CITATION: R v. Nav Nishan Singh, 2026 ONSC 2339

COURT FILE NO.: CR 25-151

DATE: 2026 04 20

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Jennifer Goulin and Nasampal Jaswal for the Crown

• and –

NAV NISHAN SINGH

Sohana Choudhury for Mr. Singh

HEARD: January 26-29; March 2-6, 9-12, 2026

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

D.E HARRIS J.

1The accused Nav Nishan Singh is charged with the first degree murder of his wife Davinder Kaur committed on May 19, 2023. The only real live issue is whether the crime should be classified as first or second degree murder.

2The couple were married for many years and had four children. They lived in Brampton. At the time of her death, Davinder Kaur worked as a chef and was 43 years old. The accused was 44 years old and worked in a beer factory.

3The accused had left the home and had not been living with his family for a period of about 6 months. The couple were separated. It is apparent that he had a drinking problem. Ram Dura was a friend of the family but the accused Mr. Singh suspected that he was having an affair with his wife, the deceased. Mr. Dura testified at trial. He said that he lived with the deceased for six months several years back before the accused and the rest of his family came over from India. They worked together for a time. Although not asked directly, Ram Dura did not say that he had a romantic relationship with the deceased. But the accused certainly thought that Ram and his wife were having an affair. That was the important thing, not whether it was true or not.

4On consent, ante mortem statements from the deceased to her daughter Nancy were adduced at trial. Nancy confirmed that the accused had not lived with them for some time. He drank a lot. If he could control his drinking, for her part, she would have welcomed him back in the home. Nancy said that her mother, on the day of the murder, told her on the phone that it was proposed by her husband, the accused, that they meet under a bridge to sort out and talk about their problems. Nancy said her mother was nervous. She wanted her daughter’s opinion whether she should go. Nancy told her that it was not the best time. It was better to talk to him on some other day and at some other place. Nancy testified that her mother did not say whether she was going to meet her husband or not.

5I would pause here for a brief aside. Originally, several more of the children of the deceased were scheduled to testify in this trial. I was told that some of them were reluctant to testify against their father. The Crowns did not force them. I think it is appropriate to commend them for not pushing forward blindly and forcing victims of this terrible offence to testify against their father and be retraumatized. Sometimes evidence must be sacrificed for the greater good of preserving some humanity and dignity in the proceedings and protecting the victims of the crime.

6The scene of the crime was in Sparrow Park in Brampton as it was then called. There is video canvassed from the houses along the route showing the accused and the deceased walking there separately. The deceased’s body was found there with five or six stab wounds, three of which were lethal.

7The evidence that the accused was with the deceased at the scene was overwhelming and was unchallenged. Shocking as it is, as his wife lay dying from stab wounds, he videotaped her final horrifically anguished ordeal while shouting insults at her. He also took still pictures of her. In all, there were two videos and two pictures. Then, as unbelievable as it is to conceive, the accused sent the videos and pictures to about eight people right after taking them. The recipients included his son Amrit in which he included this shocking voice memo minutes after the killing:

Amrit, I have killed your mother, the park that is in front of us, the park... her dead body is sinking in the water, she is still alive, save her if you able to save her.

8The videos were also sent to Ram, a contact in India by the name of Prince, amongst others. The accused’s presence on the scene is proved beyond any question by the pictures and videos found on his phone and conveyed to the recipients. In one picture, the very distinctive shoes seized from him upon his arrest shortly after the killing can be seen. In his statement to the police, he admitted to killing his wife and seemed proud of it at times, while at other times he seemed remorseful.

9With respect to the accused’s statements to the police, I ruled them voluntary in a bottom line ruling at the beginning of the trial. There were no Charter issues raised. I will now give my reasons. The issues raised by the defence to argue voluntariness was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt were that the accused did not have an operating mind at the time and that his statements were made in circumstances of oppression. I cannot agree.

