R v Singh, 2025 ABCA 369 (CanLII); Appeal and original judgement- must read for preparation review.

l  

R v Singh, 2025 ABCA 369 (CanLII)

Source:

Court of Appeal of Alberta

Date:

2025-11-10

File number:

2501-0120A

Citation:

R v Singh, 2025 ABCA 369 (CanLII), <retrieved on 2026-10-06

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta

Citation: R v Singh, 2025 ABCA 369

 

Date: 20251110

Docket: 2501-0120A

Registry: Calgary

 

 

Between:

 

His Majesty the King

 

Respondent

 

- and -

 

Kuldip Singh

 

Applicant

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________

 

Reasons for Decision of

The Honourable Justice Joshua B. Hawkes

_______________________________________________________

 

 

Applications for Leave to Appeal and to Restore Appeal

 

_______________________________________________________

 

Reasons for Decision of

The Honourable Justice Joshua B. Hawkes

_______________________________________________________

 

 

 

[1]               Mr Singh applies for leave to appeal the decision of a summary conviction appeal judge affirming his conviction at trial for uttering threats under section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, and to restore his appeal which was struck when he did not apply for leave by the deadline.

[2]               To obtain leave for a second appeal to this Court Mr Singh must show that his proposed grounds of appeal are reasonably arguable questions of law alone, and that the matter is of sufficient public importance: Criminal Code, s 839(1)(b); R v Bhalla, 2021 ABCA 126 at para 8.

[3]               Mr Singh proposed several grounds of appeal, all of which reflect questions of fact or mixed fact and law. If this Court were to identify an extricable question of law from the proposed grounds it would relate to well settled principles of law, which do not generally raise issues of public importance: R v Werhun, 2025 ABCA 4 at para 8; R v Chaluk, 1998 ABCA 253 at para 7.

[4]               Mr Singh raises further concerns about his experience with the justice system which are not of the type that may be properly addressed by an appellate court in the circumstances of this case, nor can this Court provide the alternative relief he requested.

[5]               Given the conclusion on the application for leave it is unnecessary to address restoring the appeal. The applications are dismissed.

[6]               Rule 9.4(2)(c) is invoked, and the Court will prepare the resulting order or judgment.

 

 

Application heard on November 5, 2025

 

Reasons filed at Calgary, Alberta

this 10th day of November, 2025

 

 

 

---

Hawkes J.A.

 

Appearances:

 

 

A. Béland

            for the Respondent

 

Applicant K. Singh

           

 

 

 

 

 

///////

Treatment

Cited documents

1

CanLII Connects

0

AI analysis

myCanLII

R v Singh, 2024 ABCJ 37 (CanLII)

Source:

Alberta Court of Justice

Date:

2024-02-28

File number:

230087173P1

Citation:

R v Singh, 2024 ABCJ 37 (CanLII), <>, retrieved on 2026-10-06

In the Alberta Court of Justice

 

Citation: R v Singh, 2024 ABCJ 37

Date: 20240228

Docket: 230087173P1

Registry: Calgary

 

 

Between:

 

His Majesty the King

 

- and -

 

 

Kuldip Singh

 

 

 

 

Decision of the Honourable Justice S.L. Van de Veen

 

Charges

[1]                the Accused is charged with assault and threatening Christopher Jager contrary to ss 266 and 264.1(1)(A) of the Criminal Code.  The date the offences are alleged to have occurred is December 14, 2022. 

Facts

[2]               Upon considering the totality of the evidence and the submissions made I make the following findings of fact.

[3]               The Complainant is a Safety Code Inspector with the City of Calgary and was assigned a non-permit inspection of a property the Accused was connected to.  It is not clear whether the Accused was the owner or one of the owners of the property but he was the person who dealt with the Complainant in connection with the non-permit inspection of the property.

[4]               A non-permit inspection arises as a result of a member of the public complaining to the City of Calgary that construction is taking place on a certain property without a permit.  The Complainant’s duties include inspecting the property identified by the complaint if no permit exists for construction upon the property. 

[5]               The scope of the complaint received by the Complainant was a short one-sentence statement stating that construction was going on at 1914 Olympia Crescent SE Calgary.  The complaint provided the phone number for the person making the complaint.  Mr. Jager contacted the person who made the complaint, who he called the “requester,” and was told that there was a whole house renovation going on at the address and that they believed a secondary suite was being built without a permit as well. 

