illegal domination of the victim” such that the victim’s ability to move freely is restricted: Pritchard, at para. 35; R. v. Magoon, 2018 SCC 14, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 309, at para. 64.
[47] The forcible confinement is part of the same transaction when the continuing illegal domination of the victim culminates in the murder. “The murder represents an exploitation of the position of power created by the underlying crime and makes the entire course of conduct a “single transaction””: Pritchard, at para. 33, citing R. v. Paré, 1987 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 618, at p. 633.
[48] However, the forcible confinement and the murder must be separate and distinct acts. The sequence of the murder and the predicate offence is not determinative in the analysis. It does not matter whether the fatal wound was delivered prior to or after the forcible confinement. The requirement for distinct acts within the same transaction is satisfied when the killing and the forcible confinement, “while distinct offences, remain part of the same transaction”: R. v. Mullings, 2014 ONCA 895, 319 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at paras. 101-102. In effect, the victim must be illegally dominated by the accused in the same transaction in which the killing occurred.
[49] The predicate offence, which in this case is forcible confinement, need not be committed against the same victim as the murder, as long as the two distinct acts are within the same transaction: R. v. Russell, 2001 SCC 53, [2001] S.C.R. 804, at paras. 33, 36-39. For example, if the Crown can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dalwinder forcibly confined Baljit in the same transaction as the murder of Avtar, then Dalwinder will be guilty of the first-degree murder of Avtar.
[50] Therefore, to obtain a guilty verdict for each offence, the Crown must prove the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Each element is considered for each victim separately, specifically:
a) Dalwinder Singh caused Baljit Thandi and/or Avtar Kaur’s death;
b) Dalwinder Singh caused Baljit Thandi and/or Avtar Kaur’s death unlawfully;
c) Dalwinder Singh had the state of mind required for murder;
d) Dalwinder Singh forcibly confined Baljit Thandi and/or Avtar Kaur;
e) Dalwinder Singh’s forcibly confined Baljit Thandi and/or Avtar Kaur and murdered Baljit Thandi and/or Avtar Kaur as part of the same series of events.
Did Dalwinder Singh cause Baljit Thandi and/or Avtar Kaur’s death and did he do so unlawfully?
[51] It is conceded that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Dalwinder caused Baljit and Avtar’s deaths unlawfully. The supporting evidence is overwhelming, including:
Dalwinder, Baljit, and Avtar were the only adults in the house at the time of the murders;
The bodies of Baljit and Avtar were found in the kitchen in pools of their blood;
Dr. Pickup confirmed that both women died of multiple stab wounds;
Detective Taylor, who was qualified as an expert in barefoot print and identification comparison, confirmed that Dalwinder’s footprints were found in the blood located in the kitchen;
Dalwinder told Karnail Singh, Mandip Mand, Paramjit Samra, and Constable Saran that he killed Baljit and Avtar.
Did Dalwinder Singh have the required state of mind for murder?
[52] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Dalwinder meant to cause Baljit and Avtar’s deaths. The following evidence supports this conclusion. Dalwinder was not intoxicated at the time he committed the murders. The injuries inflicted were numerous and extensive, and several were designed to be fatal. Dalwinder had a high degree of animus towards his victims, and he admitted to his friends and the police that he killed Baljit and Avtar. Further, his post offence conduct reveals his efforts to conceal his role in the murders.
[53] When considered cumulatively, the only reasonable conclusion is that Dalwinder, beyond a reasonable doubt, had the requisite intent for murder at the time he killed Baljit and Avtar. Proof of the absence of intoxication and the extensive nature of the wounds is sufficient to discharge the Crown’s evidentiary burden to establish murderous intent. The other factual findings I have identified above make what is already overwhelming evidence of murderous intent, even more overwhelming.
[54] To prove that Dalwinder had the requisite mental state for murder the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of two things:
Dalwinder Singh meant to cause Baljit Thandi and/or Avtar Kaur’s death; or
Dalwinder Singh meant to cause Baljit Thandi and/or Avtar Kaur bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause Baljit Thandi and/or Avtar Kaur’s death and was reckless whether death ensued or not.
No evidence of intoxication
[55] Despite evidence that Dalwinder Singh consumed one or two glasses of Wiser (alcohol), hours before the murders, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Dalwinder Singh was not intoxicated at the time he caused the deaths of Baljit and Avtar.
