R. v. Singh, 2011 ONCJ 394

COURT FILE No.: Toronto 311655 DATE: 2011·06·09 Citation: R. v. Singh , 2011 ONCJ 394 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — HIRENDRA BHAN SINGH Before Justice P. Robertson Heard on May 12, 2011 Reasons for Sentence released on June 10, 2011 D. Tsagaris ................................................................................................................ for the Crown R.

Zoppi .................................................................................. for the accused Hirendra Bhan Singh ROBERTSON, J.: [ 1 ] This sentencing judgement should be read in conjunction with my Reasons for Judgement released on April 7, 2011. [ 2 ] Mr. Hirendra Singh pled guilty to assaulting his wife, Ms. Ranu Singh, with a solid 8 pound metal pipe resulting in serious head wounds amounting to an aggravated assault. Following trial, I also found Mr. Singh guilty of threatening to cause serious bodily harm to his two children and forcibly confining his wife following the aggravated assault.

I found that the threats he made regarding the children to Ms. Singh were made in order to facilitate his continued control over Ms. Singh and were part and parcel of his plan to forcible confine his wife, and in doing so hide her injuries from the authorities. [ 3 ] Any sentencing commences with an assessment of the mitigating and aggravating factors. Mitigating Factors [ 4 ] Mr. Singh has no criminal record. He is a first offender.

As such incarceration, which is appropriate in this case, should be for the least period of time consistent with the other sentencing principles applicable in sentencing of domestic assaults. [ 5 ] Out of Character - His actions though not spontaneous and to some degree pre-planned, appear somewhat out of character. Although Ms. Singh described the marriage as never being a happy one, she testified that her husband had never previously (physically) assaulted her. His prior behaviour was limited to shouting loudly at her and showing his anger through body language. The fact that Mr.

Singh has no criminal record is clearly a mitigating factor however, that is not unusual for those convicted of domestic assault who may otherwise be upstanding members of the community. [ 6 ] Partial Guilty Plea - Mr. Singh did plead guilty at the commencement of trial to charges of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and weapons dangerous. Although a guilty plea at any stage of proceedings is of some value, the value of this plea is severely diminished in that the complainant was not spared the necessity to testify about the entire events and no discernable court time was saved by these admissions.

Although a guilty plea is also a mitigating factor as a sign of remorse, given my findings of guilt on the contested charges and more importantly my findings of credibility of the accused, I do not find that the accused’s major motivation for entering the plea was remorse. [ 7 ] Mr. Singh was confronted with the irrefutable evidence of his possession of the metal pipe, that he clearly used that weapon in assaulting his wife and that in doing so he cause serious head wounds amounting to an aggravated assault.

Having been compelled to accept the obvious, I find that he then, in choosing a trial, continued to refuse to acknowledge further aggravating facts which painted him in an unfavourable light – e.g. that he continued to actively take steps to prevent the authorities from becoming aware of his actions of physically confining his wife to the home and of making threats to this wife to harm their children to ensure that she would not attempt to escape.

The accused’s wish to have a trial on these offences was entirely within his constitutional rights and absolutely is not an aggravating factor on sentence but, given my findings that the trial was part of a continuing, ongoing attempt to minimize the full extent of his actions, the value of the partial plea is diminished as a mitigating factor. [ 8 ] Time served. The accused served about 15 days on these charges and while awaiting the crown’s decision as to whether it was going to proceed on an s. 524 application, following the laying of two charges of failure to comply with his recognizance. At the time

that he served the pre-trial custody, it was common to credit pre-trial custody on the basis of 2:1 for each day served. [9] Counselling. Subsequent to his arrest and continuing to date, the accused appears to have undertaken a number of counsellingprograms and educational pursuits directed at understanding his outburst of violence. He has completed 12 sessions with the CatholicChildren’s Aid Society on anger management and relationships. He has completed 10 sessions of anger management counselling withDr. L.

