R. v. Singh, 2023 BCPC 70

Citation: R. v. Singh 2023 BCPC 70 Date: 20230418 File No: 70137-1 Registry: Chilliwack IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. HARNIEL SINGH SINGH ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE K. ARTHUR-LEUNG Counsel for the Crown: F. Lepine Counsel for the Defendant: C. Bauman Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: February 3 and 7, 2023 Date of Judgment: April 18, 2023

[ 1 ] On June 6, 2022, I found the accused, Harniel Singh Singh, guilty on nine of eleven Counts set out in the Information. Extensive oral reasons for the finding were given on June 6, 2022. Mr. Singh appears before me today for the purposes of sentencing. [ 2 ] From the outset, Crown is seeking a global sentence of ten years of imprisonment and ancillary Orders. Defence counsel is seeking a Conditional Sentence Order of 24 months less one day, to be followed by a 36 month Probation Order.

Both Crown and defence provided both written submissions and two days of oral submissions to support their respective positions. PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING SUBMISSIONS OF CROWN COUNSEL [ 3 ] Mr. Singh was found guilty of trafficking narcotics over a period of time. • In Count 3 of this Information, Mr. Singh sold 3.32 grams of fentanyl and carfentanil to the undercover officer. The Certificate of Analysis showed that the percentage of fentanyl was 1.9% (w.w.) and that of carfentanil was 0.04% (w.w.). • In Count 4 of this Information, Mr.

Singh sold 13.8 grams of cocaine to the undercover officer and that supporting Certificate of Analysis indicated that the cocaine was 91% pure. • Count 5 of this Information, Mr. Singh sold 3.81 grams of fentanyl to the undercover officer and the Certificate of Analysis indicated that the percentage of fentanyl was 2.2% (w.w.). • Count 6 of this Information, Mr. Singh sold 56.04 grams of cocaine to the undercover officer and the corresponding Certificate of Analysis indicated that the cocaine was 89% pure. • Count 7 of this Information Mr.

Singh sold 13.76 grams of fentanyl to the undercover officer and the percentage of fentanyl in the Certificate of Analysis was 1.8% (w.w.) in one of the Certificates. • Count 8 of this Information, Mr. Singh sold 27.73 grams of cocaine to the undercover officer and the Certificate of Analysis indicated that it was 85% pure. • Count 9 of this Information, Mr. Singh sold 20.91 grams of fentanyl to the undercover officer and the corresponding Certificate of Analysis indicted that the percentage of fentanyl was 2.2% (w.w.). • Count 10 of this Information, Mr.

Singh sold 27.79 grams of fentanyl to the undercover officer and the Certificates indicated 2.4% and 6.9% of fentanyl. • Finally, on Count 11 of this Information, Mr. Singh sold 18.30 grams of fentanyl to the undercover officer and the percentage of fentanyl was 3.3% (w.w.). [ 4 ] In total over the period of time set out in this Information, Mr. Singh sold 97.57 grams of cocaine, 95.46 grams of fentanyl and 3.32 grams of a mixture of both fentanyl and carfentanil to the same undercover officer. The percentages of the fentanyl and carfentanil were lethal. [ 5 ] Crown seeks to rely upon the decision of R. v.

Mann , 2017 BCPC 401 , affirmed by the BC Court of Appeal in R. v. Mann , 2018 BCCA 265 , wherein Judge Solomon extensively reviewed the impact of fentanyl in this province. His Reasons were adopted by Judge Tam in the decision of R. v. Chau , [2021] BCJ No. 1625, 2021 BCPC 180 . In the Mann decision, Judge Solomon relied upon the opinion evidence of Sgt. Boechler wherein under the heading of the report of “Illicit Fentanyl Overview”, at pages 3 and 4 it states: Fentanyl is a powerful synthetic opioid drug that is approximately 100 times more powerful than morphine according to Janssen Pharmaceuticals Canada.

Fentanyl and analogues of fentanyl, along with other potent synthetic opioids and analgesic drugs have become commonly used in production of counterfeit heroin and oxycodone in the illicit drug market…Fentanyl used in illicit drug sales is typically imported from China and then cut, i.e. adulterated with a cheaper, innocuous substance, ….for street-level distribution. Fentanyl being smuggled into Canada and intercepted by the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, has been analyzed and typically found to be slightly less potent/pure then the fentanyl used legitimately within the medical profession.

Although domestic production of illicit fentanyl has been identified in Canada, law enforcement does not believe domestic production to be the source of the majority of illicit fentanyl in Canada. Fentanyl is an emerging trend across Canada, and widespread illicit use of the drug was initially detected by law enforcement in Western Canada.

Fentanyl is typically used to produce counterfeit heroin and oxycodone tablets due to the significant profit potential when compared to trafficking in more common drug commodities such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine… Illicit fentanyl use has become a national health issue. There has been a dramatic increase in fentanyl being associated with overdose deaths in many provinces, i.e. fentanyl detected in the body.

Many recreational drug users are unaware of the risks that the drugs they purchased illegally and use many contain fentanyl, in particular because traffickers have created counterfeit versions of common illicit drugs using fentanyl.

The risk of overdose death is also heightened because traffickers employ imprecise mixing methods when creating these counterfeit drugs, which creates the risk that the potency of one dose to the next can vary greatly. …The fentanyl-detected death rate is also increasing with British Columbia experiencing greater numbers of fentanyl deaths each month… Fentanyl is a very potent and potentially dangerous, toxic drug only intended to be used in a strictly-controlled medical environment.

The fact that fentanyl is skin permeable and dangerous/toxic in extremely small volume makes any handling of fentanyl-tainted items by

members of law enforcement, first responders or Good Samaritans inherently dangerous. As illicit use of fentanyl increase, there is an ever-increasing risk of injury or death to those who are inadvertently exposed to fentanyl.

When the risk of fentanyl is apparent, law enforcement and first responders are being trained to use personal protective equipment and environmental controls to reduce the risk of exposure… The public awareness and safety campaigns aimed at warning people of the dangers of fentanyl have also had the unintended effect of alerting a subset of hard core drug users to the extreme potency of fentanyl, some of whom actively seek it out for that reason. [ 6 ] Further, under the report of “Carfentanil”, Sgt. Boechler, writes: Carfentanil is an analogue of fentanyl that was originally created by Jansen Pharmaceuticals.

Subsequent testing conducted on the analogue identified that it had an extreme potency of approximately ten times that of morphine, or 100 times that of fentanyl… Carfentanil is now commonly observed in the illicit drug supply, and it is noted to be the number one analogue of fentanyl that is encountered in the British Columbia submissions to Health Canada. [ 7 ] In the Mann decision, Judge Solomon relies upon a report from Dr. Kennedy, from July 25, 2016 who is a medical doctor qualified in British Columbia and a clinical associate professor.

He is quoted as stating: A lethal dose of fentanyl is highly variable and often unpredictable. The lethality of fentanyl relates to any factors, including lack of recent opioid use that gives the user some degree of tolerance to higher does, the use of other sedating drugs, lack of knowledge of a precise dose...and a lack of knowledge of the presence of fentanyl in the substance that has been used. … There has been a marked increase in documented fentanyl overdoses in British Columbia in recent years and months.

There is a similar increase in opioid-related deaths, mostly among users think that they are taking heroin or oxycodone when in fact they are taking fentanyl mixed with heroin, morphine or oxycodone, or they are taking fentanyl alone. … Fentanyl has similar addictive potentiality as morphine, heroin, and oxycodone. This means that the user continues to use the drug in spite of awareness of the harm it is doing to himself or herself…Users who know they are taking fentanyl often accept this dangerous risk. [ 8 ] Exhibit 2 in this proceeding for the purposes of sentencing are the BC Coroners Service Reports.

Exhibit 2, Tab 1 is the report of Illicit Drug Toxicity Deaths in BC from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2022 which includes the following: • In 2022, there were 2,272 suspected illicit drug toxicity deaths.