10About an hour after the murder, the accused was apprehended by the police at a bus shelter not too far away located on the northeast corner of Courtney Park Drive and Hurontario Street. Quite a large number of police officers, including tactical squad officers, converged on him and he was arrested and handcuffed. His cell phone was found eventually some distance away but the murder weapon, a knife, was never found. The accused was cooperative and did not put up a struggle. Several of the officers testified that he was ultra calm and stoical.

11Unprompted, Mr. Singh made an utterance to PC Dhaliwal that he killed his wife because she was having an affair. Immediately, Mr. Singh was cautioned and read his rights to counsel in Punjabi by PC Dhaliwal. Mr. Singh indicated he understood. Subsequently on scene and during transport, Mr. Singh continued to made utterances to PC Dhaliwal, admitting that he killed his wife and that he had reason to do so.

12PC Dhaliwal transported Mr. Singh to 22 Division. While at the front desk area, Mr. Singh continued to make utterances in the presence of the front desk officers, PCs Saini and Taj. DC Harris booked Mr. Singh and PC Dhaliwal lodged him in a cell.

13Mr. Singh was interviewed in Punjabi by DC Robbie and DC Chawla at 10:56 pm after speaking with counsel at 8:02 pm. Mr. Singh spoke to Duty Counsel with the assistance of a Punjabi translator. He acknowledged calling the deceased the day prior to the homicide at approximately 11:00 p.m. and leaving a voicemail indicating whatever happened to her, the kids or himself would be the victim’s fault. Mr. Singh acknowledged arranging the meeting with Ms. Kaur on the day of the homicide and having an argument which turned physical. During the altercation, he advised he slapped Ms. Kaur, she slapped him back and when she fell face down, he picked up the knife and stabbed her twice in the back and once in the waist. Mr. Singh further acknowledged taking the pictures and video of Ms. Kaur before leaving the park, as well as throwing the knife in the water.

14The oppression argument must fail. The police were courteous, gave Mr. Singh his rights properly, cautioned him and did not berate him or hound him in their questioning. He did not complain or appear to be pressured. He was in an agitated state, no doubt, but that was because of his state of mind after killing his wife and was not in any measure attributable to the officers’ conduct: see R. v. Oickle, 2000 SCC 38 at paras. 58-62.

15Examples of oppression from Oickle at para. 60 are, “ depriving the suspect of food, clothing, water, sleep, or medical attention; denying access to counsel; and excessively aggressive, intimidating questioning for a prolonged period of time.” None of these pertain in this case, nor was there anything analogous.

16In reference to the operating mind doctrine, again, Mr. Singh although agitated and disturbed, clearly had an operating mind as that term is understood. The standard is low and easily met here: Oickle, at paras. 63-64; R. v. Whittle, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 914 (S.C.C.). As said in Whittle, the operating mind jurisprudence “does not imply a higher degree of awareness than knowledge of what the accused is saying and that he is saying it to police officers who can use it to his detriment” (p. 936).

17For these reasons, I found that the accused’s statements were voluntary and admissible at this trial.

18In regard to the accused’s testimony, he admitted on the witness stand that he was at the scene with the deceased and there was a knife that the deceased supposedly brought. She slapped him. When he saw the knife, he twisted her arm that held the knife behind her back and the knife fell to the ground. He threw the knife into the river. There was some blood from her but it was never explained where it came from or how it was caused. Conspicuously absent from his account was any description of stabbing his wife. But someone did in a deliberate and very forceful way, five or six times. That could only have been the accused. There can be no other reasonable alternative.

19The accused admitted on the witness stand making the photos and the videos but professed that he really was trying to help his wife and to save her. But it was clear that he never did anything of the kind. He did not himself try to help her despite being right there. He never enlisted the help of anyone else. He never called 911. He left the scene hurriedly. It was obvious that the expressions that she could be saved and helped to his son, for example, were dripping with sardonic malice.

20The accused’s testimony was, in a word, preposterous. There could be no doubt that he stabbed his wife, killing her. But he did not admit to this. On the issue of the videos and pictures being sent to others to supposedly save his wife from dying, this was absurd and drastically departed from any semblance of reality. As a result, I would reject all of his testimony on important points except where I note otherwise.

