R. v. Sinha Date:, 2015 BCPC 200

Citation: R. v. Sinha Date: 20150615 2015 BCPC 0200 File No: 208589-1K Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. SABRINA DEVI SINHA RULING ON

SECTION 810 PEACE BOND APPLICATION OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE P. D. GULBRANSEN Counsel for the Crown: P. Beirne Appearing in person: Sabrina Sinha Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 26, June 3, 2015 Date of Judgment: June 15, 2015

INTRODUCTION [1] THE COURT: The Crown alleges that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Sabrina Sinha will cause Ajitpal (A.J.)Bhatti personal injury, and therefore seeks an order pursuant to s. 810 of the Criminal Code that Ms. Sinha be placed on a recognizanceto keep the peace. [2] Mr. Bhatti claims that Ms. Sinha has pursued him relentlessly ever since their relationship ended in 2006. He points to repeatedand unwanted, even hostile communications from her in September and October 2014 as the most recent examples of this troublingconduct. [3] Ms. Sinha opposes the application. She says that Mr.

Bhatti has no basis to fear her. She further says that much of Mr. Bhatti'sevidence is false. She says that their relationship ended well after 2006 and that he contacted her frequently. She alleges that he hasmade a number of false complaints to the police about her over the years. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES [4]

Section 810 of the Criminal Code provides that: An Information may be laid before a justice by or on behalf of a person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will causepersonal injury to him or her or his or her spouse or common-law partner or child… If the defendant disputes the allegation, the court must hold a hearing at which both parties may present evidence.

If the presiding judgefinds that the evidence proves that there are reasonable grounds for the alleged fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into arecognizance to keep the peace, commonly known as a “peace bond”. [5] An application under s. 810 of the Criminal Code is not a criminal charge. A person who is ordered to be bound by arecognizance to keep the peace has not been convicted of a criminal offence. This

section of the Criminal Code is aimed at preventingcrime; in particular, preventing offences which may cause personal injury to another person (R. v. Patrick, (BC SC),[1990] BCJ No. 187 (B.C. Co. Ct.). Unlike criminal prosecutions, the standard of proof in these cases is on the balance of probabilitiesrather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. [6] The term "personal injury" is not defined in the Criminal Code. Does it mean something more than actual physical injury? Ifone looks at other sections of the Code containing similar terms, it suggests that it means more than strictly physical harm.

For example,s. 752 of the Code defines "serious personal injury offence" to include: conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychologicaldamage upon another person. (emphasis added) [7] This provision relates to offences for which a person can be declared a dangerous offender and is not relevant to thisapplication. However, it illustrates that the term "personal injury" can encompass psychological harm. That is, the remedy availableunder s. 810 is designed to prevent crimes from being committed.

The Criminal Code recognizes that psychological harm can resultfrom criminal acts and which can be as significant as physical harm to a victim's body. [8] The Crown is not restricted to leading evidence under a s. 810 application, as restricted as it is in a criminal prosecution. Evidence about past conduct by the defendant, particularly towards the party seeking that order, is admissible to provide a context to theconduct on which the Crown relies to obtain the order under s. 810.

Such evidence may assist the judge in assessing the reasonablenessof the person's fear and the significance of the conduct which the Crown says gives rise to the fear. (R. v. Patrick, supra) CIRCUMSTANCES [9] Mr. Bhatti testified and said that he and the defendant were in a relationship for three or four months in 2005. He said that hebroke up with Ms. Sinha because of her behaviour, including being jealous and possessive of him. (This, of course, is his version ofevents; Ms. Sinha disagrees strongly with this, including the actual length of the relationship and why they separated.) Mr. Bhatti saidthat Ms.

Sinha was devastated when he broke off the relationship and that she asked that they still have some contact as friends. They didfor some time, but Mr. Bhatti said that she reverted to her old behaviour and he decided to terminate what was left of their relationship. Ever since, he said, Ms. Sinha has continually bothered or harassed him. He said that, for instance, many years ago Ms. Sinha had evenpulled up some plants from his garden. She has refused, he says, to leave him alone. [10] Mr. Bhatti responded to this behaviour by changing his phone number and e-mail to escape from her attention.