This is the second largest number of suspected deaths ever recorded in a calendar years being 2021 (2,306). (Page 1) • The number of illicit drug toxicity deaths in November and December 2022 equates to about 6.4 deaths per day. (Page 1) • In 2022, 70% of those dying were aged 30 to 59 and 79% were male. (Page 1) • By Health Authority, in 2022, the highest number of illicit drug toxicity deaths were in Fraser and Vancouver Coastal Health Authorities (680 and 637 deaths, respectively), making up 58% of all such deaths during 2022 (Page 1).

I pause here to note that these two Health Authority regions were the exact same areas wherein Mr. Singh actively trafficked drugs. [ 9 ] At Exhibit 2, Tab 2, under “Illicit Drug Toxicity Type of Drug Dates to December 31, 2022”, the report notes: • Preliminary data in 2022 has found that fentanyl or its analogues have been detected in 82% of all illicit drug toxicity deaths.

In 2021, fentanyl or its analogues have been detected. (Page 1) • Carfentanil has been detected in 126 suspected illicit drug toxicity deaths in 2022 and 192 in 2021. (Page 1) • As of July 1, 2020, the BC Coroners Service implemented a new expedited testing protocol that tests 21 drugs in a semi- quantitative manner...Results from the new expedited testing protocol have found that about 90% of submitted samples have detected fentanyl and/or its analogues…(Page 4) [ 10 ] Exhibit 2, Tab 3, is a copy of the report entitled BC Coroners Service Death Review Panel: A Review of Illicit Drug Toxicity Deaths (Release March 9, 2022).

This Report in its most simplest of terms of shocking and impacts every single British Columbian. • On December 15, 2021, the British Columbia Coroners Service convened a second death review panel into illicit drug toxicity deaths.

Four years after the first panel, which reviewed 1,854 deaths between January 1, 2016 and July 31, 2017, the death toll continues to climb with 6,000 more British Columbians dying – almost six persons each day. (Page 3). [ 11 ] These numbers are horrifying and at the very basic core are foundational to the basis for the consideration of both deterrence and denunciation to every dealer, trafficker, producer and importer in this province.

The Report continues to state: In April 2016, a significant increase in illicit drug-related emergency events and deaths in British Columbia prompted the BC Provincial Health Officer to declare a public health emergency. Since that time, deaths due to illicit drug toxicity have continued to increase in BC, with an average of six illicit drug toxicity deaths per day in 2021. This is more than double the number of deaths since the public health emergency was declared…Deaths due to illicit drug toxicity are second only to cancers in terms of potential years of life lost in BC.

Many of these deaths are preventable. (Page 4)

The primary cause of increased deaths is the growing toxicity and unpredictability of the street supply of drugs. The current drug policy framework of prohibition is the primary driver of this illegal, unregulated and toxic street supply. (Page 4) [ 12 ] It is clear that the number of deaths are increasing in numbers and rates. The drug supply provided to those seeking to buy from persons such as Mr.

Singh is increasingly toxic and as noted, can be very pure, all having potentially deadly consequences. [ 13 ] While the substance misuse crisis in this province continues to escalate even during the COVID-19 pandemic impacting persons of all ages and cultures, it cannot be forgotten that the time period wherein Mr. Singh has been found guilty was also a time in this province of increasing deaths and significant amounts of government reports and media coverage about the deadly state of affairs. Even with that readily available knowledge, Mr.

Singh continued to access narcotic drugs for his personal consumption and continued to traffic large amounts of illegal drugs over a period of time noting the percentages of purity and the lethal drugs trafficked. Mr. Singh would have known the deadly potential impact that he was having upon his own personal life, the impact potentially upon his family, and to the community as a whole when he knowingly and actively engaged in trafficking in various communities in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

This is an aggravating factor. [ 14 ] This Report concludes as follows: • …73% of decedents were identified as using illicit drugs on a regular or chronic basis and 13% were identified as using illicit drugs occasionally/infrequently. The pattern of use remains unchanged since the last death review panel. (Page 20) • Combining drugs may increase toxicity and result in a higher likelihood of death. (Page 21) • Fentanyl and its analogues were detected in 85% of illicit drug toxicity deaths between August 2017 and July 2021 (Page 21). I pause here to note that this is during the time period in which Mr.

Singh engaged in trafficking. • Cocaine (49%) and methamphetamine (38%) were commonly detected. At high doses, stimulants may result in an irregular heartbeat, heart failure, seizures and death. (Page 21) • The province’s take home Naloxone kit programme began in 2012 in response to the drug crisis, however, only one in five of those persons who died from drug toxicity had a kit on them. (Page 22) • The province has increased its commitment to reducing drug related deaths.

In 2016, the Government of BC expanded safe injection sites and in 2017, the province established a separate Ministry to address addictions to respond to the ongoing toxic and increasingly deadly opioid crisis. I note that this was all undertaken while Mr. Singh was actively engaged in trafficking. [ 15 ] I turn to the criminal record of Mr. Singh as highlighted by Crown counsel with the following convictions: • Flight from a peace officer and a Motor Vehicle Act offence arising from March 2018 in Abbotsford, British Columbia.

The matter had a disposition of June 2018 with a $500.00 fine, a suspended sentence in the form of a 2 year probation Order and a one year driving prohibition. In fleeing from the police, Mr. Singh hit a marked police vehicle while driving at excessively high rate of speed, including the wrong side of the road, and operated such through the cities of Abbotsford, Langley, Surrey and Coquitlam.

Search incidental to arrest found a large amount of cash, multiple cell phones and morphine in the vehicle. • Possession for the purposes of trafficking arising from April 5, 2018, again in Abbotsford, British Columbia which had a disposition date of May 28, 2019 with a sentence being imposed of 8 months and 27 days with a jail term of 9 months before credit, followed by a one year Probation Order, a mandatory 10 year firearms prohibition and a Forfeiture Order. This offence shows the impact that Mr. Singh’s actions had both in the community and on his own family members when the police received a report that Mr.

Singh was threatening to kill his aunt with a knife. A historical report from the same aunt to the police was that Mr. Singh was endeavouring to get his own cousin engaged in drug trafficking. Mr. Singh fled on foot and upon his arrest, search by the police found 31 separate bags of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. I will refer to this decision of R. v. Singh , [2019] BCJ No 1130 later herein. At the time of the arrest, Mr. Singh was a prohibited driver.

The Criminal Entries were after the date of the offences before me. [ 16 ] I will particularly pause here, however, to note that at the time of the offences Mr. Singh did not have a criminal record. Crown asks that I take into consideration these other offences as Mr. Singh’s willingness to engage in criminal activities and defence counsel notes correctly that Mr.

Singh did not have a criminal record at the time of the offences in which I found him guilty but that I must take into consideration the principle of totality and determine a fit and appropriate sentence globally. [ 17 ] Crown counsel seeks to rely upon Mr. Singh’s own statements to the undercover officer in the course of the offences to which I have found him guilty as support for the Crown’s position on sentencing. Those are telling to this Court and in doing so, those are the very words of Mr. Singh himself which included the following for consideration: • The facts not in dispute are that Mr.

Singh met the officer on December 12, 2017 to buy drugs. Mr. Singh himself on his own initiative told the officer to call him directly next time to buy drugs because he was, in his own words, “the boss”. Further, in support of the entrenchment in the drug trade, during the same conversation, Mr. Singh told the officer if he wished to purchase drugs in bulk to call him in the morning so that the drugs could be weighed and ready for the officer in one bag. Those were the words unprompted of Mr. Singh.

Those are not the words of a penny bag street seller. • The undercover officer testified that on January 25, 2018, Mr. Singh told the officer that the heroin he sold contained fentanyl. • In providing $1,330 of monies to Mr. Singh for drugs, again, Mr. Singh self-referred to himself as “the boss”. This was after the relationship between the two had already been established and Mr. Singh by his own choice again bragged that he self-referred to himself as “the boss”.

• The undercover officer testified that he asked of Mr. Singh if he could produce drugs at the ounce level and without any hesitation, Mr. Singh acknowledged that he could do so and that he had ten ounces on him at that time. Mr. Singh again voluntarily told the officer that those whom the officer had interacted with were Mr. Singh’s “workers” and that he had trained his workers to be careful. These are not the words of a simple street-level dealer. • Both Mr. Singh and the officer exchanged phone numbers with Mr.