21One caveat to be made to this credibility finding is with respect to his drinking, He said that he drank five beers of 10% alcohol content before the killing. There is some confirmation of him buying the beers in LCBO footage. Most were consumed according to him several hours before the killing but one was consumed just before the killing. He testified that at the time of the killing he was a “bit buzzed.” Upon arrest, the police noted that he seemed unsteady on his feet and one officer noted alcohol on his breath. But in the many hours that followed, there were no indications beyond that. I think with the pattern of drinking that day and his long experience of alcohol consumption, a “bit buzzed” was an accurate description. In my view, alcohol played no significant part in this offence nor was it argued that it did.

22I find that the accused stabbed the victim. He admitted this in his police statement. The videos and pictures prove it as well. There was no other potential perpetrator. He did not deny it in his evidence although he did not admit it either. It is the only reasonable inference and is proven beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at paras. 29-30.

23Intention to kill is similarly proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The three fatal wounds testified to by the pathologist were profound and were of vital areas of the body. One was in the mid to upper back on the left side. It went through the chest wall, fracturing the ninth and tenth rib, and into the heart and lung. There was one other stab wound near it, but closer to the spine. It entered the chest cavity, fracturing the 11^th rib, injuring the left lung lobe, diaphragm and stomach. The third very serious wound was on the right flank, just above the hip. There were some defensive wounds on her hands. I infer from the nature of the wounds almost certainly made by a knife, that there was an intention to kill. The jealousy motive manifest from the accused’s statement contributes to proof of the intention to kill.

24It is a rare case where there is direct as opposed to circumstantial evidence of the mental element of the offence, in this case, the intent to kill. Here, the evidence was circumstantial too but as close to direct evidence as it is possible to get. Horrifically, as his wife was dying from the stab wounds he had inflicted, he yelled at her, “Die quickly, die quickly I am saying, die quickly I don't have the time.” Although this was not coincident with the acts of stabbing itself, it was immediately afterwards, a matter of seconds. In the circumstances, it was not significantly different than if these words were uttered as he stabbed her. I would not that this was not the somewhat treacherous “consciousness of guilt” evidence of flight or concealment often relied upon by the Crown as after the fact conduct.

25Intention to kill is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no contrary argument made by the defence. In summary, I find beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused stabbed his wife to death and, further, that when he did so, he intended to kill her. These are the only reasonable inferences available. Mr. Singh is therefore guilty of second degree murder.

26The real issue, again, is whether he is guilty of first degree murder. The Crown relies for liability on s. 231(2)—planned and deliberate murder--and s. 231(6)—murder in the course of a criminal harassment. Looking first at planning and deliberation, it is one step further than intent to kill. A murder committed intentionally, but on a sudden impulse or without prior consideration, is not planned and deliberate. Planned and deliberate requires more than intention. And it is the murder itself that must be both planned and deliberate, not something else that the accused did.

27The words “planned” and “deliberate” do not mean the same thing. “Planned” means a calculated scheme or design that has been carefully thought out, the nature and consequences of which have been considered and weighed. The plan does not have to be complicated or particularly good. It may be very simple. The plan must have been formulated before the act of murder began. It cannot be committed on impulse.

28“Deliberate” means “considered, not impulsive,” “slow in deciding”, “not hasty in deciding, cautious.” It requires a mind capable of reflection. A murder must be both planned and deliberate, it must be both together proved beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. Reynolds, (1978), 22 O.R. (2d) 353 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Ruptash, 1982 ABCA 165; R. v. More, [1963] S.C.R. 522; R. v. Smith, (1979), 51 C.C.C. (2d) 381 (Sask. C.A.); R. v. Nygaard, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1074; Aalders c. R., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 48 at para. 50

29Looking at all the evidence in the case, the evidence to prove second degree murder serves to contextualize the Crown’s case on first degree murder. Specifically, the causing of the death of his wife by way of the terrible wounds to her body together with the clear intention to kill, are of course part of the context that must be considered.

