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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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
Toronto Region
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
N.B.
Before Justice C. Faria
Heard on April 28, June 2, 3, 4, 13, July 14, 17, 18, August 15,
September 10, 22, 29, October 2, 6, November 12, 2025,
January 19, 23, 27, February 26, March 4, 12, 26, and May 7, 2026
Oral Decision on May 26, 2026
Written Reasons for Judgment released June 11, 2026
Ysolt Brar counsel for the Crown
David Zbarsky counsel for the defendant NB
I. Overview
1NB was charged with 11 offences: two counts of sexual assault; two counts of assault; criminal harassment; mischief; theft; and four counts of failing to comply with various release orders.
2The complainant in all the charges was NB’s ex-girlfriend, MP. The allegations are to have occurred at different points in time between January 2020 and May 2023. The events were alleged to have taken place in London, Niagara Falls, and Toronto.
3The Crown proceeded summarily on all charges as the Defence waived any applicable limitation periods.
4This case encountered numerous challenges. The amalgamation of Informations led to 4.5-year criminal proceeding which included recalling the complainant to testify, holding a bail hearing and accepting a guilty plea to a new charge that arose during the trial.1
5Six charges have been resolved by way of dismissal, a stay, or an acquittal.2
6The Defence conceded the Crown had proven three counts of failing to comply with release conditions beyond a reasonable doubt. There will be a finding of guilt on Counts 7, 8, and 9.
7After 14 days of evidence over the course of 23 appearances, only two charges are left in dispute: an assault and a sexual assault.
8This was only a two-witness trial, the complaint for the Crown and NB in his own defence. The only issue is the credibility and reliability of the two witnesses.
9These are my reasons for judgment on the two disputed counts.
II. Legal Principles
1As in every criminal case, NB is presumed innocent. The burden rests on the Crown to prove the essential elements of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. Reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense from the evidence or lack of evidence.3
2As the Defence raised that MP fabricated the allegations, I instructed myself that the accused is not required to demonstrate the complainant had a motive to fabricate evidence. Nor does the absence of a motive to fabricate conclusively establish that a complainant is telling the truth. “The presence or absence of a motive to fabricate evidence is only one factor to be considered in assessing credibility”.4
3On the count of sexual assault, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that NB touched MP directly or indirectly; he touched her intentionally; the touching took place in circumstances of a sexual nature; she did not consent to the touch; and NB knew MP did not consent to the sexual activity in question.
4On the count of assault, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that NB intentionally applied force on MP without her consent.
5There is no dispute that if MP’s evidence is accepted each element of the offences is made out.
6Credibility relates to whether a witness is speaking the truth as she/he/they believe it to be. Reliability relates to the actual accuracy of the testimony. The witness’ ability to accurately observe, recall, and recount the events must be assessed. A credible witness may give unreliable evidence.5 Accordingly, there is a distinction between a finding of credibility and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.6 The credibility and reliability of a witness must be “tested in the light of all the other evidence presented.”7
7In assessing a witness’ testimonial account, I must consider its internal consistency; its consistency with previous accounts; the significance of any inconsistencies; a witness’ interest in the outcome of the case if any; and whether an account is inherently logical.
8To assess reliability, I must consider the circumstances of the observer, the recollection of events over time, the intentional or unintentional tainting by other sources of information; a witness’ mental capabilities and limitations if any; their level of sophistication, and to a lesser degree the witness’ testimonial demeanor to name a few.
9As NB testified, the applicable analytical framework is that of W.(D.)8:
i. If I accept NB’s evidence, I must acquit him.
ii. Even if I do not accept NB’s evidence, if it raises a reasonable doubt, I must acquit him.
iii. Even if I do not accept NB’s evidence, nor it raises a reasonable doubt, on the totality of the evidence I do accept, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the Crown has proven every element of the offence.
III. Positions of the Parties
A. The Crown
10Ms. Brar for the Crown submitted that the testimony of MP over the course of the long trial reflected the nature of intimate partner violence in the long, volatile and tumultuous relationship between her and NB. MP’s evidence should be evaluated in that context as should her attempts to end the prosecution. The Crown submitted MP was easily confused and unsophisticated but also easily admitted uncertainty which enhanced her credibility. The Crown submitted the core narrative of both disputed charges was credible and reliable, and both the assault and the sexual assault have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
11The Crown further submits that NB’s admissions of constant contact support MP’s description of their relationship. He minimized his own responsibility and tried to justify his behaviour even as he knowingly repeatedly breached his releases. She submits that NB’s unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious undermined his credibility and his evidence should be rejected and does not raise a reasonable doubt.