Singh telling the officer that the phone number was his personal family phone and not to call him on that line for what he referred to as “dirty talk”. Mr. Singh was comfortable using drug language. • On January 30, 2018, the officer phoned the number [omitted for publication] and Mr. Singh himself asked the officer if he needed anything that night, the officer said he was looking for a bulk purchase for the following day and Mr. Singh told the officer he would call him back that night. • On February 13, 2018, it was Mr. Singh who called the officer and the parties discussed price and amounts. Mr.

Singh voluntarily told the officer that he had just been released from jail but was back in business operation. The Court notes that there was no remorse on the part of Mr. Singh and no appreciation of the gravity of his alleged offence at the time from which he had been released and willingly seamlessly continued in his drug trafficking. • On February 22, 2018, the officer spoke with Mr. Singh and arranged a purchase the following day. Mr. Singh again voluntarily told the officer that he did not make any money from the last sale so he needed to increase the price of the cocaine.

This testimony which the court accepts supports that Mr. Singh was not a street-level worker in the trade but had the ability to control and set prices. • On February 23, 2018, the officer called and spoke to Mr. Singh about meeting up for the buy and Mr. Singh said that he was not ready. Again, voluntarily it was Mr. Singh who offered up knowledge about shipping drugs on a domestic flight. Again, this Court concludes these were not the mere words of a low-level trafficker so not only could Mr.

Singh control price but he had the knowledge and ability to control the shipment of purchases. • On February 25, 2018, Mr. Singh’s father called the RCMP to report that his son was on his way home to kill him as it arose from a family dispute about the father’s concerns about Mr. Singh being involved in gang life. Upon arrival, Mr. Singh’s father told the RCMP that in the past Mr. Singh had held a gun to his head. Mr. Singh was arrested. At no time did Mr. Singh’s father testify to refute this evidence. • On February 27, 2018, again the officer called and spoke to Mr.

Singh who told the officer that he had the drugs but had a rough weekend and had spent the weekend in jail. Despite being arrested due to his father phoning the RCMP, Mr. Singh remained undeterred or remorseful and continued in the drug trafficking trade. • Despite being arrested and released more than once, Mr. Singh has proven that he chooses not to abide fully by his Court Ordered conditions and willingly and knowingly continued in the drug trafficking business. • The Officer testified that on March 1, 2018 when he met Mr. Singh that Mr.

Singh was laughing and upon accepting the $3,000 for the drugs that he had just trafficked that the money would go to his lawyer because he had been arrested for pointing a firearm at someone. That very same day the parties again met and the undercover officer commented to Mr. Singh about the new vehicle he was driving and Mr. Singh again voluntarily told the officer that he had access to many vehicles. There is again no remorse on the part of Mr. Singh. • Mr. Singh told the undercover officer that he could sell to him 10 ounces at a time and had access to more.

Again, these are not the words of a low-level trafficker. • The officer told Mr. Singh he was looking to buy a gun and rather than flat out refuse to assist, Mr. Singh offered to look into it for the undercover officer. • On March 8, 2018, the parties met and negotiated that the price of heroin/fentanyl was $2,200 for an ounce and that he told the officer that the price of an ounce of methamphetamine was $900 and that he was getting it in half-kilogram units. Again, these are not the simplistic words of a baggie street dealer. Mr.

Singh had access to drugs, volumes of drugs, expensive cars, had trained crew and self- referred to himself as “the boss”. I accept all such testimony of the officer. • On March 18, 2018, the parties spoke about whether the officer was getting short changed and again, Mr. Singh voluntarily told the officer that his team knew not to short people and if they did that Mr. Singh would give them grief. These are the words of a person in power, management and control of his enterprise. Further, in negotiating a price of $2,600 for an ounce of heroin/fentanyl, Mr.

Singh again voluntarily told the officer that he had a better quality shipment of heroin/fentanyl arriving soon and that when cut it would be pure. I accept the submissions of Crown counsel that this strongly supports the business enterprise that Mr. Singh was operating showing planning, control, organization, access, and a team that he boasted that he had trained. I accept the submissions of Crown counsel that these are most definitely contrary to the words of Dr. Ley in his report that I will address later that it was the mental illness that drove Mr. Singh. Mr.

Singh was an enterprising, controlling mind of a drug trafficking operation who was in full control at all times. Mental illness did not drive this venture but greed. • I accept the testimony of the officer that on March 20, 2018 he met with Mr. Singh and there was an agreed upon price for a half ounce of heroin/fentanyl in which again, voluntarily Mr. Singh told the officer that he had additional ounces of cocaine available at that time. When the officer asked about increasing his purchase the following day, without hesitation Mr. Singh said that he had access to bulk amounts. Without any hesitation, Mr.

Singh was willing to increase his sales of cocaine to the undercover officer. • On March 21, 2018, it was Mr. Singh himself who phoned the officer early in the morning and said that he was going to have a busy day. These are contrary to the self-reported words Mr. Singh told Dr. Ley in which Dr. Ley accepted that Mr. Singh was driven by mental illness. To the contrary, Mr. Singh was in a fully operational enterprising drug trafficking business. The parties met that day and

again, Mr. Singh voluntarily told the officer that he was looking forward to increasing the volume of supply to the undercover officer. The officer testified that when he asked Mr. Singh if he would ever sell this trafficking line, Mr. Singh said that he would not as he had been operating it since he was 15 years of age, that he was self-made. These are not the words of someone in the throes of bipolar disorder and struggling. These are the words of a conniving, calculating, businessman in it for his own personal gain.

It is unique at this point to note that the officer testified that in refusing to sell his business that Mr. Singh bragged to the officer that he even was going to sell on his birthday of March 21. The report of Dr. Ley notes that Mr. Singh’s birthday is March 21. [ 18 ] I accept the submissions of Crown counsel that Mr.

Singh was running a busy business enterprise across various parts of the lower mainland of Vancouver and the Fraser Valley, that he had trained workers, that his team worked shifts, that he had access to purer quality of drugs, that he knew when bulk shipments were arriving, that he willingly offered to see if he could access a gun, that he self- referred to himself more than once as “the boss”, that he openly bragged about the success of his enterprise, that he knew the substance and purity and that he enjoyed engaging in this business since being 15 years of age.

Nowhere in this testimony of the officer, which I accept, is there any remorse on the part of Mr. Singh and nowhere is there any evidence that he was in the throes of a bipolar attack and was in the depth of a mental health crisis. He drove new cars and expensive cars. [ 19 ] This was a successful drug trafficking line controlled and managed by Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh was in this for only Mr. Singh, so much so that there is unchallenged evidence that Mr. Singh’s father had reported him to the police more than once, that his father expressed concern to the police about Mr.

Singh engaging his brothers in the business, and his aunt phoning the police. Mr. Singh ignored the pleas from family and continued in his business enterprise, even after being arrested and released more than once. It was only at the time of sentencing that Mr. Singh’s father now writes a letter telling the court that he made a false report to the police about his son in order to have his son stop. [ 20 ] I accept the testimony of the officer that when he met Mr. Singh on April 4, 2018, after Mr. Singh had, again, been released on bail that Mr.

Singh told the officer that he was broke but self-offered and told the officer that he was selling him the “dizz”, and the “higher test stuff”. Again, unremorseful and unrepentant Mr. Singh continued in his enterprise and was in control of the quality. • Assault causing bodily harm in Vancouver, British Columbia on December 24, 2017 with a disposition date of July 8, 2019 with a sentence of a jail term of 456 days before imposing credit and pre-sentence credit of 30 days. • I am mindful of the date of the disposition and again note that at the time of these offences before me that Mr.

Singh did not have a criminal record. [ 21 ] It is very aggravating that Mr. Singh’s trafficking drew in family members. I accept the testimony that was unchallenged that his own father had phoned the RCMP more than once on his own son and so too had his aunt. Nowhere in any of that testimony was it challenged that the purpose of their phone calls was because Mr. Singh and his bipolar were causing issues. Those calls were because of the violence of Mr. Singh and his willingness to operate such a business over a long period of time. The undercover officer testified that on February 20, 2018 that when meeting Mr.

