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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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, 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 at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant's sexual integrity and that conduct 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 complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2020-12-28

Court File No.: Toronto, College Park 20-75001121

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— AND —

Ryan Oliver Walters

Before: Justice J. W. Bovard

Heard on: November 25, 26; December 11, 2020

Reasons for Judgment released on: December 28, 2020

Counsel:

• Mr. J. Spare — counsel for the Crown
• Mr. M. MacGregor — counsel for the accused Ryan Walters

Reasons for Judgment

Bovard J.:

Introduction

[1] On February 28, 2020, the police charged Ryan Walters with sexual assault, uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, and breach of a peace bond. These are the court's reasons for judgment after his trial.

[2] On February 28, 2020, Mr. Walters was a resident at a men's shelter on Sherbourne St. in Toronto. The complainant worked at the shelter as a cleaner. She alleges that while she was mopping the floor in the atrium, Mr. Walters approached her from the back, grabbed her by the waist and thrust his hips into her buttocks.

[3] She says that when she reached for her walkie talkie to call security, he told her not to do that and that he would "fuck you up".

[4] Mr. Walters says that he was intoxicated, and he accidentally bumped against the complainant as he tried to squeeze by her and her cleaning cart. He did not sexually assault her or tell her that he would "fuck you up". He just got worried and excited when she called security and he started swearing. He was afraid of losing his spot in the shelter because it was very cold outside.

[5] In addition, he was on a s. 810 peace bond and he feared being arrested for breaching it. He did not want to be sent back to jail after having been recently released after serving a lengthy prison term. Therefore, he would not have done what the complainant says that he did.

The Issue

[6] The issue is the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.

The Evidence

The Complainant

[7] The complainant said that just before her encounter with Mr. Walters she was mopping the floor in the atrium of the men's shelter where she works. She looked at the surveillance video of the atrium to help explain what occurred. She mopped to the left and then to the right, moving backwards. There were about 1 ½ feet between her and the wall. There was more space on her right between her and her cleaning cart than between her and the wall behind her on her left. However, she thought that a person could easily pass behind her on the left.

[8] As she was mopping, Mr. Walters came up behind her and held her by the waist with two hands and pulled her backwards. She felt her bum touch the lower part of his body, below the waist. He was not just trying to get around her. Although she had just moved to the left before he did this, she said that there was enough room to the left between her and the wall for him to get by.

[9] She was shocked. She gave out a cry – just noise. She was afraid. She did not consent to this touching. She turned and asked him why he did that. She had never spoken to him before. She had only seen him once before when he stepped over an area that she had just mopped.

[10] She called the office for help. In examination-in-chief, she said that he told her not to report the incident and not to tell anyone or he would "fuck me up". He pointed at her with his finger. In cross-examination, she said that he only told her that he was going to "fuck me up".

[11] Ms. Simranjit Gill, one of the staff in the office, came to her aid shortly. The complainant told her what happened and recreated the incident by pushing Ms. Gill with a thrust of her hips. Ms. Gill took the complainant to the office right away.

[12] While the complainant was in the office, she could see Mr. Walters outside of the office. The staff members told him to come into the office. They wanted to question him. He started shouting loudly and warning her. He told her that he was going to "fuck you up". She did not recall him saying "don't fuck me up" or "this will fuck me up".

[13] She did not hear him tell them to look at the surveillance video.

[14] Then the police came. She did not give them a statement then because she was in shock. She gave her statement on another day.

Ms. Simranjit Gill, Staff Worker

[15] Ms. Simranjit Gill is an intake worker at the men's shelter where this incident took place. On the night in question, she was working in the intake office. She knew the complainant as a person that worked at the shelter. She knew Mr. Walters as a resident of the shelter. He had been there for about one month when the incident occurred.

[16] While she was working that night, she received a distress call from the complainant to come downstairs where she was. At this point, Ms. Gill did not know that Mr. Walters was involved in the incident.

[17] Ms. Gill and her shift partner went to see the complainant immediately. On their way down the stairs Mr. Walters passed by them and told them that he did not do anything. He said that he tripped and fell into her.