B. The Defence
12Mr. Zbarsky for the Defence submits that MP is neither credible nor reliable. She fabricated the assault allegation and went to the police because NB had sent her nasty text messages. He disputes the photos taken by the police depict an injury.
13The Defence further submits that MP was inconsistent about the exact details of the January 12, 2020, sexual assault. The Defence submits that MP fabricated this allegation because she was romantically rejected by NB.
14The Defence emphasized that MP has repeatedly reported NB for wrongdoing and has no difficulty with NB being in jail. He argues that given her attempts to end the prosecution, she cannot be believed.
15In contrast, Mr. Zbarsky submits that NB testified truthfully and admitted breaching his Releases. He submits the court should accept NB’s evidence that he neither assaulted nor sexually assaulted MP. In the alternative, if his evidence is not accepted, it should raise a reasonable doubt, and NB should be acquitted on both charges.
IV. Summary of Evidence
16I have reviewed the entirety of the evidence but will only summarized some of the more salient portions in these reasons.
A. Background
17Both witnesses testified that:
i. NB and MP are originally from Afghanistan and speak Dari. They met online via a social media chat group of people of Afghan origin in the diaspora.
ii. They proceeded to communicate privately via social media with each other before they met for the first time.
iii. MP has children from a previous relationship and originally lived in London, Ontario when she met NB for the first time. She moved to an apartment in Toronto around June 2021. NB lived in Brampton.
iv. The two had an argument on November 23, 2021, after which MP went to the police with an allegation of an assault that occurred that day, and a sexual assault that occurred when they first met in January 2020. NB was arrested on November 24, 2021, and released.
v. NB was arrested several times since November 23, 2021, for communicating with and being in the company of MP.
B. Allegations
18MP testified that on November 23, 2021, she met with a lawyer to discuss sponsoring her family to Canada. She told NB this, but he did not believe her. He thought she went out with another man. He was angry and jealous. When she arrived home after the appointment, NB was waiting for her at her building. He opened her car door and slapped her face repeatedly and took her phone. He told to park her car and come to his car. She did as she was told to get her phone back.
19Once MP was in NB’s car, he drove MP to the front of the building. She tried to get out of the car but was unable to. NB drove her to the Eglington and Don Mills area. She tried to get out of the car again but was unsuccessful. NB punched MP in the face hard while she sat in the passenger seat. Her nose started to bleed. She struck him back. He eventually drove her home. She had a black eye afterward.
20MP testified she went to the police station that evening and made a statement. The photos an officer took of her face, and the screenshots of the messages on her phone from NB, were made exhibits.
21MP also testified that the first time she met NB in person, on January 12, 2020, he sexually assaulted her. They met in the parking lot of a London Ontario Costco. NB drove to a beach nearby and parked. She testified NB forcibly kissed her. He kissed “various” parts including her face, her shoulders, her forehead, cheeks, mouth and neck. She pushed him away. During this incident, MP testified NB damaged the necklace she was wearing. She was shaking and scared but pretended to be “normal” and they talked for several hours. He took photos of her with his phone and sent them to her. In cross-examination MP was unclear if she agreed she told police NB had also touched her breasts, but she did agree she did not testify in court to this.
22NB testified that neither the assault nor the sexual assault happened.
23NB testified he was breaking up with MP on November 23, 2021, because he thought she was with another man. He sent her “nasty” messages. He tried to say goodbye, but MP wanted him to come to her building and break up in person. He testified that he met MP that evening, he drove her to a bar, a restaurant and then he drove her home. He testified he messaged her from the early afternoon until about 10:00 p.m. He testified he did not hit MP.
24NB also testified he never forcibly kissed MP during their first meeting. They had a good time and talked while at the beach. She called him while he drove home and the next day. He disputes he caused any damage to her necklace. They continued to have regular contact until she made the assault and sexual assault allegations in November 2021 and indeed continued contact thereafter.
C. The relationship
25MP testified that NB’s had always been jealous and controlling. At one point he deleted her friend’s numbers on her phone. He frequently wanted to know where she was, who with, and what she was doing. He asked her what she was wearing, and what was she eating. She testified: “I use to say no 1000 times but he follow me at every point or at any place in Ontario, if I use to go to the mall, he would come, if I go to outlet mall, if I go to restaurant.” She also testified that she voluntarily going to restaurants, going to his place, and talking on the phone, sometimes daily, sometimes many times a day, sometimes for hours at a time on video calls.