Singh that one of his younger brothers, [omitted for publication], was introduced to the officer as “junior” and that this was his brother. During that meet, the officer paid drug debt monies to Mr. Singh. [ 22 ] In refuting the submission of defence counsel that Mr. Singh was not a higher-level trafficker, there was testimony from the undercover officer that in conducting surveillance following Mr. Singh that he attended an address on Hornby Street where he met with a high-level member of Brother’s Keepers. This court is not concluding that Mr.

Singh is a member of Brother’s Keepers himself, but it was undisputed that Mr. Singh attended such address and that such address is of a well-known member of such gang. [ 23 ] Defence counsel seeks to convince this Court that Mr. Singh’s sentence would be best served in the form of a Conditional Sentence Order and house arrest living with his parents, with exceptions for employment, school, medical and with the prior written consent of his Probation Officer. [ 24 ] Exhibit 4 in the sentencing submissions are a series of letters in support of Mr. Singh and the submissions of defence counsel.

Those letters are as follows: • Vancouver Coastal Health letter from the Richmond Mental Health & Substance Use Services dated “Monday, January 16” (no year). This letter is written by the consulting psychiatrist Dr. Gibson who advises that Mr. Singh has been a patient of the facility since the fall of 2016 following involuntary hospitalization for psychosis secondary to bipolar disorder. It reported that Mr. Singh was consistently receiving his monthly injections and that he self-reported them as being beneficial. The letter notes that Mr.

Singh no longer met the criteria for involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act and that he was discharged. Of note, the letter stated: “Neil has demonstrated insight into his mental health condition and is committed to continue with medications and follow-up with our team.” Those words are contrary to what he disclosed to Dr. Ley and I will note that later herein. • Vancouver Coastal Health letter form the Richmond Mental Health & Substance Use Services dated April 8, 2022 to counsel for Mr. Singh from Dr. Gibson advising that Mr. Singh is stable without any psychotic symptoms during his presentations.

Most notably, it says that Mr. Singh has returned to school, upgrading his courses and has achieved good marks. Nowhere in any of the submissions from defence counsel was there any documentation to support Mr. Singh attending school in any form nor any academic standings. This same letter notes an unfounded statement from Dr. Gibson that is made without any foundation or basis and stated: “It is my opinion that incarceration in jail will have a negative impact on his vocational recovery.” Nowhere is there any indication by Dr. Gibson of the amount of drug trafficking that the Court has found Mr.

Singh guilty, the course of the time that the Court has found Mr. Singh guilty, nor the types and purity of the drugs. There is no evidence to support why online learning of Mr. Singh would not be able to continue if incarcerated. The statement by Dr. Gibson holds no weight and is without any medical basis in which to make such a statement. Nowhere in the letters of Dr. Gibson is there any knowledge or comment on the drug trafficking convictions. • Vancouver Coastal Health letter from the Richmond Mental Health & Substance Use Services dated January 14, 2019 from Dr. Gibson noting that at that time Mr.

Singh did miss appointments, required reminders and has been “relatively stable”. It notes that supposedly, Mr. Singh put his vocational plans on hold, but there is nothing anywhere in the submissions from defence if that was true and what were those plans. Again, this letter is biased and self-serving noting that “to our knowledge has been abiding by the conditions

of his probation”. • Vancouver Coastal Health letter from Richmond Mental Health & Substance Use Services dated August 31, 2018 from Dr. Gibson noting that Mr. Singh had been in the programme since 2016 due to an involuntary hospitalization for psychosis secondary to bipolar and had been followed on the Extended Leave provisions under the Mental Health Act . At that time, he required frequent reminders including his medication and at that time had continued to be treated on an involuntary basis.

He experienced a worsening of his state in the spring of 2018 due to an adjustment of his medication which since stabilized. • A dated letter of June 5, 2022 from his employer, Forbes Landscaping Ltd. It notes that he had been with the company since September 1, 2020, being paid by both cash and cheque. It notes that Mr. Singh has taken a keen interest in his employment, has never complained taking on additional tasks and can be trusted with complex tasks. It notes that he has a “balanced school-work

schedule when attending post-secondary and his employment…”, however, Mr. Singh’s post-secondary attendance was never documented at the sentencing submissions and this Court is unaware of the academic facility, the courses and his academic standing. I will note that this is a dated letter and that nothing current was submitted by defence counsel. • There is a letter dated March 17, 2022 from Mr. Singh’s father. Again, this letter is even more so dated, which given it is from his father I find it perplexing, however, it is given due consideration for the purposes of sentencing.

His father notes that the past ten years have been difficult for the family including that they took the steps to phone the police on their son since 2013. It is here of note that there is an admission by his father that he was aware of his son’s illegal activities and he states: “I passed every information about my son to [], the car he drove and the cloths (sic) he was wearing. But nothing happened he never got arrested.

I am not saying police or RCMP was not doing anything, I reported everything to the gang task force, and the police but from our side nothing was happening.” It is here that I pause and note that while it is admirable that his father called the police with information about his son’s activities, it was similarly during this time that Mr. Singh continued to reside at home with his parents and I note that at the time of the offences in 2017 and 2018, that Mr.

Singh enjoyed the benefits of driving family vehicles such as an Infiniti and Mercedes to traffic narcotics. • It is similarly important to note that it was only disclosed in the letter dated March 17, 2022 that his father now says that he lied to the police about Mr. Singh pointing a gun to his head and did so for his son to get help with his mental health. Mr. Singh lied to the police and had his son charged. His father started a Fraser Valley support group reaching out to other parents who had family members, including those in Brother’s Keepers.

In this letter his father said, “some bad people have ruined our neighbourhood and our temple, why are they members in the community, these are criminal, drug dealers, they are not good Sikhs who belong in this temple.” I am struggling with this statement from Mr. Singh’s father blaming other persons involved in drug dealing, however, his own son for a long period of time engaged in the very same activity trafficking drugs ruining lives and neighbourhoods.

It seems incompatible that his father casts aspersions on others in his community when his own son was at one time actively engaged in significant drug trafficking, while largely living at home with his parents and having access to vehicles in which to conduct drug trafficking.

The letter from his father, however, is not entirely remorseful or supportive and in this letter, he states: “I do have one disagreement with the police, using young man with a serious mental condition as a bait in my opinion is a wrong practice and it disheartens me.” There is no evidence to support that any of the undercover officers in this matter before me knew of any mental health condition of Mr. Singh and in fact, it was Mr. Singh using family vehicles self-referring to himself as “the boss”. • There is an undated letter again from Mr.

Singh’s father wherein again he seeks to blame others and lists names of people in his neighbourhood whom he said were recruiting young people to be mules to deliver drugs. It is of note that his father admits that his son was receiving phone calls from drug dealers. Both letters from his father plead for the court to impose a sentence of house arrest. Nowhere in the letters is there any acknowledgement of the harms that his son did over the course of time to the community as a whole. • There is an undated letter from Mr. Singh’s mother noting, in her words, that he is a “victim of his circumstances”.

She notes, “He has made wrong choices and has been duly and rightly punished by the legal system.” There is no acknowledgement of the harms done by her son. She notes that she believes that “justice has been done as he has already served the sentence”. That is incorrect. To date, he has not been sentenced for these drug trafficking offences. Mr.

Singh has been sentenced for other offences, but not for the matters currently before this court, therefore in actual fact justice has not yet been done and it remains to be decided upon. • I have read the undated letter from [omitted for publication], the younger siblings of Mr. Singh. The letter states: “We do understand that he got trapped in a bigger role of wrong decisions, while he was fighting for his own mental issues but what we consider even more important that he never glamorized it in front of us.

Rather was always discouraging us from any thought in this direction.” This is contrary to the accepted testimony of the undercover officer. • There is a letter dated March 10, 2022 from Angie Kahlon, a Founder of WoMen Rise in Abbotsford, British Columbia wherein she noted that at that time she had been coaching Mr. Singh for six months. It states that Mr. Singh has been compliant with his medication, however, there is no reason to know that and that he no longer smokes marihuana, again, there is no way of this person knowing that. It states that at the time he is actively employed in the construction industry.

