An Ontario Superior Court judge has sentenced two men to conditional sentences of two years less a day, to be served under strict house arrest, after a jury found them guilty of fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document1. The convictions stem from an elaborate scheme where the men operated unauthorized truck driver schools, providing substandard training and falsifying government records to help students fraudulently obtain their Class A commercial truck licences.
Justice Roger, in his reasons for sentence released on October 29, 2025, handed down the sentence to Gurvinder Singh, 69, and Gurpreet Singh, 37. The Crown had sought a penitentiary sentence of five years for each man, arguing the case represented a large-scale fraud that endangered public safety. The defence argued for a conditional sentence of 12 to 18 months, asserting the fraud was not large-scale and that a prison term would be disproportionate, particularly when compared to the sentences given to their co-conspirators.
The case centered on Ontario’s mandatory entry-level training, or MELT, program, which was legislated in 2017 to enhance road safety by setting minimum standards for new commercial truck drivers. The program requires a minimum number of instructional hours from qualified instructors at registered private career colleges. Only after successfully completing MELT can a student’s proof of completion be uploaded to the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) database, making them eligible to book a Class A road test.
Between January 2019 and May 2021, Gurvinder Singh and Gurpreet Singh each operated their own truck driver school, neither of which was registered as a private career college or authorized to offer MELT. They charged their students, who were largely new immigrants from the South Asian community, between $4,000 and $5,000 for training. This was slightly less than what legitimate, registered colleges charged. The court found that while the men provided trucks, trailers, and some instruction (often in Punjabi), the training did not meet the mandatory MELT standards.
To circumvent the system, the offenders paid Charanjit Deol and her husband, who operated a registered private career college that was authorized to offer MELT. The Deols were paid to access the MTO’s database and falsely upload information confirming that the Singhs’ students had completed the required training. This act constituted the “uttering a forged document” offence. The court heard evidence that Gurvinder Singh paid the Deols approximately $68,000 for these fraudulent uploads, while Gurpreet Singh paid them about $80,000. Based on these uploads, the court estimated that Gurvinder Singh had about 45 fraudulent students and Gurpreet Singh had about 47.
The scheme also involved a second, separate fraudulent activity. The court found that both men occasionally paid an interpreter, Hanifa Khokhar, to help some of their students cheat on their Class A written knowledge tests. Ms. Khokhar would suggest answers to the students while providing interpretation services. The offenders paid her between $200 and $400 per student who passed.
The court heard that all four co-accused, Hanifa Khokhar, her husband, Charanjit Deol, and her husband, had pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 prior to the Singhs’ trial. Their sentences became a central issue in Justice Roger’s decision. Hanifa Khokhar received a conditional sentence of two years less a day, and her husband received an 18-month conditional sentence. Charanjit Deol, who personally uploaded the false information to the MTO database, received a 12-month conditional discharge. Her husband, who owned the college, received a conditional sentence of two years less a day.
During the sentencing hearing, the court considered the impact on the victims and the community. The court noted an unusual aspect of the case: most of the students who testified were satisfied with the training and services they received. Some were thankful for the offenders’ help in launching their truck driving careers. One student, referring to Gurpreet Singh, stated that “Gurpreet taught us everything, he brought us from zero to hero”. However, one student did file a victim impact statement, indicating he felt “tricked and deceived.” He did not pass his Class A licence test and lost his $4,500 payment.
Victim impact statements were also provided by a representative of the MTO, a superintendent of Career Colleges, and the president of the Canadian Trucking Alliance and Ontario Trucking Association. They all stressed the serious risks posed by large commercial trucks and how inexperienced or inadequately trained drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents, thereby jeopardizing road safety and undermining the integrity of the trucking industry. Despite these risks, Justice Roger noted that there was no evidence presented of any physical injury arising from the fraud, nor was there evidence that any of the students who obtained their licence had it revoked or made subject to additional training.
In his analysis, Justice Roger first addressed the Crown’s request to have the one-year sentence for uttering a forged document served consecutively to the four-year sentence for fraud. The judge declined, finding that the sentences should be served concurrently. He reasoned that both offences were part of the “same fraudulent scheme,” directed at circumventing the MELT requirements. Committing one offence without the other would have been unsuccessful, as both were essential to the plan.
Justice Roger also granted the Crown’s application for the forfeiture of three Volvo trucks owned by Gurpreet Singh, with a combined value of about $100,000. The judge found they were “offence-related property” used in connection with the commission of the fraud, as the fraud “could not have occurred without the trucks.” He ruled that forfeiture was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.
Turning to the length of the sentence, Justice Roger found that while the offences were serious, they did not fit the mould of a typical “large-scale fraud” that would attract a penitentiary term in the three-to-five-year range sought by the Crown. He distinguished the case from others by noting the victims did not suffer “devastating consequences.” Most students obtained their licences and employment, and many were appreciative.
The judge also found that the offenders’ moral blameworthiness was “nuanced and attenuated.” He found that greed was not their sole motive. The evidence suggested the offenders, “although misguided, tried to help their students.” They charged slightly less than legitimate schools, taught in their students’ first language, accompanied them to road tests, and offered additional lessons at no extra charge. The court heard that Gurvinder Singh had even encouraged an undercover officer, who spoke good English, to attend a “Canadian school” instead. These factors, the judge found, diminished the offenders’ moral culpability.
The most significant factor in the judge’s decision was the principle of parity, which requires sentences to be similar for similar offenders committing similar offences. Justice Roger found that imposing a five-year penitentiary sentence on the Singhs “would create an unreasonable disparity” with the sentences imposed on the Deols, who were an “integral part” of the scheme. He noted that without the Deols, “there would have been no fraud.” He pointed out that Charanjit Deol, who personally uploaded the false data, received only a conditional discharge, while her husband received a conditional sentence.
Justice Roger concluded that a conditional sentence of two years less a day was appropriate for both Gurvinder Singh and Gurpreet Singh. He found that neither man, both of whom are first-time offenders with stable family lives, posed a risk to community safety. He ruled that a conditional sentence, which is a form of imprisonment served in the community, could properly achieve the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence, especially with onerous conditions.
For the entire duration of their two-years-less-a-day sentences, both men are subject to 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week house arrest at their residences. They are only permitted to leave for work, medical emergencies, or to obtain necessities of life on Saturdays between 2:00 and 5:00 p.m. and for religious services on the first Sunday of each month. Both men must also complete 200 hours of community service, are banned from offering any truck driver training, and must have no contact with their co-accused. Finally, both were ordered to provide a DNA sample.
Read more crime stories here.