He said that hehad called the police many times over the years to report or complain about her activities. None of these complaints ever resulted in anycharges being laid against her. [11] This is the background of the relationship and of the nature of Mr. Sinha's conduct towards Mr. Bhatti as perceived by Mr.Bhatti which the Crown says provides a context to explain the effect on him of the events of September and October 2014. This includesa number of e-mails sent by Ms. Sinha to Bhatti, as well as an incident in which Ms. Sinha confronted Aman Grewal, Mr.

Bhatti'sgirlfriend, in her driveway, and two letters that Ms. Sinha sent to Grewal. [12] It appears that the defendant sent about 30 e-mails to Mr. Bhatti in September and October. The September e-mails are quitedifferent from the October e-mails. In September, the e-mails are essentially respectful, and they request that Mr. Bhatti contact thedefendant and meet with her so that she can finally understand why they can no longer be together. She even expresses her love for Mr.Bhatti. On the other hand, the October e-mails which follow the incident in which Ms. Sinha confronted Ms.

Grewal, are completelynegative toward Mr. Bhatti. These e-mails express Ms. Sinha's opinion that Mr. Bhatti is an utterly despicable and dishonest person who

constantly lies and manipulates people, who has ruined her life, who mistreats his own family, and who is mentally ill. In Ms. Sinha's opinion, he will ruin the life of any woman with whom he forms a relationship. These October e-mails were sent after Ms. Sinha had confronted Ms. Grewal and after Mr. Bhatti, in response, had gone to Sinha's parents' home to complain to them about her conduct. [ 13 ] The letters sent to Ms. Grewal are also different in tone. The first is essentially a list of all Mr. Bhatti's defects as perceived by Ms. Sinha.

The second, written a few days later, continues the negative comments about Mr. Bhatti and also is hostile towards Ms. Grewal. These first e-mails were sent from an address belonging to someone named Ava Martinez. Ms. Sinha denies that she sent these e-mails, but I do not accept that. The only rational conclusion in this case is that she was the one who sent the e-mails under the name of Martinez. [ 14 ] The first of the e-mails filed in court were sent on August 31st, 2014. It is a mildly critical letter, taking Mr. Bhatti to task for the way he treats his sister. As well, it implies that Mr.

Bhatti has been avoiding Ms. Sinha. The e-mail states in the second paragraph: “Seems like all you do is hide-and-seek at age 40.” [ 15 ] The next e-mail, however, sent on September 1st at 6:08 a.m., invites Mr. Bhatti to have sex with her. The next e-mail, sent three hours later, implores Mr. Bhatti to meet with Ms. Sinha one last time so they can have what she calls "the talk". The last two sentences in the e-mail state: “We do love you. Speak now.” [ 16 ] The next e-mail continues the criticism of Mr. Bhatti's treatment of his mother and family, and states that Mr. Bhatti faces "dire consequences" if Mr.

Bhatti does not call Sinha. The second-to-last paragraph suggests that she will tell "this girl", meaning some female acquaintance of Mr. Bhatti, all the negative things that Ms. Sinha knows about him. But then the e-mail states: Call and do the right thing or you will lose out later in life, maybe sooner or maybe a bit longer. [ 17 ] However, in an e-mail message at 10:15 p.m. she states: Luv you, and goodnight. And she says this: Please make your last peaceful, respectful being asked. That last quotation doesn't make sense, but that is what the e-mail says.

That brief message was followed by another which states: Forgot to let you in on a secret, getting a boob job next month. I feel like it. Cannot wait. Mr. Bhatti reported all these communications to the police. [ 18 ] In early October, Ms. Sinha appears to have found out that Mr. Bhatti was involved in a relationship with Ms. Grewal. Sinha went to her residence and spoke to Grewal's mother. In doing so, Sinha found out a few details about Ms. Grewal, including that she worked at a hospital. Ms. Grewal's mother must have become suspicious because she phoned Ms.

Grewal at work and told her that a woman had been at her home, asking questions about Ms. Grewal. [ 19 ] Ms. Grewal came home after she finished work and saw that there was a vehicle parked on their street at the end of a cul-de-sac where the Grewal home is located. Ms. Grewal testified that she went upstairs and took a photograph of the vehicle with her cell phone and sent a copy of that photograph to Mr. Bhatti. Ms. Grewal then decided to go the gym. As she left her driveway in her vehicle, Ms. Sinha came up to her car, on foot, indicating that she wanted to speak to Ms. Grewal. Ms.

