2 total
A 120-day custodial sentence was imposed for workplace assault and sexual assault against an employee.
The accused was convicted of assault and sexual assault against his employee at a retail franchise workplace.
The assault occurred between April and June 2010, involving the accused grabbing and dragging the victim toward a stockroom.
The sexual assault occurred on August 26, 2010, when the accused locked the victim in a stockroom and attempted to put his hands down her pants.
The accused maintained a delusional fantasy of a consensual affair throughout trial and sentencing.
The court imposed a custodial sentence of 30 days for assault and 90 days consecutive for sexual assault, followed by two years probation with strict conditions including no contact, a 500-metre exclusion zone, and mandatory counselling for sexual offenders.
The accused was acquitted of assault and uttering threats because the complainant's inconsistent testimony raised a reasonable doubt.
The accused was charged with assault and uttering a threat to cause death against Joanne Villamia on September 25, 2011.
The Crown proceeded summarily and called only the complainant as its witness.
The accused testified in his own defence, along with his sister and a friend.
The central issue was whether the accused assaulted the complainant and threatened to kill her at his apartment, or whether the complainant fabricated the incident out of jealousy and concern about being charged with stalking.
The court applied the W(D) analysis and found that while the accused's evidence was not credible, the complainant's evidence also contained significant inconsistencies and contradictions.
The court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both charges.
