R. v. Singh, 2011 ABQB 323

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R. v. Singh, 2011 ABQB 323 Date: 20110512 Docket: 100272533Q1 Registry: Calgary Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - Ranjit Rana Singh Accused Editorial Notice: On behalf of the Government of Alberta personal data identifiers have been removed from this unofficial electronic version of the judgment. _______________________________________________________ Oral Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice Hunt McDonald _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] Ranjit Rana Singh (“Ranjit”) stands charged with: a.

That he, on or about the 7 th day of December, 2009, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully cause the death Harinder Singh, thereby committing second degree murder, contrary to section 235 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada .

Facts [ 2 ] The following are the Statement of Admitted Facts pursuant to

section 655 of the Criminal Code of Canada which Ranjit as well as his counsel together with Crown signed on the 26 th of April, 2011. Background 1. On December 7, 2009, Ranjit Singh (the “accused”) was living with his father, Harinder Singh, and mother, Nirmal Singh at [...] Castleglen Way, N.E., Calgary, Alberta ( the “residence”). Also living in the residence were the Accused’s brother, Sukhjit Singh (aged 29 years), and sister, Jasjit Singh (aged 21 years). 2. Harinder was born on [...], 1949, and was 60 years old at the time of his death on December 7, 2009. 3.

The accused was born on [...], 1979, and was 30 years old on December 7, 2009. 4. The Singh family owned two Subway franchises in Calgary, one in the TransCanada Mall and the other in Temple Crossing. The accused worked as a manager in these businesses from around 2001, when the family purchased its first franchise, to September 2009. 5. In 2009 the Singh family noticed a change in Ranjit’s behaviour, which became more pronounced in the months leading up to December 7, 2009.

The accused became increasingly withdrawn, was progressively unable to work for the family business, started sleeping all day and was less communicative with his family. He ate less frequently, lost a noticeable amount of weight, and his hygiene declined. The accused stopped working for the family business in September 2009. Sukhjit reported that in May 2009 he noticed the accused twitching for several seconds at a time. By the fall of 2009, this had increased in frequency. 6.

During this time period a family physician attended the home on a couple of occasions and treated the accused with anti- depressant medication. The accused did not take his medication consistently. 7. In a statement made to police on March 5, 2010, Sukhjit reported that at one point prior to December 7 th , Ranjit mentioned a female’s voice in his mind, and that a demon was harassing him. Neither Nirmal nor Jasjit noted any similar behaviour. Sukhjit did not mention this in his initial interviews with police. 8.

Other than the behaviours noted at paragraphs 5-7, above, the Singh family did not observe the accused do or say anything out of the ordinary. They did not observe him say anything out of context, nor did he appear tohave any break with reality. Whenever he would go out with friends, or a guest would come over, Ranjit would seem normal. 9. There were no verbal or physical altercations between the accused and Harinder in the weeks leading up to the incident on December 7, 2009. 10. The accused was not intoxicated by drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident. Events of December 7, 2009

11. In the early evening of December 6, 2009, Nirmal cooked dinner for the Singh family. She asked Sukhjit if he would have supper. Sukhjit declined to eat with the family, as he had to go close one of the Subway stores. Nirmal then spoke with Ranjit, who was in the basement, and asked him to come up to eat. He told her to leave him alone, and that he would come up to eat later. Harinder, Nirmal and Jasjit had dinner together. Afterwards, Sukhjit and Jasjit left the residence to close the Subway stores. 12. Sukhjit closed the family’s TransCanada Subway and then picked Jasjit up from the Temple location.

Sukhjit and Jasjit arrived back at the residence around 10:30 p.m. Harinder, Nirmal, and Ranjit were home. 13. Throughout the day, Ranjit had appeared normal to the rest of the family. Sukhjit said that in the afternoon, Ranjit was doing his own thing, listening to music on his computer, smiling, and singing along. When Sukhjit and Jasjit got home after closing the Subways Ranjit was downstairs in the living room playing with the cat. Jasjit went to the computer room downstairs to work on her homework. Ranjit came into the room, had a brief conversation with her and then left and closed the door.

