WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1,172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Lateef Okunola
Before Justice B.C. Oldham
Heard on December 30, 2025, January 22 and 23, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on March 27, 2026
W. Beatty counsel for the Crown
A. Kheterpal ………………..……………………...counsel for the defendant L. Okunola
OLDHAM J.:
1Lateef Okunola stands charged with two counts of sexual assault contrary to 271 the Criminal Code (the “Code”) and one count of forcible confinement contrary to section 279(2) of the Code.
2The Court heard evidence from three witnesses for the Crown; Stephanie Harris, and the two complainants, S.V. and D.H.
3Mr. Okunola testified on his own behalf.
4The allegations of sexual assault in this case arose exclusively in the confines of the workplace. All of the witnesses were Personal Support Workers (“PSW”) and were working at Lakeland Long-term Health Centre (“LLHC”) in Parry Sound, Ontario at the time of the alleged offences. The information alleges that the incidents of sexual assault occurred over a period of time commencing on February 6, 2023 up to and including April 9, 2023. The allegation of forcible confinement occurred on February 6, 2023.
5For context, LLHC is located beside the West Parry Sound Hospital and provides geriatric care. The witnesses confirmed that patients are typically 60 years old or more and many suffer from dementia or other cognitive issues. Some are confined to a wheelchair or have other mobility restrictions. Care includes all aspects of personal care, such as bathing, cleaning, clothing and feeding.
6LLHC has two floors with four separate units throughout which the PSWs would be assigned. The floors were named after local landmarks; Snug Harbour, Magnetawan, Rosseau and Georgian Bay. PSWs would often be paired in teams of two if the care required lifts because of mobility issues. S.V. testified that she was often assigned to work on the Rosseau unit which was on the dementia floor. Given the nature of the work, she was often paired with Mr. Okunola.
7Mr. Okunola was working at LLHC on a contract as an agency worker because of the shortage of full time PSW workers within the care facility. He worked alongside the PSWs and nurses at LLHC. Stephanie Harris was also a contract worker and noted that she was often assigned to the Magnetawan unit.
8Both complainants testified that they initially enjoyed a positive work relationship with Mr. Okunola but that over time his conduct and actions made them feel uncomfortable and became inappropriate. Stephanie Harris, while not a complainant or a witness to the allegations by S.V. or D.H., testified that Mr. Okunola’s behaviour made her uncomfortable over time. She confirmed that he did not do anything physically inappropriate, but that he walked her to her car and bought her a gift card for her birthday which she thought was unusual.
9The Court heard evidence about three specific incidents between S.V. and Mr. Okunola and two incidents between Mr. Okunola and D.H. Both S.V. and D.H. allege that Mr. Okunola hugged them and other staff. D.H. testified that she was not uncomfortable with the hugs initially, but that she became uncomfortable after the first incident, but that the hugs stopped after that.
10Neither witness provided a specific date upon which the alleged incidents occurred. They struggled with the time frame, and neither could remember when Mr. Okunola started working at LLHC in relation to their own employment. S.V. thought the incidents occurred in the spring of 2023. Both were able to identify Mr. Okunola. Mr. Okunola confirmed that he worked at LLHC from October 2022 until April 2023.
11D.H. described two incidents. The first occurred when she was walking down the hall with Mr. Okunola to care for a patient. While at the doorway of the resident’s room, Mr. Okunola put his hand on the top of her hip, and his fingers touched her buttocks. D.H. did not describe any movement in this touching. In cross examination D.H. distinguished this touch as overly friendly and an invasion of her personal space and contrasted it to a friendly hug. She told Mr. Okunola to stop and went on to care for her patient. D.H. testified that he just laughed in response, but that it never happened again. Mr. Okunola denied that he touched her hip or buttocks.
12The second incident was a kiss on the neck. D.H. testified that they were standing in the hall opposite, but diagonal to each other and that he just kissed her neck. It was unexpected. This occurred within days of the first incident but never happened again. Mr. Okunola denied that he ever kissed D.H.
13D.H. explained that she told management after the first incident and asked that Mr. Okunola be put on another floor. Initially, staffing shortages did not allow for the reassignment, so D.H. explained that she would tend to her patients on her own and if Mr. Okunola was working with her, she directed him to work on his patients alone. Eventually, he was reassigned to another unit, and she continued to work on the Magnetawan unit.