Narain, a family counsellor with a long history of providing counselling services to individuals and families. Mr. Singh hascontinued counselling with Dr. Narain, completing the 16 session PARS (Partner Assault Response Services) Program and 8 sessions ofthe Parenting Program. Mr. Singh has since July 2008 volunteered 4 hours per week at Dr. Narain’s Community Outreach Program andsince December 2008 has been that program’s co-ordinator. In addition to structured rehabilitative steps, Mr. Singh has, on his ownvolition, conducted research and participated in workshops and conferences on personal self development.

His involvement incounselling and self help personal development speaks well of Mr. Singh’s rehabilitative potential. Some mitigation of sentence isappropriate. [10] Although not strictly related to Mr. Singh’s rehabilitative potential, I have been provided a report of Dr. Derek Pallandi, aforensic psychiatrist. Although acknowledging that the much of the factual basis for the doctor’s opinion that Mr. Singh poses a low riskof re-offence is based on information from Mr. Singh which I have rejected as false, the defence submits that I should still givesignificant weight to the report and its concluding opinion.

The crown on the other hand, noting that I have rejected many of theunderlying facts provided to the doctor as truthful, submits that the report is of very limited value. [11] I place little, if any, weight on this report given that its factual underpinning, in large part, I do not accept. What Mr. Singhtold the doctor was a fabrication.

The fact that the accused has no criminal record, no history of physical assaultive behaviour and hasbeen out of trouble for close to 3 years while on bail is far more cogent evidence of the accused’s risk of re-offence than a psychiatrist’sreport founded on falsehoods. [12] Onerous Bail conditions – Since August 14, 2008 Mr. Singh has been on bail including a condition of house arrest. [13] Mr. Singh was originally released on a two thousand dollar surety bail on the date of his arrest, July 15, 2008.

Terms ofrelease required that he reside at an address approved of by his surety, that he not communicate with his wife and he possess noweapons. Due to an oversight, additional bail terms were added a week later, restricting the accused’s access to his children andimposing a boundary restriction from his wife and children, the later subject to an exception of a Family Court order. On August 2, 2008he was re-arrested on allegations of two breaches of his bail, being within the boundary restriction and communicating with his children. This resulted in Mr.

Singh’s detention for a few days before he was released on a ten thousand dollar surety bail imposing additionalterms requiring that he live with his surety, that he be subject to house arrest and not be away from his residence except for medicalemergencies, counselling, to attend court or counsel’s office or when in the continuous company of his surety or a person designated bythe surety. [14] Mr. Zoppi submits that the accused has been subject to onerous bail conditions and that 5 months is an appropriate amountof time that Mr. Singh should be credited. He has referred me to the case of R. v.

Downes (ON CA), [2006] O.J. 555(Ont. C.A.) for the proposition that it would be an error in principle to not take into consideration the time while the accused was subjectto house arrest. [15] If this submission was meant that I should consider the issue of restrictive bail conditions as a possible mitigating factor, Iagree. If this submission was to mean because Mr. Singh was on house arrest, that failure to give credit is an error, I disagree.

JusticeRosenberg for the Court makes it quite clear in paragraphs 33-37 that circumstances may dictate that little or no credit should be givenfor pre-sentence bail terms including even house arrest and that the amount of credit if any, depends on a number of factors including thelength of time on bail under house arrest, the stringency of the conditions, the impact on the offender’s liberty and the ability of theoffender to carry out normal relationships, employment and activity. If there was any confusion with that being the law in Ontario, thatconfusion was resolved in two subsequent Court of Appeal decisions.

In the case of R. v. Matthew Junkert, 2010 ONCA 549 ,[2010] O.J. 3387 (Ont.C.A.), a decision of the Associate Chief Justice O’Connor at paragraph 35, he states in reference to Downes, “Rosenberg, J.A. pointed out, however, that while a sentencing judge must consider giving credit for the impact of pre-trial bailconditions, credit is not automatic, even where the offender has been subject to house arrest. A sentencing judge should consider thecircumstances of a particular case and decide what credit, if any, should be given.” [16] Similar statements were made by the Court in R. v.