When Sukhjit went downstairs the accused was flipping through Sukhjit’s comic card collection. Sukhjit spoke with him for a few minutes and then went to bed. During both conversations Ranjit seemed normal, although Jasjit thought he was a bit “spaced out”. 14. Harinder Singh went to bed at approximately 10:30 p.m., in the room he shared with his wife. Nirmal joined him in bed at around 11:00 p.m. All of the Singh children were in the lower level of the residence at that time. 15.

At around 1:00 a.m. on December 7, 2009 Jasjit was still in the computer room working on homework, when she heard screaming from upstairs. Sukhjit was sleeping in his bedroom with the door slightly ajar. Jasjit called out to Sukhjit, and ran upstairs. Sukhjit was close behind her. They saw Ranjit on the upper floor of the house, to the left of the stairs holding an object. 16. Sukhjit and Jasjit followed the sound of the screaming to their parents’ bedroom. They entered and saw Nirmal screaming and crying. Harinder was face down on the bed with blood coming from the back of his head.

Sukhjit wrapped a bandana around Harinder’s head to try and stop the bleeding. Jasjit ran to the kitchen to get towels to mop up the blood. 17. At approximately 1:17 a.m. Jasjit called 911. The dispatcher heard screaming in the background and the caller asking for an ambulance. The police arrived at 1:23 a.m. and found Harinder in an upstairs bedroom unconscious and unresponsive, but still alive. Harinder had a large wound to the back his head. Harinder was lying on a bed and Sukhjit was holding a towel to his head. The towel was covered in blood and the sheets were wet.

The police noted blood was coming from the back of Harinder’s head, nose and mouth. It appeared that Harinder was struggling to breathe. 18. Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) transported Harinder to the Foothills Medical Centre. Harinder succumbed to his injuries at 7:30 p.m. the evening of December 7, 2009. 19. When the Calgary Police Service (“CPS”) arrived at the scene, the only people present in the residence in addition to Harinder were Nirmal Singh, Sukhjit Singh, and Jasjit Singh. Furthermore, both the attending officers who initially responded to the 911 call and the Identification

Section checked for signs of forcible entry into the residence. None of the officers in attendance detected any sign of forcible entry into the residence. 20. When the police arrived on scene at the residence in the early morning hours of December 7, 2009 they noted the garage door was open. Missing from the garage was a purple 2000 Honda civic bearing Alberta license plate [...]. This vehicle was registered to Harinder but all of the members of the Singh household had access to the keys for this vehicle, including Ranjit Singh. Cause of Death 21.

The cause of Harinder’s death was blunt force injuries to his head, inflicted by the accused, Ranjit Singh. The blunt force injury to the head, which was not accidental in nature, caused a skull fracture and bleeding on the surface of the brain (subdural hemorrhage). The subdural hemorrhage resulted in compression and displacement of the brain. This compression and displacement of the brain caused

Harinder’s body to become unable to maintain essential functions which lead to his death. There was also a bruise on the left posterior shoulder and a fractured scapula. 22. A subdural hemorrhage is a space occupying lesion within the relatively tight confinement of the skull. It is caused by tearing of delicate blood vessels between the brain and its covering. The subdural blood compresses the brain causing rapidly evolving displacement of the brain. In most cases as in this one, the outcome is fatal.

Other than the non-accidental head injury that caused Harinder’s death and the injury to his shoulder, Harinder was in fine health. Toxicology results revealed drugs given to Harinder as part of his treatment by EMS or the Foothills Hospital but did not detect any alcohol or non-prescribed pharmaceutical substances in Harinder’s blood. Processing the Scene 23. The CPS Identification

Section attended the residence and took photographs of the scene on December 8, 2009, which are to be entered as a separate exhibit. Exhibit 2 is a book of 81 photographs that accurately set out photographs of the residence, various exhibits that were seized at the scene, Harinder at the hospital, and Harinder during the autopsy that was performed on him by Dr. Belenky on December 8, 2009. The legend contained in the front of the binder accurately describes what the photographs display. 24.

Continuity was maintained over Harinder from the time that he was taken by EMS from the residence during the early morning hours of December 7, 2009, up to the time that the autopsy was performed on him. 25. CPS maintained continuity of the residence up to the point in time that the photographs were taken and over all exhibits seized in relation to this matter. 26. CPS did an extensive search for a murder weapon. None was located.

