Lawyers for two men accused in a midday double shooting that killed two people in front of a busy Whistler hotel say the Crown has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Tanvir Khakh and Gursimran Sahota each face one count of first-degree murder. Sahota also faces an additional count of second-degree murder. On July 24, 2022, just after noon, two men dressed in all black, wearing baseball hats and medical masks, opened fire in the driveway of the Sundial Hotel. Meninder Dhaliwahl and Satindera Gill were each shot multiple times and both succumbed to their injuries. A few minutes after the shooting, a witness to a car fire on nearby Ptarmigan Place told police he had seen two men get into a black Chrysler 200 sedan shortly after the Honda CRV went up in flames. Police would later recover two handguns from that vehicle and link them to the shooting through ballistic testing. Less than an hour after the shooting, police in Squamish pulled over a vehicle matching the description provided by the car fire witness, and found five men inside, including Sahota and Khahk. The court has already heard blood on the clothing and shoes of both accused was tested for DNA and found to be a likely match to Dhaliwal. In expert testimony, Dr. Laurie Karchewski told the court there was only a one-in-5.6-quintillion chance the blood splatter came from somebody other than Dhaliwahl. During closing arguments by the defence on Thursday, Tony Paisana, a lawyer for Khakh, reminded the jury it was the Crown’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. “In a circumstantial case, the Crown must disprove all other reasonable possibilities or plausible theories,” he said, before presenting a theory of his own. He suggested his client could have switched clothes and shoes with someone after the shooting but before being arrested—and said that could explain the blood spots and DNA evidence. He said Khakh could have done that to intentionally contaminate the evidence. “Remember, Mr. Khakh is only charged with killing Mr. Dhaliwahl. If you determine that it is reasonably possible that he may have only helped them after the fact, you must find him not guilty,” Paisana said. Reza Mansoori-Dara, Sahota’s lawyer, also raised the possibility his client could have changed into the blood-stained clothing after the shooting. “We don’t have to prove anything. All we have to do is show you what the gaps in the evidence are,” he said. Mansoori-Dara also told the jury it was possible the gunshot residue found on both accused’s hands and faces may have come from police handcuffs or the back seat of the police cars they were placed in. “Now what we have is a number of factors that collectively and individually can raise a reasonable doubt,” he said. Friday morning, Justice Miriam Gropper will give the jury their final instructions – and then those 12 people will deliberate the fate of Khakh and Sahota, who each face the possibility of life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years.