Grewal was taken aback and a little afraid. She did not know Ms. Sinha. She did not get out of her car but did stop and opened the window a little. Ms. Sinha proceeded to tell her a number of negative things about Mr. Bhatti. She does recall Ms. Sinha making a remark that if Ms. Sinha wanted to, she could have her cousins and brothers follow Mr. Bhatti and “do stuff to him.” (At this point, I should point out that Ms. Sinha denies saying this, and in any event, testified that she has no brother and all her male cousins are old.) Ms. Grewal eventually left in her car but did not make her appointment at the gym.

She was quite shaken up and just returned home. [ 20 ] Meanwhile, Mr. Bhatti received the e-mail from Ms. Grewal which showed that Ms. Sinha was parked outside Ms. Grewal's home. He decided to go right then and there to the parents of Ms. Sinha, along with his mother, to complain about her conduct. It is not clear to me what he thought he could accomplish in this respect, but it is clear to me that Mr. Bhatti felt himself to be at his wits' end. He had to do something. Ms. Sinha's parents eventually contacted her and she came to the meeting. Mr.

Bhatti was so concerned about being misrepresented that he recorded the whole meeting. Nothing came of this, other than to raise the ire of Ms. Sinha. LETTERS TO MS. GREWAL [ 21 ] Ms. Sinha then sent two letters to Ms. Grewal. The first, as I have said, is essentially a litany of all the sins committed by Mr. Bhatti, in particular how he had mistreated Ms. Sinha. Its essential message was that it would be a very bad idea for Ms. Grewal to continue a relationship with Mr. Bhatti. The next letter clearly indicates that Ms. Sinha had become quite hostile to Ms. Grewal.

The first sentence states: Aman, listen, it seems you are in denial. What is wrong with you women (sic)? You cannot hack the truth? I tried to be nice 'cause I knew you, but I guess you like to be treated the way you treat others.

I just make the comment that the letter does not explain what is meant by how Ms. Grewal treats others. Later on the letter states: Do you not see he's going to screw you over? I thought you took psychology since you do work as a social worker, or did you get your degree out of a toilet bowl? About Mr. Bhatti, she states: I am sure he says shit about me but I do not care because he is a schizo and a pathological liar and a dirty slut who sleeps with hookers. That is what people with mental illness do. Further on the letter states: Do you have some mental health issues too? You seem to like losers.

Even further along in the letter, the letter states: That day you acted like a kid running away in your little car. I thought social workers were supposed to be unbiased, but I guess you missed that part of your education. If I was being polite trying to talk to you, and you acted like a bitch as you did not know of these things I told you, you had to run away so you can call A.J. I know how what you were doing and did you enjoy writing my plate number down? I saw you. I know what you are up to. lol. Now I will be a bitch back. I chose not to because I knew you, but that is what you want. That is what you get.

The letter ends with this statement: I am not crazy but I like to tell you how my relationship was with A.J. Just as well I will tell anyone I want or everyone. This is Canada and freedom of speech. I know a lot of people. OCTOBER E-MAILS [ 22 ] The October e-mails occurred after the defendant spoke with Grewal and after the meeting at her parents' home. In this case, Mr. Bhatti replied to some of these. His replies are particularly nasty and insulting to Ms. Sinha. It appears to me that Mr.

Bhatti did so to try and get the message across to her that he wanted nothing to do with her. [ 23 ] One e-mail from Sinha stands out. It is dated October 14th, 2014, and indicates it came from Ms. Sinha's e-mail. It is clear from that message that Ms. Sinha was still upset about the way that she and Mr. Bhatti separated seven or eight years ago. She reiterates that he was completely ungrateful for all the good things that she had done for him. She also tells him that his relationship with Ms. Grewal is doomed. The rest of the e-mails repeat the common themes of Ms. Sinha's communications; she resents that Mr.

Bhatti broke up with her, she believes that he is mentally ill. She reminds him that he assaulted her in the past and that he forced her to have an abortion, that Ms. Grewal is a "Surrey slut" and that he will be very unhappy with her, that he mistreats his mother and his sister, and that he is a liar and a manipulator. MS. SINHA’S EVIDENCE [ 24 ] Ms. Sinha's testimony in reply to the application was that she poses no threat to harm anyone. She indicates that she has never physically harmed Mr. Bhatti; in fact, he was the one who harmed her.

