r v. Ushra KHAN, 2023 QCCQ 6021

R. c. Khan 2023 QCCQ 6021 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Criminal Division No: 500-01-223925-212 DATE: September 15, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE YVES PARADIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ His Majesty the King Prosecutor v. Ushra KHAN Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW [ 1 ] Mrs.

Ushra Khan is on trial facing a charge of uttering threats between July 22, 2021, and August 27, 2021. [ 2 ] The evidence reveals only one incident during that period where threats are alleged to have been made. [ 3 ] The only issue in this trial is one of credibility because it is one person’s word against another’s. [ 4 ] A conflict arose between Mrs. Khan and her older sister when Mrs. Khan moved with her into a two-bedroom condo owned by their parents. CONTEXT [ 5 ] In the circumstances, it is appropriate to summarize each of the two testimonies.

Testimony of the complainant [ 6 ] Since August 2019, the complainant has been living in a condo owned by her parents. She was studying full time at dental school. [ 7 ] Her sister, Mrs. Khan, either lived in London, Ontario, while attending university or with her parents in Brampton, Ontario. [ 8 ] Although there were conversations before, the complainant was informed only within a week’s notice that her parents decided that Mrs. Khan would move in with her.

The complainant was not pleased to receive this information on such short notice considering that she had been living alone or with a roommate for five years. Being the eldest, she was also expected to take care of her sister. [ 9 ] In May 2021, Mrs. Khan moved in. At the time, the complainant used the second bedroom as an office space to study. She would have liked to have more time to arrange things to accommodate her sister. From mid-May 2021 until July 2021 the complainant had no option but to live with Mrs. Khan. [ 10 ] For a month, from July to August 2021, the complainant was in Brampton with her parents.

Mrs. Khan was then alone in Montreal. [ 11 ] The complainant returned to Montreal on August 21, 2021, a week before the beginning of school. She was accompanied by their parents and brother whose birthday is on [...]. [ 12 ] At the time, their parents were angry at the complainant for dating a white Quebecer. According to the complainant, it was against their values as Muslims. As the family gathered in the condo, the other members expressed their disagreement with the relationship.

[ 13 ] The conversation escalated. At some point Mrs. Khan said that she would light the complainant on fire and that God would not punish her. According to the complainant, it was not the first time that she had said such a thing. [ 14 ] The complainant asked Mrs. Khan if she really said that she would light her on fire. Mrs. Khan answered that such a punishment is written in the Quran. Their mother said that she should not say such a thing.

The rest of the family continued the conversation as if nothing had happened. [ 15 ] A few days later, the complainant went to the police station because living with her sister caused her to fear for her safety. [ 16 ] These threats had a big impact on her life. Out of fear, the complainant moved out of the condo. She did not disclose her new address to her family. For a long time, she was escorted to and fro university. Testimony of Mrs. Khan [ 17 ] Over time, hostility grew between the complainant and Mrs. Khan. [ 18 ] Mrs. Khan wants to be a physician.

At the time, she was going to Western University in London. Her sister was at McGill University. According to Mrs. Khan, the complainant was jealous of her success. [ 19 ] Upon graduation at Western University their parents and her decided that she would attend McGill University in the medical program. She was accepted. Her parents, the complainant and she had discussions about her living in their parents’ condo in Montreal. Mrs. Khan was to live there for a year while completing her medical degree. [ 20 ] The complainant had been hostile to this idea. She was very territorial about the condo.

She often said that it was hers. Her parents answered that they were a family and should live together. The complainant asked Mrs. Khan to pay a rent. Her parents refused. [ 21 ] The day before Mrs. Khan was supposed to move in, the complainant called her to say that she was not allowed to move in. [ 22 ] Mrs. Khan moved in on May 18, 2021. The complainant was then sleeping in one bedroom, using the other as an office space. From May to July 2021, Mrs. Khan slept on the couch so as not to disturb the complainant’s studies. Mrs.

Khan tried to stay away from the complainant as much as possible, but the latter complained constantly to their mother. [ 23 ] The complainant went to their parents’ home for a month. During that time, Mrs. Khan had her own bedroom. [ 24 ] On August 21, 2021, the complainant went back to the condo with their family. The family wanted to celebrate their brother’s birthday and surprise him with a cake. [ 25 ] Mrs. Khan says that she never threatened the complainant and never said the words that the complainant alleges she said. Instead, referring to burnt plants on the patio, Mrs.

Khan said that they might as well set them on fire. LEGAL PRINCIPLES [ 26 ] As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. McRae [1] , the elements of the offence of uttering threats include: (1) the utterance or conveyance of a threat to cause death or bodily harm; and (2) an intent to threaten. The threats can be uttered, conveyed, or in any way caused to be received by any person. The question of whether words constitute a threat is a question to be decided on an objective standard in the context of all the words written or spoken and having regard to the person to whom they were directed.

Would the questioned words convey a threat of serious bodily harm to a reasonable person? The fault element is determined with the evidence that the threatening words uttered or conveyed were meant to intimidate or to be taken seriously. [ 27 ] On the issue of credibility, the trial court should follow these principles: 1. If the court believes the evidence of the accused, it must acquit. 2. If the court does not believe the testimony of the accused but is left in reasonable doubt by it, it must acquit. 3.

If the court is not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, it must consider, on the basis of the accepted evidence, if it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused. [2] ANALYSIS [ 28 ] In July and August 2021, the relationship between the sisters was rather strained. [ 29 ] Although Mrs. Khan's version that she only referred to the possibility of setting fire to dried-up plants seems odd in the context, her credibility on all the other elements remains intact. [ 30 ] Obviously, the complainant was unhappy with the idea of ​​Mrs.

Khan sharing the condo with her. [ 31 ] The complainant does not remember offering the second bedroom or not. She claims not to remember her sister sleeping on the couch although, for some time, using the second bedroom as an office. She complained to her parents about Mrs. Khan’s cleanliness issues and lack of care for the plants. [ 32 ] A trial is not a credibility contest. The Court does not have to choose between two versions. It must be convinced without reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. [ 33 ] As stated again by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. C.L.Y [3] :

« This Court has consistently warned that verdicts of guilt should not be based on “whether [triers of fact] believe the defence evidence orthe Crown’s evidence” (W. (D.), at p. 757). Rather, the paramount question remains whether, on the whole of the evidence, the trier offact is left with a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused (R. v. Morin, (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345, at p. 361) ». [34] The Court cannot put aside the testimony of Mrs. Khan. The Court is left with a reasonable doubt. THEREFORE For these reasons, the Court: findS Mrs.

Ushra Khan not guilty on count 1. __________________________________ Yves Paradis, J.C.Q. Me Marie-Ève Fréchette For the prosecution Me Meghan Tousignant and Charlis Bakleh For Mrs. Ushra Khan Hearing: July 21, 2023