HIS MAJESTY THE KING - v. -, 2023 SKKB 84

KING’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2023 SKKB 84 Date: 2023 04 25 Docket: CRM-SA-00187-2021 Judicial Centre: Saskatoon ___________________________________________________________________________ BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING - and - RANBIR DHULL Counsel: Tyla R. Olenchuk for the Crown Andrew M. Mason for the accused ___________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT DANYLIUK J. April 25, 2023 ___________________________________________________________________________ I. FACTS AND EVIDENCE Introduction [ 1 ] In very early July 2020 Samandeep Jhinger went missing.

Her absence was reported to the police. [ 2 ] She did not stay missing for long. On July 3, 2020 her body was found in her residence. She had been bound and gagged, and hidden in the lowest

section of an open shelving unit in the basement of a house in Warman, Saskatchewan. She was dead. Someone had killed her. The Crown alleges it was Ranbir Dhull, and in this trial it is alleged he committed first degree murder when he killed this young woman. [ 3 ] To better organize this judgment, I have divided it into the following sections: ITEM PARAGRAPHS

I. FACTS AND EVIDENCE ............................................................................ 1-126 - Introduction................................................................................................. 1-9 - The Admissions....................................................................................... 10-15 - The Crown Case................................................................................... 16-125 - The Defence Case...................................................................................... 126 II.

ISSUES ................................................................................................................ 127 - What are the governing laws and principles? - Has the Crown proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt? III. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 128-198 - What are the governing laws and principles?............................... 128-161 - Has the Crown proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt?...... 162-198 IV.

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 199-200 [ 4 ] This case has a blend of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, admissions, a confession of sorts, and defence denial. It is complicated. [ 5 ] This judgment sets out this Court’s verdict, and the reasons for that verdict, following a first degree murder trial. The trial was slightly delayed due to the accused and his counsel having contracted COVID-19 during the first scheduled week.

As a result, the defence case and final submissions were delayed for approximately a month after the Crown’s case was concluded. There was a further delay when I asked counsel for more assistance regarding their submissions on included offences. [ 6 ] Mr. Dhull is charged with murdering his estranged wife’s cousin. The indictment alleges the following offence: RANBIR DHULL, of the Town of WARMAN, in the Province of Saskatchewan, stands charged that: On or about the 2 nd day of July, 2020 at or near WARMAN, in the province of SASKATCHEWAN did: 1.

COMMIT FIRST DEGREE MURDER ON SAMANDEEP JHINGER, CONTRARY TO SECTION 235(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE. [ 7 ] At the conclusion of this trial, the Crown’s position was that Mr. Dhull’s statement to a friend, when combined with other direct and circumstantial evidence before the Court, results in satisfaction of the Crown’s onus of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown contends that based on the proper application of the law to the facts to be found from the totality of the evidence, Mr. Dhull must be found guilty of first degree murder, as charged. [ 8 ] Not surprisingly the defence took the opposite view.

Defence counsel argued that the totality of the evidence before me falls short of satisfying the Crown onus. The defence contends there are significant inconsistencies which cast a reasonable doubt on the case against Mr. Dhull. The defence says the Court has no alternative but to acquit him. [ 9 ] For the reasons set out below, I find the Crown has met its onus but only as to second degree murder, not first degree as charged. On the totality of the evidence placed before this Court I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Dhull is guilty of the murder of Ms. Jhinger, in the second degree.

The Admissions [ 10 ] The accused made two sets of formal admissions pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46 . These were reduced to writing, signed, and filed as exhibits. In addition, two other forms of admissions must be discussed. [ 11 ] The first formal s. 655 Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit P-1) is dated September 26, 2022. It is comprised of three pages of admissions plus appendices. The body of Exhibit P-1 reads as follows:

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS In the trial of Ranbir Dhull, charging one count of first degree murder, said trial to commence September 20, 2022, pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code , the following facts are alleged by the Crown and admitted by the accused for the purpose of dispensing with proof thereof: 1. Identity of the deceased, Samandeep Jhinger (hereinafter referred to as Jhinger); 2. Identity of the accused, Ranbir Dull (hereinafter referred to as Dhull); 3. Continuity of all exhibits; 4. Jhinger (Date of birth April 2, 1997) is the cousin of Amandeep Kaur.

Given the differences in language, this relationship can also be described in English as “sister”; 5. Ranbir Dhull’s ex-wife is Amandeep Kaur; on July 2, 2020 they were still married. Dhull was subject to a non-contact order due to a pending domestic violence charge from March, 2020. He was acquitted after trial in February 2021. During the period of March to July of 2020, Dhull would still go to the house in Warman to see the children from time to time as was allowed; 6. Jhinger’s body was located at approximately 4:50 a.m. on July 3, 2020 at 206-3 rd Street West in Warman, SK; 7.

Photographs of the residence were obtained by Cpl. Chris Damen and are contained in Tabs 1-3 of the photograph booklet (to be marked as P-2); 8. Imtiaz Ahmad is an acquaintance of Dhull.

Some of the items located in Imtiaz Ahmad’s vehicle were: • Black carry-on luggage which contained: • A silver laptop; • Women’s clothing; • Documents in Jhinger’s name; and • Jhinger’s wallet. • Blue/grey and black Nike bag which contained: • A blue purse with Jhinger’s Saskatchewan licence, passport from India and Ontario health card in it; • Jewelry; and • A white bag that contained documents belonging to Kaur and her children. • Large garbage bag which contained: • A large white blanket, two red/grey and white pillow cases, men’s blue jeans, and a beige towel; • Three Arlo brand cameras; • Three cellphones; and • An unopened Amazon box addressed to Dhull at Apt. 103 1205 Moss Avenue, which contained Arlo camera accessories; 9.

Arlo cameras are able to connect to the internet directly via a Wifi network. All video is recorded to Arlo’s servers by default. How much video is able to be stored on Arlo’s servers depends on the user’s subscription plan. The free tier allows a user to view the cameral feed live and will notify the user when it detects motion, but no video storage is available. Arlo Secure and Secure Plus will store video recordings for up to 30 days. If the internet connection is not available, the recording will still be written to local storage. If a user is

using the optional local storage on an Arlo Smart hub, they are able to unplug the USB or SD card and view the video on a computer. 10. It is unknown what type of subscription plan was tied to the Arlo cameras located at 206-3 rd St. West, Warman, SK. 11. Photographs of the items located in Imtiaz Ahamad’s vehicle were obtained by Cpl. Chris Damen and are contained at Tab 4 of the photo booklet; 12. Various items were examined for fingerprints by Cpl. Damen; photographs regarding this process are contained at Tabs 5-6 of the photo booklet; 13. The Curriculum Vitae of Cpl. Damen is attached hereto at Tab A; 14.

The Friction Ridge Analysis Report prepared by Cpl. Damen in relation to impression R13 is attached hereto at Tab B; 15. The Friction Ridge Analysis Report prepared by Cpl. Damen in relation to impression R13 is attached hereto at Tab C; 16. The Friction Ridge Analysis Reports were verified by Cpl. Tyler Hadland. His Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto at Tab D; 17. Several items were also swabbed and submitted for DNA testing, which was completed by Robert Schimpf. His Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto at Tab E; 18.

The Forensic Services and Identification Services Laboratory Report 1 is attached hereto at Tab F; 19. The Forensic Services and Identification Services Laboratory Report 2 is attached hereto at Tab G; 20. Dr. Shaun Ladham conducted the autopsy of Jhinger. His CV is attached hereto at Tab H; 21. The Autopsy Report of Dr. Ladham is attached hereto at Tab I; 22. The photographs of the autopsy are contained on a USB and will be marked as P-3; 23.

All photographs accurately depict the items shown unless a specific objection is raised with a witness who observed the items personally. [ 12 ] Appended to that first Agreed Statement of Facts were the following: A. Curriculum Vitae, RCMP Cpl. Christopher Damen, April 26, 2022; B. Friction Ridge Evidence Presentation, Sample R13; C. Friction Ridge Evidence Presentation, Sample R11; D. Curriculum Vitae, RCMP Cpl. Tyler Hadland, May 2022; E. Curriculum Vitae, Robert Schimpf M.Sc., RCMP Forensic Science and Identification Services, February 23, 2022; F. RCMP FSIS DNA Report, January 21, 2021; G.

