The accused, a 71-year-old businessman with a PhD in chemistry, was charged with sexually assaulting a 25-year-old woman who worked part-time in an administrative role for his business.
The Crown alleged that the accused touched the complainant's genital area over her clothing during a drive in the countryside on March 5, 2016, after she had reluctantly agreed to accompany him.
The accused claimed he held an honest but mistaken belief that the complainant had consented based on what he characterized as conflicting signals between her verbal protests and her body language.
The court found the complainant's evidence credible and consistent with corroborating evidence including text messages, cell phone extraction reports, restaurant surveillance video, and an audio recording of the drive.
The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible and found that even if accepted, his belief in consent would have been based on recklessness or wilful blindness, precluding a valid defence under section 273.2 of the Criminal Code.
A conviction was entered.
