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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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.
Court File and Parties
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
R. (K.)
Before Justice J. De Filippis
Heard on January 29 – 30, February 24, and March 19, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on April 28, 2026
Ms. H. Bajwa counsel for the Crown
Ms. M. Etwaroo counsel for the accused
Reasons for Judgment
INTRODUCTION
1The defendant had a trial on 10 charges arising over a five-day period in 2025: sexual assault, assault (by choking) and mischief on February 18; sexual assault on February 20; assault (by choking) x 2, assault with a weapon x 2; mischief and threaten death on February 22. The complainant in all offences is the defendant’s wife. The Crown proceeded by Indictment.
2The defendant is 29 years old, and the complainant is 25 years old. They met on a dating site while the former was living in Canada, and the latter was living in India. With the approval of their respective parents, they were married in June 2024 in India. After their honeymoon, the defendant returned to Canada, and she stayed behind. In the months that followed, the parties argued by telephone and social media. These disputes were often about their parents. In January 2025, the defendant visited the complainant in India. Their relationship did not get better. The defendant returned to Canada that same month. The complainant arrived the day before he did. She went to an airport hotel expecting the defendant to pick her up. As this did not happen, she rented a room in Scarborough. Three weeks later, the defendant picked up the complainant and they went to his apartment in Thorold. Five days later, the complainant left that apartment. The present allegations arise during that five-day period.
3I heard from the complainant and defendant. These reasons explain why I have concluded the charges should be dismissed.
COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY
4The complainant arrived at Toronto Pearson International Airport on January 21 at 9 PM. By the time she cleared customs and picked up her luggage it was 11 pm. When nobody came to pick her up, she went to a nearby hotel. The next morning, she took a photograph of herself at the hotel and sent it to the defendant’s friends. She received a reply and was told to wait for someone to arrive at her hotel. She received another message from one of the defendant’s friends and was told the defendant would not meet her.
5The defendant went to another hotel and made telephone contact with the defendant through a mutual third party. The defendant hung up on her. The complainant reached him again. Again, he hung up on her. The complainant became concerned about the cost of the hotel and, through the Kijiji website, found a room to rent in Scarbrough. During this time, she was communicating daily with her parents and sister in India. One week later, the complainant spoke with the defendant by telephone. She told him, “I came here to live with you, why are you [doing this]?”
6On February 16, the parties met for lunch. The complainant asked the defendant where they were going to live. He replied that his place was messy and that she should stay put for two months, after which he would come for her. She told him she would clean his place and begged him to take her. The defendant returned the next day and took the complainant to his rented room in Niagara Region. The room was in a large house with other tenants and the landlord. She spent several hours cleaning the unit while the defendant visited a friend. He came home at 9 am. They argued about why he had not picked her up at the airport. He told her it was because he did not like the marriage. During this argument, he pulled a gold chain from her neck.
7On February 18, the parties went out. When they came back to their room, the defendant took her phone to check who she had been in contact with. While doing so, “the glass on the phone was broken”. The complainant was having her menstrual period and told the defendant they could not have sex, but “he did it” and “it causes severe pain”. When she asked him why he had done that, he replied, “if you are married, it has to be like this”.
8The next evening the complainant told the defendant she wanted to find work. He replied that she need not do so. The complainant added that “he was moving my dress” and “from this time on he engaged in sexual torture”. He laid beside her and “asked for a blow job”. She replied that she was suffering from stomach pain and “why are you torturing me [and he] pulled me by the hair and forced me to do the blow job, I had a vomiting sensation”. The defendant hit her on the cheek and put his left hand on her neck and held it for 30 seconds. The complainant testified that she couldn’t breathe. After he let go, she said “why are you giving me trouble, we can still live happily”.
9The following day, February 20, the parties argued again about why she came to Canada. He insisted he did not ask her to come here. She insisted that he had done so. He told her to go back to India.