30Beyond that, it was argued by the Crown that the meeting place changed likely at the accused’s instance from under the Ray Lawson Bridge to the Sparrow Park area. Both are relatively isolated areas where there were not likely to be many people. If one were to plan a murder, it is reasonable to commit the act away from the public’s presence and attention. That does not prove a great deal in isolation because if the meeting were to patch up or discuss their relationship, as was the reasonable alternative, it would be quite normal and expected that a place of privacy and isolation would be preferred. Nonetheless, this evidence viewed cumulatively with the other evidence in the case has some minor tendency to prove that there was a plan to kill.

31In my opinion, the case on planning and deliberation stands on three main categories of evidence: 1. Motive to kill; 2. The bringing of the knife to the meeting with the deceased in Sparrow Park; and 3. The threat made to the deceased the night before the murder together with the utterances of the accused captured by his cell phone videos as his wife was dying.

MOTIVE TO KILL

32Motive is the emotional impetus which leads to a crime (R. v. Malone (1984), 11 C.C.C. (3d) 34, [1984] O.J. No. 22 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 25 per Martin J.A.; R. v. Brissard, 2017 ONCA 891, (2017) 356 C.C.C. (3d) 494 at para. 17 per Pardu J.A.). In this case, that emotion, the motive, was jealousy or the injustice felt from the deceased’s presumed sexual betrayal of him with Ram Dura. In turn, this produced a thirst to exact revenge. The accused had left the family home and resented that he was forced to live apart from his family. But that came to a head and was greatly amplified the night before the murder, May 18, 2023.

33The accused came to believe that Ram had slept over at the family home a few days before, on Tuesday night, May 16. At 11:27 p.m. on May 18, 2023, the accused left a voice message for his wife which, translated, said,

Okay, listen to me, the guy that you kept on Tuesday, in the house, he spent the night with you and went to work in the morning, by taking bus number 54, at 5:12 a.m. I have seen everything. Is it true or false? You tell me yourself.

34There was an almost 38 minute call between the accused and Ram that night. Ram testified about the call but likely from shame, guilt or eroded memory, said little about what was talked about. He did say however that Mr. Singh asked him if he went to the deceased’s home at night. Ram said yes, it was Nancy’s birthday, there was a cake cutting.

35I accept that what was a slow percolating jealousy before, became a raging torrent to satiate a lust for revenge. I should add, that while there was some suggestion during this prosecution, that this was an “honour killing”—there was a cultural element that applied pressure on the accused to kill his supposedly unfaithful wife—I would not place any reliance on this. There has been over the years some media focus on honour killings in the Punjabi community. It is generalized and indistinct. I have no real understanding of it. To allow it to intrude into this trial would be to inject a most unreliable stereotype into the finding of fact process: R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7.

36The motive evidence tends to show that this murder was precipitated by a rage engendered by the knowledge that Ram had slept over at the family home, opening up the possibility that he and the deceased engaged in sexual relations. That made it more likely, in the context of all the evidence, that the accused decided to kill his wife as retribution for her infidelity. This evidence, arising the night before the killing, strongly suggests pre-planning.

THE EVIDENCE OF THE KNIFE

37If the accused brought a knife to the meeting with his wife, this could be important circumstantial evidence that he planned to kill her. Although the pathologist could only say that the stab wounds to the deceased were caused by a sharp object with one honed edge and one squared off edge, it is evident that this was a knife. I find that the accused brought the knife to the arranged meeting with his wife at Sparrow Park.

38I entirely reject the accused’s testimony that the deceased brought the knife. His general credibility and reliability, which I have earlier discussed, were exceedingly weak. Also, although a minor point, it would have been irrational for her to bring a knife to attack her husband with it or to protect herself. She was quite a small woman, 5’ 1” and weighed under 130 pounds. He was much bigger and likely much stronger.

39Central to the rejection of the accused’s testimony on the specific question of the knife is his admission in his statements to the police that he brought the knife to the scene. At one point in the statement, he said he carried it in his bag whenever he went to work. He admitted stabbing and killing the deceased with it, stabbing her two or three times. He specified that he stabbed her twice in the back and once in the side. This matched the wounds the pathologist found, bolstering the reliability of the accused’s statement.