[56] In assessing whether Dalwinder Singh had the intent required for murder, I have considered all the evidence, including the nature of the injuries and anything said or done in all the circumstances.
[57] I consider, as a matter of common sense, that a person usually knows what the predictable consequences of his or her actions are and means to bring them about. According to Dalwinder Singh, this inference cannot be drawn in this case because he was intoxicated at the time, he killed the victims. Therefore, he did not have the intent required for murder and is guilty of manslaughter, not murder.
[58] Satnam Chahal testified on behalf of Dalwinder Singh. He told the court that on the day of the killings, he and Dalwinder worked on fixing his truck at Karnail Singh’s repair shop. Mr. Chahal said that earlier that day, he went with Dalwinder to a finger-printing appointment. Thereafter, they picked up fish, goat meat, and a bottle of Wiser (alcohol). They brought the purchases of food and drink back to the shop. There were three to four people in the shop. They all ate and drank. Mr. Chahal said he saw Dalwinder consume two drinks. The group consumed all the drink and food. Mr. Chahal said they left the shop at around 6:00 p.m. and dropped Dalwinder at home around 7:00 p.m.
[59] On the issue of whether Dalwinder Singh was intoxicated, in examination in-chief, Mr. Chahal said Dalwinder was normal. In cross-examination, he said Dalwinder had two drinks and was drunk, but not that drunk. Mr. Chahal said Dalwinder was fine when he went into the house.
[60] I find Mr. Chahal’s evidence on whether Dalwinder Singh was drunk to be equivocal and unreliable, and I reject it. In addition, his account of “drunk but not that drunk” is not supported by the other evidence I refer to below.
[61] Dalwinder Singh consumed alcohol prior to 6:00 p.m. on January 12, 2018. As previously described, between 9:38 p.m. and 10:38 p.m., Dalwinder Sing had a series of phone conversations with Karnail, Mandip and Paramjit. Dalwinder Singh caused the death of Baljit and Avtar during the 11-minute pause in the phone calls between 10:21 p.m. and 10:32 p.m.
[62] After the murders, at 10:37 p.m., Dalwinder Singh had phone conversations with Karnail and Mandip, and he told them that he had killed Baljit and Avtar. Karnail described Dalwinder’s voice at this time as normal. Karnail knew Dalwinder well, as he had been his boss since 2013. Mandip said Dalwinder may have been drunk because his voice was shaky. At 10:38 p.m., Dalwinder spoke to Paramjit who described his voice as fine.
[63] Dalwinder Singh called the 911 operator at 10:47 p.m. Dalwinder lied to the 911 operator and said Baljit and Avtar were fighting. When asked where they were because their voices could not be heard, he told the 911 operator that he was drunk.
[64] Constable Brar and Constable Aparcio arrived on scene while Dalwinder Singh was on the phone with 911. Neither officer noticed Dalwinder exhibiting any signs of alcohol impairment. The officers had direct, unimpeded, and non-transient contact with Dalwinder on scene. Under all the circumstances, the fact that both officers did not specifically examine Dalwinder Singh for signs of impairment by alcohol does not detract from the weight I accord the officers’ evidence.
[65] The defence assertion that Dalwinder Singh looked confused during his police interview due to his intoxication is not supported by the evidence. In his interview with the police, Dalwinder was alert, careful, and thoughtful in his responses. Dalwinder Singh and Constable Saran spoke in Punjabi. I have considered the fact that Dalwinder’s statements have been translated from Punjabi to English. This does not detract from my ability to assess and draw conclusions from the evidence.
[66] During his interview with Constable Saran, Dalwinder Singh first said he did not consume any alcohol. Then subsequently he said he had one shot of Wiser, and that one shot had not made him drunk.
[67] In the interview, Dalwinder Singh provided elaborate detail including the nature of his relationship with his spouse and in-laws. Dalwinder blamed his marital problems on his in-laws. He explained how his in-laws interfered in his marriage. He provided details on how his in-laws did not contribute financially and were a financial drain. He suggested that his in-laws were working illegally. He also suggested that Baljit took advantage of him because she was educated, and he was not. This is not an exhaustive list.