10On February 22, the complainant packed her bags and went outside to leave. The defendant brought the bags back to their room. They argued and he hit her with the charging cord to an electronic device. It hurt her wrist and caused swelling. The defendant then called a taxi for the complainant to leave. She started crying and said, “I came to live with you, why should I leave”. The defendant cancelled the taxi and began yelling at her. He said, “why are you not leaving” and kicked her luggage, damaging it. He called the taxi again and said, “if you don’t get into the cab, I’ll kill you”. The complainant got into the taxi when it arrived and returned to Scarbough to a room with another person. Once there, the complainant received many messages from the defendant asking, “why did you leave?” and “why did you go?”. The complainant was surprised by these questions and fearful of what the defendant might do next. She contacted the police and provided a statement.
11The complainant has had no contact with the defendant since February 22, 2025. She testified that before going to the police, his family harassed her family, expecting money. After she went to the police, this harassment stopped. She added that she came to Canada for a good life and to return to India is to admit failure. She asked herself, “why do I have to live this” and obtained counselling.
12The complainant was cross-examined about the deterioration in her relationship with the defendant. She saw him for the first time in June 2024 around the time of the wedding ceremony. He returned to India in August or September. The complainant noticed that he became easily irritated and they began to argue. The cause seems to have been the defendant’s expectation that her parents pay money to him or his parents. The complainant agreed that she was annoyed because of what she saw as undue influence over the defendant by his parents.
13The parties went to Goa for their honeymoon. They argued because the defendant consumed alcohol. The complainant had been told he did not do so. Moreover, she checked his bags and found tobacco. This angered the defendant. Conflict between the couple continued after the defendant returned to Canada and by December “things were especially bad”. The respective families became involved in these matters and the defendant’s family went to the police with concerns about the complainant’s family.
14In January 2025, the defendant went to India again. The complainant denied he returned to discuss their ongoing problems and said, “he came to bring me back here”. She agreed that she did not know he was coming. She denied the defendant told her that he did not want to be with her but agreed that he told her sister and mother this. The complainant said the defendant was responsible for her immigration application and told her she could come to Canada with him. They returned on different flights. He told her to book her own flight. She did so but did not tell him about it.
15This exchange between Defence counsel and the complainant followed:
Q: You did not think it important to tell him?
A: [no answer]
Q: You did not think it important to tell him?
A: I told him.
Q: Did he tell you he arrived on the 22nd [of January]?
A: He told me he arrived in Canada before [her arrival on 21st].
Q: The only discussion of coming to Canada occurred in December?
A: He came to my house in January and said I could come if I wanted, if he told me he had wanted to separate, I could not have come.
Q: You came without [the defendant] knowing, to get permanent residency status.
A: If he had told me he wanted to separate, I would not have come, otherwise why would I go live with him in February.
Q: Yet he left you at an airport with nowhere to go and did not respond to telephone calls.
A: Yes… I was upset by this…I had nobody here but him.
16The complainant agreed that once she contacted the defendant in Canada, he told her he was not ready to live with her. She replied, “Why not tell me in India, why did I come here”. Cross-examination continued as follows:
Q: You came here on January 21 and moved with him on February 17; you could have gone back home in the interim.
A: I needed money to pay for ticket back.
Q: But you had money to pay for rent and live.
A: [yes]
17On February 16, the defendant picked up the complainant from her room in Scarborough and they spent the night at an AirBnB. However, he would not take her to his apartment. Instead, the defendant rented another AirBnB in Niagara Falls for her to stay at. This did not transpire, and the complainant went to the defendant’s apartment. She resisted the suggestion the defendant took her reluctantly.
18The parties often argued between February 17 and 22 while they resided together at the defendant’s apartment. The complainant explained it this way: “When a wife comes from a far away place, he has to stay at least one day and ask how the wife is doing. But he didn’t do that. On [the] first day, he went to a friend’s house, locked the door, and did not return until 9 pm”. The complainant said that door was locked from the outside and she could not leave the unit and added that “this happened two or three times”.
19The complainant was upset that the defendant had been speaking to another woman. Although he explained she was like a sister to him, the complainant was suspicious. On February 22, the defendant told the complainant she must leave, or he would kill her. The complainant believed he said this because he wanted to be with that other woman. She added that, “this is also why he locked me in the house, sometimes he left without telling me”. When it was suggested that the complainant had not told the police, when interviewed about these matters, that she had been locked in a room, she replied that “I must have told police”. When pressed further, she said, “I don’t recall saying anything about the lock”. She agreed that being locked in a room by a man who had also sexually assaulted her is an important omission.
