Indian citizen tried to explain boy’s abduction as a ‘cultural misunderstanding’
Conviction could result in deportation
Chris Lambie
1 May 2026
A Brampton, Ont., man who abducted a nine-year-old boy has failed to convince a judge it was a “cultural misunderstanding.”
Manoj Govindbalunikam, an Indian citizen who is a permanent resident of Canada, was sentenced earlier this month in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice to 18 months in jail and three years’ probation for the August 2023 abduction.
“The fact that Mr. Govindbalunikam has been in Canada for more than 12 years demands that he would have been well aware of this country’s cultural norms,” Judge Michael Varpio wrote in the April 21 sentencing decision.
“Any suggestion to the contrary — especially for someone of Mr. Govindbalunikam’s ability and experience — would constitute willful blindness at the very least. As such, I reject the defence position that this case amounts to a ‘cultural misunderstanding.’”
The Crown sought a term of 18 months behind bars. Govindbalunikam’s lawyer argued for a conditional discharge so her client could avoid deportation.
A conditional discharge would “not adequately address the need to denounce and deter Mr. Govindbalunikam’s conduct,” Varpio said. “Society cannot allow adults to simply abscond with young children and drive them around for their own purposes.”
The court heard from an immigration lawyer that a jail sentence of six months or more would render him inadmissible to Canada and he could face deportation.
That concern didn’t affect the judge’s analysis.
“Simply put, the crime was of such a magnitude that giving this factor any meaningful weight would only serve to achieve exactly that which the Supreme Court of Canada cautioned against: It would create another, lighter sentencing regime for non-citizens,” Varpio said.
Govindbalunikam, 37, pleaded guilty to abduction last year.
“The import of this phenomenon is somewhat lessened by the fact that Mr. Govindbalunikam continues to minimize the offence as a ‘cultural misunderstanding,’” said the judge.
The court heard that on Aug. 15, 2023, Govindbalunikam drove his yellow Chevrolet Camaro with black racing stripes from his home in Brampton to Thessalon, in northern Ontario, to look for properties to buy as part of his real estate business.
When Govindbalunikam arrived in Thessalon, he went to the mouth of the Thessalon River.
After taking photos of some kayakers, he approached a then-nine-yearold boy who had been fishing at the river.
“He had a conversation with the child and offered him a fidget spinner toy as well as his business card,” said the decision. “Mr. Govindbalunikam told the victim that he was a realtor.”
When the boy left the area carrying his fishing gear, Govindbalunikam “drove towards the victim’s destination and stopped him at the curling club in Thessalon. He offered the victim a ride home. The victim accepted the ride,” said the decision.
“Mr. Govindblalunikam told the victim to leave his bicycle and fishing gear at the curling club because there was no room for them in the vehicle. Mr. Govindbalunikam drove to the Sinton Tavern where he purchased an ice cream for the victim. The pair exited the tavern.”
Two people in the tavern knew the boy and became concerned because they did not recognize Govindbalunikam. “They got into their pickup truck and drove to the victim’s residence. They spoke with the victim’s father who indicated that he did not know anyone who had a yellow Camaro. The victim’s father asked the pair for a ride to the location where they last saw the victim.”
Around the same time, the boy gave Govindbalunikam his address in Thessalon.
“Mr. Govindbalunikam drove towards that residence and, when they reached the home, the victim told Mr. Govindbalunikam to stop the vehicle. Mr. Govindbalunikam slowed down but did not stop. He continued past the residence.”
The boy’s father spotted the Camaro driving down Federation Street, said the decision.
The couple who gave the dad a lift in a pickup pulled up to the Camaro, said the decision. “The father approached the driver side of the Camaro. He observed the victim in the front passenger’s seat eating ice cream. As the father approached, Mr. Govindbalunikam pulled away. The father reached into the driver’s side of the vehicle in order to get the vehicle to stop. Mr. Govindbalunikam identified himself as a realtor and stated that he was looking for houses in the area. Mr. Govindbalunikam gave the father his business card. The father told Mr. Govindbalunikam to leave the community and told his son to exit the Camaro.”
When police later contacted Govindbalunikam, he said he was a realtor, and that the situation was “a misunderstanding with the boy’s father.”
Govindbalunikam was arrested on Aug. 16, 2023. The Ontario Provincial Police seized his cellphone, which contained a number of pictures including a picture of himself and the victim by the Thessalon River, as well as a photo of the victim eating ice cream in the Camaro.
Govindbalunikam, who arrived in Canada in 2012 and was granted permanent resident status in 2017, has a degree in aerospace engineering from India and a master’s degree in the same subject from the University of Toronto.
Govindbalunikam told the author of a pre-sentence report that he “worked at one of the largest aerospace companies in Ontario from 2019 to 2023. Unfortunately, he was dismissed then laid off after a periodic criminal record check conducted by his company.”
He lost jobs at Remax Realty and Collins Aerospace “as a result of these charges,” said the decision.
Govindbalunikam apologized to the victim and his parents, saying that he was trying to be helpful by offering the boy a ride.
The Crown asked the judge to find that Govindbalunikam was engaged in sexual grooming behaviour with the victim when he purchased ice cream and gave him a fidget spinner.
Varpio agreed with Govindbalunikam’s lawyer that he did “not have the evidential foundation to make such an inference.”