14D.H. also described how Mr. Okunola would walk her to her car at the end of her shift and ask if she needed a ride. She found this unusual because she had a car. He told her that she was beautiful and gorgeous which made her feel uncomfortable. Mr. Okunola did not deny these allegations. He claimed that he walked out to the car lot with many of the PSWs and that he would sing you are beautiful to everyone. He would tell them they were gorgeous even if they were not.
15D.H. made some reference to Mr. Okunola holding her hand, but it was unclear when this occurred in the sequence. In cross examination she acknowledged that she just removed her hand and that it never happened again. Mr. Okunola denied that they were friends to the level of holding hands but indicated that when talking and directing each other to patients their hands may have touched. Generally, he described his conduct with co-workers as light and engaging with frequent mutual hugs and warm greetings.
16D.H. testified that she made a formal complaint to the police with S.V. after she observed Mr. Okunola slap S.V. on the buttocks.
17S.V. testified with respect to three separate incidents. None of them included a slap on the buttocks. Mr. Okunola denied that he ever slapped S.V. on the buttocks.
18The first incident that S.V. described was a request for a kiss at her car. S.V. testified that he tried to kiss her on the mouth. She explained that when she declined, he turned to banter. S.V. testified that this happened multiple times and every time that she went to her car but only described the one incident. There is no claim that Mr. Okunola successfully kissed S.V. on this occasion, or any other.
19Mr. Okunola acknowledged what he described as a consensual sexual relationship with S.V. The relationship consisted of touching, but never a kiss and no sexual intercourse. All touching was at work and over clothing. He denied that they would engage in any touching while attending to a patient, but that after they finished with the patient, they would touch each other. He acknowledged touching her breasts and buttocks and her touching his third leg. He explained that this was his penis.
20The second incident described occurred in a patient room. S.V. testified that they finished with the patient and that she turned off the light and was leaving the room. Mr. Okunola pushed her up against the door preventing her from leaving and tried to kiss and touch her. S.V. testified that she rattled the door handle which made noise. She assumed that this is what caused him to let her go. She ran across the hallway to a room with a shower and toilet area. On the other side of the shower/toilet area was an exit to another hall. The room required a key to enter. S.V. testified that she went into the shower area to catch her breath, but Mr. Okunola followed her to the room. He attempted to touch her again. This time he tried to get his hand down her pants, but she fought him, holding onto his one arm with both hands. His second arm was on her breast. He only stopped when another PSW came into the room. He let her go and she ran out the back door and into the conference room. She testified that she never said anything to Mr. Okunola, but that after this incident she reported it to the Director of Care.
21Mr. Okunola denied that anything happened in the patient room. The door was ajar the entire time as they are required to do for the patient. He testified that they finished with the patient and then went across the hall to the shower area where they began touching each other. He acknowledges that he initially closed the door when the other PSW opened it and that he reopened it and engaged the PSW in conversation within moments of her entry. S.V. ran out of the room before the other PSW could see her. She explained that she was behind a wall and that she left as soon as Mr. Okunola engaged the PSW in conversation. Mr. Okunola claims that S.V. later asked him if he thought the other PSW saw them.
22The third incident that S.V. described, which she later confirmed occurred before the shower room incident, occurred when she was putting a blanket on a patient. She describes being bent over the patient while Mr. Okunola attempted to put his hands down the back of her pants. Mr. Okunola denies this interaction. He testified that there would never be an occasion where he would come up behind S.V. while tending to a patient. He explained that they work as a team, and one would be on one side of the bed and the other on the other side of the bed. It would be impossible to reach over and put his hands down the back of her pants while in this position.
Law and Analysis
23Apart from the general agreement that Mr. Okunola’s engagement with his co-workers extended beyond what was normal, there was no corroborating evidence with respect to the specific allegations. As the Crown notes, any witnesses would be patients who would not have the cognitive ability to provide witness to any interaction. Counsel for Mr. Okunola noted that there are cameras in the hallways and suggested that at least the touching of D.H.’s hip and buttocks could have been confirmed on the surveillance cameras. No video evidence was tendered.