RCMP FSIS DNA Report, May 11, 2021;

H. Curriculum Vitae, Dr. Shaun Ladham M.D., May 2022; and I. Autopsy Report, Dr. Shaun Ladham, April 2021. [ 13 ] The second formal Agreed Statement of Facts under s. 655 was dated October 3, 2022, and reads as follows: AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS In the trial of Ranbir Dhull, charging one count of first degree murder, said trial to commence September 20, 2022, pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code , the following facts are alleged by the Crown and admitted by the accused for the purpose of dispensing with proof thereof: 1. The Friction Ridge Analysis Report prepared by Cpl.

Damen in relation to impression R3 is attached hereto; 2. The Friction Ridge Analysis Report prepared by Cpl. Damen in relation to impression R4 is attached hereto; 3. The Friction Ridge Analysis Report prepared by Cpl. Damen in relation to impression R5 is attached hereto; 4. The Friction Ridge Analysis Report prepared by Cpl. Damen in relation to impression R8 is attached hereto; 5. The Friction Ridge Analysis Report prepared by Cpl. Damen in relation to impression R9 is attached hereto; 6.

The Friction Ridge Analysis Reports are admitted for the truth of their contents. [ 14 ] I earlier noted two other forms of admissions to be discussed. The first of those occurred on October 4, 2022 during the trial. Verbally through counsel, the accused admitted that a DNA sample (specifically, Sample PE 200) was taken from him pursuant to a DNA warrant on March 1, 2021. [ 15 ] The last item would likely be termed a confession by many but at law is a form of admission. This is discussed in detail below. A co-worker of the accused (Malik Draz) testified that the accused admitted killing Ms.

Jhinger, stated her body was in the basement of a residence in Warman, and sought the co-worker’s help to dispose of the body. The law pertaining to such statements, termed admissions, is at issue here and will be canvassed in the analysis

section of this judgment. The Crown Case [ 16 ] In the course of this trial the Crown called 11 witnesses: three civilians, six police, and two scientific witnesses. Civilians [ 17 ] The first Crown witness was Malik Draz. Mr. Draz, age 48, was acquainted with the accused through their mutual participation in Saskatoon’s taxi industry. Both were drivers. At the time of trial Mr. Draz estimated he had known the accused for five to seven years. Mr.

Draz noted he was the former president of the Steelworkers’ Union (which represented certain local taxi drivers) and the accused was a former member of that local. [ 18 ] Mr. Draz indicated he had assisted the accused with previous matters. The accused had been involved in a family dispute which led to domestic violence charges and upon the accused’s arrest by the RCMP Mr. Draz assisted him. There was another incident where the City of Saskatoon suspended the accused’s taxi licence and Mr. Draz assisted him. [ 19 ] On the afternoon of July 2, 2020, Mr.

Draz was in downtown Saskatoon with another man when he received a telephone call from a friend, asking him to come to an autobody shop (known as Disney Motors) in Saskatoon’s north end. He said it took 10 or 12 minutes to get up there. On arrival Mr. Draz noted a few men were present, including the accused. One of the other men told Mr. Draz something was wrong with the accused, then the accused said he wanted to speak with Mr. Draz. [ 20 ] Mr. Draz and the accused then had a conversation standing outside the garage, mostly in the Punjabi language. Both men are fluent in same. The accused told Mr.

Draz he had killed someone, his “sali”, a Punjabi word which meant his sister-in-law, on his wife’s side. However, that word is also used in a wider sense, to mean a wife’s relative. Mr. Draz said the accused used the word “sali”, saying “I killed my sali”. The word can have pejorative connotations. The accused told Mr. Draz an argument had led up to the killing. [ 21 ] The accused said he had not called the police and did not intend to do so. The accused did not want a lawyer. He said he did not want that type of help from Mr. Draz; rather, he said, he wanted assistance in disposing of the body. Mr.

Draz asked the accused where the body of the woman was and the accused said it was in the basement of his home. [ 22 ] Mr. Draz’s testimony was that the accused’s primary concern appeared to be with disposal of the body of the dead woman. Mr. Draz believed the accused should call the police but the latter would not. Mr. Draz said he noted no regret in what the

accused said or how he acted. Mr. Draz asked the accused how he had killed the woman. Mr. Dhull then demonstrated a motion to Mr. Draz where his bent right arm was extended to shoulder height then crooked inward with the fist moving toward his chest. Mr. Draz assumed the accused choked the woman but did not know for sure. The accused did not say where or how he wished to dispose of the body. He did not say exactly where in the basement the body was located. The accused did say the dead woman was supposed to go to Winnipeg to live but could not now. The accused also said something about “having the gold”, but Mr.

Draz did not recall much about that aspect of the conversation. [ 23 ] Mr. Draz stated he found this entire conversation unpleasant, and that he was not there to investigate the accused or the situation. He encouraged the accused to contact the police but the accused would not. He said the conversation with the accused lasted between seven and ten minutes. Mr. Draz did not say he was calling the police but in fact did so after parting from the accused. He went to his own vehicle and called the police first thing.

He was in his vehicle about two blocks away when the police arrived at the body shop and could still see the accused standing outside. After that day he did not have anything more to do with the accused. [ 24 ] On cross-examination Mr. Draz confirmed he was fluent in Punjabi. He said he spoke Punjabi, Urdu, Hindi and English. Certainly, his English was excellent. He said that Punjabi was his mother language when he lived on the Pakistan side of the northwest border of India and Pakistan.

He agreed the accused had lived on the Indian side of that border and that there are differences in those regional Punjabi dialects but, overall, the languages were very similar and he had no trouble understanding the accused or making himself understood to the accused. Mr. Draz also noted he had come to Canada in 2000 and for six years had worked with a Punjabi man from the Indian side. Mr. Draz emphasized he had no difficulty understanding the accused. He said there was “no language barrier problem”. [ 25 ] Mr. Draz provided the exact words in Punjabi the accused had used but there was no translation.

In cross- examination he was asked if those words of the accused meant the accused had intentionally killed the woman and Mr. Draz indicated it was “hard to say”, and that the accused did not say that. He said the words used left open the possibility that he did not intend to kill her and that the issue of the accused’s intention was unclear to him. The words used did not deal with intention behind the killing. Mr. Draz also explained that the use of “sali” to describe the woman could be derogatory. It depends on the context and how the word is said.

He said the word is sometimes used when the speaker is “pissed off” at the woman. Mr. Draz simply understood the accused to mean a female relative from his wife’s side. [ 26 ] Mr. Draz was asked if the accused appeared angry and Mr. Draz said he appeared a bit nervous but there was neither anger nor regret on his face. Mr. Draz asked the accused whether the accused’s wife knew about him killing Ms. Jhinger; the accused said his wife did not know. [ 27 ] After the arrest of the accused Mr. Draz was briefly interviewed in the back of a police car and later went to the station to provide a full statement. [ 28 ] Mr.

Draz was a good witness. He was clear. He did not contradict himself. I detected no exaggeration. There was no bias, in that his testimony was delivered in a clear and objective fashion. Mr. Draz was articulate with good recollection. If he did not know something, he said so. He appeared to me to be a reliable historian and a credible witness. [ 29 ] A somewhat related witness was Imtiaz Ahmed. He had also been a taxi driver and had known the accused for five or six years from that work. He knew the accused as “Rana”. [ 30 ] Mr.

Ahmed said on July 1, 2020 around 5:00 p.m. the accused telephoned him at home asking to borrow his van. The accused said he had purchased something for his children and could not fit it into his car, so he wanted to use Mr. Ahmed’s van. Mr. Ahmed agreed. Mr. Ahmed identified a photograph of his van in the police photo book (Exhibit P-2). Mr. Ahmed only had one key to his van and he gave that to the accused, who in turn gave Mr. Ahmed the keys to his car. Mr. Ahmed said he thought he would get his van back that same evening, after two or three hours. Mr.

Ahmed was the night taxi driver and he started his 12-hour shift shortly after 5:00 p.m. after the keys had been exchanged with the accused. [ 31 ] At 5:00 the next morning (July 2) Mr. Ahmed ended his shift, gave the taxi to his partner, and drove the accused’s car home. He then went to sleep. Around 2:00 or 3:00 p.m. the accused telephoned him to say he’d returned the van and had left the key in the mailbox. Mr. Ahmed asked the accused if he needed his key and the accused said no, he had duplicates. Mr. Ahmed did not actually see the accused at the time his van was returned. [ 32 ] Mr.

Ahmed next used his van on Friday, July 3, 2020 when he and his son went to the mosque. After the service Mr. Ahmed noticed there were items in the van that did not belong to him. He said there was some luggage in the back, four pieces he had never seen before. He said there was one small bag, one backpack, one garbage bag, and one small item. Mr. Ahmed thought these items belonged to the accused. They had not been in the van when it was loaned to the accused. Mr. Ahmed said he was confused with this and did not know what to do.

