COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-50000253-0000
DATE: 20231117
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
RAJVEER SANDHU
K. Simpson, for the Crown
R. Sandhu, Self-represented
HEARD: August 25, October 27, November 3, 2023
REASONS FOR SENTENCE[^1]
SCHRECK J.:
[1] Rajveer Sandhu attempted to remove his girlfriend from the backyard of her home while armed with a pellet gun and a utility knife, apparently because he was concerned about her mental health and wanted to take her to a rehabilitation centre. Mr. Sandhu had his own mental health issues at the time, and attempted to cut his own wrists after his attempt to take his girlfriend away was unsuccessful. He has pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a weapon.
[2] Mr. Sandhu is 23 years old and has no criminal record. At the time of the offence and for some time thereafter, he suffered from anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation. A presentence report (“PSR”) that was prepared for his sentencing was overwhelmingly positive. The victim of the offence remains supportive of him.
[3] This court must now determine an appropriate sentence. As in many cases, the sentencing objectives that apply here pull in different directions. On the one hand, Mr. Sandhu engaged in extremely alarming behaviour towards a person with whom he was in a domestic relationship, factors which engage the objectives of general deterrence and denunciation. On the other hand, Mr. Sandhu is a youthful first offender who suffered from mental health problems and who has accepted responsibility for his actions and has expressed remorse, factors which engage the objective of rehabilitation. As in most cases involving competing sentencing objectives, it is a challenging task to find the right balance. The following reasons explain how I have attempted to do so in this case.
I. FACTS
A. The Offence
[4] Mr. Sandhu and S.D. were involved in a romantic relationship for three and a half years. Both were in their early 20s and lived with their parents. In the summer of 2021, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, both Mr. Sandhu and S.D. began to experience mental health difficulties, including depression and anxiety. Mr. Sandhu began to use marijuana frequently, which exacerbated his condition, while S.D. apparently began using oxycodone. Mr. Sandhu was concerned about this and attempted to speak to her parents about it, but they did not believe him. At some point in 2021, Mr. Sandhu’s relationship with S.D. ended, although they remained in contact.
[5] On August 25, 2021, Mr. Sandhu went to the backyard of S.D.’s home carrying a pellet gun and a utility knife. He picked S.D. up and tried to carry her out of the yard but her sister intervened. At one point, Mr. Sandhu pointed the knife at S.D. and said, “Come with me and I won’t do anything.” S.D. ran into the house while her sister struggled with Mr. Sandhu. At some point, the police arrived and found Mr. Sandhu in the backyard attempting to cut his wrists with the knife. S.D. was not injured during this incident.
[6] S.D. declined to provide a victim impact statement. However, she was interviewed by the author of the PSR, who wrote:
According to [S.D.], she has known the subject for over six years. She described him as “a very quiet, good, kind-hearted and hardworking person” who cared about her. She related that her relationship with the subject was “really good” until she told her parents she had a boyfriend. Further stated that she got frustrated, depressed and was having anxiety and the only person that was trying to help her to take therapy was the subject who was also going through his depression. [S.D.] denies the allegation that the subject assaulted her and related she was happy to see him but was scared that her parents would find him at their home. She went on to say that “no weapons” were used, noting “I truly believe he is a good, kind person and he deserves the best … everything was manipulated, all he was doing was trying to get me help … couldn’t make decisions was under control and rules of parents.”
B. The Offender
(i) Background
[7] Mr. Sandhu was born in India and came to Canada with his family at a young age. He grew up with his parents and younger sister in a positive and loving environment. Mr. Sandhu did well in school and was on the Honour Roll throughout high school. Upon graduating, he enrolled in university. However, he had difficulties focussing on his studies after classes moved online during the COVID-19 pandemic. He withdrew from university and completed an electrician apprenticeship. He intends to return to university to complete his degree and to then study aviation with the goal of becoming an airline pilot.
[8] Mr. Sandhu has no prior involvement with the criminal justice system. According to the author of the PSR, “[a]ll sources contacted described the subject in positive terms, stating ‘he is a very good, kind-hearted, nice, hardworking, intelligent and caring person.’”
[9] Mr. Sandhu expressed remorse to the author of the PSR and to the court during the sentencing hearing. I accept that he is being sincere in this regard.
(ii) Mental Health
[10] Mr. Sandhu has a history of mental illness that predates the offence and which continued after it. He first presented with signs of depression in November 2020 and was referred to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) in June 2021 by his family physician. He was prescribed medication for anxiety and depression in August 2021, at around the time of the offence.