26The contact continued after NB’s first arrest in November 2021 and over the years. MP testified she “used to feel bad for him” “because he’s so emotional”. The messages he sent her were upsetting and made her angry, but they were also “a routine thing of everyday business.” She deleted many of them because they impacted her negatively.
27NB generally agreed he continued to contact MP while prohibited from doing so, but from his point of view, MP wanted him to contact her, he did not do it as often as she claimed, and she was content with his contact. He filed photos of their outings in support of his assertion that MP enjoyed spending time with him.
28NB testified it was MP who pursued him romantically and harassed him. He gave her gifts and paid her hydro bill when she asked him. He filed messages he said he sent her trying to end the relationship. MP did not acknowledge receiving these messages with no date but conceded she used some of the language in the messages when speaking to NB. At times she professed her affection, at other times she insulted him.
29NB acknowledged he did not think it appropriate for MP to be friends with other men while she was spending time with him. He felt she was involved with a man in Turkey, himself and her ex-husband. He told her “Multiple times that ‘you are still married, you have not gotten your divorce yet and you want to be in a relationship with me, and this is not appropriate, or this is not correct.’ ”
30He also testified that pursuant to his beliefs, women should be friends with women, not with men and he “personally do not want a person who is friends with someone to be friends with three or four other people.” However, he just told her this was not good, he did not delete her friend group contacts.
31Both MP and NB described the relationship as tumultuous.
D. MP’s attempts to stop the prosecution
32MP made several attempts to stop the prosecution of NB.
33First, she sent a handwritten note to the Officer in Charge (OIC) after consultation with NB, who helped her with some words, and promised not to upset her again. She wrote she wanted the case against NB to end, she wanted to “take back” her report, she was “really upset that day”, she did not “know what she said”, she made a “mistake” and wanted the case “deleted.” She sent the letter to NB.
34MP’s second attempt was an email she sent the OIC on November 24, 2021. She wrote she “take back” her report because she was “madly nervous”, was “not okay”, did not know what she said, and wanted the “case from his name” removed. She sent this email to NB as well to show she was trying to end the case.
35MP’s third attempt was after she finished her evidence she wanted to speak directly to the court and provide input on how to get NB out of jail.
36MP’s fourth attempt was an affidavit she electronically signed and provided to defence counsel after she finished testifying. This required MP to be re-called as a witness. She testified that after she finished her evidence, NB called her from the jail. They discussed how she could assist getting him out of jail. She testified he gave her telephone numbers for lawyers, but when she made the calls, the people were not lawyers. This upset her and she told him so the next time he called her from the jail. He finally gave her the number of a lawyer.
37MP testified she met a lawyer twice without an interpreter. She did not read the affidavit which was written in English, and it was not translated for her before she e-signed it. In the affidavit, she deposes that NB did not force sexual intercourse, misunderstood her body language, did not intend to assault her, she forgives NB, and she did not lie. She acknowledged some of the contents and denied she understood other parts.
38MP’s fifth attempt to end the prosecution was a document named an affidavit, but which is unsigned. She testified her daughter wrote this document using the affidavit she made with the lawyer so that a Brampton prosecution could end.
39In essence, she reiterated she had not lied to the court, but she wanted this case to end and she forgives NB.
40NB acknowledged he received the handwritten letter and the email from MP shortly after he was first arrested.
41NB also acknowledge that he called MP while in custody from Maplehurst numerous times and they discussed how the case could end. He denied providing MP with any numbers for lawyers.
V. Analysis
42The essence of the allegation is that on November 23, 2021, after an angry jealous argument, NB slapped and punched MP in the face. She sustained a black eye. She went to the police late that evening to report the assault, and while making her statement, told police that NB had forcibly kissed and touched her during their first meeting on January 12, 2020. NB denied either event happened.
43This is a classic case where the court will exercise the oft repeated principle that a court can accept some, none, or all of a witness’ evidence.
44I accept the evidence of both parties that this was a tumultuous relationship. I accept that sometimes the relationship went well, and sometimes they argued. I accept the evidence of both parties that MP sometimes needed NB and asked for his help, and he did help her.
45My focus will be on why I accept MP’s evidence on the elements of the assault and sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, and why I reject NB’s evidence on the same two charges, and it does not raise a reasonable doubt.