40In addition, he admitted in his police statement that he killed his wife; an admission he could not bring himself to make on the witness stand, despite it being beyond dispute based on the overwhelming evidence. His emotional state immediately after the murder was much more open and frank than on the witness stand. Likely he was stunned and shocked by the horrific acts he had just committed. He was still in emotional turmoil. For these reasons, the police statement was much more credible and reliable than the in court testimony. I find that the admission that he brought the knife and used it to stab his wife to be a true statement.

41The knife was never found. In testimony and in his statement, he said he threw it in the water. In the statement, although admitting that he had the knife with him at the scene, he denied bringing it specifically to kill his wife. When he came there, he did not intend to kill her, thus denying the mental element for planning and deliberation.

42If the knife was something that he had on his person for some purpose other than threatening or attacking his wife with it, this could negate its force towards proving a plan to kill. His anger could have erupted spontaneously, leading to a killing that had not been planned.

43The accused’s evidence raises two possibilities that need to be canvassed: 1. The knife was carried with him that day because he often had it with him for work purposes; or 2. He carried the knife to cut up vegetables.

44Looking at the work possibility first, the accused never actually said that he had the knife with him because he used it at work. He said that he kept a knife in his bag whenever he went to work. Beyond this, it would make little sense for him to have a knife with him because he used it at work. It would be very unusual to bring a common item like a knife home from work.

45Furthermore, it was an agreed statement of fact that he got off work the day of the killing at 11:00 a.m. He had admitted this in his statement as well. He testified that he then went to an LCBO, bought some beers and went home and drank three or four of them. He listened to songs and sang along to some of them. He had a nap. He received a call from his wife to ask where he was. She was at the Ray Lawson bridge where he said they had agreed to meet originally. They agreed then to meet at Sparrow Park. On the way there, he stopped at an LCBO and bought more beer. There is video footage of this. He then made his way to Sparrow Park.

46It is clear that the accused was not coming from work when he killed the deceased. There was no work related purpose for having the knife with him. And there was no other suggestion in the evidence that he used a knife at work or that he ordinarily brought it home with him. There was no explanation in his statement or testimony for why he would have a work knife at home.

47With respect to the second explanation, the accused said that before the killing, he had a bag with him containing beers, cucumbers and the knife. He would use the knife to cut the vegetables. But as noted, he came directly from home to meet with the deceased. It would not make any sense for him to cut up vegetables on the way there. There was no good reason why he would bring a knife to cut up vegetables to a meeting with his wife to discuss their marital strife. And no vegetables and no bag were found either at the scene or along Mr. Singh’s path away from the scene before he was arrested.

48For these reasons, I would give little weight to the innocent possibilities for the possession of the knife ultimately used to kill the deceased. In my view, evidence that the accused came to the meeting with the means to kill the deceased and did kill her with it is strong evidence of planning.

THE THREAT THAT “YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBILE”

49The night before the murder, moments after leaving the deceased the message that he had seen the guy who spent the previous night (i.e. Ram Dura), the accused left this message for his wife at 11:28 p.m.,

Now, whatever losses will be suffered, by the children, by you, by me --- you will be responsible for all that

50This was somewhat ambiguous on its own. But combined with the message left a moment earlier accusing his wife of sexual infidelity with Ram, it was ominous and threatening. The meaning became finally clear, tragically, the next day.

51After stabbing her in Sparrow Park, Mr. Singh filmed his wife as she desperately tried to cling to life while she lay bleeding profusely from the wounds he had inflicted. As he was filming her death, the accused said as can be heard on the first video at 5:58 p.m.,

You didn't die yet, you hit me with shoes on my head, you hit your husband with shoes, how big mistake you made, sister fucker, you forgot your husband for that man. Hmm you forgot your husband for that man. Die quickly, die quickly I am saying, die quickly I don't have the time. [Emphasis added]

52This confirms that his wife’s death was a punishment for “forgetting” him in favour of “that man.” The statement tends to show that from the time the day before that he discovered that Ram slept in the same home as his wife, there was a plan to exact his revenge. And his revenge was her killing. This fortifies the motive evidence towards proving planning and deliberation.