[68] For several hours, and despite several varied strategies employed by Officer Saran, Dalwinder Singh stood his ground. He repeatedly stated he would provide a full statement in the presence of counsel. Despite indulging in Officer Saran’s adept efforts to find a common topic of conversation, for example around children and Dalwinder’s son Ranbir, he remained steadfast in his position.
[69] Dalwinder Singh was not confused. He was careful and deliberate. He demonstrated a mental alertness inconsistent with intoxication. For example, Dalwinder Singh initially alluded that he may have killed both women, without directly saying he did. He only made a specific admission to killing his wife and mother-in-law much later, at the end of the statement. Overall, I conclude that Dalwinder Singh admitted to killing his wife and mother-in-law and provided the details in accordance with the version he wanted to convey, and he did so only when he was ready to do so. Collectively, the inconsistencies in his statements lead me to conclude that he is not credible.
[70] Upon considering all the evidence, including evidence that Dalwinder Singh consumed two alcoholic drinks (Wiser) on January 12, 2018, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time of the killings, Dalwinder’s consumption of alcohol did not affect his knowledge of the consequences of his actions. The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Dalwinder Singh was not intoxicated at the time he caused the death of Baljit and Avtar. In effect, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Dalwinder Singh had the intent to murder Baljit and Avtar.
[71] Other evidence points conclusively to the fact that Dalwinder’s intent was to cause the deaths of Baljit and Avtar.
Extent of the injuries
[72] According to medical evidence, Dalwinder Singh used a sharp object to cause the death of Baljit. Dr. Pickup documented 72 distinct injuries. Before the stab wounds, Dalwinder Singh administered blunt impact injuries to Baljit’s head. Dr. Pickup said Baljit died of fatal stab wounds to the neck. Injury No. 34 was caused by complex and over-lapping stab wounds to the same area of the neck. These wounds fractured the first cervical vertebrae in her neck and injured her cerebral artery causing substantial internal and external bleeding. There was bleeding around her spinal cord and the area around her brain, indicating that Baljit was alive while these injuries were inflicted.
[73] The second fatal injury Dalwinder Singh inflicted is Injury No. 30 in Dr. Pickup’s report. This injury is a large wound at the front of Baljit’s neck. It severed Baljit’s voice box and damaged her right carotid artery, which is the main vessel supplying blood to the brain. This injury caused rapid internal and external bleeding. Evidence shows Baljit was alive at the time because she was breathing blood into her lungs.
[74] Dr. Pickup outlined the injuries Avtar suffered, including several fatal wounds. As an example, Injury No. 20 penetrated the right atrium leading to her heart. There was bleeding around Avtar’s heart and right chest cavity. This indicates that the wound was administered prior to her death. The bleeding was mostly internal.
[75] Stab wounds administered by Dalwinder Singh penetrated Avtar’s kidney, lung, and liver. The stab wound documented as Injury No. 15 severed her fifth and sixth cervical vertebrae and exposed her spinal cord. This injury was at the front and side of her neck. Avtar was still alive when Dalwinder Singh inflicted this injury. Bleeding was external and quickly led to unconsciousness.
[76] The large number of injuries and the nature of those injuries lead me to conclude that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time he caused Baljit and Avtar’s deaths, it was Dalwinder’s intent to murder them. There is additional evidence of this intent to murder Baljit, which I refer to below.
Animus/Motive
[77] This is a domestic homicide. Baljit, Avtar, and Dalwinder all lived together. The nature of the relationship between Baljit and Dalwinder is relevant in assessing whether there was animus between the victims and Dalwinder: R. v. Cudjoe, 2009 ONCA 543, 68 C.R. (6th) 86, at paras. 64 and 68; R. v. Moo, 2009 ONCA 645, 247 C.C.C. (3d) 34, at para. 98; R. v. Stubbs, 2013 ONCA 514, 300 C.C.C. (3d) 181, at para. 57; R. v. Carroll, 2014 ONCA 2, 304 C.C.C. (3d) 252, at para. 104.
[78] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was animus between Dalwinder and Baljit and that this animus extended to include Dalwinder’s in-laws.
[79] Upon an examination of all the evidence, it is apparent that Karnail, Paramjit, and Hardeep Kang had an honest but mistaken impression that the relationship between Baljit and Dalwinder prior to the murders was fine.