24D.H. testified that she observed Mr. Okunola to slap S.V. on the buttock, but S.V. did not testified to that incident. Mr. Okunola denies it occurred. For his part, Mr. Okunola acknowledged that he was friendly with his co-workers. He walked them to their cars. He hugged them. He sang to them and told them they were beautiful. He bought them gifts.
25In terms of the specific allegations, the Court must engage in an assessment of the evidence based on the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D) 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 (“WD”) which is as follows:
First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.
Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.
Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.
W.(D)., supra, para 28.
Allegations of sexual assault by D.H.
26Sexual assault under s.271 is an assault of a sexual nature. Assault is defined in section 265 of the Code as follows:
(1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly.
27Mr. Okunola denied that he held D.H.’s hand, that he touched her hip and buttocks, or that he kissed her neck. His denial is made in the context of an acknowledgment that he was having ‘sexual relations’ with another co-worker. He acknowledged various behaviors that many would find inappropriate in a workplace environment. His denial was blanket but unshaken. He maintained that his relationship with D.H. was not at the level that he would engage her in the same manner as he did with S.V. He testified that he would not touch her buttocks or kiss her. On the allegation of hand holding, he acknowledged there could have been some contact.
28Mr. Okunola never acknowledged that any of his behaviors were inappropriate, even for a workplace setting. Given his lack of perspective, it is difficult to accept his claim that he never, even if unintentionally, crossed a line.
29That said, even if the Court does not accept Mr. Okunola’s denial, Counsel submits that even on D.H.’s evidence each time she told Mr. Okunola to stop, he did. This, counsel submits, supports his position that Mr. Okunola understands and respects consent.
30D.H.’s evidence was problematic in some respects. She testified that she observed an interaction between S.V. and Mr. Okunola that even S.V. did not confirm. She claims that she and S.V. went to the police station to report the incident that night. S.V. testified that she reported the incident to the Director of Care. S.V. testified that she reported after the incident that led to the charge of forcible confinement. That incident is alleged to have occurred on February 6, 2023. The allegations of sexual assault are alleged to have occurred between February 6, 2023 and April 9, 2023. While complainants do not have to be precise in terms of the timing, it is difficult for the Court to reconcile the evidence about reporting in terms of the alleged timing. Maybe the date on the information was wrong as it relates to the timing of the incident of forcible confinement, but neither complainant could clarify the timing. That becomes more problematic when there are inconsistencies in terms of what led to the reporting and to whom it was initially made and what prompted the report.
31D.H. claims that she and S.V. went ‘to the cops’ after she observed Mr. Okunola slap her buttocks. She discussed the incident with S.V. and asked her if she wanted to go to the police. S.V. agreed and they went to the police that night.
32S.V. testified that she decided to make a formal complaint a couple of days after the shower incident. When she was asked who she reported the incident to she said she reported it to the Director of Care. In cross examination she was less clear about when she reported, it could have even been that night, but maybe a couple days later. There was no mention of going to the police with D.H. or even discussing the matter with D.H. in either her direct evidence or during cross-examination. The inconsistencies between D.H’s evidence and S.V.’s evidence raise concerns about the reliability the complainants’ evidence.
33At its highest, D.H.’s allegation is that Mr. Okunola touched her hip and buttock once. She told him to stop, and he did not do it again. She claims that he kissed her neck and that she told him not to and he never did it again. After the first incident, he stopped hugging her even though she initially did not find that behavior to be unwelcome.
34D.H., like the other witnesses testified that they initially found Mr. Okunola to be very friendly, outgoing and polite and were not offended by his approach. In the context and given that Mr. Okunola did not continue with engagement with D.H., it is possible that alleged sexual assaults were inadvertent or expressions of over exuberant affability. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard and the Court is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Okunola intentionally, or forcefully assaulted D.H. in a sexual manner. Harassment of a sexual nature in the workplace, which can include inappropriate and unwanted touching, does not necessarily equate to sexual assault within the criminal code context.
35Mr. Okunola is acquitted on Count 2, the allegation of sexual assault against D.H.
Allegations of S.V.
36Mr. Okunola stands charged of sexually assaulting and forcibly confining S.V.
37With respect to the allegations of sexual assault against S.V., Mr. Okunola acknowledges the sexual touching but takes the position that it was consensual. In fact, in his evidence he described more incidents of touching than the three described by S.V.