The type of weapon that could have caused the head injury to Harinder could include a hard metal object such as a pipe or a golf club or some other form of hard object that could be used as a club. Initial Arrest of the Accused 27. The accused checked in to the Banff Trail Motel, at 2107 16 Avenue, N.W., Calgary, Alberta on December 7, 2009, and checked out the next day. 28. On December 8, 2009 at 11:00 p.m. Constable Harris of the Calgary Police Service found the accused in the driver’s seat as the lone occupant of the Honda Civic described in paragraph 20.

The accused initially did not produce any identification and gave the name “Parminder Singh”. Constable Harris requested the accused exit the vehicle and placed him in the back of this marked police vehicle. Constable Harris then searched the vehicle and discovered the accused driver’s license under the floor mat. Ranjit Singh then identified himself as Ranjit Singh. The accused was arrested on outstanding warrants for traffic tickets. The accused does not have any recollection of this occurring. 29.

At 11:23 p.m. on December 8, Constable Harris transported the accused to the Andrew Davidson Building to be interviewed by detectives in relation to Harinder’s death. At 12:15 a.m. on December 9, 2009, Detective Berglind arrested, chartered and cautioned the accused for the murder of Harinder Singh. Interview with the Accused 30. On December 9, 2009, the accused freely and voluntarily spoke with Detectives Berglind, Ho, Kainth, and Cavilla of the Calgary Police Service. This statement was audio-and video-recorded.

The four DVDs of the interview between CPS and the accused is an accurate recording of the conversation that took place (Exhibit 3). The transcript of the interview with the Accused is a true and accurate copy of the DVD interview (Exhibit 4).

31. At 8:30 p.m. on December 9, Detective Cavilla informed the accused he would be released from custody pending further investigation. 32. Detective Cavilla seized the clothing Ranjit Singh was wearing at this time, which he was wearing at the time of his arrest, and blood spots were noted next to the zipper in his jeans. This was sent off for DNA analysis along with a known blood sample of Harinder Singh’s. The DNA from the blood on the jeans is not Harinder Singh’s. Initial release of the Accused 33. After being released from CPS custody on December 9, the accused again went to stay at the Banff Trail Motel.

He remained there until January 2, 2010 when he was admitted to the Foothills Medical Centre under the care of Dr. Sellmer. 34. On January 11, 2010, the accused left the Foothills Medical Centre without advising the staff at that location at approximately 8:45 p.m. after meeting with his brother, Sukhjit. He was arrested by the RCMP in Strathmore on January 12, 2010 and transported back to the Foothills Medical Centre, where he was certified under a mental health treatment order. Ultimate arrest of the Accused 35. On March 5, 2010, Detectives Berglind and Cavilla attended the Foothills Medical Centre.

At approximately 5:44 p.m. Detective Berglind placed the accused under arrest for the second-degree murder of Harinder Singh. The accused was transported to the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatric Centre. [ 3 ] Sometime shortly after being interviewed by the police just two days after the offence, Ranjit continued to deteriorate to the point where he required hospitalization at the Foothills Medical Centre under the care of Dr. Sellmer commencing early January 2010.

He was presenting with significant and severe symptoms of psychosis. [ 4 ] Ranjit remained at the Foothills Medical Centre until he was transferred to the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatric Centre in March 2010 to determine his fitness to stand trial for the death of Harinder Singh. He received psychiatric treatment under the supervision of Dr. David Tano until February 2011 when he was discharged back to the Calgary Remand Centre.

Issue [ 5 ] The issue in this case is whether Ranjit can avail himself of the defence of mental disorder set out in Section 16(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada by reason of suffering from a mental disorder which rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act, or of knowing that it was wrong. Section 16(2) and (3) provide that the accused bears the burden of proving that he was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility and such proof must be proved on the balance of probabilities.

The Law [ 6 ] In order to find Ranjit guilty of second-degree murder the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following three elements: (

i) Ranjit caused the death of Harinder Singh,

(ii) Ranjit cause the death unlawfully, and (iii) Ranjit had the state of mind required for murder, meaning that he meant to cause the death of Harinder Singh. [7] In this case there is no question that the essential elements of the offence have been proven by the Crown beyond areasonable doubt in that they are contained in the Statement of Admitted Facts which facts were signed by Ranjit Singh together with hisCounsel and the Crown as provided for in

section 655 of the Criminal Code of Canada. [8] Ranjit raises the defence that he is not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. This defence arises fromsection 16 of the Criminal Code. Section 16 (1) states that no person is criminally responsible for

an act committed while suffering froma mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or of knowing that it was wrong. [9] Section 16 (2) also presumes that every person does not suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminalresponsibility unless the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities. Section 16 (3) states that the burden of proof that an accusedwas suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility rests on the person that raises the issue.