Lindsay (2009) 2009 ONCA 532 , 97 O.R. (3d) 567 (Ont.C.A.) at para. 41-46, leave to appeal to the S.C.C. refused [2009] S.C.C.A. 540 and [2009] S.C.C.A. 541. [17] In assessing the circumstances surrounding Mr. Singh’s lengthy time on house arrest, I note that during the entire time Mr.Singh was either on short term disability, a condition that existed before the charges arose or on permanent or long term disability, acondition that continues to exist today. Although counsel submits that this has imposed some limitations for the accused pursuingemployment, Crown counsel notes there is no evidence of this. I agree.

Where there is a dispute in the impact of the conditions of bail,the onus is on the defence on a balance of probabilities to establish those facts; see R.v. Downes at para. 37. [18] I would also note that Mr. Singh appears to have enjoyed considerable liberty in pursuing counselling and has in fact turnedit into a volunteer position, one that he has enjoyed extensively throughout the period of “house arrest.”; see documentation of the AngerManagement Centre, exhibit 3, tab 4. [19] I would also note that the term of house arrest had numerous exceptions including being out with either the surety or theirdesignate.

There is no evidence before me that the surety was restrictive in appointing a designate or that a variation of bail was soughtto address such a concern. [20] Mr. Zoppi submits that throughout the litigation, bail variations were sought, some with more success than others. Bailvariations require the agreement of the Crown. Ms. Tsagaris submits that at no time was a bail review application filed in SuperiorCourt.

[21] The defence does submit that bail variations were sought to permit Mr. Singh to attend for a sleep study given that heappeared to suffer from sleep apnea, a diagnosis that was later confirmed. It is unclear why a variation of bail to permit him to attend forthe one night sleep clinic assessment was not immediately agreed to, but it is not disputed that as a result, there was a delay in Mr. Singhreceiving this assessment and subsequent treatment. Ultimately an appointment was arranged in August 2010. The Crown submits thatthis issue was pre-existing and of long standing concern.

The delay in obtaining an assessment due to the bail condition is aconsideration on sentence. [22] The defence also submits that the bail terms have affected Mr. Singh’s ability to have contact with his children. Mr.Singh’s bail has always allowed him to seek access through a Family Court order and the Children’s Aid Society terminated involvementwith Mr. Singh’s family as early as December 31, 2009; see exhibit 3, tab 1.

It would appear that there were no institutional objectionsto him having access to his children and given the testimony of the complainant that the accused has always been protective of thechildren and been a caring and loving father, relieving the limitation of access to the children appears to be and has always been in Mr.Singh’s control.

Although the bail terms required him to exercise his right to access through Family Court, the bail terms neitherprohibited him from exercising that right nor restricted his ability to attend court proceedings; something he could do even in the absenceof his surety or his designate. [23] Mr. Singh had been under house arrest for some 34 months. Certainly that is a long time but the case has not alwaysproceeded expeditiously and that for significant periods of time, the defence waived 11(b), including the time from Feb 11, 2009 toDecember 17, 2009.

There have also been subsequent delays of which the defence has also contributed. Now to be fair, much of thedelay appears to have been in an attempt to resolve the matter before trial. Nevertheless, when those unsuccessful resolution discussionsadd to the time to bring a matter to trial, can the defence then claim that full credit should be given for how long the onerous bailconditions have remained in effect? I believe the defence too has to accept some responsibility for delay, and acknowledge that an effectof that delay is extending the time their client remains under terms of bail.

The defence seemed quite content with the pace of litigationand at no time was a bail review sought. [24] Delay in coming to the completion of this matter was also caused by the serious underestimating of the required trial time. This is a matter borne equally by the crown as well as the defence. Two days were estimated by the parties and set aside for this case. The evidence alone took five days followed by time required for me to render judgement following which a further day was set aside forsentencing submissions and again time set aside for sentencing.