[6]               Mr. Jager drove to the address of the property identified in the complaint and found there was no one living at the residential home located on the property.  He confirmed the address to be 1914 Olympia Cres. SE Calgary, and noted it was obvious the home had been renovated.  Mr. Jager noted a for sale sign located on the property and that the property was not under construction.  He Googled the sale listing which described the property as a beautiful little family home, fully renovated from top to bottom, with a secondary suite for extra income.

[7]               Mr. Jager contacted the realtor and identified himself and his purpose.  He requested the agent to have his client call him because the renovations at the address were not the subject of a building permit. 

[8]               The realtor agreed to ask his client to call Mr. Jager and a person identifying himself as Mr. Singh, who I find was the Accused, contacted him shortly afterward.  Mr. Jager testified that when the Accused phoned him he was angry when he was told he needed a building permit.  He was also angry when he was told he should have had a permit prior to construction of the renovations.  Mr. Jager also stated that a secondary suite also requires a permit which should have been obtained prior to its completion.

[9]               The Complainant testified that the Accused was in a rage during three phone calls which occurred.  Mr. Jager described the Accused as swearing mad, using abusive language and raising his voice.  The Complainant told the Accused and testified that these phone calls were recorded.

[10]           When asked if he could identify the Accused in Court, the Complainant said he could not be sure it was the Accused present in Court with whom he dealt.  He testified the person he dealt with who identified himself as Mr. Singh, not Kuldip Singh, but Mr. Singh, was about 40 years old, of East Indian descent.  He also described the Mr. Singh he dealt with as having hair that was dark in colour, and testified that he contacted the Accused at the telephone number left on the application for a building permit when he requested his building permit inspection.  The phone number was 587-716-2000.  This number was checked by police and Cst. Clark testified it belonged to Kuldip Singh, the Accused.

[11]           With respect to the identity issue, the USB port containing a conversation between the Complainant and Mr. Singh begins with the   Accused stating “Hello sir, my name is Kuldip....”  In addition, the Accused, Kuldip Singh, also went to the police when contacted by Cst. Clark as a result of the December 14^th incident before the Court.  Exhibit 4 is a photograph of the Accused holding what appears to be a City of Calgary legal document which may be the permit application in connection with the property.

[12]           There is some doubt when the permit application was made.  In evidence is a USB port of a telephone conversation between the Accused and the Complainant.  The recording was made by the Accused, and the recording placed into evidence is not one of the recorded conversations made by the City of Calgary referred to by Mr. Jager.  The USB in evidence provided by the defence records the Accused at the outset stating an application was made in 2021 for a building permit and that the city did not respond.  In the recording the Accused states there was no response until the contact made by “Mr. Christopher,” who the Complainant confirmed was him.  However, the Complainant testified the Accused applied for the building permit after the Complainant contacted him in connection with the non-permit matter.   I am left in doubt as to whether the Complainant actually knew whether the Accused applied for a building permit only after his contact, or whether the Accused pursued his initial application made in 2021 in order for the inspection of the property which gave rise to the charges before the Court.

[13]           The phone call from August 2022, being Exhibit 2, recorded on the USB port does not display the rage the Complainant testified to on the part of the Accused.  Furthermore, the December 14, 2022 Inspection Report written by the Complainant states Mr. Singh wanted the name of the “NP requester,” so he could “beat them up.”  This is not what the USB port, Exhibit 2 reveals.  It was Mr. Jager who raised the idea of beating up the requester, not Mr. Singh.  I am mindful Mr. Singh was adamant he wanted to know who complained but in the phone call it was Mr. Jager who asked Mr. Singh if he wanted to beat up the requester.  Mr. Singh replied “Yeah, going to court.” The Accused’s remarks point to court proceedings not physical violence against the requester.  The Accused, at one point in the conversation, appears to want the Complainant to go to Court about the issue.  There is clearly miscommunication between the Accused and the Complainant during the phone call but the Accused is not screaming mad and does not use abusive language.  However, as the Crown points out, Mr. Singh recorded the USB port conversation and may have deliberately refrained from anger or abuse knowing the call was being recorded by him.

[14]           I note that the Complainant testified that his calls with the Accused were recorded, but the recordings made by the Crown were not placed into evidence.  The only evidence of phone calls is Exhibit 2, the USB port placed into evidence by the defence.  The Complainant agrees that the people in the recording appeared to be himself and the Accused. 

[15]           I note, too, that the Complainant refers to a phone call about ten days prior to the call recorded in Exhibit 2 and states he recalls the earlier conversation to have been heated. 