[18] When they came upon the complainant, they found her "very shaken up" and "in tears". She told them that Mr. Walters grabbed her sexually. They took her to the intake office.

[19] Mr. Walters was at the intake office, too. Ms. Gill asked him why he grabbed the complainant. He said that he did not grab her, she was lying. Then he started threatening the complainant. He told her that she owed him money and that he was going to find her outside.

[20] The Crown asked Ms. Gill "…. you said that – he said, I'm going to find you outside. Is there anything else, that you recall, that he said"? Ms. Gill replied, "That was about it. He was just threatening her".

[21] Ms. Gill told Mr. Walters that he had to leave the shelter. He asked her what she was talking about and kept denying that he assaulted the complainant. He was angry and very upset. Mr. Walters was not in "the right frame of mind".

[22] The complainant was hesitant to leave the building to go home. Mr. Walters "kept trying to make, you know, trying to go get [the complainant] and again told her, I'm going to find you outside …"

[23] Finally, Mr. Walters left, and they called the police. The complainant was very afraid to go home alone so Ms. Gill took her home.

[24] Ms. Gill said that the shelter has policies against physical and verbal abuse of the employees. They also have policies against using drugs and any illegal activity. If a resident breaks these rules, they are told to leave the shelter.

[25] She said that there are surveillance video cameras throughout the building, including in the atrium where this incident took place. The residents know where they are.

[26] Many of the residents receive their support cheques at the end of the month. She helps to distribute the cheques to them. Many of them use their money to buy alcohol and other drugs.

[27] As a result of her constant contact with the residents of the shelter Ms. Gill is "extremely familiar with when people are intoxicated on drugs". Consequently, she was "absolutely" capable of assessing Mr. Walters' degree of sobriety that night.

[28] He looked as if he had been using drugs and alcohol. He was not acting as he normally did. He was "somewhat out of control" and seemed very angry and upset. He was not his usual self. He was acting erratically. He could have been intoxicated, but she could not say "a hundred percent".

[29] Mr. Walters told her to look at the surveillance video. She told him that management would investigate the situation.

[30] The surveillance video was made an exhibit, and that was the case for the Crown.

Mr. Walters

[31] Mr. Walters said that when this incident occurred, he was unemployed and receiving social assistance. He was homeless so he was staying at the shelter. He has been diagnosed with PTSD, depression, anti-social disorder and he abuses alcohol and other drugs.

[32] Recently, during the time leading up to the incident he was meeting a counsellor that was helping him to obtain housing. He had also finished a program through probation services concerning his alcohol abuse.

[33] On the day in question, he received his social assistance cheque. It was his birthday week, so he decided to celebrate. First, he went to visit his family in Scarborough. He left them around mid-day and went to buy beer, seven grams of cocaine, and marijuana. He has a licence for medical marijuana.

[34] Next, he went to the Metro Community Housing buildings around Morningside Avenue and Kingston Road in Scarborough where he used to live. He celebrated there for the rest of the day and into the night. He returned to the shelter between 10:00 PM and 10:30 PM in order not to lose his bed. The cut off time is 11:00 PM.

[35] He hung around the shelter and smoked a marijuana cigarette at the back. Then he decided to go to bed. Due to his intoxication from the various substances that he had consumed, he was ready to black out. He was "slurring". His motor skills were not good. In addition to the marijuana cigarette, he had drunk 12 beers between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM, and smoked a gram of crack cocaine.

[36] The drugs affected his balance. The crack affected his perception. But he maintained that the alcohol and drugs did not affect how he remembered the incident. He recalls that he bumped into the complainant by accident.

[37] He watched the surveillance video of the event and explained that on the way to his room he was going through the atrium where the complainant was mopping. He tried to get by her to the left, but she mopped to the left. There was no space to get by her on the left, so he tried to get by her on the right, but as he did this she mopped to the right. He slipped a bit because the floor was wet, and they had contact. He said, "my left thigh area, hip area here, that's what bumped into her".