A. Credibility and Reliability: MP
46MP was a long-winded, repetitive, reluctant, and at times, confused witness who preferred to speak in generalities. She had difficulty remembering dates, and responding directly to both open ended and pointed questions. I evaluate and analyze her evidence thoroughly without the distraction of personality erroneously affecting my assessment of her credibility and reliability on these two charges.
47MP testified for about 9 days over the course of months. I had the opportunity to listen to her closely and observe her carefully. She was regularly asked to repeat and explain herself, her evidence was assertively challenged and sometimes undermined. Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court have recognized the trial judge’s unique vantage point when assessing the credibility and reliability of a witness, and considering the commonsense context of their evidence9 – and this court had an extensive opportunity to assess MP (and NB).
48MP tended to be dramatic. For instance, she testified: she brushed her teeth “12, 13 times” when she got home after her first meeting with NB because of the forced kissing. She told him “1000” times she did not want to speak to him; and she corrected counsel that she had not said to police she had 4000 missed calls, but rather 7000 missed calls on her phone. However, I find these exaggerations did not undermine the core point she was making, that she did not want the kissing, she told him not to contact her, and he frequently called her, and she did not answer. She was unshaken on the description of the events these numbers referred to.
49MP was sometimes confused about dates, particularly which years were being referred to. She admitted “not everything was in her memory” because years had passed since the incidents. The inconsistencies that counsel referred to in submissions, and there were many, and the Crown acknowledged, are in my view, the result of the length of the relationship, the number of charges, and the generality of some of the questions. Her candor about her confusion enhanced her credibility though at times it undermined her reliability about these points.
50Ultimately, the only inconsistency of note about the core narrative regarding the two disputed charges was that she told police NB forcible kissed her breast, but she did not testify to that detail. In my view, that is not significant.
51Counsel relied on MP’s 4 documented attempts to end the prosecution to submit she is not credible and not reliable. I do not agree.
52Neither the written note and nor the email MP sent to police shortly after she reported the allegations recant the allegations. She never says she was not hit, and she never says she was not forcibly kissed.
53Her note and email focus on her mindset, that of being upset, and her objective, which is to have the case against NB end. Moreover, both written attempts are made with the assistance of NB and provided to NB as proof that she is trying to “end” the case.
54The affidavit she had a lawyer prepare with no interpreter elaborates on these two same themes: self blame; and ending the prosecution. There are several errors in the affidavit that demonstrate that counsel was not fully apprised of the circumstances, and MP was unable to accurately communicate with counsel. The style of cause was for Brampton, but the affidavit deals with the Toronto case. The year they met is incorrect. The month MP first went to police is incorrect. There was never any allegation of forced sexual intercourse but that is what the affidavit refers to. This affidavit is another reflection of MP’s efforts to “end the case” as instructed by NB and her own desire to end this matter.
55Similarly, the unsigned document that MP’s daughter wrote and emailed to the Victim Witness Assistance Program contains the same lack of reliability as the affidavit MP electronically signed for the lawyer. MP’s daughter wrote it in English, MP did not review it, some of it was copied from the affidavit the lawyer drafted, and it also contained obvious inaccuracies.
56In all 4 documents, MP tries to blame herself. In the last two she projects an innocent state of mind on NB, which of course is not her role to determine. She minimizes NB’s conduct and imputes a specific mindset to his actions, which she would be unaware of, unless of course, NB shared his thoughts with her. For instance, the document states NB “misinterpreted her body language” not that he did not forcible kiss her. She reiterates she “denied his advances”. She confirms she was injured but believes NB caused the injury “unintentionally” and it may have been caused “accidentally”.
57She repeatedly testifies she forgives NB. There is no need for forgiveness where there is no wrongdoing.
58MP’s behaviour must be evaluated in the context of her relationship with NB. She cared for him, she pitied him, she needed him, and she was vulnerable to him. NB’s behaviour was controlling, demanding, and persistent, but it was also kind, and loving, and he helped her when she needed him.
59There is clear evidence NB helps MP. For instance, he paid her hydro bill when her electricity was threatened to be cut off. He went on deliveries with her when she was scared of men she was delivering orders to. He suggested who could help with her mother’s immigration status when she needed sponsoring signatures. She testified “he was not always abusive”, “he has had a lot of good things, he was showing a lot of love”, “he was as good person as well” and he “helped her. She said “I also believe that he truly loved me”. He was a man of personality,” and “He is a good guy and I don’t know why he did it.” “He asked me to do whatever he wants, and I was doing all of those things but still he was not happy.”