There is, however, no mention of any schooling to which there have been vague submissions and no documentation. It conflicts with a letter that he is employed in the landscaping business. • There is a letter dated October 8, 2022 from Harpal Mandaher whom states that he has known Mr. Singh’s father for over 30 years and that the family moved from Abbotsford to Richmond to be away from negative influences.

It does not state when the family moved and raises the question if the family is still actively engaged and if so, to what extent, with WoMen Rise in Abbotsford. • I have read the letter dated June 5, 2022 from Prem Vinning whom writes a reference letter largely in part for Mr. Singh’s father and not for Mr. Singh himself. Mr. Vinning refers to an incident wherein Mr. Singh’s father reported his son to the police and it is unknown if Mr. Vinning is aware that Mr. Singh’s father made a false report to the police. Mr. Vinning admits that he has only met Mr. Singh “a few times”.

There is no acknowledgement as to what Mr. Singh has been involved in the past, his criminal activities and the matters wherein he appears before this Court for at this time. • A June 5, 2022 letter from Gordon Hogg is written, again, as a reference letter for Mr. Singh’s father and not Mr. Singh. It states

that Mr. Hogg was aware of the steps that Mr. Singh’s father took to have Mr. Singh charged and incarcerated, but there is no mention of any knowledge of the offences nor that allegedly Mr. Singh’s father lied to the police. The letter seeks to convince the court that community supervision is best for Mr. Singh however, does not indicate any knowledge of the circumstances of those offences and the matter before this Court at this time. [ 25 ] I have read the report of Dr. Robert Ley, which is Exhibit 3 in this sentencing matter. Dr.

Ley’s report is exhibited including his Curriculum Vitae, which sets out his qualifications. I note that he has been qualified as an expert in other court proceedings; however, in the matter before me, defence counsel took no steps to have him properly qualified as an expert. When I queried both counsel in this regard, counsel were both content that I simply refer to it as a “report”. Crown objects to some of the broad sweeping and generalities that Dr. Ley noted in his report and I concur. I note my concerns about comments, conclusions and findings that he makes in his report.

I have read the report dated January 18, 2023 and note the following: • Mr. Singh told Dr. Ley that he was uncertain of his legal status. That is boldly false. Mr. Singh was found guilty by this Court in June, 2022. Mr. Singh was physically present in Court to hear the Oral Reasons given. He knew that he had been found guilty on a number of counts for drug trafficking. The report continues to state that Mr. Singh told Dr. Ley that he was uncertain whether or not he had entered any plea. There is no evidence before me that Mr.

Singh struggled at the time of this trial with a mental disorder that impacted his ability to know if he had entered guilty pleas or not. False information was provided to Dr. Ley. • The report states: “I noted in the RCC and police report that Mr. Singh told the UCO that he (Mr. Singh) was in charge of the drug line (i.e. “the Boss”). However, in my interview with Mr. Singh and my querying him in that regard, Mr. Singh states that his claimed authority was an exaggeration. Mr. Singh elaborated and told me that the drug line was used by a large group of his acquaintances and friends. Mr.

Singh states that he did not give orders to any other distributors of the drugs. He denied that others were working for him.” (Page 2) I reject such outright. I accept the testimony of the undercover officer that more than once Mr. Singh himself bragged that he was the boss, that he engaged others in the same business enterprise, that he often voluntarily offered up knowledge incoming and of more potent drugs, that he offered to fly drugs on a domestic airplane, that he offered when asked to inquire about guns.

The evidence that I accept from the undercover officer is completely contrary to this now remorse on the part of Mr. Singh telling Dr. Ley that he had lied all along. • On Page 3 of the report, without foundation, Dr. Ley concludes that Mr. Singh engaged in drug trafficking “largely for the purpose of paying for his OxyContin habit and dependence, which caused him to consume 10 tablets of OxyContin daily. Given Mr.

Singh’s prodigious rate of consuming that narcotic, it is reasonable to assume that he was frequently under the influence of that drug at the time that he was conducting drug sales.” This is based on the self-reporting of Mr. Singh to Dr. Ley and there is nothing to verify the accuracy of this information. • Dr. Ley states: “Mr. Singh informed me that he didn’t have large amounts of drugs in his possession, that if the UCO requested a very large amount of one drug, it would be necessary for Mr.

Singh to purchase that drug in the desired large volume from another drug supplier and in turn sell it to the UCO” (Page 3). Large volume is a personal definition. I also note that at no time did Mr. Singh tell the undercover officer that he could not fill an order or that he would have difficulties. Mr. Singh actively participated and the quantities increased with no complaints from Mr. Singh that he was struggling to secure a supply to the undercover officer. • Dr. Ley queried Mr. Singh and notes in his report on Page 3 that he asked about Mr.

Singh’s willingness to continue trafficking even after being arrested and spending time in jail and to that Dr. Ley accepts Mr. Singh’s self-report that he “had no choice” (Page 3) because of the high cost of his own drug dependency and his lack of other employment and earnings. That flies in the face of his supportive letters from family that he had employment opportunities and post-secondary opportunities. Mr. Singh fails to accept responsibility. • Mr. Singh was diagnosed as being bipolar in his teens. (Page 3). • Mr.

Singh was frequently psychotic in both 2016 and 2017. (Page 3). • From 2016 to 2018, he had poor compliance with his medication. (Page 3). • Mr. Singh self-reported to Dr. Ley that he engaged in the drug trade largely to pay the cost of his own personal drug habit. (Page 4). • Most notably, Dr. Ley did not undertake any psychological testing of Mr. Singh. I do not know why he did so as I find that much of his report is based and relies largely upon Mr. Singh’s own self reporting’s. There is little independent verification of Mr. Singh’s statements. • Dr. Ley found that Mr. Singh was a poor historian (Page 8). Dr.

Ley further finds: “He appeared to be uninformed and uncertain or otherwise vague about many aspects of his personal development and family history. However, I do not interpret Mr. Singh’s lack of information as being in the service of defensive self-protection or avoidance. Rather, Mr. Singh has a poor memory generally and particularly in regard to his adolescent years and early twenties, which were marred by heavy drug usage.” (Page 8) I find that conclusion bold and unsubstantiated by any other basis. It is interesting to note that Mr.

Singh was vague on historical matters of significant relevance to sentencing that would negatively impact him, but he self-reported with detail to Dr. Ley about his engagement in the family business, his travels to Toronto where he was looking at real estate. • Dr. Ley concludes, without any formal testing, that, “Mr. Singh’s thought and speech processes as well as his educational and vocational attainments, I would estimate that he is in the average range of intelligence. During our interviews, his attention and concentration were normal. However, his memory is very poor” (Page 8). • Dr.

Ley reviews the current family life of Mr. Singh noting that his father is an engineer with other personal businesses focussing on real estate and development and that his mother is a registered nurse and concludes that this has “afforded the Singh family a middle class lifestyle.” (Page 9). At the time of the offences, Mr. Singh was freely driving the families’ high end Infiniti and Mercedes vehicles.

I am struggling how this is defined as middle class by Dr. Ley. While this does not impact any sentence to be imposed, it goes to the credibility and findings of Dr. Ley in which I am struggling with throughout his report. • Mr. Singh falsely self-reports to Dr. Ley that no family members are engaged in criminal activities when it was clear in the course of sentencing that he knew that a cousin was engaged in the drug trade. • Mr. Singh self-reported that he began getting into trouble in his early teens (Page 10). • Dr. Ley then makes a bold finding without any testing that he believed that Mr.

Singh had Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and concludes, “I believe that it is most likely that Harniel had an adhd of the Inattentive subtype.” (Page 10). No testing was done. No long-term historical medical records were noted in support of such a finding. • Dr. Ley’s report on Page 11 notes that after graduating from high school in 2014 that Mr. Singh has not undertaking any collegiate education or formal vocational training. This is contrary to the letters of support written for Mr. Singh. I am unable to reconcile what is truthful.

Again, the submissions from defence counsel are void of anything to support that Mr. Singh engaged in any trade training or education after his graduation from high school, which is contrary to the supportive letters. I am unable to reconcile what is the truth in the absence of any documentation. • Dr. Ley reports that Mr. Singh is employed in his father’s real estate development and construction firm, however, this is contrary to the letter of support that has been reviewed indicating that he is employed in landscaping.