[38] His left thigh touched her buttocks. He put his right hand and his left forearm on her to brace her and to try to get by. He did not grab her. It was an accident. He did not mean to touch her. He did not thrust into her. She said "Oh!" when he bumped into her. She was startled.

[39] He told her that he was sorry. He was just trying to pass through and touched her by accident.

[40] He got upset when she told him that she was going to call for help. He told her that he did not try to touch her in a sexual manner. He was swearing. He pointed to the surveillance video camera. He asked her if she was "crazy" and if she was "fucking serious". He asked her if she really thought that he would do something like that to her. He told her that the shelter staff would kick him out of the shelter if they thought that he sexually assaulted her. He was concerned because it was freezing outside.

[41] He was also concerned because he was on a peace bond. He had been released from jail four months earlier after serving a ten-year sentence and he did not want to go back to jail. He was scared and getting angry.

[42] He went outside for a cigarette. After this, he spoke to Ms. Gill. He pleaded with her not to think that he did anything wrong. He told her that he was high and that he tripped and bumped into the complainant accidentally. He asked her to check the video surveillance, but Ms. Gill refused and told him that he had to leave the shelter because she believed the complainant. He got upset. He was cursing. But he obeyed Ms. Gill and packed his things and left. After he left, he roamed around getting high and looking for a place to stay.

[43] He denied that he threatened the complainant. He understands why from her point of view she would feel threatened because he was angry and upset. But he was on a peace bond and he did not want to breach it. He swore, but he never told her that he was going to "fuck you up". He acknowledged that the peace bond prohibited him from consuming drugs and alcohol, but he thought that he could get away with using the drugs.

[44] He told the complainant that he sold stolen merchandise to her that she sent back home. He asked her why he would assault her. They had this relationship.

I said, are you fucking serious? I sell shoes to you and your colleagues. You just asked me for shoes last night. Are you serious? That's what I said. …. I'm saying to her, you have a relationship with me. Me, being a friggin patsy to steal stuff for you to send back home to Africa. Why would I – why would I do something to you, but I'm the one giving you shoes.

[45] After he was kicked out of the shelter he returned frequently to see if he could get back in. During one of these times, Sean, a staff member, asked him about selling stolen merchandise to staff at the shelter. Mr. Walters explained the conversation this way when the Crown asked him about it:

Q. And you said that you spoke to management about – about selling the boosted or stolen shoes?

A. Management, yeah. When I came back to – I kept coming back, like every few days and they set up a – a partner with Sean (ph), I don't know what kind of title he has, but he's management. Sean brought me into the office and says you're banned until – what was that February? So, he said you're banned until May. So, I said, okay, I'll be back in three months or whatever it was. But, he says also, I know that our employees are buying boosted stuff, we've heard it through the grapevine, is that true? I said to him, man, Sean, if you – I would tell you what you want, [inaudible] me, and I said listen, man, I'll tell you what you want to hear if you let me stay. He's like, you can't do that. So, I said, man, I can't tell you anything more then.

Q. Did you talk to Ms. Gill about the shoes?

A. No.

[46] Regarding how the drugs and alcohol affected him, Mr. Walters and the Crown had the following exchange:

Q. The alcohol and drugs would also affect how you remember things, wouldn't it?

A. No. Not - not something like that, man.

Q. Well, so, are you saying that 12 beer and some marijuana and some crack cocaine would not affect your memory of things?

A. Let me clarify. As for remembering the incident as it happened, I recall exactly what happened. Like, but that – when you see the camera it's picture perfect clear what happened in the video; but, yeah, I know that I bumped into her and I know that I was in shit and I know that I'd be kicked out. It was traumatic. Yeah, I know what happened.

[47] Concerning threatening the complainant, Mr. Walters said,

The only thing I threatened N. [the complainant] with, is to say to her, you know you're – you know you guys bought stolen goods from me. The management – little do you know the management has asked me to back that claim up 'cause they're onto you guys. So, are you seriously going to kick me out, 'cause if you kick me out, I'm going to report you. Yeah, you guys are buying stuff from me. That's the gist of it.

[48] That was the case for the defence.