In this casethat means that Ranjit has the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that he suffers from a mental disorder that rendered himincapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act or knowing that it was wrong. [10] There are two elements to the mental disorder defence The first element is to determine if Ranjit was suffering from a mentaldisorder at the time of the offence.

The second element is to determine whether the mental disorder was serious enough to render Ranjitincapable of either appreciating the nature and quality of his actions or knowing that they were wrong. [11] The question of whether Ranjit was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence is a legal question. A mentaldisorder is defined in

section 2 of the Criminal Code as a “disease of the mind”. According to the law, a “disease of the mind” is anyillness, disorder, or abnormal condition which impairs the human mind and its functioning. See R. v. Cooper [1980] 1.S.C.R. 1149 at1159. [12] The Crown does not dispute that Ranjit suffers from a medical disorder, namely, schizophrenia, and suffered it at the time ofthe offence. Considering the totality of the evidence and in particular the evidence presented by Dr. Tano and Dr.

Woods, at trial, I amsatisfied that at the time of the offence, Ranjit was suffering from the mental disorder of schizophrenia, a mental disease from which hestill suffers. He first started suffering from this mental disorder in 2009. It caused him to have delusions and hallucinations. [13] The next question is whether the time of the offence, Ranjit was capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actionsor knowing that they were wrong.

To be capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions, an accused must have the capacityto know what he was doing and as well as the capacity to understand the physical consequences that would follow from his actions.

Inthis case, for example, did Ranjit know that in hitting Harinder Singh on the head with a metal object with such strong force that hemight kill Harinder Singh? [14] However, even if Ranjit understood the nature and quality of his actions, he will still not be found to be criminally responsibleif he was incapable of understanding that his actions were “wrong” due to his mental disorder. For the purposes of

section 16 of theCriminal Code wrong means “morally wrong”, not “legally wrong”. See R. v. Chaulk (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303. Thequestion here is whether Ranjit’s mental disorder obstructed his thought processes to such a degree that he was unable to rationallyconsider whether his actions were right or wrong in the way a normal person would. See R. v. Oommen (SCC), [1994]2 S.C.R. 507. [15] Although I have considered the totality of the evidence, I have paid particular attention to the testimony of Ranjit’s treatingpsychiatrist Dr. David Tano.

He was qualified as an expert in forensic psychiatry to give evidence in these proceedings and provided awritten report to assist the Court to determine whether Ranjit was capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions or knowingthat they were wrong at the time of the offence. Dr. Tano treated Ranjit from his admission to the Southern Alberta Forensic PsychiatricCentre in March 2010 until he was discharged to the Calgary Remand Centre in February 2011.

[ 16 ] At the time of his admission to the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatric Centre he was noted to be quite perplexed and confused and in general answered most questions with very superficial and vague answers. [ 17 ] As well, I carefully considered the testimony and report of Dr. Curtis Woods who provided a second opinion to the Crown in respect of the mental competency of Ranjit. [ 18 ] In order to give their medical opinion, both Drs.

Tano and Woods had to undertake an inquiry, the essence of which is set out in the Oommen case at clause 26 as follows: The crux of the inquiry is whether the accused lacks the capacity to rationally decide whether the act is right or wrong and hence to make a rational choice about whether to do it or not. The inability to make a rational choice may result from a variety of mental dysfunctions; as the following passages indicate, these include at a minimum states to which the psychiatrists testified in this case - delusions which make the accused perceive

an act which is wrong as right or justifiable, and a disordered condition of the mind which deprives the accused of the ability to rationally evaluate what he is doing. [ 19 ] During the criminal investigation the police interviewed Ranjit’s mother Nirmal, his sister Jasjit and his brother Sukhjit. His family members lived in the family home with Ranjit and Harinder Singh in Calgary. They indicated that there seemed to be a distinct change in Ranjit which started around March 2009.