[80] In June 2017, Baljit reported to police that Dalwinder Singh had assaulted her. Dalwinder was charged with two counts of assault and placed on a surety bail with the conditions previously described. The couple did not reconcile on their own; reconciliation occurred after a meeting of family and friends. In violation of terms of his bail, Dalwinder returned to the family home.
[81] It is unnecessary for me to determine the veracity of Dalwinder’s assault charges. In fact, Dalwinder is not on trial for those charges, which were withdrawn in August 2017 at the request of Baljit. What is apparent is that, despite the sincere testimony of Karnail, Paramjit, and Hardeep, the couple’s relationship was not good.
[82] As a member of the household, Kuldip Singh said the couple had frequent verbal confrontations. Baljit’s allegations to the police indicate that there was some dysfunction in the domestic relationship, and it escalated to a report of assault to the police.
[83] Contrary to the defence’s assertion, the dispute about the lohri was not a red herring. It was rather a symptom of the dysfunction in the couple’s relationship and the entire domestic relationship where Baljit’s parents played a central role. Dalwinder told Mandip Mand immediately after the murders that he was tired of Baljit and Avtar’s lies; he could not tolerate it anymore. He told the police that his in-laws had ruined his marriage, that he felt betrayed, lied to, and could not tolerate it anymore. It is apparent that the intensity of the disagreement over the lohri was generated by Dalwinder’s high degree of animus against his spouse and mother-in-law.
[84] When viewed cumulatively, the only reasonable conclusion is that Dalwinder Singh had a high degree of animus against his victims and had intent to murder them at the time he caused their deaths.
Post Offence Conduct
[85] When considering Dalwinder’s post offence conduct cumulatively, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that he made a short-lived attempt to conceal his role in the murders of Baljit and Avtar. This fact is probative of his intent at the time he committed the murders: R. v. McLellan, 2018 ONCA 510, 362 C.C.C. (3d) 183, at paras. 46-47; R. v. Rodgerson, 2015 SCC 38, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 760, at para. 20.
[86] Dalwinder’s post offence conduct includes:
a) Walking barefoot in Baljit and Avtar’s pools of blood in the kitchen;
b) Moving Baljit’s body;
c) Placing a knife in Baljit’s hand;
d) Placing a knife near Avtar’s hand;
e) Touching the doorknob to the main floor bathroom;
f) Cleaning his hands of blood;
g) Going upstairs and picking up Ranbir, calling 911, and reporting the false narrative that Baljit and Avtar were fighting.
[87] Each of these events when considered in isolation do not suggest that Dalwinder Singh had an intent to murder at the time he murdered Baljit and Avtar; however, when viewed cumulatively, the only reasonable conclusion is that this overwhelming evidence of post offence conduct proves an intent to commit murder beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the only reasonable conclusion, any others proffered are speculative at best.
[88] Baljit had a large blood stain on the buttocks of her pants, even though she was found facedown by the police and paramedics. Dr. Pickup did not find any corresponding injury on her body to explain the stain. Dalwinder’s right footprint was found near Baljit’s right foot as she lay in the kitchen. Blood stain expert Detective Hackenbrook confirmed that the stain was caused by blood which was already outside Baljit’s body. The kitchen was the only location with a pool of blood large enough to cause the stain. Dr. Pickup explained that the injuries that would produce the greatest amount of external blood loss in both victims occurred in the kitchen. Therefore, the only reasonable inference is that Baljit lay, on her back, in a pool of blood which created a large stain on the buttocks of her pants, and Dalwinder Singh subsequently turned her over and placed her facedown prior to the arrival of the police and paramedics.
[89] The left footprint of Dalwinder Singh was found near Avtar’s head. Two right footprints of Dalwinder were found near her feet. The only reasonable inference is that Dalwinder Singh walked in the blood of both women in the kitchen.
[90] Baljit was found with a knife in her fingertips. The blood on the handle and blade of this knife was Baljit’s. A second knife was found near Avtar’s hand. The blood on the blade was Avtar’s. The blood from the handle of this knife was a mixture of DNA from Avtar, Baljit, and a male. The only adult male in the house at the time of the murders was Dalwinder Singh. Ranbir was an infant. The only reasonable inference is that Dalwinder Singh used the knives to murder the women. The women did not attack each other with the knife and Dalwinder placed the knives in the women’s hands. The only reasonable conclusion is that had the women attacked each other, you would expect the knife at Baljit’s hand to have Avtar’s blood, and the knife at Avtar’s hand to have Baljit’s blood. This is not what the evidence showed.
