United States of America v. Singh, 2025 ONSC 1905

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-00000116-00BR
DATE: 2025-03-28
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:
The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America
and
Gurpreet Singh (Person Sought/Applicant)

Appearances:
Kiran Gill and Melissa Insanic, for the Attorney General of Canada
Peter Thorning and Peter Ketcheson, for the Applicant

Heard: February 25-26, February 28, March 13-14, 2025
Released: March 28, 2025

Dineen J.

Introduction

[1] Mr. Singh is sought for extradition by the United States of America on charges relating to the transportation of large quantities of cocaine from the United States to Canada. American authorities allege that Mr. Singh and his uncle by marriage, Hardeep Ratte, contracted with a criminal organization run out of Mexico to provide couriers who would collect shipments of cocaine in California and take them to Canada for delivery to other conspirators.

[2] Mr. Singh is currently in custody under the authority of a provisional arrest warrant signed on October 15, 2024. He applies for bail pending the outcome of the extradition proceedings. He proposes a strict house arrest release to his parents’ residence with GPS monitoring and the supervision of three sureties, including his parents and a family friend.

The Factual Background

The Alleged Offences

[3] The Record of the Case discloses that the case against Mr. Singh was developed primarily through an unnamed accomplice’s cooperation with the FBI. The accomplice is alleged to have worked for a drug trafficking organization operated from Mexico by Ryan Wedding and Andrew Clark.

[4] The accomplice is alleged to have been directed by Mr. Wedding to negotiate an agreement with Mr. Ratte and Mr. Singh to transport shipments of cocaine from the United States to Canada for a flat fee of between $175,000 to $225,000 Canadian per shipment.

[5] Mr. Ratte and Mr. Singh are alleged to have met the accomplice in Toronto and discussed this arrangement. RCMP officers are reported to have seen Mr. Singh pick up the accomplice at the airport and drive him to an auto collision centre where a car with a license plate registered to Mr. Ratte was also located. The ensuing meeting was recorded pursuant to a judicial authorization obtained in Quebec. Mr. Ratte and Mr. Singh are alleged to have agreed to a fee of $220,000 for the transport of shipments of approximately 300 kilograms of cocaine and to have started a group chat using an encrypted messaging application called Threema to facilitate this.

[6] Mr. Singh is further alleged to have travelled to Dubai and met with the accomplice there on March 11, 2024, and to have recommended a specific hotel for the accomplice to use. The police were unable to secure legal authority to record this meeting. American authorities contend that Mr. Singh is connected to an auto theft ring that ships stolen vehicles from the port of Montreal to Dubai, and to another international drug trafficking organization they allege is operated from Dubai by the Kinahan family, though no details or evidence of these alleged connections have been provided in this proceeding. CBSA records show that Mr. Singh has made three lengthy trips to Dubai in the last three years.

[7] Two shipments of cocaine are alleged to have been exchanged pursuant to the agreement between Mr. Singh and Mr. Ratte and the Wedding organization. The first is alleged to have been a shipment of 293 kilograms delivered in San Bernardino, California on March 4, 2024 from a Wedding courier to a man named Gennadii Bilonog who is alleged to have been sent by Mr. Ratte and Mr. Singh. The exchange was observed covertly by police officers. It is alleged to have been arranged over encrypted communications participated in by Mr. Singh that were intercepted by law enforcement.

[8] The second shipment was exchanged on April 9, 2024 in Riverside, California, with a different driver, Rakhim Ibragimov, alleged to have been sent by Mr. Singh. On that date, police interrupted Mr. Ibragimov and a man alleged to have been sent by the Wedding organization while they were in the process of transferring 375 kilograms of cocaine to Mr. Ibragimov’s vehicle. The cocaine was seized and the two men arrested.

The Kidnapping of Mr. Singh in Mexico

[9] The American authorities have reported that their review of encrypted communications revealed discussions during the summer of 2024 about Mr. Singh and another person travelling to Culiacan, Mexico to meet with a cartel leader to discuss a debt of approximately $600,000 that Mr. Singh owed to the cartel. CBSA records show that Mr. Singh flew to Cancun on July 29, 2024. On August 2, 2024, Mr. Singh reported to others over encrypted communications that he had been kidnapped and tied up and given until the end of the day to pay the debt. Someone that American authorities describe as Mr. Singh’s wife is reported to have sent encrypted messages saying that she was working to secure funds and is said to have raised $400,000. Mr. Wedding is reported to have said that he had intervened to negotiate for Mr. Singh’s release. By August 7, Mr. Singh reported that he had been freed.

The Current Status of the Proceedings

[10] Mr. Singh was arrested on October 17, 2024. Also arrested on that day were Mr. Ratte and other persons alleged to have committed offences in association with Mr. Wedding.

[11] The Record of the Case has been provided to Mr. Singh and has been amended twice, most recently to clarify that the unnamed accomplice will not be testifying at trial. I am advised that no explanation for this has yet been forthcoming. The newly revised ROC indicates that the prosecution will rely on the recording of the Toronto meeting and on the intercepted communications exchanged with the accomplice that were monitored by law enforcement.

