The criminal justice system depends upon evidence—not assumptions.
That fundamental principle was reaffirmed in a significant recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which quashed the convictions of Jatinder Singh and entered acquittals after concluding that the Crown’s circumstantial case left too many unanswered questions to support convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision serves as an important reminder that criminal convictions cannot be based upon suspicion, speculation, or investigative theories unsupported by reliable evidence.
For Miscarriage of Justice Canada, this decision carries lessons that extend well beyond one theft prosecution. It speaks directly to the standards that protect every Canadian from wrongful conviction and illustrates why courts must remain vigilant whenever guilt is inferred rather than proven.
Background
Mr. Singh served as the general manager of Fancy Windows until his dismissal in December 2021.
Following his termination, his employer alleged that he had accepted cash payments from customers, retained those funds for himself, and manipulated company accounting records to conceal the thefts.
Rather than beginning with independent forensic accounting, the investigation was largely driven by an internal review conducted by one of the company’s minority shareholders, who compared production orders with computerized accounting records and concluded that certain customer files had been deleted.
The resulting theory appeared straightforward:
- customers allegedly paid cash;
- company records appeared incomplete;
- therefore, Mr. Singh must have kept the money.
As the Alberta Court of Appeal later observed, however, criminal cases require considerably more than a plausible theory.
The investigation itself contained significant limitations.
The investigator had no formal accounting training, consulted neither the company’s accounting personnel nor independent forensic accountants, failed to examine banking records, neglected to review the company’s cash logbook, and employed incomplete search methods that could not reliably establish whether customer records had actually been deleted.
Perhaps most tellingly, twenty of the original twenty-three allegedly fraudulent transactions were abandoned during the proceedings because the evidence simply did not support them. Yet the prosecution continued on the remaining three transactions.
The Court’s Decision
The Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and entered acquittals.
Central to the Court’s reasoning was the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in R. v. Villaroman (2016 SCC 33), which governs the assessment of wholly circumstantial evidence.
The Supreme Court made clear that where guilt depends entirely upon circumstantial evidence, judges must ask one critical question:
Is guilt the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence?
If another reasonable explanation consistent with innocence exists, the Crown has not discharged its constitutional burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Alberta Court concluded that this analytical framework had not been properly applied.
Instead, the trial judge repeatedly accepted the Crown’s theory while overlooking substantial evidentiary gaps.
Among the deficiencies identified were:
- the absence of banking records establishing that cash had never been deposited;
- the absence of accounting records supporting the alleged losses;
- failure to call accounting personnel responsible for processing payments;
- failure to produce the company’s cash logbook;
- lack of forensic accounting evidence;
- uncertainty regarding who possessed authority to alter electronic records;
- reliance upon hearsay concerning software capabilities;
- insufficient evidence connecting alleged missing cash to Mr. Singh personally.
The Court emphasized that many of these gaps were effectively filled by inference rather than evidence.
That approach is precisely what Villaroman prohibits. Criminal courts may draw reasonable inferences, but they may not speculate to bridge missing proof.
The Court therefore held that no properly instructed trier of fact, acting judicially, could reasonably conclude that guilt had been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Importantly, the Court did not merely order a new trial.
Because the evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction, acquittals were entered.
Why This Matters
Although this case involved allegations of employee theft rather than one of Canada’s better-known wrongful conviction cases, its significance reaches far beyond commercial crime.
Wrongful convictions frequently arise not because evidence proves guilt, but because investigative theories gradually harden into accepted “facts.”
Once investigators become convinced that one explanation is correct, there is a natural tendency to interpret ambiguous evidence in ways that reinforce that conclusion while discounting competing explanations.
The Supreme Court warned against precisely this phenomenon in Villaroman.
Evidence must lead investigators toward guilt—not investigators toward evidence.
The distinction is subtle but enormously important.
Had the Court of Appeal accepted the reasoning below, it would have lowered one of criminal law’s most important safeguards by allowing missing evidence itself to become proof of guilt.
That is incompatible with the presumption of innocence protected under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Lessons for Wrongful Conviction Prevention
This decision offers several practical lessons that extend well beyond this individual prosecution.
1. Investigations Must Be Complete
Investigators should pursue all relevant sources of evidence—not merely those supporting an initial theory.
Here, several obvious investigative steps were never taken:
- banking records;
- accounting personnel;
- cash logs;
- forensic accounting;
- independent verification.
Incomplete investigations increase the risk that innocent explanations remain unexplored.
2. Expert Evidence Matters
Where financial misconduct is alleged, forensic accounting often provides objective analysis that neither investigators nor business owners can supply.
Independent expertise reduces the risk that conclusions are influenced by assumptions or confirmation bias.
3. Circumstantial Cases Demand Discipline
Circumstantial evidence can unquestionably support criminal convictions.
Indeed, many properly founded convictions depend upon circumstantial evidence.
However, such cases require careful judicial analysis.
Every reasonable inference consistent with innocence must be examined before guilt may be inferred.
As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, suspicion—even strong suspicion—is never enough.
4. Trial Reasons Must Demonstrate the Correct Analysis
The Court of Appeal did not criticize the length of the trial judge’s reasons.
Rather, it found that the required analytical framework was missing.
Well-written reasons cannot compensate for an incorrect legal approach.
Appellate review depends not simply upon the result reached but upon demonstrating how that result was lawfully reached.
5. The Burden Never Shifts
Perhaps the most important lesson concerns the burden of proof.
The Court found several instances where the trial reasoning effectively required Mr. Singh to explain why evidence was absent.
Canadian criminal law does not require accused persons to explain missing evidence.
It requires the Crown to prove guilt.
That distinction lies at the heart of every fair criminal trial.
The Broader Significance
For organizations like Miscarriage of Justice Canada, this judgment reinforces one of the most enduring principles of criminal justice:
A conviction obtained through speculation is no conviction at all.
History teaches that wrongful convictions frequently begin with assumptions that later become accepted truths.
Investigators may become convinced they know what happened.
Witnesses may appear persuasive.
Circumstantial evidence may point strongly in one direction.
But if significant gaps remain, courts must resist the temptation to “fill in the blanks.”
Doing otherwise risks transforming suspicion into certainty—and certainty into wrongful conviction.
The Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision is therefore about much more than one employee accused of theft.
It is about preserving the integrity of Canada’s criminal justice system.
It is about reminding investigators, prosecutors, trial judges, and appellate courts alike that constitutional protections are meaningful only when rigorously applied.
Most importantly, it reminds all Canadians that the presumption of innocence remains more than an abstract legal principle. It is a practical safeguard against miscarriages of justice, requiring proof—not conjecture—before liberty can be taken away.
That principle protects every accused person, every victim seeking a reliable verdict, and every Canadian who depends upon the fairness and integrity of our justice system.