R v Sekhon

Corporation of the City of Mississauga v. Sekhon

Ontario Court of Justice, Court File No.: Brampton 15 863
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice M.M. Rahman | May 8, 2018

Background

Gagandeep Sekhon was charged with two offences: driving a tow truck without being licensed (contrary to City of Mississauga By-Law 521-04) and obstructing a mobile licensing inspector (contrary to section 426 of the Municipal Act). The summons was properly served by leaving it with his father at his home address. Sekhon didn't show up for his trial, so it proceeded ex parte (without him present).

What should have been a simple, routine trial became anything but that. From the moment the charges were read, Justice of the Peace Denis Lee decided the court should "serve as a stage" and launched into inappropriate commentary that would ultimately lead to his conviction being overturned.

Issues

1. Whether the justice of the peace's conduct during the trial created a reasonable apprehension of bias
2. Whether the defendant received proper service of the summons

The Justice's Inappropriate Conduct

The problems started immediately. When asked to enter a plea for the absent defendant, the justice sarcastically announced: "I'm going to throw myself on the mercy of the Court and plead not guilty in absentia." He then questioned the by-law officer about irrelevant matters like whether Sekhon had a "sterling driving record" and whether the officer felt "threatened" during the encounter.

During sentencing, the justice made derisive comments about the defendant, saying he wanted to call him "an idiot" but wasn't allowed to because he'd been "censured for making similar comments on a prior occasion." He quoted Shakespeare, expressed indifference about his sentence being appealed, and imposed double the fine requested by the prosecutor "to send the strongest possible message" about behavior he found "totally unacceptable."

The appeal court found this conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Under the test from R. v. S. (R.D.), the question is whether an informed person would conclude that justice was not done. Here, the justice's comments made it clear that conviction was "inevitable from the outset" regardless of the evidence.

Key Takeaway

Even in provincial offences court, you have the right to an impartial judge who won't prejudge your case.

This case shows that judicial bias can poison even an ex parte trial. The justice treated the courtroom as his personal stage rather than conducting a fair hearing, and the appeal court ordered a new trial before a different justice of the peace.