R. v. Chhabra
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 284
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 17 April 2026
- Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 17 April 2026
- Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The trial judge expressly considered the Uber receipt, reasonably found it did not accurately reflect the route taken, and his credibility and factual findings were within his domain and supported by cogent reasons; therefore the appellate court must defer and the appeal is dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code maintained.
02
Material facts
Parties
His Majesty the King
Respondent Counsel: Stephanie PakDeepak Chhabra
Appellant Counsel: Lakhwinder Sandhu03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the appellant's evidence compared to the Crown's evidence
- 02
Whether the Uber receipt was exculpatory by showing a direct route and whether the trial judge erred in finding it did not reflect the actual route
- 03
Whether appellate deference to trial findings of fact and credibility was appropriate in this case
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant submitted the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to his evidence and failed to give sufficient weight to the Uber receipt, which the appellant said was exculpatory because it showed the ride went directly from pick-up to drop-off.
- Respondent
- The Crown submitted the trial judge's factual and credibility findings were within his domain, that he reasonably concluded the receipt did not accurately reflect the route, and that the appellate court should defer to those findings; accordingly the conviction should be upheld.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law appellate-review principles
Appellate courts must defer to trial judges on findings of fact and credibility absent palpable and overriding error.
- 02
s. 486.4, Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46
Publication bans apply to certain sexual offence proceedings where mandated by statute.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The trial judge expressly considered the Uber receipt, reasonably found it did not accurately reflect the route taken, and his credibility and factual findings were within his domain and supported by cogent reasons; therefore the appellate court must defer and the appeal is dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Documentary records such as electronic receipts may be assessed by trial judges for accuracy and do not necessarily control findings of fact.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
- Appeal dismissed.
- Publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code maintained.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 17 April 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 17 April 2026
R. v. Chhabra Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-04-17 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 284 Docket numbers COA-25-CR-0576 Judges Fairburn, J. Michal; Monahan, Patrick J.; Osborne, Peter J. Subject Criminal Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Chhabra, 2026 ONCA 284[1] DATE: 20260417 DOCKET: COA-25-CR-0576 Fairburn A.C.J.O., Monahan and Osborne JJ.A.
BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Deepak Chhabra Appellant Lakhwinder Sandhu, for the appellant Stephanie Pak, for the respondent Heard and rendered orally: April 15, 2026 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Allan G. Letourneau of the Ontario Court of Justice, on April 21, 2023, and from the sentence imposed on May 29, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an appeal from conviction for sexual assault. The appellant raises a number of issues alleging errors of fact and law. The appellant characterizes his primary submission as being that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to his evidence and the evidence led by the Crown. [2] This offence occurred in the context of an Uber ride. The trial judge made findings of fact and credibility that were entirely within his domain. The appellant contends that the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to the Uber receipt. According to the appellant, this receipt is exonerating in nature because it shows that the ride went directly from the pick-up to the drop-off location. [3] We disagree. [4] The trial judge turned his mind to that evidence and resolved it, finding that the receipt did not accurately reflect the route taken. He provided cogent reasons for coming to that finding of fact. We would defer to his fact-finding in that regard. [5] The appeal is dismissed. “Fairburn A.C.J.O.” “P.J. Monahan J.A.” “P.J. Osborne J.A.” [1] This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.