In recent months, Canada’s justice system has come under intense scrutiny, with two high-profile cases highlighting what many perceive as a stark imbalance in sentencing by the courts.
The cases of Gaganpreet Singh and Jagdeep Singh, the two international students convicted of a serious crime, and Tamara Lich, a key figure in the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests, have sparked widespread public outcry over what critics argue is a troubling double standard in the administration of justice in Canada.
While the Singhs received a three-year sentence for a violent offence resulting in death, the Crown is seeking a seven-year prison term for Lich, convicted of mischief for her role in organizing a peaceful protest.
This disparity has fueled debates about fairness, political motivations, and the erosion of trust in Canada’s legal institutions.
Case of South Asian Students
Gaganpreet Singh and Jagdeep Singh killed a 47-year-old Indigenous pedestrian in Surrey, BC in 2024. It was a horrific accident where they dragged their victim under their vehicle for a long distance, despite knowing that the victim was stuck.
Witnesses called out to them that a body was under their car, yet the duo kept driving their Ford Mustang. At one point, they even stopped to check, but sped away again with the body still being dragged.
Finally, they entered a quiet cul-de-sac, removed the body from underneath and drove off.
How callous can one be?
If only they had sought medical attention, the father, husband, singer and a prominent member of the Indigenous community could have been saved.
Such an attitude makes one wonder about their upbringing, the values given (or not given) by their parents, and honestly feel ashamed that they belong to India—a country that prides itself on religion, rich culture, and honest values.
These students come to a country to better their future, to study, and become better citizens. Canada welcomes them with open arms, and yet, these ungrateful brats go around killing citizens with impunity.
The relatively short sentence for such a grave crime has raised eyebrows, particularly when compared to the Crown’s aggressive pursuit of a seven-year sentence for Tamara Lich, whose actions, while disruptive, were non-violent.
The contrast between these two cases has become a lightning rod for criticism, with many Canadians questioning whether justice is being applied equitably.
Non-Violent Protester Gets a Bigger Punishment
Tamara Lich, alongside co-organizer Chris Barber, was convicted of mischief in April 2025 for their roles in the Freedom Convoy, a three-week protest in Ottawa that opposed COVID-19 mandates and government policies.
The convoy, which gridlocked parts of the capital, was a significant expression of dissent, drawing thousands to Parliament Hill. While the protest disrupted businesses and caused inconvenience to residents, it remained largely peaceful, with Lich and Barber urging participants to stay non-violent.
Despite this, the Crown is seeking seven years for Lich and eight years for Barber, who was also convicted for counselling others to disobey a court order.
These proposed sentences—typically reserved for serious violent crimes—have been called excessive and politically motivated.
The legal arguments in Lich’s case add further complexity. The Crown claims Lich and Barber encouraged protesters to remain in Ottawa despite adverse effects on residents, crossing a legal line.
Meanwhile, the defense, led by Lawrence Greenspon, argues that the convoy was a constitutionally protected exercise of free expression and peaceful assembly.
Justice Heather Perkins-McVey, in her ruling, acknowledged the “noble intentions” of the protest but found their actions disrupted the rights of others, justifying the mischief conviction.
Still, critics argue that a seven-year sentence for mischief—though it carries a maximum of ten years—violates the principle of proportionality.
In comparison, Pat King, another convoy organizer, was sentenced to just three months of house arrest and community service for similar mischief charges—even though the Crown had sought ten years.
This stark difference in outcomes for similar offenses further fuels the perception of inconsistency and bias in sentencing.
If the Singh duo’s three-year sentence for a violent death is seen as lenient, then the push for seven years for a non-violent protestor like Lich seems deeply disproportionate.
The public reaction has been swift and vocal.
On X (formerly Twitter), users expressed outrage over the disparity. One post read:
Another noted that a child molester received four years, while Lich faces seven for simply saying “hold the line.”
These voices reflect growing concern that Canada’s justice system is being weaponized against dissent, while actual violent offenders walk away with minimal consequences.
Questions Raised on Differential Treatment
Another example is Akashkumar Khant, originally from Gujarat, India, who was caught in 2023 trying to buy sex from a 15-year-old girl for $140.
It turned out to be a sting operation by the police, and Khant was arrested at the hotel where he planned to meet the minor.
He was in his thirties and knew the girl was underage. Yet, he moved forward with his plan.
His sentence?
Just a conditional discharge for committing an indecent act. He also received three months of house arrest—with allowances to go to work, attend medical appointments, and shop.
The public reaction? Outrage.
According to the Peel Police, Khant was initially charged with “obtaining sexual services for consideration from a person under 18”—a charge that carried a six-month minimum jail term.
However, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that minimum unconstitutional last year, allowing for lesser sentencing.
Judge Paul Thomas O’Marr stated that Khant was applying for Canadian citizenship and engineering licensure, and a criminal conviction could:
-
Delay his citizenship by 4 years
-
Jeopardize his permanent residency
-
Prevent sponsorship of his wife
-
Block his professional licensing
The judge cited Canadian case law that allows courts to consider collateral consequences—like immigration status—when sentencing.
Thus, the result: a more lenient outcome.
But Canadians are asking: Shouldn’t the severity of the crime matter more than future prospects?
Ironically, international students like Khant and the Singh duo seem to take advantage of Canada’s lenient justice system.
They appear to know that even serious crimes can be followed by nothing more than a wrist slap. And that emboldens others.
As Lich and Barber await sentencing, public outcry continues.
For many Canadians, the contrast between the Singh case and the Freedom Convoy sentencing represents a deeper failure in the justice system—where politics, not justice, guide outcomes.
Whether the courts will listen remains uncertain. But the debate raises an urgent question:
Can justice truly be served if the scales appear so unevenly balanced?