Friends had mentioned the allegations the accused faced, that the accused had murdered a girl. Mr. Ahmed also said he may have seen it on the news. In any event he knew the accused was a murder suspect. Mr. Ahmed tried phoning the accused but received no answer. After discussing the matter with friends, he took the van and luggage to the Saskatoon Police Service [SPS] police station. He did not open or look inside any of the luggage left in his van. Mr. Ahmed provided a statement to police at that time. [ 33 ] Mr. Ahmed did not know the accused’s wife, Ms. Kaur, or Ms.

Jhinger the deceased. [ 34 ] Cross-examination elicited little other than to emphasize that Mr. Ahmed firmly believed his van was locked (by whomever had left the van there) when he first went to it on July 3. Overall, Mr. Ahmed was a solid and reliable witness. [ 35 ] The third civilian Crown witness was Amandeep Kaur, the accused’s estranged wife. There were some logistical difficulties with her testimony, which was being interpreted. There were two interpreters at the start of the trial. Mr. Hussain was present throughout the trial as an “on call” interpreter for the accused.

Not once during the trial did the accused signal that he required any assistance. A second interpreter, Mr. Ghani, sat with Ms. Kaur and interpreted her testimony which was initially given on the second day

of the trial. [36] On that day Mr. Hussain raised concerns with the Crown as to the

interpretation being done by Mr. Ghani. Mr.Hussain has been a translator for over two decades and understands the duty to interpret – that is, translate – the words actually spoken.He said Mr. Ghani was engaging in a more interpretive exercise and was having discussions with the witness, both as to the questionsposed and the answers she was giving. As matters turned out, the accused advised his counsel that he also had concerns with theinterpretation Mr. Ghani was doing. [37] At the end of that discussion and with the consent of both counsel I directed that Mr. Hussain be provided withthe recording of Ms.

Kaur’s testimony and review it for errors or concerns. The next morning he advised he had large concerns. He saidthere were “substantial discrepancies” in the initial translation. For example, in one 20-minute passage he noted 20 errors. [38] In determining how to address this difficulty reference was had to R v Gill, 2014 SKQB 176, 448 Sask R 182,upheld at 2017 SKCA 76, 356 CCC (3d) 103. At that trial Justice Scherman faced a situation very similar to that in the case before me,wherein the accuracy or integrity of the interpreter was questioned.

In Gill it was the accused’s right to assistance from the interpreterthat had been compromised. Justice Scherman ordered that the impugned evidence in question be redone with a different interpreter. Onappeal, the accused challenged this remedy, but it was upheld by the Court of Appeal. This remedy was dealt with at paras. 99 to 102 ofthe Court of Appeal’s judgment. At para. 102: [102] As a general rule, the appropriate remedy under s. 24 for a breach of s. 14 will be a new trial.

This general rule, however, does notaffect a Court’s power to craft a different remedy that is “appropriate and just” in the circumstances: Tran [ (SCC),[1994] 2 SCR 951] at 1010. In my view, the appellant’s suggestion that the remedy was not appropriate is without merit. The trialjudge’s remedy was both creative and appropriate. It corrected the deficiencies in the interpreter assistance provided withoutnecessitating a new trial. Importantly, it allowed the appellant to fully know the case against him. [39] Counsel suggested this remedy. I agreed. No one sought a mistrial.

The difficulties with the initial interpreterwere reviewed during the trial. They were serious and obvious. Ms. Kaur was still present and able to testify. While it was somewhatinconvenient to her to testify again, it was in no way prejudicial to her as a justice system participant. This remedy was not prejudicial tothe accused; indeed, it prevented the prejudice that would have been occasioned by a mistrial and ensured that the testimony from thiswitness was accurately placed before the Court.

Rather than directing a new trial with the attendant delay and prejudice to the accused(who is on remand), continuing with the current trial by redoing Ms. Kaur’s evidence was the preferable option. That is how the Courtproceeded. [40] Ms. Kaur is 28 years of age and presently lives in Calgary with her two children, working part-time. She wasmarried to the accused for 16 years but is no longer married to him. The couple separated once in 2018 but reconciled, then split for thefinal time in December 2019. Their relationship was marred by spousal abuse and violence.

The accused had been charged criminally inthe past. At the time of the second separation there were release conditions which prevented the accused from contacting Ms. Kaur.However, she ensured that he saw the children. [41] Ms. Kaur described how Mr. Dhull dominated their relationship. He handled all finances. While her pay wasdeposited in her account the accused had the cards and access codes and controlled all of her money she had earned. Ms. Kaur testifiedhow in 2019 she went to Winnipeg for a couple months and took back her bank card, changing the passwords when she was there.

Whenshe returned home, she retained control of her account, and the accused told her to handle all financial matters herself. Although she wasonly working part-time it was up to her to purchase household groceries and items required by the children. She essentially testified thatMr. Dhull had cut her off, financially. [42] She testified that she and Ms. Jhinger were cousins, although they would refer to themselves as sisters. In May2020 Ms. Jhinger moved in with Ms. Kaur and the children at the Warman house. She had been in Toronto. Ms. Jhinger had to move soMs.

Kaur asked her to come to Warman to assist with the children. Ms. Kaur and Mr. Dhull discussed this move prior to it occurring andhe agreed, on the condition that if “something happened to someone” Ms. Kaur would be responsible. Ms. Kaur also said Ms. Jhingerneeded to get permission from the accused to make this transition and the accused agreed, so Ms. Jhinger joined Ms. Kaur in Warman. [43] Both women worked at the 7-Eleven convenience store in Warman. Ms. Jhinger did not formally pay rent butpurchased groceries for the household.

She also assisted in caring for the children when their mother worked night shifts. When askedhow that had gone, Ms. Kaur said “very awesome”. Ms. Kaur said Ms. Jhinger did not speak very much with the accused. At first herefused to speak with her at all, but eventually did so. There was one incident where Ms. Kaur expressed concern that she had misplacedthe permanent resident card for one of the children and Mr. Dhull opined that perhaps she had left it in Winnipeg. Ms. Jhinger wadedinto the conversation and said about Ms. Kaur “she’s not a kid”. Mr.

Dhull told her this was a personal conversation and not to getinvolved in it, and Ms. Kaur agreed Ms. Jhinger should stay out of it. [44] Ms. Kaur described in detail the Warman home. It had two parts, front and back. There was a door between thetwo halves, and people could go back and forth between them. Ms. Kaur said this passage door had a lock and only the accused had thekey. Only the front portion of this residence had a basement beneath it. At the time of Ms. Jhinger’s death she, Ms. Kaur and the twochildren lived in the front part and Mr. Dhull lived in the back. On one occasion when Ms. Kaur and Ms.

Jhinger had made it into theback portion of the house, she noted cameras there and other cameras set up around and outside the house. At least some of them wereremoved or disabled. [45] In July 2020 Ms. Jhinger planned a trip to Winnipeg. She was set to take her test pursuant to the InternationalEnglish Language Testing System (IELTS) at that location. Ms. Kaur helped Ms. Jhinger pack and prepare for the trip. Ms. Kaurindicated Mr. Dhull was aware of it. Ms. Kaur identified Ms. Jhinger’s luggage and clothing in the photographs set out in Tab 4 ofExhibit P-2.

IELTS is an English proficiency test which (among other things) assesses immigrants’ abilities to operate in the workplace. [46] On the evening of July 1, 2020 Ms. Kaur began her overnight shift at the 7-Eleven. Ms. Jhinger was to take careof the children overnight, then leave by plane for Winnipeg that morning. She asked Ms. Kaur to return home by 6:00 a.m. to allow her

to be on time for her flight out of Saskatoon, and Ms. Kaur agreed. [ 47 ] Ms. Kaur left for work around 11:15 p.m. She testified as to a strange incident that occurred. As she walked to work, she noted a vehicle with its lights on in the back alley. As she walked toward the 7-Eleven the vehicle slowly followed her. When she moved toward the vehicle to see who was inside the headlights were switched to high beam and she could not see who was inside. She walked on and would stop, and the vehicle would stop as well. When she resumed walking the vehicle followed. This was repeated.

When she got to the 7-Eleven and went in the vehicle stopped outside. This was at about 11:30 p.m. After attending to a few matters Ms. Kaur telephoned Ms. Jhinger and, among other things, told her about this vehicle following her. Ms. Jhinger usually worked the night shift. She said this had never happened to her. Ms. Kaur testified she was getting scared so she told Ms. Jhinger to lock the bedroom door and go to sleep. [ 48 ] Ms. Kaur at first stated the vehicle remained on the street when she had entered her workplace and was parked on the street. This was repeated several times during cross-examination. Mr.