When time estimates for trial are as inaccurate as they were in this case,delay is an inevitable result which has to be worn by both parties. [25] I accept however, regardless of the reasons, 34 months is a long time. [26] Remorse - Mr. Singh expressed his remorse and apologized to his wife by reading a statement he prepared; see exhibit 3,tab 10. Aggravating Factors [27] Domestic - The assault is in a domestic context. Parliament has recognized in s. 718.2 (a)(ii) of the Code that abuse in thedomestic context is an aggravating factor on sentence and that it requires an increase in the sentence. [28] In R. v.

Boucher (ON CA), [2004] O.J. 2689 (Ont. C.A.) Simmons, J.A. for the Court reiterated theprinciples enunciated by the Court in R. v. Denkers (1994) (ON CA), 69 O.A.C. 391 a decade earlier, that being, “thatsentences imposed in cases involving domestic violence must be such that they will foster an environment in which individuals can feelfree to leave romantic relationships without fear of harassment or harm, and without fear of violence aimed at forcing a return to a nolonger wanted relationship. The victim, and others like her, are entitled to break off romantic relationships.

When they do so, they areentitled to live their lives normally and safely. They are entitled to live their lives free of harassment by and fear of their former lovers.

The law must do what it can to protect persons in those circumstances.” [29] The Court reaffirmed the principles of general and specific deterrence as the overriding considerations in the determinationof sentences in domestic assault cases. “Those principles demand a very heavy sentence to act as a general deterrent to other personswho cannot abide their rejection by a person whom they love.” [30] Severity of the attack and the severe physical injuries suffered by Ms. Singh. The extent of the injuries is only in partdepicted in the exhibits.

She suffered three extensive deep lacerations of the scalp as seen in exhibits 2c, d and e. The largest is in excessof 2 ¼ inches in length. It took 27 staples to close the wounds. The degree of blood loss was significant and obvious given the sizablearea of blood staining, an area 8” by 14”, on the couch on which Ms. Singh was situated when attacked. This is shown in exhibits 2j, kand 2i. Other than head injuries, Ms. Singh had injuries to both forearms, hands, chest and stomach. [31] In addition to the severity of the injuries, the force of the blows struck by Mr.

Singh were significant given the evidence ofthe blood splatter on the wall behind the couch on which Ms. Singh was seated and the dent in the drywall where the pipe came incontact with the wall; see exhibits 2 j, k, l and m. [32] The severity of the injuries if not obvious by the exhibits, recall I accepted Ms. Singh’s evidence that 9 hours after theattack, the wounds were still bleeding. It was only then Mr. Singh finally called his brother upon realizing that Ms. Singh was going tohave to leave the house and obtain medical treatment. [33] The wounds got infected requiring Ms.

Singh to return to the hospital to seek treatment and undergo a regime of antibioticmedications. [34] The exhibits depicting the physical injuries of course do not tell the whole story. In Ms. Singh’s Victim Impact Statementshe provides a record of the injuries you can’t see. She still, some 3 years later has pain on the left side of her face and her right wrist isstill painful to touch and aches. She has ringing in her ears and if she bends down and attempts to get up, she sees stars. These ailmentsand the scars on her head remain a constant reminder of the attack.

[ 35 ] She suffers from permanent physical injuries in that she suffers severe headaches with the onset of cold weather and cannot drink cold drinks as it triggers the headaches. Her injuries to her hands and face also are ongoing concerns. [ 36 ] Emotional and Psychological Injuries – Following the attack Ms. Singh spent months in counselling both one on one and in family counselling with her sons. She was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder and remains under the ongoing care of a psychiatrist.

She remains on medications to address the effects of the assault. [ 37 ] She continues to fear that her husband with return to kill her and suffers nightmares wherein Mr. Singh returns to attack her or the children. She lives in fear. She no longer trusts people. She doesn’t feel secure anywhere.

She blames herself for the impact the events have had on her children – rationalizing that she should have stayed in the marriage, instead of seeking peace and happiness, and that no harm would have come to either her or the children. [ 38 ] The effects of the assault have affected her ability to work. [ 39 ] Injuries to Others – Abishek Singh, the older of the two boys, also provided a Victim Impact Statement. He confirms what Ms. Singh stated in her Victim Impact Statement - that he is constantly reminded of the events by seeing the pain his mother is in every day from the injuries that she suffered.