He was noted to have become more distant and vacant, he would sleep for excessive periods of time, be fatigued and twitch, suffered a lack of appetite and would hole up in the basement of the family home. He also complained frequently of headaches and lower back pain and refused to work in the family business. [ 20 ] His mother Nirmal indicated that they had the family doctor over to the house to consult with Ranjit. That family doctor prescribed him anti-depressants for depression symptoms. This was in approximately October of 2009.

He refused to take his medication, especially in the weeks leading up to the offence. [ 21 ] The Crown presented videotape of the police interview of Ranjit which occurred on December 9, 2009 which was two days after the offence. This videotape is the best evidence available to make a determination of the accused’s mental state at the time of the offence. [ 22 ] Ranjit reported fears that a demon was trying to hurt the family and described this demon as a female possessing black hair and white eyes. Ranjit was fearful that she would harm his mother. Dr.

Tano noted that Ranjit stopped working at the Subway owned by the family in September 2009 due to poor mental health and because he was scared of not having good thoughts, quoting Ranjit saying “ I was frightened of the thing that was around but I did not know what it was.” [ 23 ] Ranjit reported to Dr. Tano that around November and December 2009 that he was hearing auditory hallucinations which stated bad things to him and appeared to be frequently demeaning in nature. [ 24 ] Dr. Tano indicated that Ranjit continues to report that he cannot recall the specifics of the actual offence.

In interviews at the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatric Centre, Ranjit said he can recall feeling possessed by the demon persecuting him and putting him up against his parents. At sometime during the evening of the offence Ranjit reported blanking out and having no recollection of the actual events. His next memory was that of driving around the city. He cannot recall the actual event which resulted in the death of his father. While staying at the motel, Ranjit stated that he did not know his father had passed away. [ 25 ] Dr.

Tano reported that Ranjit was gradually becoming more and more ill prior to the index offence. He was displaying symptoms of isolation, persecutory ideation and odd beliefs including that of telepathy or auras. Ranjit reported to Dr. Tano that he was having thought disorder in the months prior to the offence and admitted to having an inability to speak along with an overall sense of not feeling well or not in rhythm. He advised nursing staff at the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatric Centre that he felt he was at war during that time and claims that demons had insulted his family warranting his defence of them.

He also referred to telepathy and that demons had been attached to his body and often accused, insulted and threatened him.

[ 26 ] Dr. Tano concluded that Ranjit suffers from a severe mental illness of a psychotic kind diagnosed as schizophrenia. That is to say, he suffers from a condition where he exhibits symptoms of significant disorganization of thought, and has auditory and visual hallucinations. In addition, he appears to suffer from persecutory delusions and hallucinations where he believes that demons and other such beings with such powers were persecuting him and his family. [ 27 ] He diagnosed Ranjit as suffering from a disease of the mind known as schizophrenia.

This rendered him in a state of internal cause which although he may recognize what he is doing would significantly impact his ability to appreciate the nature and quality of act but more specifically would render him incapable of appreciating what he was doing was wrong. [ 28 ] Therefore Dr. Tano was of the opinion that at the time of the offence Ranjit was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act, but more importantly, was impacting his ability to know what he was doing was wrong. Therefore, it was Dr.

Tano’s opinion that Ranjit would qualify for a section 16(1) defence in which he may be considered not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. [ 29 ] Dr. Curtis Woods gave a second opinion, requested by the Crown, as to Ranjit’s mental state at the time of the offence and whether Ranjit could avail himself of the not criminally responsible by reason of mental deficiency defence of s.16 of the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 30 ] He was qualified as a forensic psychiatrist expert to testify at court in these proceedings.

He is a consulting forensic psychiatrist at the Forensic Assessment and Community Services Program in Edmonton, Alberta. [ 31 ] Dr. Woods took a comprehensive review and careful analysis of available and accessible collateral documentation in this case. He did not have Ranjit under his care. [ 32 ] His conclusion was that Ranjit was suffering from an acute psychotic episode in the context of a schizophrenic condition at the time of the commission of the index criminal offence and that said psychiatric confirmity rendered him incapable of understanding the moral wrongness of his act. [ 33 ] Dr.