She maintains that he is lying about him having no interest in seeing her, and suggested that he even called her briefly in October 2014 when Ms. Grewal was out of town. She suggests that a lot of Mr. Bhatti's previous complaints or reports to the police were all lies. DISCUSSION [ 25 ] Having considered all this evidence, I draw the following conclusions: 1. Ms. Sinha contacted Mr. Bhatti by e-mails many times in September and October 2014. Mr. Bhatti did not want to receive any of those communications; Ms. Sinha knew that. 2. Ms. Sinha believes that Mr.

Bhatti has never properly explained to her why he broke up their relationship, despite the fact that it dissolved at least eight years ago. 3. Ms. Sinha will be upset or angry if Mr. Bhatti has a relationship with any other woman, including Ms. Grewal. 4. If Mr. Bhatti does not respond to her communication, she becomes angry and vindictive. 5. Ms. Sinha will do her best to destroy any relationship that Mr. Bhatti develops with any woman by telling that woman every negative thing which she believes to be the truth about Mr. Bhatti. 6. Ms.

Sinha holds or will hold considerable animosity towards any woman with whom Mr. Bhatti has a relationship. WILL MS. SINHA CAUSE PERSONAL INJURY? [ 26 ] The inevitable conclusion is that unless some order is made against Ms. Sinha, she will continue to repeatedly communicate with Mr. Bhatti, even though she knows that he wants nothing whatsoever to do with her. The question is, though, has the Crown proved, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a reasonable basis to believe that Ms. Sinha will cause personal injury to Mr.

Bhatti? [ 27 ] I start with the proposition that a recognizance under s. 810 of the Criminal Code is designed to prevent crime. The applicant is not required to wait until an actual crime is committed. Nonetheless, I agree with Ms. Sinha's submission that the evidence does not

support a conclusion that she is likely to cause actual physical harm to Mr. Bhatti. Although Mr. Bhatti believes that Ms. Sinha's behaviour over the years has become so extreme that she may well become violent in the future as her attitude gets worse and worse, this is, in my opinion, pure speculation. [ 28 ] However, Ms. Sinha's acts of communicating repeatedly with Mr. Bhatti, often in abusive ways, have many of the features of the offence of criminal harassment.

A person commits such an offence under s. 264 of the Criminal Code towards another person, for instance, by "repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person, or anyone known to them." That particular

section is 264(2)(

b) of the Criminal Code . To constitute the offence, however, such actions must make the person fear for their safety. The courts have interpreted that concept by ruling that a person will be harassed if the accused's actions result in the person feeling “tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically feeling bedevilled and badgered.” ( R. v. Kosikar

(2000) CCC (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.)) [ 29 ] I do not suggest that Ms. Sinha has committed the offence of criminal harassment. However, it was apparent, upon hearing Mr. Bhatti testify, that the repeated and unwanted communications from Ms. Sinha in the context of the many prior actions over the years, have left him feeling "tormented, frustrated, bedevilled and badgered”. The essence of his replies to Ms. Sinha in cross-examination can be summed up in three words: "Leave me alone." [ 30 ]

Section 810 of the Criminal Code , as I have said, is intended to prevent crime. If no order is made against Ms. Sinha, it is very likely that she may commit the offence of criminal harassment against Mr. Bhatti. The kind of psychological harm that could result from these communications, including communications with persons known to Mr.

Bhatti, could result in personal injury to him on the basis that these actions could cause him the kind of psychological harm that the Criminal Code recognizes as personal injury. [ 31 ] I find, therefore, that the Crown has established on the balance of probabilities that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Ms. Sinha will cause personal injury to Mr. Bhatti, and I will invite the Crown to tell me what terms it wants. (SUBMISSIONS) [ 32 ] I place Ms. Sinha on a recognizance under s. 810 of the Criminal Code for one year in the amount of $500, no deposit, no surety.

The terms are that she must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [ 33 ] She must have no communication, directly or indirectly, with Ajitpal Bhatti. She must have no communication, directly or indirectly, with Aman Grewal. She must not go to any place known to her where Mr. Bhatti or Ms. Grewal may live, work or attend school. (RULING CONCLUDED)