There is no documentation to support that the landscaping business is owned by his father and is one and the same as the construction and real estate business. There continues to be inconsistency in the background provided to assist this Court for sentencing. • As a teen, Mr. Singh was frequently hospitalized. (Page 12) • Mr. Singh is currently compliant with his monthly medication injections. (Page 12) • Dr. Ley reports on Page 12: “…on those occasions when Harniel has been manic, frequently he becomes delusional and hallucinatory in that context. Also his thoughts tend to be racing and disorganized.

His judgment is poor. He tends to be hyperactive and agitated as well as argumentative. Additionally, at times when manic, Harniel has been aggressive, threatening and physically combative with family members (such as his brother) plus destructiveness of inanimate objects.” I pause to note that nowhere in the letter of support from his brothers was there any disclosure that Mr. Singh has been combative and threatening to at least one brother. I pause to note that nowhere is there any evidence in this trial that at any time that Mr.

Singh was in such a manic phase with his interactions with the undercover officer that he was aggressive, threatening, combative, disorganized and delusional. Mr. Singh, however, self-reported to Dr. Ley that he was manic while he was drug trafficking. • I note a conflict in the documentation. The letter of support from Angie Kahlon states that Mr. Singh is no longer smoking marihuana; however, the report from Dr. Ley on Page 13 has Mr. Singh self-reporting that in actual fact he smokes one marihuana joint each day. • Mr. Singh self-reported to Dr.

Ley that he began drug trafficking when he was about 20 years of age and that he did so to pay for his own personal drug habit. (Page 13) • Despite Mr. Singh earlier on in the report of Dr. Ley not having a good historical memory, I note on page 13 of the report that Mr. Singh was readily able to recall and report to Dr. Ley that he was “selling everything as a street level drug dealer for approximately three years.” • Contrary to Mr. Singh stating that he made nominal amounts of money while actively engaged in his drug trafficking business, he self-reported to Dr.

Ley noted on page 13 of the report, that he was “using a substantial amount of his drug profits to pay for his own drug habit...” There is an acknowledgement of profit in his business. • Mr. Singh self-reported that he is enjoying engaging in activities with families. He told Dr. Ley that he had one serious girlfriend, dating for about two years in high school but then “amicably went in different directions.” (Page 14). This is contrary to other documentation that a girlfriend’s mother once contacted the police because of his drug activities. • It is perplexing to find in the report of Dr.

Ley on page 14 that he comments that Mr. Singh expressed a desire to be married and that incarceration may impact that, with Dr. Ley then stating: “Obviously incarceration would be disruptive to any marital attempts or engagement for Mr. Singh.” I do not understand the relevance of such a comment from Dr. Ley and if it is being made to convince this Court that a non-custodial sentence is better for Mr. Singh in terms of facilitating his success at a marriage, it is inappropriate to make such a comment in a report. I am unable to reconcile how Mr.

Singh’s possible arranged marriage values in his family are a factor for consideration in addressing an appropriate sentence. • The report at page 14 notes that during the offence periods of December 2017 to April 2018 that Mr. Singh was in the midst of a “virulent drug dependence upon narcotics.” I do not know what evidence, other than Mr. Singh’s self-reporting, keeping in mind that Dr. Ley also noted and concluded that Mr. Singh was a poor historian supports the use of the word “virulent”. • Dr. Ley makes a quantum leap of a finding on page 14 of his report and states: “In my opinion, at the time of Mr.

Singh’s drug trafficking activity, during this era of his life, most [emphasis added] likely he was experiencing manic symptoms….” Nowhere in the report is there a noted correlation from the medical records that Dr. Ley accessed to the corresponding dates of the offences to support such a finding. The offences were committed over a period of time. The period in which Mr. Singh has been found guilty spans a minimum four-month period. Nowhere in the report does it break it down from dates he was hospitalized to dates of trafficking and if there is a straight line connecting that for his finding. • Mr.

Singh is currently receiving his monthly injections and Dr. Ley notes that Dr. Gibson is a “skilful psychiatrist”. (Page 15).

• I am unable to reconcile the statement from Dr. Ley on page 15 which states: “During the era of Mr. Singh’s drug trafficking, his judgment would have been impaired by his untreated mental illness, his narcotic drug dependence (and the necessity to pay for it) as well as his relative youth” and further states: “Although Mr. Singh has readily acknowledged his engagement in the drug trade, I found it interesting to note that at many points in our lengthy interviews, Mr. Singh remarked about the persuasiveness and effective psychological influence exerted upon him by the undercover police officer.

For example, in describing this interpersonal dynamic, Mr. Singh states “he (the UCO) was an adult, and I was just a stupid kid.” I find such statement without merit and foundation and unsupportable. I am struggling with a medical finding that Mr. Singh is a poor historian, that Mr. Singh was in the throes of his bipolar during this time period, but that Mr. Singh is articulate enough to believe that while driving luxury cars, while living at home with his parents, while there is a lack of evidence of steady employment, while there is a lack of documentation to support any post-secondary pursuit, that Mr.

Singh was taken advantage of. I firmly accept the unchallenged testimony of the undercover officer that Mr. Singh was readily available, readily willing and able to fulfil the drug buy requests of the undercover officer. There is no evidence to support a finding by Dr. Ley that Mr. Singh was taken advantage of at all. There is no evidence of any “effective psychological influence” exerted by the undercover officer over Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh enjoyed an easy life and a good life and relished calling himself “the boss”. Such a finding by Dr. Ley is unfounded and based solely on the self-buttressing words of Mr.

Singh. • On page 15 of the report, Dr. Ley accepts the self-reporting of Mr. Singh that he smokes marihuana and concludes that his usage is “relatively light and non-problematic”. I do not know what is defined as “relatively light” when used daily. • Presuming that Dr. Ley makes findings from medical documentation that he has reviewed, he concludes that Mr.

Singh is “diagnosable with an antisocial personality disorder” and a “Conduct disorder during this adolescence” (Page 15), however, nowhere in his report does he note from which medical records or what medical authority he found such a conclusion. • Page 15 of the report concludes that Mr. Singh has maintained a stable mental health while under the series of the monthly injections and maintains “steady employment within the family’s real estate development and construction firm”, which I note is contrary to another letter which states that he is engaged in a landscaping business. • On page 16, Dr.

Ley concludes that Mr. Singh also has an Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (Inattentive Type)” that should be brought to the attention of Dr. Gibson and to possibly institute medication for that. Again, nowhere in the report does it state based on what testing methodology or what historical medical records as such an opinion been formed. • Dr. Ley concludes that if Mr. Singh does not maintain his medication regime that he will be at a high risk for criminal offending. (Page 16). • Dr. Ley concludes in his report, largely based on self-reporting from Mr. Singh, where I am mindful Dr. Ley admits that Mr.

Singh is a poor historian, that Mr. Singh is “an ideal candidate for some sort of community-based sentence.” (Page 17). I am unable to reconcile such a conclusion when the first portion of the report Mr. Singh reported to Dr. Ley that, “Mr. Singh was uncertain of his legal status.” (Page 1). Dr. Ley again makes further statements outside of his qualifications on page 17: “Mr. Singh and society are unlikely to be effectively served in the long term by a custodial sentence for him. In a correctional setting, Mr. Singh will be exposed extensively to antisocial and drug abusing peers.

Naturally, many incarcerated individuals are involved in the drug trade. Mr. Singh has been an easily influenced person, particularly when his mental health symptoms are not reliably mitigated pharmacologically. Drugs are plentiful and easily obtained and used in jails and prisons.” (Page 17). Dr. Ley has no qualifications to make such statements and such statements are wholly inappropriate to be made. There is no evidence to support that if Mr. Singh is incarcerated that he will not receive his medication regime, however, Dr. Ley concludes that it would not be “reliably mitigated”.

Further, there is no basis for his finding that “many incarcerated individuals are involved in the drug trade” (Page 17). Much of these statements by Dr. Ley have no medical correlation to the application of the law. This Court is struggling with many of his statements and given that Dr. Ley has been qualified as an expert in Court in the past at various levels, I am finding that much of his report is lacking in a clear medical basis for some of his statements. Dr. Ley continues to make a quantum leap of a statement without anything factual to support such that “Mr.