[91] The knife block had a blood stain with a mixture of DNA from Baljit, Avtar, and a male. Paper towels with Baljit and Avtar’s blood were found in a garbage can under the sink. A diluted blood satin on the kitchen counter in front of the sink had DNA from Baljit and Avtar. The only reasonable inference is that Dalwinder Singh tried to clean up the victims’ blood after the murders and, at some point, washed his hands leaving a diluted blood stain on the kitchen counter.
[92] There was a mixture of Baljit and Avtar’s blood on the doorknob leading to the main floor bathroom. The only reasonable conclusion is that Dalwinder Singh touched the bathroom doorknob after the murders.
[93] In Ranbir’s crib upstairs there was a blood stain. This was a mixture of Baljit and Dalwinder’s blood. In the living room, there was a blood stain from Dalwinder found on the couch. Dalwinder was in the living room holding Ranbir when the police arrived.
Did Dalwinder Singh forcibly confined Baljit Thandi and or Avtar Kaur?
[94] I agree with the defence assertion that, when considered individually, several pieces of the evidence proffered by the Crown to prove constructive murder fall short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I conclude that, when considered cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelming and meets the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold required for a first-degree murder conviction. The conclusions I have reached are the only reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence.
[95] Dalwinder Singh made statements to the police describing the sequence of events leading to the killings. On his own account, he used the knife to attack Baljit and Avtar upstairs. He said he did not know whom he attacked first and did not remember exactly what he did after he had the knife. It is not disputed that the lifeless bodies of Baljit and Avtar were found in the kitchen downstairs.
[96] Detective Hackenbrook testified as a blood stain expert. The conclusions on DNA analysis of the blood staining are conceded. Detective Hackenbrook was examined by both counsel on matters such as directionality and stain pattern. The expectation is that the type of stain pattern can help assist in determining what type of activity caused the staining.
[97] Except for providing definitive responses on DNA results, Detective Hackenbrook’s testimony on directionality and pattern of staining, in isolation, is not helpful in determining whether Dalwinder Singh forcefully confined his victims. However, the definitive responses on the location of the blood stains, whose blood produced a particular stain, and the height of each stain from the ground, are significant.
[98] Baljit’s blood produced a stain at a height of 140.5 cm or 4 feet 7 inches in the upstairs bedroom, this shows that she was standing at the time Dalwinder Singh administered the wound that caused the stain. All other blood stains from both Baljit and Avtar were located close to the ground. I conclude that both victims were not standing and were in a position close to the ground as Dalwinder Singh administered the wounds which produced those stains. Dalwinder Singh was in continuing illegal domination of Baljit and Avtar such that the ability of each person to move freely was restricted.
[99] As previously noted, in the upstairs south bedroom, there was a blood stain from Baljit (Swab 122). This stain was found at a height of 140.5 cm or 4 feet 7 inches from the ground and was a spatter stain which hit the wall at close to a 90-degree angle. As Dr. Pickup described sharp object injuries to Baljit’s neck, I conclude that Baljit was standing in the upstairs bedroom when a sharp force wound inflicted by Dalwinder Singh released her blood and created the spatter stain.
[100] Swab 120 is Baljit’s blood on the closet door in the bedroom. It was 32 cm from the ground. Swab 119 was taken from a large stain on the door which continued to the wall. This was also Baljit’s blood. I conclude that, while Baljit was bleeding from her injuries, she made contact with the closet door and the wall as she moved closer to the ground.
[101] Swab 123 was Avtar’s blood on the closet door. The staining was at a height of 72 cm, close to the ground. It was a spatter stain. Also, on the closet door was a stain of Avtar’s blood represented by Swab 121. I conclude that Avtar contacted the closet door and, at some point, was in a position close to the ground. Defence has suggested that some of the staining could have been made by scarfs. As will become apparent, in the face of all the overwhelming evidence, such a conclusion is speculative and not reasonable.
[102] Several drip stains belonging to Baljit were found in the same bedroom. Swab 102 contained Baljit’s and Dalwinder Singh’s blood. This sample was taken from the hinge of the door. There were also transfer patterns on the carpet consistent with bloody handprints.