He states that he was affected emotionally in different ways by the offence and also was affected by seeing his younger brother in emotional distress. The fact that he, his mother and younger brother were forced to go to a shelter following the attack also affected him. [ 40 ] Element of Premeditation – I found as fact that Mr. Singh had secreted the steel pipe under the cushion of the couch on which he was seated and that he had placed the pipe there in anticipation of using it, if necessary, to force his wife to return to the marriage. When she refused, he retrieved the pipe and attacked her.

The obtaining and secreting of the pipe was but part of the plan which demonstrates the degree of premeditation in the assault. I found that Mr. Singh intentionally lied to his wife that there was a offer to purchase their home when no such offer existed, knowing full well that the receipt of an offer would require her to attend at the matrimonial home. [ 41 ] This is a significant aggravating factor. This is not the case of a person who spontaneously loses his angry and strikes out.

This assault was the culmination of a well thought out plan including how to lure the victim to the house and to plan for the possibility that she made have to be convinced to return to the marriage by assaulting her. This plan speaks directly to the concerns enunciated by the Court in R. v. Boucher, that spouses who have decided to leave a relationship, have to be able to do so without the fear that harassment or harm and without the fear of violence will be inflicted upon them aimed at forcing them to return to a no longer wanted relationship. This case squarely raises the concerns enunciated in R. v.

Denkers. [ 42 ] Refusal to Provide or Permit Medical Attention – I accepted Ms. Singh’s evidence that upon being attack she told her husband that she needed immediate medical care and that he refused her that care and told her that no one was leaving the residence. He continued to deny her medical care or permit her to seek medical care for nine hours until it became obvious to him that he could not hide the wounds from the authorities. The wounds continued to bleed and would have to be attended to by a doctor. Even then, Mr.

Singh instead of obtaining the medical attention his wife needed, called his brother because he would know what to do. When it was obvious that Ms. Singh was going to have to go to the hospital, Mr. Singh was part of a plan to continue to conceal the injuries from the authorities in that it was not him, not the brother, nor the mother that would take Ms. Singh to the hospital, but the young niece. [ 43 ] Mr. Zoppi in his submissions made reference to the fact that Mr.

Singh provided ice to his injured wife and that he attended to her injuries in that he got a clean shirt for her to replaced her bloodied one and on his testimony, provided her some food. I don’t find any of Mr. Singh’ superficial attention given to his wife as mitigating. All these acts were in furtherance of his plan of concealing his criminal actions from the authorities. [ 44 ] Forcible Confinement – It is aggravating that Mr. Singh refused his wife medical attention and prevented her from leaving to seek attention.

He did this by both telling her she could not leave and secondly, by threatening her that if she called for help, he would harm the children. He secured her compliance by both direct statements and psychological terror. I found that he knew, based on his knowledge of his wife’s love for the children, that if he threatened to harm the children, his wife would not attempt to escape and that he could secure her and control her actions and in the process, hide his actions from the authorities. [ 45 ] As perhaps best put by Ms. Singh herself, once he threatened the children, she gave up.

She was going to do exactly what he asked her to do. She didn’t want any harm to come to the kids and that she would sacrifice herself for her kids. Mr. Singh would have known the extent to which his wife would go to ensure the safety of her children. He knew that his threats would ensure her compliance. [ 46 ] His refusal to seek or permit her to seek medical attention was despite what I found would have been injuries that obviously required immediate medical attention. I specifically rejected Mr.

Singh’s testimony that he didn’t think the injuries were that serious and that he did not become aware of the severity of her injuries until the morning following the attack.

Such testimony I found to be a bold fabrication. [ 47 ] Not only would the injuries be obvious to anyone that they required immediate medical attention, logic dictates that striking someone over the head repeatedly with a solid eight pound metal pipe would result in significant injuries and by targeting the head, the injuries would be very serious. [ 48 ] Positions of the Parties – The crown submits that the appropriate range for offences of this nature appear to be from 12 months to 5 years.