20Cross-examination continued as follows:
Q: I suggest [the defendant] was not the one asking you to leave on the 22nd
A: He said you should leave right now I or I will give you a hard time…and in the morning he booked a cab for me to go to Scarborough
Q: He was frustrated because you were the one who ordered the cab
A: I didn’t know how to order a cab; he booked it and told me to leave…this is how I end up back in Scarborough
21The complainant insisted the defendant threatened to kill her if she did not leave. She said he was pushing her into the cab until the cab driver intervened to help. She cannot recall if she told the police the defendant was pushing her into a cab.
22The complainant agreed that once in Canada, the defendant spoke about getting a divorce but added that he had not mentioned this in India; “If he had spoken about divorce in India why did I come here - I need an answer to that one”. The complainant acknowledged she was upset that the defendant had seen another woman and was concerned about what “people back home” would think if she was not living with her husband, noting that this was “disgraceful”. She rejected the suggestion that this “cultural thing” caused her to fabricate the present allegations to explain why they were not together.
23The complainant agreed that the photographs of her forearm do not reveal marks and swelling consistent with forceful strikes with a laptop charging cord. She identified minor marks on the photographs of her phone and luggage and insisted this damage was caused by the defendant. She said that the defendant grabbed the necklace around her neck after they argued about how much time she spent texting her family in India and the amount of time he did so with local friends. She agreed the this was a minor incident that did not cause the necklace to break or inflict pain.
24The sexual intercourse occurred on February 18. The complainant was shown a photograph of the bedroom she occupied with the defendant in Thorold. In addition to a bed, there is a mattress on the floor. She said that this mattress was not present during the sexual intercourse. She identified sheets on the bed with a small blood stain but insisted that there was “a lot of blood” on it because she was experiencing a strong menstrual period at the time of the sexual intercourse. The complainant explained the photographs by noting that the defendant washed the sheets before she left the home on their last day together. She agreed, however, that she later told the police they would see the large blood stain on the sheets.
25The oral sex occurred the next day, on February 19. The complainant said she was asleep beside her husband, and he was working on his laptop. He awoke her and scolded her for not speaking to him properly. She replied by scolding him form not picking her up at the airport when she arrived in Canada. She explained that “it was done forcefully, and I could not do anything [and it] lasted more than five minutes”. The complainant denied this was consensual and that, in fact, she initiated this sexual activity.
26On completion of her testimony, as the complainant was about to depart the courtroom, she asked me when my decision in this matter would be delivered as she wanted to know what the defendant’s “intentions are about us”.
DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY
27The defendant confirmed that he met the complainant online, in March 2024, at the TamilMatrimony website. Within a month they met each other’s parents and became engaged to be married. The marriage took place in June. He returned to Canada and completed a permanent residency application for the complainant by August 2024. After this, the defendant went back to India, and the couple went on a honeymoon.
28According to the defendant, there was a change in the complainant’s behaviour toward him during and after the honeymoon. She blamed his family for making her life difficult. She claimed that his family was pressuring her family for money. The defendant was insulted by this. After he returned to Canada, the couple continued to argue by telephone and text messages. He said that “bad words were used by both sides”.
29In October 2024, the complainant’s application for permanent residency in Canada was approved. However, the relationship between the couple worsened. During this time, the complainant’ family “caused a scene” outside the home of the defendant’s family and the police were called. This upset the defendant very much and he used “strong language” in talking about it with the complainant. During this time, the complainant’s mother participated in a telephone call between the parties and during the argument said the defendant was “impotent” and called him “a puppet” for his family.
30In early January 2025, the defendant went to India to resolve matters. This failed and he realized “the relationship would not last”. He told the complainant and her parents he would file for divorce. His wife told him she would “not sign divorce papers”. The defendant returned to Canada on January 22. Unbeknownst to him, the complainant came to Canada one day ahead of him.