Mason then raised with Ms. Kaur her testimony at the preliminary inquiry in June 2021, wherein she said the vehicle had stopped in the 7-Eleven lot. Ms. Kaur denied ever saying the vehicle had come into the lot, and stated that at the preliminary inquiry she had testified the vehicle stopped on the street. There was, of course, a translator at the preliminary inquiry. It is impossible to now tell whether there is an actual conflict in Ms.

Kaur’s testimony on this point, or whether the translation at that inquiry suffered from the same difficulties as occurred at trial. [ 49 ] Some clarity was offered about the locks on the house. There was a lock on the front door, which Ms. Kaur often called the “gate”. This could be locked or unlocked from the outside with a key, and from the inside with a turnpiece. As well, in the primary bedroom (where the children slept in a bed and Ms. Kaur and Ms.

Jhinger slept on the floor) there was a barrel-bolt lock high up, beyond the reach of the children, which could only be locked or unlocked from inside the bedroom. There was no corresponding bolt on the outside of the door. [ 50 ] Ms. Kaur testified she did not know if Ms. Jhinger had locked the bedroom bolt lock from the inside, but she did recall locking the home’s main entry door with her key. She also could not specifically recall what Ms. Jhinger wore that night but said she often went to bed in a loose shirt and capri pants. [ 51 ] Ms. Kaur said she spoke with Ms. Jhinger on the phone while at work.

She recalled taking photographs of the computer to demonstrate how to close off the night shift but could not recall if Ms. Jhinger ever replied to that communication. [ 52 ] There were, however, messages to and from Ms. Jhinger’s mobile phone. The timeline of these messages was set out in Exhibit P-5. These texts were reviewed in detail at trial.

Some are worth reviewing here: (a) 12:54 a.m.: Kaur texted a jpg (digital photograph) to Jhinger; (b) 2:17 a.m.: Jhinger texted “Ok good” to Kaur; (c) 4:32 a.m.: Jhinger texted Kaur “Amne aulakh aagya se asi hune jana”, which Kaur understood to mean “We have to leave right now”. She did not know what “aulakh” meant. Within seconds Kaur replied “?” and at 4:34 a.m. the same message was sent from Jhinger’s phone. The message “After 4:30” was sent very shortly after; (d) 4:34 a.m.: Kaur received a message from Jhinger’s phone to the effect that her flight was early.

This preceded an odd exchange; (e) 4:36 a.m.: Kaur texted “Ohna nu mre kol shd jndi bhne” which she said meant the children were to be left with her, due to the early flight. At 4:41 a.m. Jhinger’s phone sent the message “Why?” At 4:41 a.m. Kaur sent two messages in reply. The first said “J tu Jana” which meant, according to Kaur, “If you have to leave, leave the children with me.” It was an extension of her previous answers.

The second message at that time said “Ikale kive rehnge” meaning “How will they live alone?” Kaur testified that by “they” she meant the children, and she was pointing out they could not be left alone; (f) 4:42 a.m.: A message from Jhinger’s phone read “Oh mere nal rehnge” meaning “They will stay with me”. This did not make sense to Kaur as the previous messages from Jhinger’s phone indicated she was leaving quickly to catch her early flight. In reply at 4:43 a.m.

Kaur asked “Kun?” or “Who?” Seconds later she sent a message to Jhinger’s phone asking if Jhinger did not want to leave, and “You want to take them with you?”. Seconds later the reply from Jhinger’s phone was “Yes”. At 4:44 a.m. Kaur said “Mn mr u ahna bina tn ikali” meaning “If you take them I will die”. She testified she was asking how would she live alone and without the children. A minute later the reply from Jhinger’s phone said “Ranbir hai to hai”, or “Ranbir is there”. Kaur’s reply was “Very funny”.

Her testimony was that (as Jhinger knew) Ranbir was not visiting the children or supporting them financially. A minute later Kaur texted words meaning that Ranbir would come at her death or funeral; (

g) at 4:47 a.m. Jhinger’s phone sent the first six replies in under four minutes: 1. a message meaning “don’t talk like this” was sent to Kaur; 2. a message literally meaning “he dies on you” but effectively meaning “he loves you a lot” was sent to Kaur; 3. a message “Ok by talk to later” was sent to Kaur; 4. at 4:49 a.m. Jhinger’s phone sent Kaur a message “Message he kari Okk” meaning only send messages; 5. seconds later Kaur received a message saying “No phone call”; and 6. at 4:51 a.m. a message to Kaur said “Asi niklen lege aa” meaning “We are just leaving”. (h) 6:49 a.m.: Two identical messages were sent from Kaur’s phone to Jhinger’s phone, both saying the children were alone at home.

Kaur was upset by this. She received no reply. She went to sleep, tired after her night shift; (i) 1:31 to 1:32 p.m.: Kaur received four messages from Jhinger’s phone. The first said “sorry”. The second said her phone was not working there. The third said “We are in near Regina” and the fourth “We are going by road”. Kaur was upset and angry and replied at 1:32 p.m. to 1:33 p.m.: “Go die”, “Take my life”, and “Everyone is getting mental or mad”. The last message referred to Jhinger’s family, as Jhinger was nowhere to be found and her family was becoming angry, worried and upset; (

j) immediately after another four messages (in Punjabi) came from Jhinger’s phone. “Its ok”. “My internet is not working”. “I don’t know what happened to my sim card”. “My car broke on the way”. From the entirety of these messages Kaur formed the view Jhinger was travelling with the accused. So she responded “Stay with him” in Punjabi. She also said “I’m not mental”, meaning Jhinger had not explained things. She said in Punjabi “You know I have to go for work” and “You took my husband away with you”. At this point Kaur assumed that if Jhinger was travelling by road, she must be with the accused; (

k) Kaur telephoned the accused to ask if Jhinger was with him. He said no. There was a dispute. In Kaur’s next texts to Jhinger’s phone she said she had spoken to the accused, that he said Jhinger was not with him, and that they were going to call the police because Jhinger was not traceable. By this time Kaur and Jhinger’s family were very concerned; (l) 1:40 to 1:47 p.m.: There are five messages to Kaur from Jhinger’s phone. The first message was purportedly Jhinger saying not to tell anyone, as everyone was calling her.

She next said (in Punjabi) “Don’t tell anyone, ‘fatty’, you’re my sister”. “Fatty” was her nickname for Kaur. The next message from Jhinger’s phone said “flight cancelled, say this if anyone calls you”. Next: “We took the blanket from the house we need it on the journey. Finally she said “Don’t tell anybody”. (

m) Kaur was angry and replied “Go anywhere and don’t come back again”. Right after messages from Jhinger’s phone said “I will talk to you at night” and “We are with somebody”. This last message from Jhinger’s phone was at 1:50 p.m. [ 53 ] All the non-English messages were in Punjabi. Ms. Kaur found the messages strange. Ms. Jhinger knew full well the unhappy nature of the relationship between Ms. Kaur and Mr. Dhull. She had witnessed it. These messages, notably those at subparagraph (

g) above, were discordant both with the relationship and Ms. Jhinger’s knowledge of same. She also noted the accused texted her in Punjabi with “a touch” of Hindi. They are, frankly, non-sensical given the surrounding known facts. They do not appear to have necessarily emanated from Ms. Jhinger, although unquestionably they came from her mobile phone. As well, Ms. Kaur testified that Ms. Jhinger was unable to drive a motor vehicle. [ 54 ] Ms. Kaur said she was trying to locate Ms. Jhinger at first. She had spoken with her husband, the accused, but he said he was not with her. Ms.

Kaur had doubts so she phoned her husband and demanded he come home right away so she could see him, see he was not travelling to Regina with Ms. Jhinger. About 45 minutes later he did come to the house. He came in his own car. She said he looked normal except for a scratch over one of his eyes, one on his forehead, and perhaps one on the right side of his face. The scratch over his eye was about an inch long and went upward from his eye. The accused said he did not know anything about Ms. Jhinger. [ 55 ] Ms. Kaur noted she received no texts from Ms. Jhinger’s phone while the accused was in her presence.

She also noted that on Ms. Jhinger’s phone she had been asked to only text, not call. Usually, she said, they phoned one another and generally did not message one another very much. During the times she was sending and receiving texts from Ms. Jhinger’s phone she attempted to call Ms. Jhinger, but it was not answered. So, within the same time frame her texts were answered but her phone calls were not. [ 56 ] After the accused left, Ms. Kaur phoned Ms. Jhinger’s brother and told him everything that had gone on.

When she looked around the house a blanket was gone from the bedroom and her jewellery bag was not there. Ms. Kaur concluded that Ms. Jhinger had left with someone. She said this to Ms. Jhinger’s brother, who said she was not that kind of girl. It was at this point that the police were called and Ms. Jhinger was reported missing. [ 57 ] Ms. Kaur was shown the photo book (Exhibit P-2). She identified her jewellery bag, a purse containing surveillance cameras found in and around the house, a small handbag, a suitcase, Ms. Jhinger’s passport and documents, Ms.

Kaur’s passport and those of the children, and other items. Other evidence showed these items were taken from the van the accused had borrowed from Mr. Ahmed. [ 58 ] In cross-examination Ms. Kaur clarified some matters such as the location of her home relative to the 7-Eleven store at which she worked. For some reason defence counsel brought out more details about the marital disputes, both verbal and physical. For example, a 2018 incident was described wherein the accused assaulted Ms. Kaur in front of his parents, who were visiting.

This incident resulted in the accused’s arrest and charges being laid for assault. There was a non-contact clause and Ms. Kaur spent a few months in a shelter, but then she regained possession of the family home. A second incident where the police attended following an assault by the accused was also described. This was in March 2020 and the accused again had to vacate the home, could not contact Ms. Kaur, but could see the children. [ 59 ] Also in cross-examination, Ms. Kaur confirmed the arrangements with Ms. Jhinger. The latter had planned to move to Winnipeg, but Ms.

Kaur asked her to come to Warman to help with the children, subject to the accused’s approval. He granted it. There was little discussion about this between spouses. Ms. Jhinger arrived at the Warman home in or about February 2020. Before her arrival Ms. Kaur sometimes had to take the children with her to work at the 7-Eleven, as Mr. Dhull would not agree to mind them while she worked, or agreed then reneged at the last minute. This never occurred after Ms. Jhinger arrived. [ 60 ] There was some discussion of the purchase and transport of a toy, a small car the children could ride in. Ms. Kaur said she and Ms.

Jhinger had purchased it on Kijiji and had paid extra to have it delivered. She denied there were electrical problems with it. She denied that prior to July 2, 2020 Mr. Dhull had ever mentioned needing to do work on it. She denied the accused had to transport it, but she agreed it was too big to fit inside a small car, such as the accused’s. She could not recall the date of acquisition of this toy riding car. [ 61 ] Ms. Kaur noted she did not see Mr. Dhull on July 1, 2020. She had asked him to attend at the house to watch the

children while she worked but she did not know if he ever attended. Ms. Jhinger, of course, was preparing that evening to leave for Winnipeg the next morning. [ 62 ] Also in cross-examination, Ms. Kaur was asked if she believed the accused would want to hurt Ms. Jhinger. She said “I’m not sure”. There was also some discussion, somewhat unclear, about a loan or payment from the accused to Ms. Jhinger with a corresponding account transfer. Little was ultimately made of this. [ 63 ] Ms.

Kaur also explained the initial attendance of police at her residence, where no body was found, and the attendance the next day (July 3, 2020) when Ms. Jhinger was discovered in the basement. It was that day Ms. Kaur learned of the death of Ms. Jhinger. [ 64 ] I turn to the Crown’s police witnesses. Police – Investigators [ 65 ] Initially both the RCMP and SPS were involved in this investigation. This is because the exact site of the alleged murder was unknown – it could have been in Saskatoon or Warman. Thus, it was a joint investigation at first. [ 66 ] Sgt. Deanne Bakker testified.

She is a 24-year member of the SPS and at the relevant time was assigned to the Major Crimes investigative division. On July 2, 2022 her Staff Sergeant gave her information of a possible homicide as related by Mr. Draz to the SPS. The RCMP were involved as well as they had received a missing person’s report regarding Ms. Jhinger, since she had not shown up in Winnipeg as she was supposed to have done. [ 67 ] Sgt. Bakker and RCMP Cst. Nathan Bruce (now Cpl.) interviewed Mr. Draz. They learned directly from him that the accused said there was a body in the basement. Mr.

Draz did not know which basement, but the police knew the accused lived in Warman. The two officers decided to go to the Dhull residence in Warman and seek a consent to search the Dhull house at 206 - 3 rd Street West in Warman. They met Ms. Kaur there, and she consented to the house search. [ 68 ] Sgt. Bakker, Cst. Bruce and two SPS patrol officers met at the house and performed a search. It was Sgt. Bakker who found Ms. Jhinger’s body in the basement of the home. She went downstairs to a storage/furnace/laundry area which was almost L- shaped.

She searched through piles of items by the open storage shelves, moved two pails, moved a rolled-up rug, moved a piece of cardboard, pulled back some heavy black plastic, and found Ms. Jhinger’s body. She only saw the head. Sgt. Bakker indicated she could not see Ms. Jhinger at all when she first entered the room. She reviewed the photographs in Exhibit P-2, Tab 1, to describe how she searched and what she saw. [ 69 ] Upon discovering the body Sgt. Bakker informed the other officers and backed out of the room. None of the other officers had been in that room before she entered.

She reported to her Staff Sergeant and gave the next-of-kin notice to Ms. Kaur, getting Ms. Kaur to take her children out of the home. [ 70 ] Given the location of the body the matter became the RCMP’s investigation and crime scene. [ 71 ] Cpl. Nathan Bruce testified. At the time of trial, he had over 13 years of service with the RCMP and in 2017 was assigned to Major Crimes in Saskatoon. He became involved with this matter on July 2, 2020 when his Staff Sergeant called him at home and assigned this investigation to him. He confirmed that at first the investigation was jointly run with the SPS.

His role in the investigation ultimately was as crime scene manager, where he worked with the RCMP’s forensic identification personnel to document the scene. He assisted in seizing items that became exhibits. He described the scenes as two homes, two vehicles and the autopsy. [ 72 ] Cpl. Bruce described the Warman house as one large home divided into two units, front and back. In the south (front)

part lived Ms. Kaur and her two children along with Ms. Jhinger; in the north (back) part resided the accused. Cpl. Bruce extensively reviewed and described the scenes depicted in Exhibit P-2, the photo book. He also mentioned two other matters of note. The first was that there were cameras placed around the house. The second was that in Mr. Ahmed’s van were items which belonged to Ms. Kaur or Ms. Jhinger. [ 73 ] In cross-examination Cpl. Bruce was asked if he saw signs of a struggle in the house.

He said he did, but he could not say right in the area of the body’s location as the room was cluttered and it was difficult to tell. He said blood was found in several locations on the upper level of the house and in the stairwell. [ 74 ] Cpl. Cory Teniuk also testified. He has over 16 years with the RCMP and has been with Major Crimes in Saskatoon since 2016. In this investigation Cpl. Teniuk was the primary or lead investigator. As such, he controlled the speed, flow and direction of the investigation. [ 75 ] Cpl.

Teniuk became involved with this matter around 7:00 p.m. on July 2, 2020 as he was on call that day and received a request for assistance from the Warman RCMP detachment, which had been investigating the matter through the day as a missing person complaint. Those officers had determined that Ms. Jhinger missed a flight out of Saskatoon to Winnipeg. [ 76 ] Information coming to Warman detachment members altered the course of the investigation from a missing person to a suspicious absence. Ms. Kaur informed police of receiving a late-night text, ostensibly from Ms.

Jhinger, that she no longer needed a ride to the airport. The Saskatoon Police had informed the RCMP that the accused had been at Disney Motors telling others he had killed a woman, and that he was looking for assistance in moving the body. SPS personnel followed up with obtaining statements and searching the van. [ 77 ] Cpl. Teniuk explained there had actually been two searches of the Warman house. He had directed the first one. The initial search was done quickly and in exigent circumstances and the officers found nothing. Cpl. Teniuk indicated this was not a good search, and the body had been well hidden.

The reason for the first search was that Ms. Jhinger had not showed up for her WestJet

flight. [ 78 ] Once Cpl. Teniuk heard the statements from Mr. Draz and others that while at Disney Motors the accused had asked for help moving a body from the Warman residence, the decision was made to conduct a second search. It is that search that revealed the body of Ms. Jhinger at approximately 4:50 a.m. on July 3, 2020. This squarely engaged the RCMP’s jurisdiction, and that police service formally took over the investigation. [ 79 ] After discovery of the body RCMP officers had spoken to Ms. Kaur, who related the original travel plan. The texts were shown to officers and Cpl.