[16]           The Accused requested the Complainant to inspect the property and on December 9, 2022, an inspector named Robert Edwards attempted to conduct an inspection, but in Exhibit 3, in his report, he states the building was locked.  Exhibit 3 states there was no answer and that he called and spoke to the contact person who was very agitated and “proceeded to curse me.”  Mr. Edwards terminated the call. Hence, there is evidence of heated phone calls, as testified to by the Complainant despite the Exhibit 2 wording.

[17]           On December 14, 2022 the Complainant was assigned an inspection of the Olympia Crescent property and the Complainant e-mailed the Accused that he would be there the afternoon of December 14, 2022.  The Complainant arrived at 1:05 pm and called the phone number 587-716-2000.  He spoke to the Accused who eventually arrived at 1:30 pm in response to the Complainant’s request. 

[18]           The Complainant did not know the Accused, but relied on the building permit contact number and the fact that the Accused was addressed as Mr. Singh as he arrived.  The Accused did not correct the Complainant from the conclusion he was the same person he and the city personnel had dealt with relating to the property.

[19]           The Accused and the Complainant went into the house and the Accused stated “As you can see, everything is completed and there is no need for a permit.”  The Complainant asked the Accused whether he was moving forward with the secondary suite and the Accused said no. 

[20]           The Complainant pointed out a new door on the stairwell located across the living room, which swung open over the stairway instead of swinging into the room away from the staircase.   Doors swinging toward the stairs must have a landing to prevent falls.  Also the stairs lacked a handrail, according to the Complainant. 

[21]           The Complainant went part way down the stairs when the Accused said “You are not going down there.”  The Accused grabbed the Complainant’s vest to allow himself to, as the Complainant testified, swing around in front of him, a position which would allow the Accused to prevent the Complainant from going down the stairs.  The Accused had a raised fist as he stated “Get the fuck out of here or I will fuck you up.”  The Accused immediately released the Complainant and the Complainant immediately left the property.

[22]           The Complainant contacted someone at the city for advice and the next day he reported the matter to the Calgary Police Service who contacted the Accused and told him to come in to be arrested.  The Accused complied and was arrested the next day.

[23]           In my view the Accused was not using force upon the Complainant when he grabbed his vest in order to position himself in front of the Complainant on the stairway.  He was trying to safely get past the Complainant on the stairs so he would be in front of him to prevent the Complainant from continuing down the stairs.  There was no handrail and his use of grasping the Complainant was not using force against the Complainant.  He immediately dropped his hand as soon as he had positioned himself in front of the Complainant.  However, the words the Accused stated at that time constitute a threat and I find the Accused guilty of conveying a threat to the Complainant.  I find the Accused not guilty of the assault. 

[24]           In making my findings of fact I have considered the defence submission that the Crown has failed to prove identity.  It is a constellation of factors which I have relied upon which caused me to find as a fact that it was the Accused who dealt with the Complainant on December 14, 2022.  Even though the Complainant could not identify the Accused in Court, there were several facts which I have mentioned proving the Accused was the person who the Complainant dealt with on December 14, 2022. 

[25]           It was argued that there are many Mr. Singhs in the East Indian population.  The Crown does not object to that submission.  As mentioned, Exhibit 2 begins with the Accused calling himself by his first name, Kuldip.  Also, the phone number on the building permit documents was checked by police and Cst. Clark testified it was the number of Kuldip Singh.  The Accused answered and responded to being called by phone and addressed in person as Mr. Singh.  Together, this constellation of factors prove it was the Accused who dealt with the Complainant on December 14, 2022.

[26]           I have also considered the credibility of the Complainant in making my findings of fact.  While the USB port, Exhibit 2, conversation does not show the abusiveness of the Accused testified to by the Complainant, there are mentions of the Accused’s anger and abusive language in Exhibit 1 written by the Complainant and Exhibit 3 written by Mr. Edwards. 

[27]           I have also considered the defence submission that if the assault actually occurred the Complainant would have called the police the same day when they could have investigated more effectively.

[28]           In my view, it was reasonable for the Complainant to consult his department as to how to handle the situation.  There was no protocol in place upon which the Complainant could rely and consulting someone who he described as a leader was reasonable.  Also, the Complainant was candid in his evidence that he could not identify the Accused personally in court.

[29]           The charge of assault is dismissed.  I find the Accused not guilty of that charge as mentioned.  I find him guilty of conveying a threat to the Complainant.

 

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 28^th day of February, 2024.

 

 

 

 

 

S.L. Van de Veen A Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice

 

 

 

Appearances:

 

G. Piper

for the Crown

 

S. Dhawan

for the Accused

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABOUT