DECISION ON APPLICATION TO REVOKE BAIL

(s. 532(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46)

King J.

1On today’s date, I found Charanpreet Singh guilty of two counts of Importing Controlled Substances, contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19; and two counts of Possession of Controlled Substances for the Purpose of Trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA.

2The substances involved were cocaine (55 kilograms) and heroin (5 kilograms).

3Once the convictions were entered, the Crown moved to have Mr. Singh’s bail release vacated pursuant to s. 523(2)(iii) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

4The Crown submits it can show cause why Mr. Singh’s bail should be vacated pending sentencing now that he has been convicted of these serious offences.

5Counsel submits that Mr. Singh’s detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice having regard to:

i. The strength of the Crown’s case which is certain now that Mr. Singh has been convicted;

ii. The seriousness and gravity of the offence;

iii. The circumstances of the offence; and

iv. A potential lengthy sentence which will likely exceed ten years.

6Mr. Marinier fairly advises the court that there have been no issues with Mr. Singh regarding any of his conditions of release to date.

7The Crown offers no other evidence relating to any alleged misconduct or breaches by Mr. Singh pending trial. They make no submissions that Mr. Singh is a flight risk to India (or anywhere else).

Circumstances of the Offender

8Mr. Singh is 29 years old. He is a citizen of India and is in Canada currently as a permanent resident. He is married with one child. His wife is a Canadian citizen. Their child was born in Canada.

Conditions of Release

9The current conditions of Mr. Singh’s release are as follows (in general):

He must reside with a surety at a specific residence.
He must remain in that residence except for

Personal or family medical emergencies
Attending court or his lawyer’s office
When in the presence of surety, Amandeep Bhurinder, approved in writing by that surety.
To attend for work at Red Moon Bakery.

He must remain in Ontario.
He is not to obtain a new or replacement passport or renew a passport.
He is not to possess weapons as defined in the Criminal Code.
He is subject to GPS monitoring at his expense.
He is not to possess any drug or trafficking paraphernalia.

10Mr. Singh has also pledged a security of $5,000.

11As well, Amandeep Bhurinder has pledged $50,000. There is also a $10,000 surety from a person named Grewal.

12Counsel for Mr. Singh, Mr. Balhi, argues against vacating the release order.

13He relies on the current release conditions as being significant. He also relies on the decision in R. v. Premji, Unreported (ONCA in Chambers) which he asserts are similar facts to this matter given the quantity of illegal substances involved for what he properly concedes is a serious offence which will attract a significant sentence.

Analysis

14For the reasons that follow, I am not prepared to vacate Mr. Singh’s bail release pending sentence. I am, however, going to exercise my discretion to vary Mr. Singh’s terms of release.

15I am not persuaded to make this decision based on Premji. I find that case distinguishable based on the age of the offender at 78, and the fact that there were potential issues with the validity of the trial decision on appeal.

16The case that I do find sets the parameters for my decision though is R. v. Tsega, 2021 ONSC 1129, 2021 CarswellOnt 1866, ONSC 1129, 170 W.C.B. (2d) 570.

17In that case, Gomery J. (as she then was) declined to vacate a bail release following her conviction of the offender of manslaughter contrary to s. 236 of the Criminal Code pending sentencing.

18In the decision, Justice Gomery reviews the principles of bail following conviction thoroughly. She found that the presumption of bail continues even after a guilty verdict. This principle applies even if the charge is a more serious charge covered by s. 469 of the Criminal Code.

19In a non-s.469 offence situation, the Crown must establish that bail should be revoked pending the sentencing hearing. While Mr. Singh would have satisfied the reverse onus test for a release when initially charged, this does not revert to a reverse onus situation at present.

20At para. 11 of her decision, Gomery J. states as follows:

An application for post-conviction revocation of bail occurs only in cases where the convicted offender was previously determined to be eligible for interim release. This means that, for the purpose of a s. 532(2) application, the Crown must generally rely on new facts that have emerged during the trial about (i) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence for which the accused has been tried; (ii) other criminal acts engaged in by the offender; or (iii) the offender’s failure to comply with the terms of his or her release.

21None of these factors apply in this situation. Essentially, the Crown is seeking to have Mr. Singh’s bail revoked because the Crown’s case has been proven. The Crown submits that to continue Mr. Singh’s bail now, in light of that, would impact the ability to maintain confidence in the administration of justice having regard to all of the circumstances.

22In R. v. Green (cited in the Tsega decision), Ducharme J. stated that “neither public safety nor maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice require that bail be routinely revoked following conviction.”

23While I acknowledge that Mr. Singh will likely be sentenced to a significant period of incarceration for these four offences, there is no other evidence before the court that satisfies me that the Crown has established cause why the bail should be revoked.

24The bail conditions are strong (with one exception which I will reference in a moment).

25Mr. Singh is subject to ankle monitoring. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Singh is a flight risk. In particular, I note that his wife and child are Canadian citizens. The Crown does not suggest he is a flight risk.

26For all these reasons, I find that the Crown has not shown that Mr. Singh’s incarceration is required to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

27If it was the intention of Parliament that the revocation of bail should occurr automatically or by rote, on conviction of these or other serious offences, that could have been specifically delineated in the Code. It is not.

28This is not an exceptional circumstance.

29Having said that, I am varying the terms and conditions of Mr. Singh’s bail release to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

30In this respect, the wording from Section 5 (Conditions) is amended by deleting these words:

When you are in the presence of your surety, Amandeep Bhinder, approved of in writing by your surety, dated and signed.

31I do not think in these circumstances, Mr. Singh should be out and about with his surety provided she signs a document.

32And that is my decision.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

George W. King

Justice

Released: February 3, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Singh, 2026 ONSC 725

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-2216 (Sarnia)

DATE: 20260203

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Charanpreet Singh

Offender

DECISION ON APPLICATION

TO REVOKE BAIL

(s. 532(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46)

King J.

Released: February 3, 2026