Singh’s mental illness is more likely to be poorly managed within a custodial setting, as mental health services and medication needs are less reliably provided and met in correctional settings.” There is no correlation to such. He does not provide statistics or facts to support this. He has no idea where Mr. Singh would be incarcerated, if such a sentence is imposed. Dr. Ley advocates for Dr. Gibson to continue the once monthly injections, but there is nothing in the report to convince this Court that those once monthly injections cannot be done in a custodial setting. • On page 17, Dr.

Ley states that he found that Mr. Singh has “…some good insight and candour” (Page 17) and that Mr. Singh told him “when you’re in jail you have to make it work…you fit in…you can’t just sit there like an angel…you have to go along with things…”. I am unable to reconcile how Mr. Singh had “good insight” (Page 17) but is also a poor historian. I am unable to reconcile how Mr. Singh displays “candour” (Page 17), but self-reports and convinces Dr. Ley that it was the undercover officer who purportedly took advantage of Mr.

Singh as he was just a kid. [ 26 ] In support of the sentencing position sought by defence counsel, Mr. Singh testified on his behalf during the sentencing portion of this matter and I note the following: • He admitted that he took his bipolar medication if he did not have other pain killers. This would then refute findings by Dr. Ley that Mr. Singh’s drug trafficking was driven by Mr. Singh’s bipolar. Mr.

Singh said himself that at least from time to time he did take his bipolar medication. • He testified that his family “found out pretty much right away” about his drug trafficking, however, his family still permitted him unfettered access to high-end luxury vehicles in which to drive in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley to traffic drugs. • He said that he was at a low point in his life and that he did not have any other way to access money, so he engaged in trafficking to support his self-administering of Percocet’s and OxyContin. There is no evidence to support why Mr.

Singh did not engage in lawful employment to support his alleged drug addiction. He also had access to a family home and vehicles. He was not lacking anything materialistic to meet his day-to-day needs. • He testified that he used the Percocet’s and OxyContin as what he alleged ‘an alternative medication’, but the Court notes he never

admitted that he fully ceased his mental health medication. • Mr. Singh is quick to blame others saying that people that he grew up with worked in the drug trafficking business “so I got involved”. He takes no responsibility.

He readily admitted that he chose to engage in running a line so that he “could make money off them”, he testified how easy it was for him to run the line noting that he simply got drugs off someone whom he knew and that “I would have to grab them, meet the person and get that money and pay the other people that introduced me to the drugs and stuff and pay them after.” It is telling that by his own admission he never had to pay for the drugs up front, that he had ready access and that drugs were fronted to him to permit him to complete the transaction. Mr.

Singh was far more than a simple baggie drug trafficker. • When asked about his role in the drug line, he admitted that if he was not working the line that he would ensure that someone else was, but then denied that he was recruiting. • Mr. Singh testified that he actually lied and lied throughout to the undercover officer. • Despite Dr. Ley advocating without any medical basis that Mr. Singh would not have a consistent application of his medication regime when in custody, it was Mr.

Singh himself who admitted that during his last period of incarceration that while incarcerated he did not have access to the painkillers that he was taking and admitted under oath that he was taking the proper mental health medication prescribed to him while he was incarcerated. This is completely in conflict with the findings of Dr. Ley. • Mr. Singh admitted to telling the undercover officer that he loved selling drugs but that he was high on drugs when he made that statement. He further concludes that he was, in his word, “probably” in a manic state at the time. • On cross-examination, Mr.

Singh admitted that he has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He never testified as to any other medical diagnosis including those that Dr. Ley believes he meets the medical definition. • Mr. Singh disclosed that he never read the report of Dr. Ley. This court is unable to reconcile given that Mr. Singh testified how he had not read Dr. Ley’s report. • On cross-examination, Mr. Singh admitted that he started drug dealing when he was approximately 20 years of age and when asked if he started in the business because it was easy money, his answer was “yes and no”. It is here that Mr.

Singh showed no remorse nor take any responsibility for his actions, admitting that his father is an engineer and also has a real estate business, that his mother is a nurse, that he lied with his family, that his parents are educated and successful and stated that his parents are not poor, but “we are not rich or anything like that. We make it work.” I am struggling to understand Mr. Singh’s definition that “we make it work”, when he lives at home with his parents, that he had full access to the family vehicles, that he was not actively pursuing education, that he had unfettered access to material things.

He admitted that his parents bought him a Mercedes Benz vehicle, but tried to downplay his access stating that it was a family vehicle, however, admitted that he had ready access to vehicles at 19 years of age. • Mr. Singh told the Court, “I was not starving” and that if he did not have money that his parents would support him. • When asked by Crown counsel about his own drug habit, he admitted that “most” of the money from trafficking went to his purchase of painkillers but it is here that he admitted not all. He said that he spent $30 to $40 per day on his drug habit. • Mr.

Singh admitted under oath that he could supply the large quantities asked of him by the undercover officer. • Given that Mr.

Singh allegedly had a $30 to $40 drug habit per day, he was asked why he did not legally engage in employment making more money and he said that he was “not just thinking” and that he was in poor health. • He testified that he started taking OxyContin when he was 16 or 17 years of age and that he thought it would help his mental disorder but that it did not. • He was unable to recall if he told the undercover officer that he was not an addict but admitted that he likely did say such to the officer. • He was unable to recall if he told the undercover officer that the success to his business was not to use, but admitted under oath that he probably did make such a statement to the undercover officer. • Mr.

Singh testified that he lied to the undercover officer about his standing in the business enterprise, but when asked why he would lie Mr. Singh said that he did not want the undercover officer to cut him out and go straight to the drug supplier. I find that Mr. Singh knew what he was doing and fully intended at all times to maintain control of his drug line and in doing so ensured that the undercover officer dealt with Mr. Singh, thus maintaining the income stream for Mr. Singh. • Despite Dr. Ley concluding that Mr. Singh was vulnerable and subjected to the persuasiveness of the undercover officer, under oath Mr.

Singh admitted that the undercover officer never said that there was any pressure or influence on the part of the undercover officer that Mr. Singh had to impress the undercover officer. • Mr. Singh was unable to recall many of the conversations that he had with the undercover officer, but admitted that he knew that he was pushing more drugs, but said that he did not know what he was giving to the officer. He admitted to knowing that he was selling fentanyl and heroin.

He admitted that he had heard of fentanyl in both 2017 and 2018, which is when such was fully also common accessible knowledge and media coverage about the toxic drug overdoses in this province. He testified that he was unable to remember if he told the undercover officer that the drugs were strong, but then admitted that he probably did tell the officer that so that the business was more serious.

These are not the words of a gullible young person. • Despite admitting that he was aware of fentanyl in both 2017 and 2018 in the province and drug overdose, he readily admitted that he did not pay attention to the harm. This is an aggravating factor. He admitted that he was unsure if any of his customers died. He

admitted to knowing what fentanyl was, but did not know the entire make up of what he was selling but then admitted to knowing that some contained heroin. • Crown counsel asked Mr.

Singh about his meet with the undercover officer on March 21, 2018, and he admitted to selling increasingly larger amounts to the undercover officer and he readily admitted on cross-examination that he had, in his words, a “solid commercial relationship.” He admitted that he told the undercover officer that he enjoyed selling drugs, but justified it saying that he was not in the best state of mind. • When pressed, he admitted to knowing the gang known as Brother’s Keepers however, when pressed further about any knowledge, repeatedly he said, “I do not wish to say anything to harm my family or myself.” He refused to answer if he knew a particular person or an address stating again, “I don’t wish to harm me or my family”. • Most notably, when asked by Crown what Mr.

Singh’s role was, he readily admitted that he was “working it to make money”. He did not say it was to feed his personal drug addiction. He said that he was not in a supervisory role, that he was not a boss, but when asked if he told others that he had trained others, at first, he denied such but then admitted that it was possible that he had said such. • He admitted that he told the undercover officer that he was the boss but did so, in his words, “just playing the part”.

