R. v. Thangarajah

R. v. Thangarajah Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-07-15 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 525 Docket numbers COA-25-OM-0229 Judges Roberts, Lois B. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Thangarajah, 2025 ONCA 525 DATE: 20250715 DOCKET: COA-25-OM-0229 Roberts J.A. (Motions Judge) BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent/Responding Party and Jude Thangarajah Appellant/Moving Party Victor O’Brien, for the moving party Patrick Quilty, for the Crown Heard: July 11, 2025 ENDORSEMENT [1] Mr. Thangarajah seeks an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from his October 23, 2017 convictions and to seek leave to appeal his sentence imposed on November 9, 2017. [2] I set out the background relevant to this motion. [3] On October 23, 2017, Mr. Thangarajah pled guilty and was convicted of various charges for assaulting, threatening death and criminally harassing his former spouse. The Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) summarized particulars of Mr. Thangarajah’s conduct supporting the charges. This conduct included severe emotional, verbal and physical abuse, which worsened when he was intoxicated. At trial, audio recordings and written communications between Mr, Thangarajah and his former spouse corroborated the ASF. These included audio recordings of significant aspects of the December 18, 2016 culminating incident in which Mr. Thangarajah assaulted and threatened to kill his former spouse, which caused her to flee from him and go into hiding, as well as texts and emails sent by Mr. Thangarajah to his former spouse following her flight. [4] In his sentencing reasons, the sentencing judge stated that the factual circumstances of the offences were very aggravating and that this was one of the worst cases of “marital degradation and humiliation” that he had encountered throughout his legal career. As he described in paragraph 21 of his sentencing reasons: There was no honeymoon period in their marriage. The harassment offence covers a 2 year period that starts 3 days before they were married and ends 3 ½ months after she went into hiding. His verbal and psychological abuse of her continued throughout their cohabitation and was pernicious and devastating. He constantly told her she was short, fat, ugly and disgusting. She was in constant fear that he would become enraged and physically harm her. [5] He found that Mr. Thangarajah’s statement to the court during his sentencing hearing, including that he partially blamed his former spouse for his conduct, showed him to be misogynist and self-absorbed. He concluded that Mr. Thangarajah’s rehabilitation prospects with respect to the risk of him committing further domestic violence offences in the future were very uncertain. He imposed a global 15-month sentence, less 10 months’ credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving five months of the sentence to be served, as well as a 3-year period of probation. One of the conditions of his probation is that Mr. Thangarajah was not to communicate with his former spouse. Mr. Thangarajah was released from custody in February 2018. [6] In May and again in July 2018, Mr. Thangarajah was arrested for breaching his probationary terms by trying to communicate with his former spouse on two occasions. On October 10, 2019, he pled guilty to and was convicted of the breaches and received a two-year custodial sentence. While in prison, he wrote a book about his case which was published in July of 2022. [7] On December 1, 2022, Mr. Thangarajah commenced a human rights complaint against the parties involved in his 2017 conviction, including the trial judge, Crown counsel, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ontario of Court of Justice Kingston, and his own counsel. The complaint was dismissed in April 2024. [8] In September 2023, Mr. Thangarajah filed a police report against his former spouse for sexual assault. He was subsequently advised that the police would not lay any charges against her. [9] The overarching consideration on this motion is whether the extension is in the interests of justice. Typically informing that consideration are the following factors: 1) the timely formation of an intention to appeal; 2) the length of and explanation for the delay; and 3) the merits of the proposed appeal: R. v. Menear, [2002] O.J. No. 244 (C.A.), at para. 20. Other factors may also be relevant, such as: whether the consequences of the conviction are out of all proportion to the penalty imposed; whether the Crown will be prejudiced; and whether the moving party has taken the benefit of the judgment: Menear, at para. 21. [10] I am not persuaded that Mr. Thangarajah has met the onus of demonstrating that an extension of time should be granted. [11] There is no evidence that Mr. Thangarajah formed a timely intention to appeal. On his own evidence, Mr. Thangarajah did not form the intention to appeal until he began seeking a lawyer in February 2018. The delay is extremely lengthy and has not been adequately explained. While Mr. Thangarajah has produced documentation concerning his alcohol addiction and mental health issues, there is no evidence that those issues prevented him from commencing an appeal within the requisite 30-day deadline, nor from taking the requisite steps to seek an extension of time during the last 8 years. That Mr. Thangarajah has been involved in other proceedings, including for breaching the non-communication term of his probation, human rights proceedings and writing a book chronicling his situation, does not provide an adequate explanation for the delay in this case. Rather, his actions belie his alleged inability to start an appeal or seek an extension in a timely way. He chose to give priority to and pursue other matters. [12] As for the merits of the proposed appeal, I am not persuaded that Mr. Thangarajah has cleared the low bar to show arguable grounds of appeal. His principal grounds of appeal are that: 1) his guilty plea was uninformed and involuntary; and 2) he received ineffective assistance from counsel. Neither ground has any basis in the record. Rather, the trial transcripts demonstrate that Mr. Thangarajah was an active participant during the proceedings. He spoke at length during his conviction and sentencing hearings. Although he indicated he had some memory issues, he confirmed directly in response to questions from the court that he did not dispute the ASF and further acknowledged the contents of the audio recordings, texts and emails that supported the ASF. While he seemed to suggest during his sentencing hearing that he did not intend to harass his former spouse, he acknowledged that the evidence supported that he did. There is no basis for any real concern that an injustice may have occurred nor good reason to doubt the validity of the convictions: Menear, at paras. 24, 25. [13] Looking at the proportionality of the penalty imposed, there can be no question that Mr. Thangarajah’s plea served as a significant mitigating factor on sentencing. Mr. Thangarajah took the benefit of a significantly reduced sentence because of his guilty plea. [14] Finally, the question of prejudice. There would be prejudice to the Crown and to the due and timely administration of justice if the extension were granted. The ineffective assistance of counsel ground of appeal alone would engage this court’s protocol and require considerable time to process. While there are audio recordings, texts and emails to support the charges, the Crown would primarily rely on the evidence of Mr. Thangarajah’s former spouse and possibly other witnesses of the abuse. Memories fade over time. The complainant is very fearful of Mr. Thangarajah and would have to be put to the trauma of testifying on extremely painful matters that she has sought to put behind her after all this time. It is in the public and the complainant’s interests that the principle of finality be applied here. [15] For these reasons, I dismiss the extension motion. “L.B. Roberts J.A.”