Teniuk noted the text regarding the putative early flight was “weird”, since Ms. Jhinger had no other way to get to the airport. As well, Ms. Kaur reported Ms. Jhinger was gone when she got home that morning and the children were alone in the house, which also alarmed the RCMP. Thus, the RCMP obtained search warrants for the house in Warman and Mr. Dhull’s apartment on Moss Avenue in Saskatoon. This was followed by Mr. Ahmed providing a report about his van being borrowed around the first of July and four bags belonging to the accused being found in the van. [ 80 ] On cross-examination Cpl.

Teniuk indicated the information from Mr. Draz about a body in the Warman house came to them later on July 2, 2020 and, as a result, the search in which the body was found was conducted. He noted the body had been well hidden and had withstood the earlier search, which he said was not a good search. He did not attend for the second search and never saw the actual body. Police – Experts and Technical [ 81 ] Three further officers testified. Two were qualified as experts, and one was a technical witness. [ 82 ] The technical witness was Sgt. Paul Fisher, an 18-year RCMP veteran.

He has spent the last 15 years with the Saskatchewan Digital Forensics division of the RCMP in Regina. This unit analyzes any device with memory, including computers, tablets, telephones, even drones. [ 83 ] Sgt. Fisher was involved with this investigation twice. On July 5, 2020 he assisted with the search of the surveillance system at the Warman house. On August 15, 2020 he conducted analyses of mobile telephones. [ 84 ] With respect to the mobile phones, there are two methods. One pertains to Apple iPhones and the other method applies to all other mobile phones. Once Sgt.

Fisher receives a mobile telephone he connects it to the police computer and attempts to extract its files and information. Software interprets the extracted data and Sgt. Fisher creates a report on what was retrieved. He noted that while extracting data or doing a report, data cannot be altered as it has a digital “fingerprint” which prevents alterations. As an analyst, he puts that raw data into report form. [ 85 ] Sgt. Fisher provided detailed testimony as to how the information was extracted and put into the report that ultimately was marked as Exhibit P-5 in this trial.

Exhibit P-5 contains all the messaging between the phones of Ms. Kaur and Ms. Jhinger; phone calls are not listed. He further noted that some of the messages were texts and some were on an application known as WhatsApp. As well, marked as Exhibit P-9 was a USB containing his forensic digital analysis. [ 86 ] On cross-examination Sgt. Fisher confirmed he did not extract the phone’s settings or connect it to WiFi network. He also agreed they did not obtain any records from the cell phone company. Further, on iPhones (which Ms.

Kaur and the accused had) any deletions from the phone may not show up in his report. [ 87 ] Two police fingerprint experts testified. First was Cpl. Chris Damen of the RCMP. He was tendered as a friction ridge analyst, formerly known as fingerprint analysts. Cpl. Damen had been with the RCMP since 2006, the first 10 years on general duties. In 2015 he began his training with the forensics division and ultimately was so assigned and posted to Saskatoon. His curriculum vitae is Tab A to Exhibit P-1. His training commenced with an eight-week course followed by a two-year apprenticeship.

To pass the course a grade of 100% is required, which Cpl. Damen attained on his first try. He also successfully challenged the national level exam. [ 88 ] Since his training Cst. Damen has been the lead forensics investigator on 334 files. He has previously been qualified as a court expert and provided expert opinion testimony. In the 2018 Patrick Dong homicide he was qualified to give expert opinion testimony regarding tire impression evidence. However, in the Allan Garrioch homicide he was not qualified as an expert.

As of April 2022, he had located 186 fingerprints. [ 89 ] Membership in professional organizations is required, rendering Cpl. Damen subject to supervision and even discipline. He has been subject to discipline once, regarding this case in fact. He excluded a fingerprint that other examiners said should have been deemed “inconclusive”. Cpl. Damen indicated he was not wrong, as such. Rather, he overstepped what he could do with the information before him. He was temporarily suspended. He had to do some remedial work.

He was recertified and as of trial he was reinstated. [ 90 ] He explained there are three conclusions that can be reached regarding a friction ridge, or fingerprint: identified, excluded, or inconclusive. [ 91 ] At the end of the qualification voir dire I was satisfied Cpl. Damen understood his duty as an expert and I qualified him to provide expert opinion testimony in the location, development, analysis, comparison and evaluation of friction ridges (“fingerprints”). [ 92 ] Regarding this case, on July 3, 2020 Cpl. Damen received a call from Cst.

Bruce indicating a deceased woman had been found in a house in Warman. He attended at the scene. Photographs were taken. Sgt. Clunie assisted him. [ 93 ] Cpl. Damen received the four pieces of tape that had covered the nose and mouth of Ms. Jhinger and had been removed at the autopsy. The tape was kept in the order it had been applied. A technique known as “superglue fuming” was used to detect

a fingerprint on the non-adhesive side of one of the pieces of tape. This print could not be seen by the naked eye. This was a relativelygood print, deemed suitable for comparison with a known subject’s fingerprints. The finding was that this print ‘was from the accused’.Exhibit P-1, Tab B, contains Cpl. Damen’s evaluation form of this fingerprint wherein he matched it to the accused’s left index finger. [94] A roll of the same type of tape was found on the top shelf of the unit Ms. Jhinger had been stuffed inside andhidden within. Another fingerprint had been found on the outside of this roll of tape.

Another comparison was done and it was matchedto the right middle finger of the accused. The documents in this regard are at Tab C of Exhibit P-1. His conclusion was that the accusedtouched the roll of tape after or at the same time as the tape was applied to Ms. Jhinger. [95] Cpl. Damen also identified that he had taken the photographs in Exhibit P-2. Tab 5, photo 2 is of the blackplastic board used to conceal the deceased. On it was a partial palm print, being the print that caused professional difficulty for Cpl.Damen. [96] Defence counsel cross-examined Cpl. Damen.

The officer confirmed that the roll of tape found was the onlysuch tape in the house, and that the police searched for other tape of this type. There was no brand name on the tape. [97] Also, the tape from Ms. Jhinger’s face was discussed. Cpl. Damen described how the four pieces were separatedand how he kept them in order. Exhibit P-2, Tab 5, photo 33 illustrates this. The fingerprint came from the third piece in that photograph.The fingerprint had been partially covered by the next piece of tape applied to her face, which had a preservative effect on thefingerprint. [98] Cpl.

Damen agreed there had been no attempt to match any of the torn ends of the tape from Ms. Jhinger’s faceto the torn end of the roll of tape found on the top shelf of the basement shelving unit. He also agreed he did not know how many rolls oftape there could have been in the house. [99] The second police fingerprint expert was Cpl. Tyler Hadland. A qualification voir dire was held and I wassatisfied he met the Mohan and Bingley criteria (R v Mohan, (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9 and R v Bingley, 2017 SCC 12,[2017] 1 SCR 170).

I qualified him as an expert witness, able to provide expert opinion testimony in the location, development, analysis,comparison and evaluation of friction ridges. He went through the same training as Cpl. Damen, beginning in the spring 2017. Hiscurriculum vitae was in evidence at Tab D of Exhibit P-1. [100] Cpl. Hadland’s role in this matter began in August 2020. His sole role was as the verifier of the fingerprintanalyses done by Cpl. Damen. From then until April 2021 he received eight opinions on fingerprints and went through the verificationprocess with each.

He conducted an analysis, comparison, evaluation and verification. This is an important last stage to confirm theopinion about the fingerprint. In doing so, Cpl. Hadland was not informed of Cpl. Damen’s opinion or conclusion. Essentially, heconducted the analysis over again to see if he came to the same conclusion. He did. [101] Cpl. Hadland testified that there had been occasions when he was the verifier that he came to a differentconclusion than the original analyst. However, he termed the possibility of disagreement as “extremely small” because of the number ofpoints of similarity required. [102] Cpl.

Hadland was an excellent expert witness, making difficult concepts clear and understandable. Civilian Experts [103] Robert Schimpf was qualified as an expert, able to analyze DNA and do PCR analyses (polymerase chainreaction). He has done thousands of such analyses. He is employed by the RCMP as a Forensic Specialist. He is a Biology ReportingScientist. He holds a Master’s Degree in molecular genetics. He began his employment with the RCMP in 2004. A qualification voir direwas held which canvassed (among other issues) the criteria in Bingley. I was satisfied he was an appropriate expert.

He was qualified toprovide expert opinion testimony in the

interpretation and reporting of evidence recovery search results and DNA analysis resultsobtained from evidentiary samples, including comparisons of profiles and the application of statistical significance to any matches orinclusions found. [104] Mr. Schimpf’s curriculum vitae was Tab E of Exhibit P-1, and his reports were Tabs F and G in Exhibit P-1.While his evidence was highly technical, he attempted to phrase it to bring it within the understanding of we mere mortals. In short, hecompares field samples of biological material to known samples.