He said that he was lying to the officer throughout the course of the undercover buys and is now telling the truth in court. • In the course of his testimony regarding sentencing, Mr. Singh testified that he was lying to the undercover officer but that he was telling the truth now. When pressed he acknowledged to stating that he was engaged in trafficking to make money but that said “everyone” gets involved to make money but that his was to support his $30 a day drug habit. He then conflicted his testimony and said that he was, in his words, “pretty sure” that he lost money.

He said that he averaged a profit of $100 per day and made approximately 25 sales per day. When pressed by Crown why he would not engage in lawful employment, he candidly admitted that, again in his words, “it was a cool thing to do” but then complained that his parents were not giving him money and that he was not in the right state of mind. As with the self-reporting contained in the report of Dr. Ley, Mr. Singh’s testimony continued to conflict. • Contrary to the loving letter of support from his siblings and his father now stating that he lied to the police, Mr.

Singh himself admitted that he threatened his family members. However, he then changed his testimony denying that he threatened his aunt and his father and then softened it to say that he may have gotten into an “altercation”. He stated that his parents told him to stay home and not go out, however, these are the same parents that gave him access to two vehicles for his personal use in which he used to traffic drugs. • He admitted that he was engaged in a dial-a-dope line. He admitted that there was a drug line. He admitted that sometimes he used his own vehicle and that sometimes he rented a vehicle.

I pause to note that despite Mr. Singh seeking to convince this Court that he was not making money, he admittedly had the ability to pay for a car rental. • When pressed by Crown counsel, Mr. Singh admitted that he told Dr. Ley that he trafficked drugs because he saw a friend do it and it was a good way to make easy money. That is contrary to his testimony that he did not make money and that he did so to pay for his personal drug habit. • Mr.

Singh was asked about Brother’s Keepers and gang members, to which he consistently replied that he only wished to talk about himself, that he did not wish to talk about other people and that he did not wish to place himself and his family at harm. • He remembered first meeting the undercover officer in December 2017. He said that he was unable to recall but likely did tell the undercover officer that he was the boss. Mr. Singh was pressed on cross-examination if gang members would be offended if he was merely pretending to be the boss and he replied that he was unsure.

He said he was simply acting like a boss but that he was not a boss. However, he admitted that he told the undercover officer to ask for him and yes that he told the officer to phone him in the morning to ensure that the drugs were weighed and ready. He admitted that he did not have to look for sources for the drugs, that he would work shifts, largely day shift, that he would secure drugs, sell them and only thereafter have to pay for what he had sold. • He admitted that on January 25, 2018, he told the undercover officer that the heroin contained fentanyl. He admitted that he knew what fentanyl was.

He admitted that he told the undercover officer that he was the boss but justified it saying that he was lying and only said it to impress the undercover officer. I am not convinced. He then said that he said that to make money. That is not the first time that Mr. Singh has admitted that he engaged in trafficking to make money. He admitted that he told the undercover officers that he trained his workers to be careful, but then justified it saying that he said so simply to have the undercover officer engage with him. • Mr. Singh’s testimony in the course of sentencing and his statements to Dr.

Ley, I find to be self-serving. There was no independent verification of what he disclosed was truthful and his complete change I find was simply to endeavour to convince this Court that he was not the higher-level drug trafficker that I find him to be. He has tried to convince the court that he lied to the undercover officer but is now truthful because he is under oath. • He admitted that he was stealing his customer’s employers and that he was not thinking straight, that he was fully immersed in the drug trafficking world and that he was not thinking that he could get killed.

He admitted to giving the undercover officer his personal mobile number. • It is notable that despite Mr. Singh telling Dr. Ley that he could not remember much and Dr. Ley accepting that Mr. Singh is a poor historian, it is completely contrary to Mr. Singh’s testimony under oath. When Crown counsel put various dates to him, Mr. Singh was able to remember interactions. When asked if the undercover officer phoned him on January 30, 2018, he admitted that he asked the undercover officer what he wanted.

He admitted to phoning the undercover officer on February 13, 2018 himself, telling the officer that he was out of jail and in his words, “good to go” but that they did not make a profit from the last transaction. When pressed how he secured the larger amounts of drugs were, he was clearly able to remember obtaining them and going back to sell them, he declined to state from whom he obtained the drugs, he admitted that he never had to pay up front for the drugs but justified it saying that he was a middle man. Those are not the words nor the operation of a low-level street drug dial-a-dope trafficker.

He admitted that the person who had the drugs fully trusted him. Mr. Singh remembered telling the undercover officer on February 23, 2018 about sending drugs on a

plane to Kelowna, but then said that he was probably high on drugs himself. He admitted to being arrested on February 25, 2018 for threatening to kill his father and being released not to return home at that time as a term of his Release Order. Mr. Singh had no memory recollection and admitted that he was banned from renting cars. He was able to fully remember that he met with the undercover officer on March 1, 2018 and laughed telling the undercover officer that he had been arrested for pointing a firearm at his father, but now testified that this was not true.

However, he was able to clearly remember that he told the undercover officer that the $3,000 was going to pay for his lawyer but testified that he was lying to the undercover officer and that his parents pay all of his legal fees. • When pressed again, Mr. Singh denied being a boss of the line. He admitted to meeting the undercover officer on March 2, 2018 and told him that he would look into purchasing a gun for the officer.

He remembered meeting the undercover officer on March 8, 2018 and negotiated a price for heroin and fentanyl of $2200, but denied that he had control over the prices and denied being a boss, stating that he lied to impress the undercover officer. • He admitted that on March 18, 2018 that he told the undercover officer that his “guys” would not cheat or that they would get grief form him, but said in his words, that this was “probably” a lie.

He admitted to a second transaction on March 18, 2018 of quoting $2,600 for an ounce of fentanyl and that the price was quoted on the spot without any consultation with any other person, but again said that he lied. He admitted that he was trying to get the undercover officer to buy more to maximize profit. That is contrary to his testimony once again that it was to support his personal drug habit. He admitted that he told the undercover officer that he was sitting on a couple of ounces of cocaine but now says that this was a lie.

It thereafter became telling that despite not wishing to answer questions about Brother’s Keepers and gang affiliation that Mr. Singh admitted that the gang does not like the messing up of a line.

He was unable to recall a conversation wherein the undercover officer asked him about selling his business and testified that while this might have been asked of him that he was working the line since he was 15 years of age and that in his words, he was “very attached to it” but now under oath stated that this was a lie. • He denied that his brothers were engaged in his drug line. • He was asked about a particular named person and again Mr. Singh said, “I do not want to talk about other people.” • Contrary to what was reported by Dr.

Ley and contrary to his letters of support, he admits that he has not pursued any education or training since 2018. He denied reading any of the letters of support. When presented the letter from Ms. Dhaliwal, who is a cousin’s sister, he then changed his testimony stating that he was taking classes online to upgrade his education. Again, there is no documentation of any academic engagement. • Mr. Singh admitted that a young cousin had to flee the province because this cousin was selling drugs.

He denies introducing his cousin to this, but admits that his cousin, in his words “was mimicking me” but then blamed his cousin for those choices saying that this was his cousin’s own life choices. I find no comprehension of the gravity of the offences on the part of Mr. Singh nor any remorse. • When pressed by Crown counsel, Mr. Singh said that he trafficked because he was manic but then said, “I am not blaming my mental health”. This is contrary to the report of Dr.

Ley. • Admitting that his parents paid his legal bills, that he lived at home, that he enjoyed access to family vehicles, Crown counsel is correct that even if Mr. Singh’s testimony is such that he only made $100 to $200 per day, with an alleged $40 drug habit he never did lose money as he now seeks to convince this Court. • He admits that he had heard about people overdosing and the opioid crisis but said that he never took it seriously. • When pressed about why he told Dr. Ley that he did not know his legal status, he now admitted under oath that he had been found guilty.

This is another admission on the part of Mr. Singh of false information being provided. Case Law, the Criminal Code of Canada and the application of the principles of sentencing [ 27 ] In considering the sentence to impose, I am mindful of Section 724 (3) of the Criminal Code of Canada . In applying subsection (e), consideration is based on a balance of probabilities. The Court must determine why Mr. Singh trafficked drugs over the course of the time period and whether it was a greed an

[…]