[12] The prosecutors in the United States have indicated that the anticipated sentence should Mr. Singh be convicted would be between 20 and 25 years according to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, with a mandatory minimum of 10 years. Counsel for the Attorney-General stated that they are ready to set a committal hearing and are content to proceed with separate hearings for the co-accused if this will make the proceedings more efficient. They anticipate that a hearing could be scheduled in short order. Mr. Singh’s counsel relied on the presence of significant Canadian-gathered evidence and submitted that in view of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Anekwu, 2009 SCC 41, this is likely to generate disclosure and Charter issues that will be complex and time-consuming. He further submits that the as-yet unexplained decision to no longer rely on direct evidence from the prosecution’s key witness has the potential to undermine the case for extradition.

The Proposed Bail Plan

[13] Mr. Singh, acknowledging the significant primary ground concerns present, proposes a restrictive bail plan involving house arrest supplemented with a GPS ankle monitor. The plan involves him residing at his parents’ house in Caledon with them and with his younger brother Jackman. Three sureties are proposed: his father Kulwant Singh; his mother Harpal Kaur Singh; and a family friend named Jagtar Gill Singh. I will refer to them by their first names for clarity.

[14] All three sureties testified and Mr. Singh also gave evidence about the anticipated plan.

[15] The sureties were cross-examined very thoroughly about their financial history and current situation. Mr. Singh’s parents own their residence and believe the equity in their property is approximately $1.6 million based on a valuation of the house they obtained and their remaining mortgage of $177,000. They are prepared to pledge their equity to secure their son’s release.

[16] Kulwant owns two transport trucks and employs drivers to take these trucks on regular routes to the United States. He works primarily from home. Harpal works as a personal support worker and on a typical workday will be out from around 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and then again from 4:00 p.m. until 8:00 or 9:00 p.m.

[17] The plan proposes that Mr. Singh remain in his residence at all times in the continuous presence of a surety, and that he not access electronic devices on which he could communicate with others. Given his parents’ working hours, Kulwant will be primarily responsible for this supervision.

[18] The home is equipped with sensors and cameras that can be monitored remotely by any of the sureties.

[19] Jagtar has been proposed as an additional surety who can attend the residence and supervise if both parents are required to be absent. He owns a number of properties which are all heavily leveraged, but believes he has $100,000 in equity in one property that he is prepared to pledge.

[20] Mr. Singh previously lived with his parents until January, 2019 when he moved out after a dispute with his father precipitated by his attempting to cook at 2:00 a.m. and forgetting to remove the food from the stove, leading to smoke throughout the house. Kulwant did act as his surety on one prior occasion when Mr. Singh incurred a charge that did not result in a conviction. Following the 2019 argument, Kulwant attended the Caledon OPP detachment to ask for advice on how to handle his son’s anger.

[21] After moving out, Mr. Singh lived in two rental properties paid for by his mother, one in uptown Toronto and one in Brampton. Subsequently, for the three years preceding his arrest, he lived with his girlfriend Joanne in four different expensive short-term rentals in downtown Toronto. She owns a restaurant and Mr. Singh testified that she paid their living expenses. He is a high school graduate who had worked as a dump truck driver until 2021 when his company went bankrupt and he reported no employment or income since that time. He claims to have no assets or savings.

[22] Mr. Singh has undertaken extensive personal travel since 2022, including a vacation in Italy and Greece and a month in Mexico for a wedding. Further trips include nearly a month in Bogota in 2022, month-long trips to Dubai in December 2022, December 2023, and March 2024, and three months in Mexico in 2023. He testified that these were business trips on behalf of Joanne, who paid for them and sometimes accompanied him, to explore the potential for international expansion of her restaurant.

[23] It is apparent that Mr. Singh’s relationship with his parents, and particularly his father, has been distant since he left home. While his younger brother would visit him every month or so, he generally saw his parents only when he returned home for larger family gatherings on an occasional basis. Harpal visited him once downtown and spoke with him every week or two. Kulwant seems to have rarely spoken to his older son. They had not met Joanne until after Mr. Singh’s arrest and knew little about his work, travel or other activities.

[24] Both parents testified that they learned about Mr. Singh’s kidnapping in Mexico in the summer of 2024 from their younger son. When they raised it with Mr. Singh afterwards, he brushed their concern aside and said that he was fine. They had been told that Joanne had raised money from friends to secure Mr. Singh’s release. They had not contributed any money given that they learned of this event after the fact.

The Legal Principles

[25] This bail application is governed by ss. 18 and 19 of the Extradition Act, SC 1999, c 18, which adopt the procedures found in Part XVI of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 “with any modifications that the circumstances require.” The Applicant notes in particular the principle of restraint in s. 493.1 requiring primary consideration to release at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions appropriate in the circumstances.

