Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-23-0089-00MO Date: 2023 10 17 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty The King And: Parmjit Kaur Deol

Counsel: A. Al Rohani, for the Crown/Respondent Self-Represented P. Dua, non-lawyer, for the Petitioners

Heard: October 17, 2023

Endorsement

Conlan J.

[1] The within Endorsement shall be uploaded to the electronic Indictment and shall be copied by electronic mail to the Crown who appeared in Court today and to Mr. Partap Dua.

[2] Court attendance today, by Zoom. The Accused, Ms. Deol, refused to appear from the correctional facility, as confirmed on the record by the correctional officer. The hearing proceeded in her absence. Mr. A. Al Rohani for the Crown/Respondent. Mr. P. Dua, non-lawyer, for the Petitioners.

[3] The “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus”, dated October 10, 2023, is dismissed, for the following reasons.

[4] This Court is prepared to assume, without deciding, that the Petitioners, Partap Dua and James McNair, have standing to bring the within application. The application is not being dismissed because of the issue of standing. Mr. Dua is correct that section 1(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.1, as amended, appears, on its face, to authorize someone to bring the “complaint” (this application) “on behalf of the person [Ms. Deol] so confined or restrained”.

[5] Further, the application is not being dismissed because of the absence of Ms. Deol at the hearing held today. The Crown’s reliance on section 774.1 of the Criminal Code is unpersuasive – that section concerns an inmate accused for whom a writ of habeas corpus has already been issued (not one who is the subject of an application for such a writ).

[6] Rather, despite the able submissions made by Mr. Dua, the application is being dismissed because I am not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the Petitioners have established a ground to question the legality of the deprivation of Ms. Deol’s liberty, and such establishment is necessary before the detaining authority bears the burden of justifying the lawfulness of the detention. May v. Ferndale Institution, 2005 SCC 82, at paragraph 71; Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24.

[7] In submissions, Mr. Dua suggested two grounds for this Court to conclude that the deprivation of Ms. Deol’s liberty is unlawful in that it has been tainted by procedural unfairness – (i) Ms. Deol has not been provided with Crown disclosure, and (ii) Ms. Deol has not been adequately informed of her upcoming court dates.

[8] The first item, if true, is of serious concern to this Court. I cannot determine whether it is true, however, as there is no evidence before me from Ms. Deol, and I cannot even ask Ms. Deol because she refuses to cooperate and appear before me, and the hearsay evidence of the Petitioners is not reliable enough to counter the Crown’s assertion that full disclosure was indeed provided to Ms. Deol. Whether she accepted it, or kept it, or read it, the Crown cannot control.

[9] The second item is a direct result of Ms. Deol’s habitual refusal to appear before any court; she cannot elect that course of action and then complain that she is in the dark about what transpired and when she is to appear in court next.

[10] The other submissions made by Mr. Dua, in particular those concerning the events that precipitated the arrest of Ms. Deol on March 7, 2023, are, with respect, misplaced. I cannot remedy alleged past procedural unfairness inflicted upon Ms. Deol by granting a writ of habeas corpus and releasing Ms. Deol from custody on the current charges. The deprivation of the Accused’s liberty that is before this Court is that which commenced in March of this year.

[11] Although this Court has dismissed the within application, I have decided to exercise my inherent jurisdiction to make the following order. I do this because I am concerned, based on what I was told during the hearing today, that section 525(1) of the Criminal Code may not have been complied with during the approximate seven-month period that Ms. Deol has been in pretrial detention, having been brought before a justice under section 503 CCC far longer than 90 days before today. I appreciate that the Crown may argue that Ms. Deol is not “being detained in custody” pending her trial because no bail detention order was ever made, and thus section 525(1) does not apply, however, my concern remains. I do this, as well, because the only way to ensure that Ms. Deol receives her full disclosure before her upcoming trial in the Ontario Court of Justice is to have her provided with the disclosure, personally in the courtroom, on the record, in the presence of a judge. If she refuses to accept it, so be it.

[12] This Court therefore orders that:

a) Ms. Deol shall appear in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at Milton, in-person, at 11:00 a.m. on Friday, October 20, 2023;

b) the “extraction order” that this Court issued last week applies to the court attendance on Friday, October 20, 2023;

c) the Crown office shall arrange for a judge’s order to be signed for the in-person court appearance on Friday, October 20, 2023;

d) the Crown shall have a full disclosure package ready to be given to Ms. Deol in the courtroom on Friday, October 20, 2023; and

e) the Crown shall come to court on Friday, October 20, 2023 prepared to make submissions to the presiding judge regarding the section 525(1) CCC issues identified above.

Conlan J. Released: October 17, 2023