If there is a match, he calculates the probability of those samples beingfrom the same person. [105] A number of seized items were sent to the lab. PE 118 was a pair of pants worn by Ms. Jhinger. The DNA onthose pants came from two individuals, predominantly from a person identified as “Male 1”. In Mr. Schimpf’s first report, the probabilityof that major component from the sample being that of another individual was 1 in 7.6 sextillion. In his second report, there was a matchto the accused. [106] The first report (Tab

F) also dealt with a scarf. Again, DNA on the scarf came from two individuals butpredominantly it matched “Male 1”. The odds of it being someone else are 1 in 330 septillion. In his second report, there was a match tothe accused. [107] Similarly, Ms. Jhinger’s jeans were linked to “Male 1” through DNA on them. The second report confirmed thatthis male individual was the accused. There was also DNA from blood elsewhere on these jeans that was exclusively Ms. Jhinger’s. [108] Thus, Mr.

Schimpf confirmed that in his first report some DNA on samples was linked to “Male 1”, and that inhis second report “Male 1” was the accused. In other words, his professional opinion is that the accused’s DNA was on pants, jeans anda scarf all belonging to Ms. Jhinger. As will be seen, the scarf was used to kill her.

[ 109 ] There was a fairly lengthy cross-examination of Mr. Schimpf that, frankly, failed to illuminate. There was an extended debate on mathematics with defence counsel supplying his own view of exponents, but in the end it mattered not. Essentially Mr. Schimpf’s odds were that the number of people required for it to be possible for the DNA to be someone other than the accused’s far exceeded the number of people extant on planet Earth. In short, no damage was done to Mr.

Schimpf’s opinion in the cross-examination. [ 110 ] Based on the entirety of the evidence I am entirely satisfied that DNA found on the pants, jeans and scarf belonging to Ms. Jhinger was that of the accused. [ 111 ] The other civilian expert was Dr. Shaun Ladham. He is the Chief Forensic Pathologist for the Saskatchewan Coroners’ Service. He performs autopsies. Where possible, he identifies the cause(

s) of death. His curriculum vitae was at Tab H in Exhibit P-1. He has performed and supervised over 5,000 autopsies. He has taught in the United States, Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia. He has testified over 200 times in Saskatchewan, as well as in other jurisdictions. Again, at the conclusion of the qualification voir dire I was entirely satisfied Dr.

Ladham was qualified to proffer expert opinion testimony in the field of forensic pathology and the determination of the cause of death and the circumstances and/or mechanisms that may have led to death, and to describe various types of trauma and how they played a role in the death. [ 112 ] Tab I of Exhibit P-1 contained Dr. Ladham’s autopsy report with an attached toxicology report. Dr. Ladham’s final conclusion as to Ms. Jhinger’s death was via ligature strangulation. When he received her body the nose and mouth were taped, which could have caused some suffocation.

As he was unaware as to when the tape was applied, he could not opine definitively either way. [ 113 ] Exhibit P-3 was a USB containing photographs of the autopsy held July 7, 2020, which photos were taken by Cpl. Damen. In the course of his testimony, Dr. Ladham reviewed same. I will mention the most salient. Photo 17 is a photograph of Ms. Jhinger with cloth wrapped around her neck. Photos 26 through 116 show the ligatures on Ms. Jhinger’s limbs. One bound her right knee and left thigh. There was a knot at the right knee. A second ligature bound the right thigh to the left ankle.

This was looped through her hands, not tied to them. There were three loops around her wrists and there were marks on her wrists from the ligatures. [ 114 ] There were also two ligatures on Ms. Jhinger’s neck. They were intermingled but not tied together. There was a scarf and a pair of pants. The pants were tied at the back of her neck. These are clearly depicted in photos 152 to 178. The scarf was overtop of the pants. The scarf had one knot at the back of her neck. Also, the ligature marks were clearly depicted once the ligatures were removed (see photo 310). From further examination, Dr.

Ladham was able to conclude that the neck ligature was tied from the back and to the sides. The marks under Ms. Jhinger’s jaw indicate friction on her skin. Such marks were expected. This is consistent with the ligatures being pulled from the back, toward the left side. Likely Ms. Jhinger pushed her chin down to protect her neck, which contributed to the marks. It was also of note there were no scratches or claw marks on her neck, which might have come had she tried to pull the ligatures away.

It does not take very long to render someone unconscious in this way as within 10 to 15 seconds air to the brain is cut off, and loss of consciousness can come as quickly as 4 seconds. Death can come in 2 to 6 minutes, or even quicker. His best estimate was that death would have come in 2 to 3 minutes. [ 115 ] As well, Dr. Ladham later conducted a detailed neck dissection which showed no consistency with a manual strangulation; rather, the autopsy pointed to a ligature strangulation. [ 116 ] As well, there was white duct tape on Ms. Jhinger’s face. It covered her nose and mouth.

Once removed, there was some blood and brown fluid on her face and on the inside of the tape. Dr. Ladham indicated this was common, that after death such fluid comes out. The tape could have contributed to her death if applied before death, but he could not say when the tape was applied. However, he noted a dead body does not vocalize after death and there would be no need to apply such tape in this manner after death. [ 117 ] Dr. Ladham also noted there was an abundance of petechial hemorrhaging in Ms. Jhinger’s upper face and eyes. This is well-established to be confirmatory of strangulation.

With the amount of this he observed, he was satisfied that Ms. Jhinger was alive while being strangled with the ligatures. As well, on the back of Ms. Jhinger’s right shoulder was a mark that may have been a bite mark, but which could not be confirmed. [ 118 ] Dr. Ladham further noted that marks on Ms. Jhinger’s body were suggestive of drag marks. There were small bruises on her left arm and large abrasions on her left shoulder. [ 119 ] On page 1 of his report, Dr. Ladham’s opinion on cause of death reads as follows: The cause of death of this 23-year-old female is ligature strangulation.

I cannot rule out that the tape over the nose and mouth did not cause some degree of suffocation, so its presence could have contributed to her death. The case was shown to Dr. Andreea Nistor, Forensic Pathologist, who agrees with the cause of death and the opinion given. [ 120 ] Dr. Ladham was cross-examined. He agreed he did not see any defensive wounds on Ms. Jhinger but noted this was inapplicable, as her death was not caused by something that would induce such wounds, such as a sharp force injury. He disagreed that the knots in the twine bindings were complex, and said they looked simple to him.

He agreed there were no definitive signs of limb movement other than the right wrist, so he could not say for sure whether the twine limb bindings were applied before or after Ms. Jhinger’s death. [ 121 ] Regarding the ligature strangulation Dr. Ladham noted it would not take a lot of pressure or force to close all the neck structures, blocking the airway and/or blood flow to the brain. He noted the marks on Ms. Jhinger’s neck were not the only place the ligatures contacted on her body. Likely the whole front and sides of the neck were engaged, and it is unlikely only one body structure was occluded.

He agreed that even once the person was unconscious it would be necessary to maintain pressure on the neck to cause death. He disagreed that something like a previous motor vehicle accident injury would reduce the time required to cause death, unless bones had been affected. His opinion was that prior treatment from a neck surgeon would not alter the situation; he had never seen this. [ 122 ] Defence counsel cross-examined Dr. Ladham on the lack of scratches on the neck, suggesting Ms. Jhinger would

have tried to get the ligature away. He repeated that she had pushed her head down but there was a lot of material around her neck, so itmay be that if her hands were up they did not contact the skin of the neck. As well, her hands/wrists were tightly bound to her legs,perhaps preventing them from reaching her neck. [123] On cross-examination regarding the tape on her nose and mouth, Dr. Ladham indicated the tape blocked herentire nose and mouth. There was no space observed that would have allowed air to come in and out. He agreed he did not know whenthe tape had been applied. [124] Dr.

Ladham agreed he saw no damage to the lungs or respiratory system, but added he would not have expectedany in a ligature strangulation at the neck. He also agreed that a ligature strangulation of a victim can be performed by an assailant whois not much stronger than the victim. The airway or blood flow, or both, need to be closed. [125] This formed the case for the Crown. The Defence Case [126] Ultimately the accused elected not to call evidence at his trial. Of course, he was not obligated or expected to doso. It is his right to stay silent and make the Crown prove its case. II.

ISSUES [127] The issues in this trial are: 1. What are the applicable governing laws and principles? 2. Has the Crown proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt? III. ANALYSIS 1. What are the applicable governing laws and principles? [128] There are basic principles by which every criminal trial in Canada is conducted. While these might be seen astrite, in an era where assaults on fundamental rights and liberties are increasingly commonplace, these principles bear repeating. [129] First, every accused person begins every criminal trial as an innocent person. He or she remains presumedinnocent throughout the trial.