53But the next statement on the immediately following video filmed seconds later continued on a similar theme and left no doubt why the killing was committed,

Police will not come here. You were threating me that you will complain to the police, these threats you were giving to me, hmm, what threats did you give that you will complain to the police, these threats you gave me, get out and die wherever you want , these you gave me, tell me who is dying now, who is dying , tell me now, tell me who is dying, your kids, I told you will be responsible for that, if you are on this path, if you are on this path you will be responsible, you will die, I am telling you, sister fucker you did not listen to me for that man, I was living outside for six months, you didn't call me once. [Emphasis added]

54This invective aimed at his wife in the last throes of her life must be read together with the threat from the night before. “[W]hatever losses will be suffered, by the children, by you, by me --- you will be responsible for all that.” The losses would be her fault, not anyone else’s. And then after the stabbing, he said something very similar, “…I told you will be responsible for that, if you are on this path, if you are on this path you will be responsible, you will die…” This was the same theme reiterated from the night before. He told her the night before that she would be responsible for “losses.” Now his threat made the night before had been carried out. “I told you will be responsible”, past tense, referred to the voice message the night before. She was responsible for her own death. The only reasonable conclusion is that he had warned her and nothing had changed so he had carried out the threat from the night before.

55The earlier threat, it now became clear, was to kill her. In this way, the accused’s plan to kill his wife for her infidelity is laid bare. The threat provides evidence that the plan to kill was formulated the night before and then carried out the next day.

CONCLUSION ON FIRST DEGREE MURDER

56Does the revenge motive, the bringing of the knife to the Sparrow Park meeting and the threat the night before, in the context of all the evidence and taken cumulatively, prove planning and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt? The evidence of the accused, both in court and in his police statement, denies that the killing was planned and deliberate. Looking at the denial in light of all the evidence, I reject it. I am not left in a reasonable doubt by the defence evidence or any evidence supporting it that the murder was planned and deliberate.

57Turning to the Crown evidence, garnering the evidence of intense jealousy, the threat from the night before and the bringing of the knife to the scene of the meeting, the case on first degree murder is formidable. The hypothetical alternative is that the accused and deceased had an argument at Sparrow Park and the accused, in a sudden burst of anger, murdered his wife. I reject this scenario on the evidence in this case. The motive as manifested the night before in the audio message saying that he knew Ram spent a night at the deceased’s house, the bringing of the knife and the threat the night before followed through with in committing the murder, lead to the conclusion that a planned and deliberate murder is the only reasonable inference. The possibility of a spontaneously generated intention to kill has been disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.

58With respect to the concept “deliberate”, I have considered Mr. Singh’s highly inflamed and distressed mental state. There is evidence of this in his statement right after the killing, his threats the night before and in his actions themselves. He was highly disturbed. There are situations where an accused’s mental state is such that he or she has not “deliberated” with respect to a murder.

59In this case, I do not find that the accused’s mental state was such that he could not form or did not form the requisite mental state for planning and deliberation. The plan to murder was formed the night before the murder upon discovering that Ram had spent the night with the deceased. The plan was accomplished the next early evening when he murdered his wife. In between these two points, there was plenty of time to reflect and contemplate, even though the accused’s mind was roiled with hatred and jealousy. He had, after all, the presence of mind to bring a weapon to complete his plan.

60The three pillars supporting first degree murder convince me that not only was there planning but the murder was deliberate as well. Both planning and deliberation have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

61For these reasons, the accused Nav Nishan Singh is found guilty as charged of the first degree murder of his wife, Davinder Singh. It is unnecessary to consider the Crown’s alternative first degree murder argument based on s. 231(6) of the Criminal Code.

D.E HARRIS J.

Released: April 20, 2026

CITATION: R v. Nav Nishan Singh, 2026 ONSC 2339