An Ontario judge has stayed charges against an accused child predator facing a “strong” case, saying police misconduct and officers’ treatment of the defendant meant stopping the proceedings was necessary to protect the integrity of the justice system.
The Toronto Police Service arrested Simitkumar Patel at 9:35 a.m. on March 9, 2023.
Patel allegedly believed he had been speaking online with a 13-year-old girl named Amelie, but after he arrived at Toronto’s York Mills Centre expecting to meet her, he was confronted by police and arrested.
In the days following the sting operation, Ontario Justice David Porter said police and jail staff lied to Patel, improperly interrogated him, failed to give him proper access to a lawyer, let him go hungry by denying him vegetarian food and failed to ensure he appeared in court promptly.
The officer in charge of the investigation, Det. Guy Kama, also gave “untruthful or misleading” testimony in court, Porter found.
“The police truly screwed this one up,” Jeff Hershberg, a criminal defence lawyer not involved in the case, told CBC News.
“When you have a confluence of errors and lying on the stand — trying to mislead a judge — the only result that should come is dismissal of the charges,” Hershberg said.
Patel faced four criminal charges, including luring a child, making child pornography and possessing child pornography. His lawyer, Stephanie DiGiuseppe, declined to comment on the record. Kama did not respond to inquiries from CBC News.
In his March 31 ruling, Porter concluded that the case against Patel “would appear to be strong,” but a stay was necessary. The stay followed a defence application in which Patel’s counsel asked the court to find that his rights were violated.
“The totality of the Charter breaches and police misconduct is so offensive to societal notions of fair play and decency that proceeding with a trial in the face of that conduct would be harmful to the integrity of the justice system,” Porter said.
Patel did not speak to a lawyer for approximately two hours after his arrest, according to Porter’s ruling. Kama told the court that he carried a special cell phone and would have let Patel use it to contact a lawyer, while they were still at the York Mills Centre, if Patel had insisted.
Porter rejected this evidence. In his ruling, he described how Kama asked Patel during the arrest if he wanted to call a lawyer “now,” to which Patel responded, “Yes. Sure. Sure.”
Rather than arrange for Patel to speak to a lawyer, Kama told him he could speak with counsel once they arrived at a police station.
Police then drove Patel to 32 Division and interviewed him, where Patel told officers, “I don’t want to talk about it, talk about anything.” Kama told Patel he was not obligated to speak with him, according to Porter’s ruling, but that he wanted to learn more about him.
“I told you…we were not here to get evidence from you, because we already have it,” Kama told Patel, according to an excerpt of their conversation contained in Porter’s ruling.
But Kama was lying, Porter said, using a tactic that “struck at the very heart of Mr. Patel’s fundamental rights” and intentionally violating his right to remain silent as police worked to strengthen the case against him.
TPS spokesperson Stephanie Sayer said in an email the service investigates after receiving a decision in which a judge criticizes officer conduct. She confirmed Kama is a detective at 51 Division, but would not say if he remains on active duty.
Ian Johnstone, a lawyer who has served as a disciplinary prosecutor for the TPS and other police services, said the TPS Professional Standards unit would likely review transcripts to determine whether they agree with a judge’s assessment of the officer’s conduct.
“It’s sometimes just the way the facts come out,” Johnstone said. “One trier of fact might view it one way. Sometimes, another trier of fact might view it a different way.”
System for officer discipline is extremely frustrating, expert says
Patel allegedly chatted online with Kama, posing as 13-year-old “Amelie,” according to Porter’s ruling, during which he claimed to have had oral sex with a 15-year-old girl.
Kama asked Patel during the interview if he had ever touched a child for sexual reasons — a crime for which Patel was not charged — but later told the court he was not investigating Patel for an additional offence.
Again, Porter found Kama’s testimony “not credible,” writing in his ruling that the officer admitted that one step in a sexual interference investigation is asking someone if they have ever committed the offence.
Porter also said police are obligated to inform a detained person when an investigation expands.
“It is clear that an accused is entitled to know the entire basis for his detention, and potential jeopardy, to be able to meaningfully exercise his s.10(b) right to counsel,” he wrote.
Patel spent the night of March 9 in custody at Toronto’s 32 Division, where officers refused his requests to allow him to contact his family, according to Porter’s ruling. A vegetarian and a Hindu, Patel said he received no solid food that he could eat while there, even after telling an officer twice that he could not eat a chicken sandwich.
Patel’s family, meanwhile, did not know where he was until March 10, prompting his brother to fly from Kelowna to Toronto, according to Porter’s ruling.
Porter said police failed to meet their obligation under the Criminal Code to ensure Patel appeared in court promptly after his arrest, citing an Ontario Court of Appeal judgment that said such an appearance protects a defendant’s rights by ensuring a court can monitor their detention.
But Porter found Kama made little effort to ensure Patel appeared in court on March 9, as he wanted his bail hearing adjourned for two days to allow police to search his home.
Armed with the information from his chats as “Amelie,” Kama could have obtained a warrant and searched Patel’s house by mid-morning on March 10, Porter found. Instead, Kama took a “casual” approach to obtaining a warrant, Porter said, and began drafting the application at 6 a.m. on March 10.
Police obtained a warrant that morning and completed their search just after 2 p.m.
Around 5 p.m. on Friday, March 10, Patel appeared remotely in bail court, where a justice of the peace said the court had no time to deal with his matter and adjourned the case until March 13 — after the weekend.
Kama’s failure to diligently obtain a warrant and inform the Crown that the search was complete “are reflective of the ongoing disregard for Mr. Patel’s rights by DC Kama and which, in fact, resulted in his ongoing detention until March 13,” Porter said.
Patel’s additional time in custody, the judge added, “may have been avoided had the police complied with their obligation …. and the matter of his bail had been addressed in court on March 9.”
After his court appearance, Patel was detained at the Toronto South Detention Centre, according to Porter’s ruling, where he said he was strip searched in view of a male and female officer.
Patel said he slept on a mattress on the floor of a cell littered with food and crawling with ants. Detention centre staff offered Patel no food the night he arrived, according to Porter’s ruling. He drank milk but was unable to eat the food he was offered the next day, as it had eggs in it. As a result, Patel said he had no solid food between his March 9 arrest and March 12, when he received meals that complied with his dietary restrictions.
Ontario court judges have repeatedly criticized the conditions inside the province’s detention centres. In a ruling last year, Ontario Justice Brock Jones described the conditions inside the Toronto South Detention Centre as “inhumane,” saying seasoned defence lawyers “repeatedly” told him “it is extremely difficult to have meaningful contact” with clients detained in the facility.
Brent Ross, a spokesperson for the Ministry of the Solicitor General, which oversees the province’s detention centres, declined to comment when contacted by CBC News, saying Patel’s matter could still be appealed.
Patel was released on bail at 8 p.m. on March 13, 2023 and the charges were stayed roughly two years later. As of April 14, 2025, a spokesperson for the Court of Appeal said there was no appeal on file. A spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General would not say if prosecutors planned to appeal Jones’ decision.