31The complainant contacted the defendant on her arrival in Canada. He explained that he could not believe she was here. He agreed to pick her up at the airport hotel but changed his mind. He explained: “I didn’t know why she was here. I didn’t want to meet her in person”. He testified that the complainant angrily said she would call the police if he did not pick her up. The defendant went to a police station near his home and reported the situation to them. He did this because he was “scared she would show up at my doorstep and make a scene like she and her family did at my parents house”. On February 2, the defendant “filed a wellness check” about the complainant [with police]. The next day, she called to say she wanted to be with him. The defendant decided to “give this a chance”.
32On February 17, the defendant took the complainant to his apartment in Thorold. It is a room in a house. Other rooms are occupied by the landlord and another tenant. Later that same day introduced her to some friends. He testified that the next day, “out of the blue”, she told him she wanted to go back to Scarborough. They argued over this. The defendant demanded to know why she came to his place at all. The defendant replied that she did not like his home. The defendant did not want to sleep with her. He put a mattress on the floor of the bedroom. He slept on it and she took the bed.
33The next day, February 18, the couple argued. The complainant blamed the defendant’s parents for the state of their marriage. The defendant went to sleep on the floor mattress. He explained that the complainant “came down and apologized and asked me to come back to bed”. He joined her on the bed, and,
Then she put her hand on my genitals. I was uncomfortable [because of argument] and she kept going and I …and we engaged in sexual activity. I touched her breast, and she went down and started putting her mouth on my genitals and I told her that she didn’t have to do this [and] her apology was enough for me. She said she wanted to do this and after some time I finished…on my bed.
34On February 20 after the defendant had completed work, the couple went for a walk. On their return to his room, they watched a movie. The defendant testified that as they did so, the complainant put her hand on his genitals and said she wanted to have sex. He was aware that the complainant was on her period. He used a condom, and they had sexual intercourse. After this, she was happy and said they were a real couple, or “something along those lines”. However, the following day, the couple argued again, and the complainant said she wanted to return to Scarborough.
35On February 22 the defendant came home from work around 6 am and went to sleep. He gave confusing testimony about whether he wanted a divorce and whether he expected the complainant to leave on her own. At 8 am, the complainant awakened him. He contacted a driver to take her to Scarborough and took her luggage outside when that person arrived. The complainant did not get into the car but said she did not want to leave; she wanted to live with the defendant. The defendant, angered by this, took the luggage back inside and tried to go to sleep. In the afternoon, the complainant told him she wanted to go to Scarborough. The defendant ordered a driver and the complainant left that evening.
36On February 24, the defendant was awakened by police officers and arrested. He was eventually charged with the present offences.
37The defendant denied all other charges as well. He explained that the lock on the bedroom door can be unlocked from the inside, and it is not possible, as asserted by the complainant, to lock someone in that room from outside. He agreed that the complainant had a “marriage necklace”, a thin gold necklace that she received at their wedding ceremony. He did not see her wear it in Canada and did not choke her with it. He denied hitting the complainant with a charging cord or his slipper. He did not damage her phone and luggage.
ANALYSIS
38The Crown carries the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This fundamental principle of law means that if the defendant has called evidence, there must be an acquittal where the testimony is believed or where the testimony is not believed but raises a reasonable doubt. An acquittal will follow even if the defence evidence is rejected, but the remaining evidence fails to convince, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty (R. v. W(D), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742).
39Probable guilt is not the criminal law standard of proof - it is closer to certainty. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense which must be logically based on the evidence or lack of evidence (R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33). In applying the standard, I can accept some, part, or none of what a witness states. The testimony of a witness is assessed based on the person’s credibility and reliability.
40Defence counsel submits that the defendant presented a clear, logical, and compelling account of what transpired between him and the complainant. He was not evasive and admits to changing his mind about their relationship. Counsel suggests this is a reasonable response to the complainant’s repeated change in intention as revealed by her words and actions. Counsel argues that there is no basis to reject the defendant’s denial of all allegations, including the consensual nature of the sexual activity described by the complainant.
41Defence counsel asserts that the complainant cannot be believed. She insisted the defendant knew she was coming to Canada, but the details changed when she was challenged; she testified he booked her flight, then said he did not but was aware she had done so. She said the defendant called her when she arrived in Canada but then admitted she arrived a day before him. Counsel submits that the complainant went to the police with these false allegations once she realized he did not want her to be in Canada, and she was suspicious of his relationship with another woman. In this regard, it was noted that the complainant faced “cultural pressure to live wither husband and was worried about what people in India would think about the situation”.
