Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2020-10-22

Court File No.: Sudbury 193233, 194506 and 194438

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— AND —

Jason Lyle Rebellato

Before: Justice André L. Guay

Heard on: September 15 and 16, 2020

Reasons for Judgment released on: October 22, 2020

Counsel:

• Stephanie Baker, counsel for the Crown
• Robert Beckett, counsel for the accused Jason Lyle Rebellato

GUAY J.:

1: CHARGES

[1] The accused, Jason Lyle Rebellato, was charged with a number of offences, including two charges of assaulting the complainant, Rebecca Levac. His other charges were in relation to breaches of related court orders, importantly two breaches of a probation order made on April 11, 2017. The accused pled not guilty to all charges against him except for the one charging him with breaching a recognizance not to communicate with the complainant.

[2] The most serious charge the accused is facing is the charge respecting assault causing bodily harm to the complainant on August 1, 2019. The second set of charges faced by the accused involves an assault on the complainant with a weapon on November 11, 2019, a few months after the date of the first set of charges.

2: BACKGROUND

[3] On April 11, 2017, the accused was convicted of charges involving abuse of an intimate partner. The three-year probation order imposed on him with respect to those charges contained a provision directing him to inform his probation officer if he was intending to become involved in an intimate domestic partner relationship. Pursuant to this condition, the accused was also to provide to his probation officer sufficient information to allow her to meet with the prospective partner in advance of him entering into such relationship.

[4] At trial, Erin Olesen-Schinke, the accused's probation officer, testified that she had assumed supervision of the accused in November 2017. Shortly after assuming supervision, she met with the accused to review his obligations under the probation order, in particular, the condition relating to his intention of entering into an intimate domestic partner relationship. It was clear from her testimony that not only had the accused not been honest with her in disclosing the existence of his relationship with the complainant, Rebecca Levac, but that he had not given her advance warning of his intention to enter into such a relationship with her. She learned about that relationship on or about August 6, 2019, after the accused was charged with the offences which occurred on August 1, 2019. She also testified that she had received information from the accused's mother relating to changes in his medication and his negative responses to same during the period leading up to the August 2019 charges.

[5] The accused and the complainant started their relationship in February 2018. They had previously had some contact with each other. Not long after the start of their relationship, and for practical reasons, the accused moved into the complainant's home at 620 Ash Street in the City of Greater Sudbury.

[6] The evidence indicated that it did not take very long for the relationship to run into trouble. While he was apparently a good construction worker, the accused appeared to be suffering from a number of emotional or psychological issues, including those of extreme jealousy and suspicion towards men with whom the complainant worked or had contact through her work. At the time they met, the accused had worked for Canada Builders for approximately six (6) months. The complainant, however, had worked for many years for FedEx at their warehouse in the City of Greater Sudbury. She testified that she was proud to have secured and maintained this position given that it was traditionally a position reserved for men.

3: CHARGES OF AUGUST 1, 2019

[7] The evidence clearly disclosed a pattern of growing animosity on the accused's part towards the complainant and her employment in the period leading up to August 1, 2019, the date of his first assault on the complainant. As their relationship progressed, the accused had become more and more stressed and agitated towards the complainant. He made constant and numerous telephone calls to her at work and sent her numerous text messages regarding her employment and the men with whom she had business there. In these calls and texts, the accused accused the complainant of cheating on him and being unfaithful to him. He seemed fixated on what the complainant was doing during her lunch breaks, being greatly displeased when she would change the time in which she took her lunch if there was a need to finish serving a customer.

[8] There was something frighteningly alarming in the accused's insistence on controlling the complainant. It was clear that the complainant, who had been previously married and worked for over 10 years in the business world, would not let the accused's complaints cause her to leave her employment.

[9] In an attempt to secure direct and immediate access to the complainant at her place of work, the accused bought her cell phone. When on August 1, 2019, she forgot her cell phone at home, he suspected the worst in her behaviour. After trying to reach her a number of times that morning, he texted her telling her that he was coming to pick her up at work so that he could bring her home to discuss their relationship and an upcoming family reunion.

[10] Upon arriving at the complainant's place of work, the accused was confronted by a customer, George Demers. George Demers testified that he sensed the complainant's anxiety and nervousness when the accused came into the company's warehouse. Confronted by George Demers, the accused drew back and went outside to wait for the complainant in order to take her home.

