r v. RAHIL GOHIL, 2023 QCCQ 4371

R. c. Gohil 2023 QCCQ 4371 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL Criminal and Penal Division No: 500-01-244844-236 500-01-244843-238 DATE: June 16, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JULIE RIENDEAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HIS MAJESTY THE KING Prosecutor v.

RAHIL GOHIL Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff and the accused are ex-partners. The plaintiff recounted that the accused, while shouting and threatening her, stole her luggage and her purse, as she was on her way to her mother’s place, after exiting the metro station. She also related that two days later, the accused called her names in a doorway left ajar while she was at a friend's apartment.

At the time of these events, the accused was submitted to conditions refraining him from communicating or trying to communicate with the plaintiff. [ 2 ] The accused has to answer to one count of robbery and two counts of breach of condition. [1] [ 3 ] The plaintiff is the only witness. [ 4 ] The accused pleads that her testimony is contradictory and contains frailties that makes it unreliable to a point where it cannot support the accusations laid against him. [ 5 ] The prosecution sustains that, on the contrary, the proof of the commission of the offences is beyond any reasonable doubt. I.

QUESTION AT ISSUE [ 6 ] The only matter at issue is whether the evidence, taken as a whole, demonstrates every essential element of the offences the accused is charged with beyond a reasonable doubt. II. ANALYSIS [ 7 ] In criminal cases, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. It is up to the prosecution to prove the accused is guilty on the alleged charges, and that, beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 8 ] A proof beyond a reasonable doubt is based upon reason and common sense.

It is logically connected with the evidence, or the absence of evidence. [ 9 ] Does the evidence, here, prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the offences the accused is charged with? [ 10 ] With regard to a witness’ testimony, it has to be remembered that a witness may be believed totally, partially, or not at all. [ 11 ] So, what could one think about the plaintiff’s version? [ 12 ] Since she is the only witness who recounts the events, her version remains uncontradicted. [ 13 ] Now, is it reliable? [ 14 ] Concerning what could be called the metro event, the plaintiff relates that when she came up from the metro level, she passed by a first exit where she saw the accused through a glass door.

It is a place where he often hangs out. While she was passing by, it seemed as if he had seen her and was talking to her since his lips were moving while he was looking at her. She continued her way towards another metro exit where she got out. On her way to her mother’s house, she felt that she was followed. It is then that, when she turned around, she saw the accused approaching her, after which he robbed her. The Court will come back to this part of the event in detail below.

[ 15 ] As for the event which occurred at a friend’s apartment, she recounts that the accused was repeatedly calling her a whore through the apartment door slightly left opened, while she and her friend were watching television after supper. [ 16 ] Now, the accused sustains that her testimony should be discarded because of lack of honesty, some contradictions, mainly in her interrogation in chief, and because some things she said do not make sense. [ 17 ] He recalls, for example, the fact that she concealed from the Court that she visited an apartment for them during the day, while it was said to the police. [ 18 ] He sustains that it is impossible that the whole event of the metro lasted 45 minutes to one hour from the moment she was about to exit the subway station to her arrival at her mother's house.

As well, for him, it is hard to believe that she retrieved her belongings at one of her friends’ place after they had been left there. [ 19 ] With regard to the event at her friend’s apartment, he highlights that she firstly mentioned that she asked her friend to close the door when the accused called her names, after which she said that she went to close the door.

She contradicted herself as well when saying that the police was called by a man upstairs, after saying that her friend had called the police. [ 20 ] First, the Court notes that the plaintiff testified without animosity, in an understated manner, and did not hesitate to confirm not remembering something. [ 21 ] Her version is also plausible, as well as it remains logical and coherent all through her testimony. [ 22 ] Now, for the Court, it reveals no contradictions as to the essence of the events. [ 23 ] With regard to the fact that she did not mention at first that she went to visit an apartment the day of the events, she explained that she was ashamed to tell the Court about visiting an apartment for both her and the accused, in the context of a toxic relationship. [ 24 ] As for her evaluation of the duration of the metro event, even if 45 minutes to an hour would be overestimated, it would be inconsequential since in any manner this detail is peripheric to the event itself.

One also has to remind that this approximation is from the moment when the plaintiff is about to leave the subway and her arrival at her mother’s house. [ 25 ] Now, how is it possible to plead that it is hard to believe that she retrieved her things at a friend’s apartment, outside on a trash can, while this evidence remains uncontradicted and is not in itself unbelievable? [ 26 ] Finally, about the event at her friend’s place, the plaintiff explained clearly that she asked her friend to ask the man upstairs to call the police. Is it why she said afterwards that the man that lives upstairs called the police?

Anyhow, even if the plaintiff was mistaken about who called the police, it would also be inconsequential for the Court. [ 27 ] Except for certain peripheric elements, as the one noted above, the plaintiff’s recount of the events remains constant, detailed, and uncontradicted on the nature of the acts committed by the accused and on the circumstances in which they occurred. [ 28 ] In short, the Court retains that, as the plaintiff mentioned at one point during her testimony, she may have forgotten some details, but as for the important things, she does remember them. [ 29 ] Since the Court retains the testimony of the plaintiff as being an accurate account of the events, is there a proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the offences the accused is facing? [ 30 ] As for the count of robbery, the shouting, the threat to rape the plaintiff as she once was, the accused’s arm in the air, the fact that he asks her if she's going to watch him while he’s robbing her, all this while she is crouched down in fear, combined with the taking of her luggage and purse, is sufficient evidence to support a conviction of robbery.

The fact that she left running at one point in time does not change anything in this conclusion. [ 31 ] One has to remember that under 343(

a) Cr.C ., a robbery is proven when, on the totality of the evidence, among others the context, circumstances, and person threatened, a reasonable apprehension of violence could result from an accused’s conduct, and did, in fact, cause a person to apprehend physical harm. [2] [ 32 ] It is also worth remembering that no minimum level of violence is required. [3] [ 33 ] The Court consequently finds every essential element of robbery to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 34 ] Now, what about the counts of breach of conditions? [ 35 ] Considering 1) the filing in evidence of the undertaking and the release order, 2) the fact that the accused is forbidden under each from communicating with the plaintiff, 3) the Court’s finding that the accused robbed the plaintiff and her testimony as to the fact that he was talking to her through her friend’s door, 4) and finally the fact that no reasonable excuse is offered by the accused, the Court also finds that the offences of breach of conditions are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

III. CONCLUSION [ 36 ] In conclusion, for all the above reasons, the Court concludes that there is a proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all the essential elements in both cases before the Court.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: RENDERS A VERDICT OF GUILT on count 1 in the file 500-01-244844-236; RENDERS A VERDICT OF GUILT on counts 1 and 2 in the file 500-01-244843-238 . __________________________________ JULIE RIENDEAU, J.C.Q. M e Alexis Faust-Trahan Attorney for the prosecutor M e Alexander Grey Attorney for the accused Date of hearing: May 17, 2023