42The Crown submits that the complainant’s evidence about the sexual offences is clear and compelling. Any inconsistencies are minor, as is the case with all other allegations. Counsel disputes the Defence suggestion that the complainant fabricated the allegations because the defendant had rejected her, pointing out that doing so does not address the “cultural shame”. The Crown suggests there are material inconsistencies in the defendant’s account of events, including the fact that the couple had consensual sexual activity, given the fractured relationship.
43I asked Crown and Defence counsel what, if anything, I should take from the complainant’s comments after completing her testimony; she asked me when this decision would be rendered so that she could know what the defendant’s intentions are about their relationship. Both lawyers agree that nothing definitive can be concluded from her remarks. Defence counsel adds that the comments confirm the importance of the marital relationship to the complainant. The Crown causations that I do not engage in inappropriate assumptions about how sex assault complainants act after the fact. I agree with counsel that no conclusions can be drawn. The complainant’s comments seem odd, but I cannot be certain what she meant by them. Neither the lawyers nor I pursued the matter with her. In these circumstances, I ignore her comments.
44My general assessment of the two witnesses is that they are an immature couple whose relationship was made more difficult because of their sensitivity to parental opinions. These observations are not a judgment on the “cultural issues”; they are relevant because they influenced how the parties acted at the time and coloured their testimony at trial. Leaving aside, for the moment, the sexual assault allegations, this general assessment, in itself, disposes of the other charges. It is a challenge to determine what happened. This challenge is fatal to the Crown’s case. Moreover, I note that the damage to the complainant’s phone and luggage borders on trifling, as are the injuries allegedly caused by the slipper and charging cord. It does not seem possible for the complainant to be choked with the slender and delicate marriage necklace.
45In the several months between their honeymoon and December 2024, the defendant and complainant argued frequently about the state of their marriage. He testified that in December, he told the complainant and her family that he was not committed to the marriage. This may have been clear to him and less clear to the others. The complainant arrived in Canada in January 2025, only to learn her husband would not communicate with her. She was understandably confused, fearful, and angry. Nevertheless, her insistence that he knew she was coming to Canada is difficult to accept. The couple had just been in India together. Why not come to Canada together? If it was agreed they would come separately, why would the complainant arrive a day ahead of the defendant, not knowing anyone in this country? The likely explanation for her presence in Canada is that she did not accept her husband’s mixed messages about the state of their marriage and wanted to force the issue.
46The defendant was startled to learn the complainant had come to Canada. His response, to use a dated, but apt, description, was to act like a scoundrel; he abandoned her for several weeks. After they moved to his rented room, attempts to reconcile proved fruitless. This was marked by posturing on both sides: Will the defendant commit or will he not? Will the complainant stay, or will she go?
47There is no controversy that the parties engaged in oral sex and sexual intercourse in the five days they were together. The complainant testified that the oral sex occurred on February 20. This is not in her statement to the police. She denied the defendant slept on a mattress on the floor. When shown a photograph of the room in which they lived that depicts a mattress on the floor beside the bed, she denied it had been there. The complainant was adamant that her heavy menstrual period caused her to leave much blood on the bedsheet after the sexual intercourse. The photographs do not support this. Perhaps the defendant washed the sheets before his arrest. If so, he left a small blood spot on the sheet.
48The question is whether the Crown has proven the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity. Crown counsel suggests the testimony of the complainant was clear and compelling. Defence counsel suggests the same about the defendant. I disagree. As already noted, there are difficulties with the testimony of both witnesses; I cannot say that either one was entirely truthful or accurate. This dictates the result in this case. Especially important is that, at the end of the day, I cannot articulate reasons to reject the evidence of the defendant, notwithstanding the difficulties with his testimony. As such, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
49The Crown has not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The charges are dismissed.
50I appreciate the assistance given to me by the strong advocacy of both lawyers in this case.
Released: April 28, 2026
Signed: Justice J. De Filippis