[103] There were four swipe patterns running the full length of the hallway. Three of these were Baljit’s blood. Baljit’s blood was also found to the side of the hallway near the master bedroom and on the east wall. The highest stain in the hallway area was 53 cm. Baljit’s blood was further found on the stairway wall. All her blood stains were low to the ground, ranging from 3 cm to 56 cm from the ground. I conclude that Baljit was low to the ground as blood oozed from her body. This is additional evidence that Baljit was not standing, she was low to the ground as Dalwinder Singh dragged her from the bedroom, down the hallway and down the stairway to the kitchen. He was in complete control.
[104] Avtar’s blood was found on the spindles of the stair way. I conclude that Dalwinder dragged Avtar from the bedroom to the kitchen. Avtar was not in a standing position at that time. She was positioned close to the ground. Dalwinder had complete, illegal and continuing domination over her ability to move.
[105] In the kitchen there was a large amount of blood from the victims. All blood stains were low to the ground. I have previously described the extensive amount of injuries to Baljit and Avtar – blunt force injuries and sharp force injuries. When viewed in the context of the evidence previously described, Dalwinder’s administration of blunt force and sharp force injuries to both Baljit and Avtar, are an example of his complete domination over his victims as he killed them.
[106] I accept Dr. Pickup’s evidence that both women were alive when some of the fatal injuries were inflicted by Dalwinder Singh. Both women died in the kitchen.
[107] Baljit’s socks were rolled halfway off her feet. I accept Tara Pettit’s evidence that it appeared that Baljit was held under her arms and pulled backwards, causing Baljit’s feet to drag and socks to roll. I conclude that Dalwinder dragged Baljit from the bedroom along the hallway down the stairs to the kitchen.
[108] Dalwinder Singh, in his statement described a dynamic event in the bedroom upstairs. He said the knife was produced upstairs, and he used the knife to stab both Avtar and Baljit upstairs.
[109] I have previously described the sounds Gary Dupuis and Susan Archer heard that night. The timing and nature of the sounds heard when considered in the context of all the evidence including, Dalwinder Singh’s statement that he stabbed the victims in the upstairs bedroom and the blood stain evidence, leads me to conclude that Dalwinder Singh dragged the women from the upstairs bedroom to the kitchen. This is a discrete act consistent with forcible confinement. Dalwinder Singh took this discrete action as part of a continuous series of actions intended to cause the death of his victims, culminating in the infliction of additional fatal wounds in the kitchen and the eventual death of both Avtar and Baljit in the kitchen.
[110] Alternative explanations have been proffered by the defence examining each piece of relevant evidence piecemeal. Some of these explanations may be reasonable when evidence is viewed in isolation. However, when all the evidence is viewed cumulatively, I conclude Dalwinder Singh over-powered and dominated each victim as he caused their deaths. He dominated them, inflicting blunt and sharp force injuries to them in the bedroom.
[111] As a result of their injuries, they slid or fell to the ground incapacitated and the attacks continued. He dragged each of them down the hallway to the kitchen where he continued his quest to cause their deaths. Once in position in the kitchen, he administered additional fatal wounds, Dalwinder’s actions constituted a “continuing illegal domination of Avtar and Baljit such that their ability to move freely was restricted”.
[112] The Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Dalwinder Singh forcibly confined Baljit and Avtar.
Did Dalwinder Singh forcibly confine Baljit Thandi and or Avtar Kaur and murder Baljit Thandi and or Avtar Kaur as part of the same series of events?
[113] For the same reasons previously articulated, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence is that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Dalwinder Singh’s forcible confinement and murder of Baljit and Avtar were two distinct acts within the same transaction i.e. two distinct acts as part of the same series of events.
CONCLUSION
[114] Dalwinder Singh brutally murdered his victims. I conclude that he tortured and then systematically inflicted wounds to cause the death of his victims. In his statements he provided some false narratives, which are rejected by the court, and none of the evidence proffered by the defence raises a reasonable doubt. The Crown has proven both charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Dalwinder Singh is found guilty of the first-degree murder of Baljit Thandi and the first-degree murder of Avtar Kaur.
Justice K. Barnes
Released: November 8, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-00001656
DATE: 2021 11 08
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
DALWINDER SINGH
REASONS FOR DECISION
Barnes J.
Released: November 8, 2021