Tano indicated that he treated Ranjit for approximately one year in the South Alberta Forensic Unit. It took Dr. Tano and his staff a significant period of time to find the right prescription medication and dosage to manage Ranjit’s symptoms. He advised that there is no cure for schizophrenia but rather it is a chronic condition which requires life long medication treatment. Schizophrenia is easier to treat in a controlled environment, as once patients are stabilized they often stop taking their medication. This is because they have a problem with rational decisions and exhibit poor insight into their illness.

Once Ranjit was stabilized he was then transferred to the Calgary Remand Centre in February 2011 where he has been situated to the date of trial. [ 34 ] Both Drs. Tano and Woods were questioned by Crown counsel as Crown wondered whether some items Crown noted from the facts might change or alter their psychiatric opinion as to the culpability of Ranjit. [ 35 ] The issues were: (

i) When Ranjit was asked about the murder of his father, he avoided answering on the basis that he said he had to have a lawyer present to discuss certain things. (ii) That he gave a false name at the time he was arrested on December 8, 2009, namely that of Parminder Singh. (iii) His family did not note that Ranjit was hearing voices or making statements out of context the week leading up to the homicide. (iv) The issue of Ranjit fleeing the scene and how he stayed at a motel for the subsequent days. (

v) Ranjit stating that he cannot recall the events and whether that is an indication of malingering or feigning innocence.

[ 36 ] Both Drs. Wood and Tano were still of the opinion that Ranjit would qualify for the defence of not being criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, particularly on the basis that his schizophrenia impacted his ability to know what he was doing was wrong.

Both forensic psychiatrists commented that it would be difficult for Ranjit to feign the severity and consistency of his symptoms for the long period of time totalling some fourteen months during which he received psychiatric treatment. [ 37 ] I conclude that Crown has established a proper foundation to make a finding that Ranjit is not criminally responsible for the death of Harinder Singh by reason of mental disorder.

Having considered the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that, at the time of the offence, Ranjit was unable to understand, due to his mental illness, that his actions were morally wrong. Disposition [ 38 ] Since I have found on a balance of probabilities that Ranjit is not criminally responsible for the death of Harinder Singh by reason of mental disorder, it is open for Defence counsel or the Crown to request that the Court hold a disposition hearing or that the matter be referred to the Alberta Review Board for disposition. These provisions are found in

section 672.45 of the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 39 ] Further,

section 672.47 of the Criminal Code of Canada indicates that where a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder finding is made and the Court makes no disposition in respect of the accused, then the matter shall be sent to the Alberta Review Board for them to make a disposition. [ 40 ] Crown Counsel argued in favour of sending Ranjit to the Alberta Hospital in order that the Alberta Review Board make a disposition pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada . Dr.

Woods confirmed there would be a risk assessment of Ranjit addressing the threat he poses to the safety of the public prior to a release being considered. [ 41 ] Defence Counsel submitted that he was not in favour of Ranjit spending any more time in custody than is necessary.

He did concede that there has been a lapse in time since Ranjit was last assessed prior to being sent to the Calgary Remand Centre in February 2011. [ 42 ] I am satisfied in this case it is most appropriate to send Ranjit Singh for disposition to the Alberta Review Board as his condition has not been assessed since the time that he was transferred from the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatric Centre to the Remand Centre in February 2011.

As the Review Board can tailor a disposition to the individual accused’s situation, it is my finding that they are in a much better position than this Court to make a determination as to disposition taking into account the concern for public safety in setting such conditions that will be the least onerous and least restrictive to the accused. [ 43 ] Pursuant to s. 672.46(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada Ranjit Singh shall be remanded in custody to the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatric Centre pending a transfer to Alberta Hospital (Edmonton) pending a Hearing by the Alberta Review Board to occur within 45 days of this decision. [ 44 ] Additionally, pursuant to s. 672.45(1.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada I order that a copy of the Indictment, copies of all Exhibits filed in this trial and a written copy of the Oral Reasons for Judgment be forwarded to the Alberta Review Board without delay. [ 45 ] Pursuant to s. 487.051(3)(

a) Ranjit Singh will provide a DNA sample. Heard on the 28 th day of April, 2011.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 12 th day of May, 2011. S.L. Hunt McDonald J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Gary Cornfield, Q.C. for the Crown Allan Fay for the Accused