[11] The accused's evidence was not clear about what his plans were for the rest of the day after he and the complainant had had lunch and discussed what was troubling him. While he maintained that he had intended to return to work that afternoon, he also stated that once home, he had changed out of his work clothes into more casual summer wear.

[12] The complainant testified that before driving home, the accused had intentionally thrown his coffee all over her. Once home, it did not take long for the situation to escalate. When the complainant refused to admit to the accused that she had been cheating on him while at work, he slapped her in the face. He then told her to "get out of his face". The complainant went upstairs to the bathroom to clean herself up. I accept the complainant's evidence on what transpired upstairs in the residence where it conflicts with the accused's testimony.

[13] The accused followed the complainant upstairs to the bathroom. Once in the bathroom, he put his arm around her neck and choked her. The complainant testified that she thought she was going to die. It was probably at this point that the accused poured a container of orange juice over her head.

[14] The accused next punched the complainant in the groin. Given the accused's preoccupation with the complainant's alleged sexual misbehaviour and unfaithfulness, I find this was clearly an act of sexual assault and not one of physical assault. The complainant testified that the blow caused her to strike her head against the shower stall. I find that the blood left by the complainant on the shower stall is corroborative of her version of what happened in the bathroom.

[15] According to the complainant's further testimony, the accused's assaultive behavior towards her continued once the parties went back downstairs to the kitchen. At this point, it is clear that the complainant had not yet realized how bad the situation had become.

[16] According to the complainant, the accused next threatened to tie her up in the basement and kill her. That is when, according to her evidence, she became terrified. In an attempt to defend herself, the complainant managed to find a knife on the kitchen counter and used it to fend off the accused, jabbing it at him. As the complainant tried to reach one of the doors leading her out of the house, the accused kept moving toward her to prevent her from doing so.

[17] It is clear from the evidence that in attempting to fend off the accused, the complainant grabbed a knife and cut the tip of the accused's thumb and the back of his leg. The accused finally managed to grab the complainant and pushed her onto the kitchen floor while she was still holding the knife. According to the complainant, the accused then sat astride her upper back while he tried to force her to release her grip on the knife. Initially unable to do so, the accused violently struck the back of the complainant's head with his fist at least once causing her to loosen her grip on the knife. Having succeeded in doing so, the accused secured control of the knife and placed it on the kitchen counter.

[18] At some point during this episode, the complainant was able to make a 911 call for help. It was not long after she made this call that the police arrived at the door of the house. By this time, however, both parties had showered, the complainant for the second time. Both were still wet when the police arrived, entered the house and found them hiding together upstairs.

[19] Photographic evidence of the complainant's injuries and copies of her hospital records relating to the assault disclosed numerous abrasions and bruises to all parts of her body. Among these injuries were two severely blackened eyes, a cut to her forehead requiring a number of stitches, bruising to her neck indicating, together with her difficulty swallowing, choking, welts to the back of her legs (most likely inflicted by the accused hitting her with his belt in the bathroom) and bruising to her neck. Despite what the accused would have us believe happened in his confrontation with the complainant, the evidence indicates that his actions towards her were overpowering and physically very aggressive. His anger towards her and his will to control and dominate her emerge clearly from the many injuries she received at his hands.

[20] In her testimony, the complainant stated that her grip on the knife was as strong as it was because she believed that she would die at his hands if she let go her grip on the knife. Notwithstanding the accused's attempt to portray what transpired on August 1, 2019, as the fault of the complainant and his response to her unfaithfulness, I find that he was the principal actor in the aggression which unfolded in the parties' residence on August 1, 2019. The slight injuries incurred by the accused, including the small wounds to the back of one of his legs and to one of his thumbs were the direct consequence of the complainant using the knife she found on the kitchen counter to defend herself.

[21] I find the nature of injuries the accused received on that occasion corroborative of the complainant's evidence that the knife was not used by her for an aggressive purpose but rather in self-defence. The accused's version of the struggle for control of the knife makes no sense whatsoever. He indicated that while sitting astride the complainant's back, the complainant, holding the knife in her left hand, was trying to stab him with the knife. This scenario is simply not credible, particularly when one considers that the complainant was right-handed and highly unlikely able to inflict any blows on the accused while she lay face down on the kitchen floor. The accused's blow to the back of the complainant's head and the fact that this blow enabled him to get control of the knife held by the complainant without much further effort on his part establishes who was in command of the struggle between the accused and the complainant.