The crown seeks a penitentiary sentence of 3 year, a s. 109 order for life and DNA orders on the aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, which are primary designated offences and on the uttering threats, weapons dangerous and forcible confinement, which are secondary designated offences. [ 49 ] The defence submits that the relevant range is 12 months to 3 years but submits that the appropriate sentence is this case is either one of a suspended sentence, depending on the amount of credit given for various mitigating factors to a sentence of possibly

another 90 days. If I was to accede to that sentence, the defence seeks to have the accused serve it on weekends. If I disagree and am of the view that a reformatory sentence is required, the defence seeks a recommendation that Mr. Singh serve his time at the Ontario Correctional Institute so as to allow him to utilize the CPAC machine that he uses/needs at nights and permit his medical issues to be addressed. [ 50 ] Both parties provided me numerous cases to support their positions.

I do not intend to refer to each case other than to agree that there are many cases with in a wide disparity of sentences, all somewhat turning on their own facts. [ 51 ] Principles of Sentencing – In domestic assaults, the principle of denunciation and deterrence are of paramount importance. Not only must the sentence denounce the conduct, the sentence must act as both a deterrent to the accused and to others. General deterrence is particularly relevant in cases of domestic assault. Although rehabilitation is not an irrelevant consideration, it is not of paramount importance.

Having said that, I am also keenly aware that Mr. Singh has no criminal record and any period of incarceration will be his first. Caution should be exercised in over emphasizing the principle of general deterrence when dealing with first offenders. [ 52 ] Conclusions - This was a serious domestic assault. If fact it was the most serious in that the injuries amounted to an aggravated assault which carries with it a maximum sentence of 14 years. The fact that the assault occurred in a domestic context, is further aggravating. [ 53 ] The injuries suffered were very serious. Head wounds required 27 stables to close.

The seriousness of the injuries is shown in the exhibits. The number of head wounds as well as injuries to other parts of the body is cogent evidence that Mr. Singh repeatedly wielded the pipe at his wife. The force of which is evident by both the severity of the injuries caused and the blood splatter shown in the exhibits. [ 54 ] As is recognized in R. v.

Boucher at para. 24 , “the likelihood of lasting psychological trauma to the victim arising from the irrational and obsessive nature of the misconduct is significant, and where present, justifies the imposition of a substantial penalty separate and apart from the issue of protection.” Mr. Singh had been repeatedly told that the relationship was over and that Ms. Singh did not wish to reconcile. Ms. Singh in fact was reluctant to go with the family to Niagara Falls as she wanted to avoid the fact that Mr. Singh would again raise the topic of her returning to the marriage.

She had taken to talking on the phone to the accused about the house rather than in person as she wished to remove the opportunity for the accused to raise the topic of her returning to the marriage. Even when the accused lied to her that there was an offer on the house, compelling her to attend at the matrimonial home, she remained outside, reluctant to enter because she sensed, correctly, that Mr. Singh would again raise the matter of her rejoining the family. Like in Boucher, Ms. Singh does suffer lasting psychological trauma from the irrational and obsessive acts of Mr. Singh. Ms.

Singh was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder. The complainant’s Victim Impact Statement outlines the psychological trauma. [ 55 ] The injuries suffered, both physical and psychological, were not only immediate but long lasting. Ms. Singh has lasting injuries, permanent injuries as a result of the attack. She suffers severe headaches. She suffers physical ailments in regard to her wrist and face. She continues to be fearful of Mr. Singh and of him possibly returning.

She continues under the care of a psychiatrist due to the trauma related to the attack. [ 56 ] The accused actions were premeditated to some degree in that he got the victim to attend the house on a ruse and had secreted the weapon in an accessible spot should he need to use it to convince his wife to come back to the marriage. His actions were not spontaneous. [ 57 ] The weapon he used was potentially deadly.

It is an 8 pound 2.5 feet long solid metal pipe. [ 58 ] Having beaten his wife, he then denied her medical attention for over 9 hours by both refusing to let her leave the home to seek medical attention and by psychological terror in threatening to hurt the kids should she try to seek help. The forcible confinement of the victim was part of a plan to conceal his actions from the authorities. [ 59 ] These aggravating facts in my view place the appropriate sentence for these offences in the upper range of sentences for aggravated domestic assaults.