[11] In October 2022, Mr. Sandhu was admitted to hospital on a Form 1 issued pursuant to the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, after complaining of auditory hallucinations and suicidal thoughts. His condition was thought to be related to his cannabis use. I am advised that Mr. Sandhu no longer consumes cannabis, that he remains under the care of a psychiatrist and that his prognosis is good.
(iii) Presentence Custody and Bail
[12] Mr. Sandhu spent one day in custody after his arrest and has since been on “house arrest” bail such that he must remain in his residence at all times except to attend work or school.
II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
[13] The Crown submits that a 12-month conditional sentence involving “a curfew or house arrest” is appropriate, followed by two years of probation.
[14] Mr. Sandhu, who is self-represented, invited the court to impose “five years of house arrest” but urged the court not to give him a criminal record, as it would prevent him from pursuing his plan to become an airline pilot. I take this to be a request for a conditional discharge.
III. ANALYSIS
A. General Sentencing Principles
[15] Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that the “fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society….” This is to be accomplished through the imposition of just sanctions that have one or more of several objectives enumerated in s. 718(a) to (f), including denunciation, general and specific deterrence and rehabilitation. The individualization of the sentencing process requires that these different objectives be blended and prioritized so as to properly reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 58.
[16] While there will rarely be only one possible fit sentence, s. 718.1 of the Code provides that any sentence that is ultimately imposed “must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”: R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at para. 37; R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at para. 30.
B. Competing Objectives
[17] As noted earlier, the challenge in this case arises from the fact that there are competing sentencing objectives. Mr. Sandhu has pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon in relation to a young woman with whom he was in a relationship. Section 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code deems this to be an aggravating factor which must be considered and accounted for in the sentence that is imposed.
[18] On the other hand, Mr. Sandhu is a youthful first offender, which requires the court to consider all sanctions apart from imprisonment and to give emphasis to the objective of rehabilitation: R. v. Sousa, 2023 ONCA 100, 165 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 37; R. v. Priest (1996), 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), at p. 545; R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114, 93 O.R. (3d) 643, at paras. 32-33.
C. Mental Illness
[19] As noted, Mr. Sandhu has a history of mental illness. As recently noted in R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, at para. 128, “[w]here a mental illness existed at the time of the offence and contributed to the offender’s behaviour, sentencing judges should consider prioritizing rehabilitation and treatment through community intervention.” See also Batisse, at para. 38; R. v. Megill, 2021 ONCA 253, 405 C.C.C. (3d) 477, at para. 171; R. v. Ellis, 2013 ONCA 739, 303 C.C.C. (3d) 228, at para. 117. I am satisfied that Mr. Sandhu’s mental condition played a role in the commission of the offence. The offence occurred at a time when his mental health was deteriorating, it was completely out of character, and when the police attended they found him trying to cut his wrists.
D. Is a Sentence of Imprisonment Required?
[20] As noted, the Crown seeks a 12-month conditional sentence, which is a sentence of imprisonment, albeit one that is served in the community.
[21] As discussed, the principle of restraint requires the court to consider alternatives before imposing a sentence of imprisonment, which should be resorted to only when necessary. In this case, there are several mitigating factors which suggest that imprisonment is not required: Mr. Sandhu is a youthful first offender and he has pleaded guilty and expressed remorse.
[22] There is an additional mitigating factor that is relevant to the issue of whether imprisonment is required, which is the time Mr. Sandhu spent subject to restrictive bail conditions, a period of approximately 26 ½ months. It is well established that time spent subject to restrictive bail conditions should be taken into account: R. v. Downes (2006), 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.), at para. 33; R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733, 153 O.R. (3d) 145, at para. 108. While it is not necessary to do so, it is not inappropriate to quantify a specific amount of time as credit, provided that doing so does not skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence: R. v. C.C., 2021 ONCA 600, at para. 5; R. v. Dodman, 2021 ONCA 543, 494 C.R.R. (3d) 22, at paras. 9-10; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at para. 53. When courts do so and where bail conditions are restrictive, the credit that is granted often ranges between a fifth and a third of the total time spent on bail: Dodman, at para. 12; R. v. Mohiadin, 2021 ONCA 122, at paras. 7-8; R. v. King, 2023 ONSC 2035, at paras. 90-92, 96; R. v. Long, 2021 ONSC 4747, at para. 39; R. v. Navarathinam, 2021 ONSC 4241, at paras. 47-51; R. v. Campbell, 2021 ONSC 4193, at paras. 15-20; R. v. Inshanally, 2021 ONSC 3432, at paras. 35-37.