[22] The accused's version of the events on the afternoon of August 1, 2019, clearly lacks an air of reality. The multiple injuries set out in the photographic and medical evidence inflicted by him on the complainant clearly establishes that these injuries were not trifling in nature. In listening to the complainant's version of those events, I was amazed at her apparent wish to minimize what had happened and get back to the "status quo" of the relationship existing prior to the accused's assault on her. There was no evidence of a negative animus on the complainant's part against the accused in describing what happened to her and what she had endured at the accused's hands. In giving her evidence, it is clear that the complainant was careful not to exaggerate the details of what happened to her. She remained sympathetic to the accused, referring to him at one point in her testimony as "brilliant". Even when the police had arrived at the door in response to her 911 call, there was a marked attempt on the complainant's part to shield the accused from the consequences of his frighteningly aggressive behaviour towards her.

[23] On the basis of the evidence in this matter, I find the accused guilty of the three charges brought against him arising from the events of August 1, 2019.

4: CHARGES OF NOVEMBER 11, 2019 (ASSAULT & BREACHES)

[24] This then brings us to the events occurring some months later on November 11, 2019. Again, here I find that the accused's version of what happened between him and the complainant also lacks an air of reality. The events which unfolded on the evening of November 11, 2019, did so against a background of the accused's escalating anxiety and anger toward the complainant. This was so despite the fact that by this time, she had obtained work for a different employer.

[25] Further to an undertaking given to the court with respect to the August 1, 2019 charges, the accused was not even supposed to be residing with the complainant at this time. The evidence indicated that almost immediately after being released on an interim release order, the accused breached that order by returning to live with the complainant at their home at 620 Ash Street. His reasons for doing so were that living in an apartment owned by his parents was too costly and he wanted to come home. Once again, ignoring the intimate domestic partner relationship condition contained in his probation order of April 11, 2017, the accused moved back into his residence with the complainant in complete disregard of his probation court order. It appears from the evidence that the complainant's motivation for allowing him to do so rested in her hope that her love for him and her tolerance of his bad behaviour would eventually lead him to change his controlling and aggressive ways.

[26] In answer to the allegation that he had assaulted the complainant with a television remote located in their bedroom, the accused maintained that he had only carelessly flung the remote away from where he had been holding it and that it accidentally ricocheted off the bed or the bedroom wall and struck the complainant. The complainant's version of what happened was that he had beaten her with the remote after verbally berating her.

[27] When she went to work at her new job the next morning, the complainant told a fellow co-worker what had happened to her the previous evening. With the encouragement of that co-worker, the complainant decided to call the police and tell them what had happened to her the previous evening.

[28] Even as the police were interviewing the complainant at her place of work, now located in the New Sudbury Shopping Centre, the accused had already attended at the Mall for the purpose of communicating with the complainant, contrary to the terms of his recognizance. While the accused may have been quiet and respectful toward the police on this occasion, he had reason to be. As indicated in the evidence of one of the officers involved in the Mall arrest of the accused, there was evidence that the accused had tried on a number of occasions earlier that morning to communicate electronically with the complainant. His behaviour on this occasion was reminiscent of the behavior which led up to the events which occurred on August 1, 2019.

[29] On the basis of the evidence with respect to the events which occurred on November 11, 2019, I find the accused guilty of assault with a weapon pursuant to s. 267(a) of the Code. I also find him guilty of breach of probation for not complying with the clause in his probation order regarding his duty to inform his probation officer of his intention to enter into a domestic, intimate, partner relationship, contrary to s. 733.1(1) of the Code.

[30] At the beginning of the trial, the accused pled guilty to communicating with the complainant on November 11, 2019, contrary to his earlier recognizance. I find the evidence supports that charge. I therefore find him guilty of that offence.

[31] With respect to the harassment charge of the same date, (November 11, 2019), it is clear from the evidence that while the accused made a number of calls to the complainant on that date, he did not cause the complainant to fear for her safety. While another person might have been frightened by the accused's many text messages, particularly after having been assaulted the night before with a television remote, fear of the accused on the complainant's part was not a component of this latest event. For this reason, and on the basis of the evidence respecting what transpired between the accused and the complainant on the evening of November 11, 2019, I do not find that the Crown has proven this charge beyond a reasonable doubt. I therefore acquit the accused of this charge.

[32] Lastly, I also acquit the accused of knowingly uttering a threat to cause death to the complainant on November 11, 2019. No evidence was led about a threat by the accused to cause death to the complainant on that occasion.

Released: October 22, 2020

Signed: Justice André L. Guay