That is a fundamental right and freedom that, thankfully, has not been eroded over time, from pressure fromspecial interest groups, or through legislation. If that crucial presumption in our legal system is to have any true meaning, it must begiven effect in every case, and the presumption cannot be displaced unless the Crown discharges the burden it always carries and provesits case beyond a reasonable doubt. [130] As with any criminal matter, the presumption of innocence and the standard of reasonable doubt occupy centralroles in this case.

As I assessed the totality of the evidence in this case to determine whether the Crown had proven the case beyond areasonable doubt, I remained mindful of decisions such as R v Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 SCR 144, and R v Lifchus, (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 320. I have carefully self-instructed that the burden of proof rests with the Crown and it never shifts. Mr.

Dhullwas not obligated to prove anything during this trial, and certainly was not required to prove that he was not guilty of the charges in theindictment. [131] I have also carefully self-instructed as to the standard of proof applying to each element of the offence based onthe totality of the evidence, rather than to each individual piece of evidence. The Crown need not prove every single fact or matter to thatstandard, nor must the Crown explain every issue or matter that arises in the course of a trial.

Rather, the Crown must amass sufficientevidence to satisfy the trier of fact of each element of the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See R v Morin, (SCC), [1988] 2 SCR 345. The principles enunciated in that case were more recently reiterated by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal inR v Alves, 2014 SKCA 82 at paras 40 to 43, 442 Sask R 69: [40] In J.M.H. [2011 SCC 45, [2011] 3 SCR 197], the failure to consider all the relevant evidence was the fourth situation in which atrial judge’s assessment of the evidence can amount to an error of law.

The “underlying legal principle” of this error is that “it is an errorof law to subject individual pieces of evidence to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the evidence must be looked at as awhole.” (at para. 31) This error was originally recognized by Sopinka J. in Morin (1988). [41] Sopinka J. in Morin (1988) explained that to subject individual pieces of evidence to the criminal standard results in a “piecemeal”consideration of only the evidence that is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than a proper consideration of all the relevantevidence.

The problem that arises from subjecting individual pieces of evidence to the criminal standard is that the trier of fact is leftwith only those (presumably) small parts of the Crown’s case that could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, The effect of the misdirections referred to above may very well have been that the jury examined evidence that was crucial to theCrown’s case in bits and pieces. Standing alone or pitted against the evidence of the accused without the support of other evidence, muchof this evidence might have been discarded as not measuring up to the test.

When the jury came to consider the Crown’s case as a wholethere may not have been very much left of it. [at pp. 358-9, Emphasis added]

[42] However, as the Supreme Court noted in J.M.H., the application of this error is limited to circumstances where the trial judgeclearly subjects individual pieces of evidence to the criminal standard; it has no application where the trial judge has not offered reasonsas to how each piece of evidence was assessed.

Explaining this limit in Morin (1992) (SCC), [1992] 3 SCR 286],Sopinka J. held at p. 296 that: To apply Morin, supra, as a basis of review of a trial judge’s findings of fact whenever the reasons for judgment fail to deal with aparticular piece of evidence, or the inference from such evidence would require a trial judge to record each piece of evidence and his orher assessment of it. This would be a misapplication of Morin to the trial process when the trial is by judge alone.

A trial judge mustconsider all of the evidence in relation to the ultimate issue but unless the reasons demonstrate that this was not done, the failure torecord the fact of it having been done is not a proper basis for concluding that there was an error in law in this respect. [Emphasis added] [43] In

summary, it is an error of law to subject individual pieces of evidence to the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonabledoubt. To err in such a manner results in an improper and piecemeal consideration of only the evidence that the Crown could provebeyond a reasonable doubt.

However, this error does not arise if the trial judge has merely not explained how each individual piece ofevidence was assessed; it arises only if the trial judge subjected individual pieces of evidence to the criminal standard. [132] Alves was applied in R v Abramoff, 2018 SKCA 21, [2018] 5 WWR 521, and more recently in R v Bear, 2022SKCA 131. [133] Regarding the issue of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I have borne in mind the following attributes of that legalconcept: - A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It must not be based on sympathy or prejudice.

Rather, it is based onreason and common sense. It must logically be derived from the evidence or absence of evidence. - The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to absolute certainty than to probably or likely guilty. However,it is virtually impossible to prove anything to the standard of absolute certainty, and the Crown is not required to do so. Such a standardof proof is impossibly high. The Crown bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. - The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies to each element or essential part of each offence.

In that vein, theCrown must prove that the accused did each of the elements that make up the offence. The surrounding analysis must always begrounded upon the proposition that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt those essential elements or essential parts of eachoffence. - The principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies to assessments of credibility. [134] There is good reason for this presumption of innocence and this standard of Crown proof beyond a reasonabledoubt.

Any person within Canada can find himself or herself charged with a criminal offence, and find the entire power of the statealigned against him or her. To balance matters, the presumption of innocence and standard of proof provide an accused person with theability to face his or her accusers at a fair trial. [135] I have also borne in mind that in this trial, Mr. Dhull was not required to prove a single thing and certainly not totestify.

I have been careful not to confuse which party bears the onus of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of any relevantalleged offence. [136] To be sure, our system of justice is not perfect. Rarely, but sometimes, injustices arise. But our system is the envyof many countries in the world. It is fair. It is impartial. It is independent.

In the main, it works very well. [137] I have also been careful to self-instruct on the nuances and differences as between first and second degree murder.In R v Nette, 2001 SCC 78, [2001] 3 SCR 488, it was held that where a constructive first degree murder is alleged, the trier of fact mustfirst determine that the accused has committed murder, before going on to consider whether his participation in the underlying offenceand the killing of the victim was so direct and substantial that a conviction for first degree murder is appropriate.

Also in the realm ofconstructive murder, where confinement is the alleged underlying crime it must be distinct and independent from the murder. [138] I now turn to the issue of what are the elements of the offence charged. First Degree Murder [139] The charge set out in the indictment is that of first degree murder contrary to section 235(1) of the CriminalCode. The Crown’s primary position at this trial was that the accused committed first degree murder. [140] Under s. 231(1) of the Criminal Code murder is either first degree murder or second degree murder.

Section231(2) states that murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate. [141] To obtain a verdict of guilty on the charge of first degree murder the Crown must prove each essential element ofthat charge. First degree murder may be committed and may be proven in a number of ways; the elements will therefore vary somewhatdepending on the alleged mode of commission. [142] The Crown did not maintain that this case amounted to first degree murder (s. 231(2)) because it was planned

and deliberate. That was a fair position, as there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all of the following required elements toprove a planned and deliberate murder: 1. the identity of the accused; 2. the date, time and place of the offence as set out in the indictment; 3. that Mr. Dhull caused the death of Ms. Jhinger; 4. that Mr. Dhull caused the death of Ms. Jhinger unlawfully; 5. that Mr. Dhull had the state of mind required for murder; and 6. that Mr. Dhull’s murder of Ms.

Jhinger was both planned and deliberate. [143] Accordingly, the Crown advanced an alternate theory as to how this was first degree murder. [144] If the allegation is that the murder is first degree murder because it was a killing committed during thecommission of an enumerated offence (under s. 231(5)) – in this case, forcible confinement pursuant to s. 279 – then the followingelements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. the identity of the accused; 2. the date, time and place of the offence as set out in the indictment; 3. that Mr. Dhull committed an unlawful act; 4. that Mr.

Dhull’s commission of that unlawful act caused the death of Ms. Jhinger. 5. that Mr. Dhull had the state of mind or intention required for murder; 6. that Mr. Dhull committed, or attempted to commit, the forcible confinement of Ms. Jhinger contrary to s. 279 of the Criminal Code. 7. that the forcible confinement of Ms. Jhinger and the murder of Ms. Jhinger were part of the same series of events; and 8. that Mr. Dhull actively participated in the killing of Ms.

Jhinger. [145] The Crown’s position was that the evidence, taken as a whole, satisfied this mode of committing the offence offirst degree murder pursuant to s. 231(5)(e). [146] As noted in the authorities, these elements do not include matters such as motive, nor the exact manner in which aperson is killed.

Section 229 of the Criminal Code is broad in scope. This was explored in R v Thatcher, [1987] 1 SCR 652, . [147] Thatcher has been applied numerous times since the decision was rendered. For example, it received this briefcomment in R v Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, [2008] 1 SCR 96: [22] … Jurors may arrive at a unanimous verdi

[…]