[23] It appears that there were two technical breaches of Mr. Sandhu’s bail arising from him returning home slightly later than his curfew permitted.[^2] As a result, credit towards the lower end of the range is appropriate. In all the circumstances, I conclude that Mr. Sandhu has served the equivalent of six months imprisonment. In my view, given that Mr. Sandhu is a youthful first offender who has accepted responsibility for his actions and has expressed remorse and given the mental health issues at play in this case, no further imprisonment is warranted.
[24] Given my conclusion that imprisonment is not required, the real issue to be determined is whether Mr. Sandhu should receive a suspended sentence or a conditional discharge.
E. The Availability of a Discharge
[25] Section 730(1) of the Criminal Code provides that a discharge can be granted where it is “in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest.” Given the impact of a conviction on Mr. Sandhu’s career plans and the fact that he is unlikely to reoffend, a discharge is clearly in his best interests. The question that remains is whether it would be contrary to the public interest.
[26] A discharge will often be inappropriate in cases of domestic violence because of the need for general deterrence and denunciation. It has been suggested that the objective of general deterrence is inconsistent with a discharge: R. v. Foianesi, 2011 MBCA 33, 262 Man. R. (2d) 312, at paras. 10-11. However, the approach in Ontario does not appear to be as categorical: R. v. Singh, 2023 ONSC 4949, at para. 65; R. v. Pera, 2016 ONSC 2800, at para. 95; R. v. MacLeod, 2023 ONCJ 71, at para. 79. Discharges are certainly rare in cases of violence resulting in injury because of the need for general deterrence: R. v. Huh, 2015 ONCA 356, 335 O.A.C. 394, at para. 12; R. v. Wood (1975), 1975 CanLII 1410 (ON CA), 24 C.C.C. (2d) 79 (Ont. C.A.). However, this was not a case in which there were injuries, and neither the need for deterrence nor the fact that an offence can be characterized as violent necessarily preclude the granting of a discharge: R. v. Parker-Ford, 2020 ONSC 5951, at paras. 38-41; R. v. Andrews, 2023 ONCJ 370, at para. 38.
F. The Domestic Context
[27] While this is undoubtedly a case of domestic violence, it is an unusual one. Mr. Sandhu maintains that his purpose in trying to remove S.D. from her home was to get her help, and it appears from S.D.’s comments to the author of the PSR that she agrees that this was his objective. Given that there is no suggestion of any violent behaviour in Mr. Sandhu’s past, I accept that his commission of the offence was the result of a misguided attempt to assist S.D. and not the result of anger management deficiencies or a need to dominate her.
[28] General deterrence and denunciation are given primacy in cases of domestic violence because they typically involve breaches of trust and the exploitation of vulnerability that often exists within domestic relationships. One of the sentencing objectives in such cases is to ensure that individuals can feel free to leave relationships without fear of violence or intimidation: R. v. Cunningham, 2023 ONCA 36, 166 O.R. (3d) 147, at paras. 27-27; R. v. Boucher (2004), 2004 CanLII 17719 (ON CA), 186 C.C.C. (3d) 479 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 27. While Mr. Sandhu’s conduct was undoubtedly disturbing, it did not give rise to these concerns in the unusual context of this case.
G. Conclusion
[29] Having considered the highly unusual circumstances of this case, including Mr. Sandhu’s motivation, his mental illness, the other mitigating factors discussed earlier, and the fact that the usual need for deterrence and denunciation in cases of domestic violence is attenuated, I have concluded that granting a discharge would not be contrary to the public interest.
IV. DISPOSITION
[30] For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Sandhu is granted a discharge conditional on his completion of a term of probation of two years with the following conditions in addition to the statutory conditions:
• report to a probation officer within two business days and thereafter as directed by the probation officer;
• seek and maintain employment or attend school;
• not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code, including any real or imitation firearms;
• take such treatment as recommended by your probation officer and sign such releases as are necessary to monitor compliance with this condition;
• have no direct or indirect contact with S.D. and not be within 200 metres of any place where you know her to be, except with her written revocable consent, to be filed with your probation officer.
Justice P.A. Schreck
Released: November 17, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-50000253-0000
DATE: 20231117
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
RAJVEER SANDHU
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
P.A. Schreck J.
Released: November 17, 2023
[^1]: An abbreviated version of these reasons was delivered orally in court. In the event of any disagreement between those oral reasons and these written reasons, the written reasons should be taken as correct.
[^2]: I am advised that a charge of failing to comply with a recognizance arising from one of the breaches of the curfew remains outstanding. An earlier charge of failing to comply based on an allegation that Mr. Sandhu had contact with the complainant was withdrawn as the Crown was unable to prove it because the complainant was unwilling to cooperate. I have not considered this alleged breach.