60The evidence is also clear that NB was jealous, angry, demanding and controlling. NB himself confirmed some of these characteristics. For instance, he confirmed:
(i) He called her a prostitute/bitch for not picking up his calls.
(ii) He incessantly messaged her from 1 p.m. till past 10:00 p.m. for not answering his call.
(iii) He criticized her for having 3 male friends as against his beliefs and told her this was not right.
(iv) He took photos of her while she slept without her consent.
(v) He attended her work while prohibited from doing so.
(vi) He called her from jail and discussed how she could “end” the case against him.
61MP testified to additional examples of NB’s behaviour that psychologically affected her:
(i) He deleted her friend’s numbers.
(ii) He called from different numbers and she was never sure who was calling,
(iii) He spent so much time at MP’s workplace, that her employer called the police on NB.
(iv) He routinely called her names and degraded her sexuality.
(v) He expected her to stay on the phone or hours as she went about her life.
62There is no evidence MP fabricated the allegations, in fact, there is no air of reality to the suggestion. The nasty messages NB referred to as motive to fabricate the assault, were simply “routine” nasty communications for MP. Similarly, NB’s intense communications to break up with MP, were also, “routine” in the context of this relationship. Such absence is not determinative she is speaking the truth; it is simply one factor to consider.
63When I assess the totality of MP’s evidence, I find she is credible and reliable on about the disputed charges, and the totality of the evidence supports her evidence including the photo exhibits, the social media messages filed, and even to some extent the evidence of NB. Her attempts to end the prosecution by minimizing, explaining, or forgiving what she says NB did, do not undermine what she reported and testified he did: hit her and forcibly kiss her.
B. Credibility and Reliability: NB
64NB also testified in a long-winded and dramatic manner responding to direct questions with generalities. He referred to narratives that were not at issue or not relevant. He was impatient and irritable when having to answer questions he felt he had already answered or required admissions he did not want to make. His evidence too must be assessed carefully and without erroneous emphasis on personality and demeanour to distract the evaluation of his credibility and reliability. I also had a lengthy opportunity to observe and evaluate his evidence.
65NB simply denied both allegations.
66Although these alleged events were some time ago, NB insisted his memory of those dates did not suffer from the time lapsed. In fact, he testified he remembered “every moment”. This was incorrect. For instance, he insisted that he met MP on January 12, 2021, not 2020, when the photos he sent MP seem to have been taken on his phone on January 12, 2020. It is not the inaccuracy that is concerning, given the age of the allegation, it is his insistence that he is correct about every detail when he clearly is not, that undermined his credibility.
67Another example of NB’s misplaced confidence in his memory was his testimony that MP was on the phone with him while she took her children to school in the morning, then drove to the police station to report him, while still on the phone. He acknowledges he was messaging MP, and she was not responding on November 23, 2021, and he saw her that evening before she went to the police. He is wrong about what MP did before reporting to the police. Such errors can be expected when testifying about multiple events over a period of years, however, it is NB’s insistence on his accuracy that undermines his credibility.
68NB’s description of the nature of the relationship was also not credible.
69At first, he testified he did not want and was not in a romantic relationship with MP. It was MP who pursued him, and he rejected her. However, in cross-examination, he admitted he did not like it when MP was texting others, just as “no one would when one side find out that the other person has in relationship with someone else” thus conceding he was involved with her. His evidence about his views on the morality of MP’s friendships also belies his assertion that he was not involved with her, as does his anger that he thought she was “with another man” on November 23, 2021, which precipitated his wanting to “say goodbye forever”.
70In re-examination, NB filed photos he had taken of MP sleeping to support his evidence that MP wanted him to be online even while she slept. He did not appreciate he was testifying to taking photos of MP without her consent.
71Moreover, although the messages NB sent MP on November 23, 2021, were not a complete record of his communications that day, the tone, persistence and content of the messages he did file clearly communicated anger, even rage. However, he would not acknowledge these feelings. Instead, testified he was just a little bit “sad” and “upset” when he wrote “prostitute, don’t answer?’ which he clarified he really meant in “bitch” in English, though that distinction is of no significance, since he testified “bitch” means “prostitute” in Dari.
72NB’s evidence that nothing happened when he went over to break up with MP is inconsistent with the level of rage NB’s messages that evening demonstrate.