[26] It is agreed that the onus in this application is on the Applicant, Mr. Singh. The Respondent Attorney-General seeks Mr. Singh’s detention on all three grounds identified in the Code and adopted by the Extradition Act: to ensure his attendance in court; to prevent the commission of further offences; and, to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

[27] Courts have approached the primary ground with particular care and caution in extradition cases, emphasizing the significance of Canada’s obligation to its treaty partners to prevent the flight of persons sought for extradition. This has been repeatedly noted to be one of the necessary modifications pursuant to s. 19 of the Act. As Mr. Singh’s counsel observe, judges of this court have also held that this more cautious approach should not overwhelm the analysis and that weighing the primary ground in this context still involves an assessment of relative risk: United States of America v. Hibbert, 2019 ONSC 3876.

Conclusions

[28] The proposed bail plan has many strengths. The GPS monitoring provides for substantial deterrence of any breaches of the house arrest condition given that Mr. Singh would be aware that such breaches would be quickly detected. Mr. Singh testified, and I accept, that the conditions in which he has been held at the Toronto South Detention Centre have been harsh and he will be strongly motivated to avoid returning there.

[29] The plan also features sureties who are making a very large pledge and who have a history of contacting the authorities where they perceive Mr. Singh’s behaviour to be problematic. The plan involves continuous supervision and I find the evidence sufficient to establish with confidence that this will inhibit any further offending that would be evident to Mr. Singh’s parents.

[30] Notwithstanding the strengths of the bail plan, the most significant concern with this proposed bail is the flight risk posed by Mr. Singh. A number of factors in combination give rise to particularly acute primary ground concerns, including:

• Mr. Singh has a very strong incentive to flee to avoid a potential sentence greater than 20 years in the United States.
• Mr. Singh’s activities have had an international scope in recent years with a travel history that includes extended stays in Dubai, Mexico, and Colombia. The allegations include connections with criminal organizations active in those locations.
• The contrast between Mr. Singh’s apparent lifestyle and lack of any legitimate income gives rise to an obvious inference that he has access to an unknown amount of concealed proceeds of crime.
• The events involving the kidnapping in Mexico provide evidence that Mr. Singh is able to raise a substantial amount of money and have it sent offshore to criminals on very short notice.
• Mr. Singh’s co-accused Mr. Clark, with whom he is alleged to have conspired, is alleged to have discussed access to fraudulent travel documents in encrypted communications with another co-accused. While Mr. Singh’s connection to Mr. Clark may no longer be active, this is some further evidence that Mr. Singh may have connections with persons who could facilitate flight.

[31] While the bail plan would amply account for any concern about Mr. Singh committing further offences outside his residence and then returning there, it is not realistic to expect this bail plan to stop Mr. Singh from disabling the GPS monitor, getting in a vehicle, and effectively disappearing if he had the motivation and resources to do so. See United States v. Emony, 2025 ONCA 28, para 27.

[32] I accept that there is a significant “pull of bail” where his parents are pledging their residence and essentially their life savings. Mr. Singh testified that he feels a strong moral obligation based on their willingness to do this and stated that he would not betray their trust and cause them to lose their pledge.

[33] Nonetheless, I find that I cannot place confidence in his assurances about this, for two reasons considered in combination.

[34] First, Mr. Singh has been leading an almost entirely independent life from his parents in recent years. While I am sure he is grateful they have come forward as sureties, their relationship does not appear to be so close that I can be confident that their pledge would outweigh a desire to avoid the very grave jeopardy he faces in these proceedings.

[35] Second, I have no credible picture of Mr. Singh’s true financial situation, and in particular, whether he has access to funds that might permit him to flee and believe that he could compensate his family in whole or in part for any amount lost to estreatment.

[36] I appreciate that the allegations he faces involve only two cocaine shipments and the payment of an amount much less than the proposed pledge. He was also not the only person who is alleged to have been sharing in these funds. Some of the allegations made by American authorities about Mr. Singh’s other criminal activities are lacking in detail and the supporting evidence for those allegations has not been described. Even so, the record before me considered as a whole gives rise to an obvious concern that Mr. Singh may have a large and unknown further amount of concealed illegal income.

[37] The significant potential overlap between issues relevant to the primary grounds on this application and issues possibly relevant to any trial in the United States may have put Mr. Singh in a difficult situation in his testimony, although he properly was not questioned about anything bearing directly on the allegations. His description of his financial situation and travels was so palpably false that it did not appear to be a genuine attempt to mislead the court. Rather, I took it as, in effect, a refusal to answer questions on those subjects to avoid potential self-incrimination.

[38] The Court’s requirement that he give evidence on this application pursuant to Rule 20.05(1) is not meant to be used as an evidence-gathering exercise for prosecutors or to effectively compel self-incrimination and it is understandable that it may have created a dilemma for Mr. Singh.

[39] That said, the nature of the allegations and evidence described by the requesting state, viewed in combination with other evidence in the record about the kidnapping in Mexico and Mr. Singh’s lifestyle and other international travels, provide a powerful basis to conclude that he likely has both hidden assets and connections to international organized criminals who could assist him in fleeing and going underground. Mr. Singh’s decision to leave his true financial picture and international activities entirely opaque leaves me with no reason to resist this conclusion.

[40] I find that the risk that Mr. Singh would abscond if released on bail is unacceptably high and he has not met his onus on the primary ground. I accordingly need not consider whether detention is necessary on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

Disposition

[41] The application is dismissed.

Dineen J.
Released: March 28, 2025