38This issue is whether the Court believes Mr. Okunola’s claim that the touching was consensual, or whether his evidence raises a reasonable doubt about the nature of the relationship and consent. Ultimately, the Court must be satisfied on all of the evidence that it does accept that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual touching was not consensual.
39The Crown submits that Mr. Okunola’s description of the relationship is not believable. He claims that they were in a sexual relationship that was limited to workplace touching. He did not kiss S.V. They did not have sex. They just touched each other. He did not know where she lived and never went to her home. They did not socialize outside of the workplace. Counsel for Mr. Okunola submits that this is an element of Mr. Okunola’s evidence that enhances his credibility. He could have testified that there was more to the relationship but did not. Counsel submits that Mr. Okunola’s testimony focused on the truth and not on what would assist him in defending the charges.
40S.V., for her part, acknowledges that she never told Mr. Okunola that his conduct was inappropriate or that his approaches were not welcome. She testified that she is not an aggressive person and that her approach was avoidance. She did not want to cause trouble, and she knew that others liked Mr. Okunola. He was seen as friendly and got along well with other PSWs. S.V. testified that she would suggest that he be paired with someone else, but she did not want to tell anyone why she did not want to work with Mr. Okunola. The result was that staff would say “no, it is fine” and she would just continue the shift with Mr. Okunola. She testified that she parked her car closer to the exit and left a little later, but that Mr. Okunola continued to walk her to her car.
41The Crown submits that silence cannot be equated with consent.
42What Mr. Okunola describes and what S.V. acknowledges is more than silence. S.V. acknowledges that Mr. Okunola walked her to her car multiple times and that he tried to kiss her and that it turned to banter. She acknowledges that he hugged her and other staff. She described how he would put his arm around her or touch her leg. She thought it might be a cultural thing and it was in public so she did not react or resist. She acknowledged that he was ‘touchy feely’, and flirtatious, but did not tell him to stop, or that it was unwelcome. Mr. Okunola acknowledges that S.V. never specifically invited him to touch her, but that she touched him, and he touched her. Mr. Okunola testified that consent was provided in the reciprocity.
43S.V. never reported any of the incidents to management or to the head nurse, until the incident in the shower. To be clear delayed reporting or failing to report does support a finding that the allegations are untrue but may support Mr. Okunola’s understanding of the relationship.
44The Crown submitted that Mr. Okunola was evasive in his answers. When he was asked about the rattling of the door he responded that the door was never closed, and anyone could come in. When he was asked if the rattling of the door would draw attention, he responded that they do not close the door when attending to patients. When asked if the door had a handle, he responded that the doors to the patient’s rooms are never closed. The answers are not evasive, but rather a persistent, unshaken response to a set of facts. Mr. Okunola testified that he and S.V. assisted a patient. The door to the patient’s room was ajar; not closed but mostly closed for privacy. S.V. confirms that this is the standard state and was the condition when they entered the room to attend to the patient. Mr. Okunola testified that nothing happened in that room, but when they left, they went to the shower room. In the shower room, they touched each other. He denies closing the door or leaning against S.V. or trying to kiss her in the patient’s room.
45Counsel for Mr. Okunola submits that S.V.’s evidence that Mr. Okunola touched her without her consent in the shower room is inconsistent with her claim that she was trying to escape from him. The room has a second door through which she could have exited. The room required a key to open it, which means that S.V. would have heard Mr. Okunola coming in and following her. If she was so anxious to get away from him, she could have left. The fact that she ultimately left through the second door confirms that she knew this was an option.
46Mr. Okunola testified that S.V. was worried about someone seeing them.
47S.V. testified that she reported the incident to the Director of Care after the shower incident. In cross examination she testified that she made the report a couple of days later. This is where S.V.’s evidence and D.H.’s evidence is difficult to reconcile. D.H. testified that she made a formal complaint after she saw Mr. Okunola do the same thing to a co-worker. She confirmed in cross-examination that it was S.V. and that she saw him slap her on the buttocks. She felt that enough was enough and asked S.V. if she wanted to go to the police station with her to report. S.V. agreed and that is what led to the report.
48S.V.’s version leads the Court to believe that she reported after a few days of reflection and that the report was to the Director of Care. As noted above, this is a difficult inconsistency to reconcile.