73Although NB conceded he repeatedly contacted MP while on court orders not to, he blamed MP for his actions. She contacted him, and he merely responded. The overwhelming evidence is that NB knowingly, voluntarily, continually, consistently, and frequently contacted MP in contravention of his court orders. His blaming MP for his decisions undermines his credibility, particularly as even incarceration did not stop him from reaching out to MP and discussing how to “end” the case against him.
74Regarding his blanket denial of the sexual assault allegation of January 12, 2020, it is unclear what the photos he filed of the two having returned to the beach several times after that day are relevant to. Certainly not to any finding that MP’s post allegation conduct means she was or was not sexually assaulted. His undermined credibility on the nature of the relationship, also undermined his evidence on this event.
75I find NB’s evidence is neither credible nor reliable on the two disputed allegations.
C. Assault; November 23, 2021
76I find the photo exhibits clearly depict the 3 injuries MP described. She has red bruising, discolouration, and swelling around her left eyebrow by the temple, and just below her left eyelid in the first photo. She has a small cut to the inside of her upper lip in the second photo. She has a cut on the inside of her lower lip with discolouration and some bleeding. The injuries appear fresh due to both the colour and the bleeding in the cut.
77I accept MP’s evidence and find that NB slapped MP’s face and punched her in the eye while in his car on the evening of November 12, 2021. I reject NB’s narrative that he went to her home to say goodbye, they went to a bar, a restaurant, he drove her home, and nothing happened. It does not raise a reasonable doubt.
78On the evidence I do accept, I find NB slapped and punched MP and the Crown has proven the charge of assault beyond a reasonable doubt.
D. Sexual Assault: January 12, 2020
79As referred to earlier, the only notable inconsistency to MP’s evidence about the sexual assault of January 12, 2020, was that she told the police NB had forcibly kissed her breast as well as her face, forehead, neck, and clavicle. I do not find this omission of significance.
80I have carefully reviewed the photos taken of MP on January 12, 2020. The first photo taken at 12:18 p.m. depicts MP’s flower necklace snuggled and circling her throat. Such a necklace is commonly called a choker necklace. The nomenclature of the necklace is not important. The second photo taken at 6:11 p.m. depicts the same necklace hanging lower on her chest and slightly misshaped from the earlier photo. I find the necklace was damaged in some way.10
81I also note that MP’s face is slightly discoloured, and her eyes do appear more red and slightly swollen, consistent with MP’s evidence that she had cried after the sexual assault. To be clear, neither a damaged necklace nor indica of crying corroborate MP was sexually assaulted, but both do support her version of events. I accept her evidence that NB forcibly kissed her without her consent. I reject his evidence that it did not happen, and it does not raise a reasonable doubt.
82On the totality of the evidence, I find the Crown has proven NB did on January 12, 2020, sexually assault MP.
VI. Conclusion
83For the reasons provided, I find NB guilty on the following counts:
Count 1: Sexual Assault, January 12, 2020
Count 4: Assault, November 24, 2021
Count 7, Fail to Comply – Undertaking, December 1, 2021 to March 28, 2022
Count 8, Fail to Comply – Release Order, November 7, 2022 to May 19, 2023
Count 9, Fail to Comply – Release Order, January 1, 2023 to February 28, 2023
Released: June 11, 2026
Signed: Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
Footnotes
- These challenges included an internet outage, technical glitches, interpretation of documents issues, inmate transportation issues, health virus outbreaks and cleaning requirements, additional charges laid, scheduling issues, and the need to re-call the victim witness after she finished her evidence, to name a few.
- Counts 5, 10, and 11 for assault, mischief and theft were dismissed for lack of evidence. Count 6, for a fail to comply was stayed as the timeframe overlapped with another charge. There was a finding of not guilty on Count 3 criminal harassment as the evidence was unclear and inconsistent. Count 2 for sexual assault was also a finding a of not guilty for the same reason.
- R. v. Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 at para. 39.
- R. v. Batte (2000) CanLII 5751 (OCA) at para. 121.
- R. v. Morrissey, 1995 CanLII 3498 (ON CA), [1995] O.J. No. 639 (C.A.) at para 33; R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, [2009] O.J. No. 214 (C.A.) at para 41.
- R. v. J.J.R.D., 2006 CanLII 40088 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 4749 (C.A.) at para 47; R.. v. J.W., [2014] O.J. No. 1979 (C.A.) at para 26.
- R. v. Stewart, 1994 CanLII 7208 (ON CA), [1994] O.J. No. 811 (C.A.) at para 27.
- R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742
- R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7.
- Exhibits 5a, 5b, and 5c.