The premeditated nature of the assault, the causing of serious immediate and long lasting injuries of both a physical and a psychological nature, and the subsequent confinement of the victim while preventing her fromobtaining medical treatment demands a sentence of denunciation and deterrence. [ 60 ] Even given that Mr.

Singh has no criminal record and is a 1 st offender, in light of the aggravating factors, I believe that a sentence in the range of 3 to 3 ½ years is appropriate. [ 61 ] I acknowledge that the accused has shown rehabilitative potential in the extensive counselling steps he has undertaken, however, rehabilitation is not a paramount consideration in sentencing in serious domestic cases. That is not to say Mr. Singh, as a first offender, is not entitled to some mitigation. But the rehabilitation of the offender is not a paramount consideration. [ 62 ] Mr.

Singh’s pre-trial custody should be considered in reducing the sentence. I would grant him credit on a two for one basis. [ 63 ] In regard to credit for onerous bail conditions, although 34 months is a long time to be under house arrest, substantial delays in getting to trial were attributable to the defence, including sizable time periods where the defence waived 11(b). Perhaps most importantly however, Mr.

Singh was on disability leave during the entire time while on bail and his house arrest term did not seem to prevent him from being very active in both taking counselling courses, and volunteering for a number of hours each week. That volunteer position developed into a position in which Mr. Singh was the co-ordinator of the Anger Management Outreach program, something he has done since November 2008. [ 64 ] There were many exceptions to the house arrest condition of bail which permitted Mr.

Singh to be out with his surety or a designate and when involved in counselling, he was permitted to be out without an escort. It would appear some delay to obtain a sleep

assessment may have been occasioned by the bail terms but even that was accommodated. I am prepared to grant some modest credit for the length of the time Mr. Singh has been on bail and subject to house arrest, but I do not conclude that he was severely restricted by the terms of bail.

And again, at no time did the defence bring forth a bail review application to resolve matters that the crown was unwilling to vary on consent. [ 65 ] As regard to access to his children, the bail terms provided ample room to seek and obtain access through a Family Court order. [ 66 ] The greatest mitigating factor is the fact the accused has no criminal record and has engaged productively in rehabilitation. Although of a lesser sentencing principle in domestic cases, it is not entirely irrelevant. [ 67 ] In consideration of the Mr.

Singh’s previous antecedents, his steps at rehabilitation, his time served in pre-trial custody, and the time he has spent under house arrest, and in concluding that the appropriate range is between 3 and 3 ½ years, after granting credit to the accused and considering his status as a first offender, as well as addressing the principle of totality, my sentence is as follows: - On the aggravated assault to a sentence of 2 years 6 months - On the offence of assault with a weapon, 2 years 6 months concurrent - On the offence of weapons dangerous, 1 year concurrent - On the offence of forcible confinement, 6 months consecutive and - On the offences of threatening bodily harm, 6 months concurrent on each and concurrent to all the other offences for an overall sentence of 3 years with time served of 15 days noted on the record, granting credit on the basis of 2:1. [ 68 ] In addition to the period of incarceration, there will be a s. 109 order for life and DNA orders for all of the primary and secondary designated offence as I outlined earlier. [ 69 ] In light of my judgement obviously there is no recommendation in regard to the Ontario Correctional Institute, but I might add, there was no evidence before me that Mr.

Singh’s health concerns could only be addressed in the provincial reformatory system or thr Ontario Correctional Institute specifically. [ 70 ] The federal system given the length of sentences federal inmates are serving, out of necessity addresses all kinds of health concerns that arise in the prison population, just as they do in the population at large. I will order my clerk to forward to the federal correctional officials copies of all the exhibits including those that outline some of Mr. Singh’s health concerns and I’ll ask that she in fact draw to their attention that Mr.

Singh requires some medical accommodations. Released: June 10, 2011 Signed: “Justice Robertson”