49That is not to say that S.V.’s evidence was riddled with inconsistencies, or inaccuracies. She provided a level of detail in respect of the three incidents she referred to. S.V. testified that she did not welcome, invite or consent to the touching. She appeared genuine in her statement, and in her explanation as to why she said and did nothing except avoid, to communicate her lack of consent. Even if the Court were to find that S.V. is both reliable and credible, that is not necessarily sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As noted in R. v. J.W., 2014 ONCA 322, at para. 26: “a reasonable doubt can survive a finding that the complainant is credible.” (see: R. v. T.A., 2020 ONCA 783 at para 29).
50It is very difficult to reconcile the evidence. Mr. Okunola’s advances, and the fact that they did not extend beyond the workplace or evolve into more serious engagements is unusual. S.V.’s evidence that the approaches were unwelcome, without any attempts to communicate a lack of consent, coupled with mutual hugs and the acceptance of touches on her leg, is problematic. S.V. acknowledged that she openly accepted hugs and touches to her leg in public. D.H. testified that when she told Mr. Okunola to stop and he did. One is left to wonder whether Mr. Okunola’s understanding that the touching was consensual based on reciprocity was reasonable.
51Where a Court is unsure about both versions of events, that uncertainty is itself a hallmark of the existence of reasonable doubt. (see: R v. M(E) 2008 SCC 51, 2008 235 C.C.C. 3rd 290). In this case, the Court is left with an uncertainty about the true nature of the relationship. That uncertainty raises a reasonable doubt and requires an acquittal.
52Accordingly, Mr. Okunola is acquitted on Count 1, of sexually assaulting S.V.
53The offence of forcible confinement is set out in subsection 279(2) of the Code as follows:
Forcible confinement
(2) Every one who, without lawful authority, confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
54S.V. testified that she was unable to leave the patient’s room because Mr. Okunola pushed her up against the door and she could not open it because of his weight against her. She rattled the door handle, and he let her go. Mr. Okunola testified that the door was never closed but always ajar and that the engagement between the two of them did not start until they were across the hall in the shower room.
55In R. v. Palmer-Coke (2019) 373 C.C.C. (ed) 218 (Ont. C.A.) the Court of Appeal addresses the issue of forcible confinement in the context of a sexual assault. At paragraph 29, the Court refers the elements of the offence as follows:
29The constituent elements of the offence of unlawful confinement are set out in R. v. Pritchard, 2008 SCC 59, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 195, where Binnie J. said, at para. 24:
The authorities establish that if for any significant period of time [the victim] was coercively restrained or directed contrary to her wishes, so that she could not move about according to her own inclination and desire, there was unlawful confinement within s. 279(2) [citations omitted].
56The restraint in Palmer-Coke arose from a momentary pulling on the complainant’s hair which prevented her from getting up. While the situation described by S.V. was less fleeting, it is not clear that she was confined for any significant period of time. In cross examination when she was asked how long the first incident took, S.V. testified that it felt like a long period of time, but that it was not a huge amount of time. It was not 10 minutes, but maybe three to four minutes. Three to four minutes can be a long time, but in this context it is not in this Court’s view significant enough to make out the offence of forcible confinement. S.V. acknowledges that upon rattling the door, Mr. Okunola released her, and she was able to leave the room. S.V. also claims that the same thing happened in the shower room. Mr. Okunola had her trapped and was trying to kiss her, put his hands down her pants but that he released her as soon as he heard another PSW come into the room.
57Even if the Court accepts her evidence, she was only momentarily confined. It did not take much for Mr. Okunola to release her – just the rattling of the door handle. Moreover, the fact that Mr. Okunola acknowledged the second incident in the shower, but denied the incident moments earlier in the patient room raises a reasonable doubt about whether the initial incident in the patient room occurred as described by S.V. Mr. Okunola was adamant that they would not close the door to a patient’s room and that the touching did not occur until they were across the hall in the shower room. It was only after the PSW came into the room that S.V. left.
58Taking all of the evidence into account, the Court is not satisfied that the Crown has met its onus on this count and Mr. Okunola is acquitted on Count 2, forcible confinement contrary to s. 279(2).
Released: March 27, 2026
Signed: Justice B.C. Oldham