Analysis

[49] In developing my reasons for judgment, I instructed myself according to R. v. W. (D.):

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.

The Sexual Assault

[50] The Crown argued that the complainant has no reason for animus against Mr. Walters. Nor is there evidence that she is hyper sensitive and blew the incident out of proportion. She was a credible witness.

[51] It is true that there is no evidence of animus towards Mr. Walters on the part of the complainant. That is a consideration, but it does not mean that she cannot be mistaken as Mr. Walters claims.

[52] Nor is there evidence that the complainant is hyper sensitive and blew the incident out of proportion. However, again, that does not mean that she cannot be mistaken as Mr. Walters claims.

[53] Regarding her credibility, I think that she was an honest witness, but even honest witnesses can be mistaken, which is what Mr. Walters claims.

[54] The Crown argued further that the complainant's immediate reaction was to call for help, which is not the natural reaction to an accident; it is the natural reaction to a sexual assault.

[55] I grant that demeanour can be evidence that a sexual assault occurred. As Justice Hill explained in R. v. Mete:

The demeanour of a complainant of sexual abuse, shortly following the alleged offence, may hold probative value as to the likelihood of the event occurring as described by the complainant: Regina v. Arsenault, [1997] O.J. No. 3977 (C.A.) at para. 9 per curiam; Regina v. Clark, 87 O.A.C. 178 (C.A.) at para. 7 per curiam.

[56] See also R v Trumpa, which cites Mete with approval. However, it is risky to generalize how a person would react to a perceived sexual assault. In R. v. Cepic, the court stated:

The use of a common-sense approach to credibility assessment is fraught with danger for it can "mask reliance on stereotypical assumptions": R. v. A.B.A., 2019 ONCA 124, 372 C.C.C. (3d) 301, at para. 7.

[57] The complainant in this case thought that Mr. Walters sexually assaulted her, which prompted her to call for help and report the incident. But I cannot take the further step that the Crown asks that I take and find that because she called for help, Mr. Walters must have sexually assaulted her. Her actions are but one of the circumstances that I must consider.

[58] The Crown submits that the surveillance video confirms her evidence. It shows that Mr. Walters grabbed her by the waist and made a thrusting motion toward her with his hips. This is what she re-enacted when she demonstrated to Ms. Gill what he did.

[59] I find that the surveillance video does not necessarily confirm her evidence. It depicts physical contact between the two, but it does not show definitively that Mr. Walters sexually assaulted the complainant. I find that the video is open to interpretation, including Mr. Walters' interpretation.

[60] Mr. Walters testified that when he entered the atrium, he was intoxicated by various substances. Ms. Gill's evidence concerning his demeanour tends to confirm his evidence on this point.

[61] He saw the complainant mopping and tried to get by her. He went left, and she went left. Then he went right because he saw an opening between her and her cleaning cart. As he did this, she moved into his path and they collided. He held out his hands and arms to brace her, which I find is understandable.

[62] In the split second that this occurred, the complainant perceived their contact as a sexual assault. But that does not mean that it was a sexual assault. The defence argued that she had her back turned to Mr. Walters. Consequently, she did not see the scenario that was being played out behind her with him trying to get around her. She only experienced the physical contact. Not knowing what led up to the contact between them, she assumed that it was a sexual attack. I acknowledge that this assumption is amongst the reasonable ones that she could have made, but it does not mean that it is the correct one.

[63] I know that Mr. Walters has many convictions for crimes of dishonesty. I take this into consideration in assessing his credibility. But it is just one factor that I must consider.

[64] He was intoxicated and he said that it affected his perception. Curiously, he said that it did not affect his memory. He said that it would not affect his memory of an incident such as this. In any case, the video shows what occurred when he bumped into the complainant, so I do not have to rely on his memory for that. In terms of what he was saying to her, all the witnesses agree with him that he was upset and swearing. Therefore, his memory accords with theirs on those points.

[65] The Crown argued that Mr. Walters' credibility is damaged by his story of telling the shelter management about selling stolen shoes to the complainant. This is not believable because they would have kicked him out.

[66] Mr. Walters testified that:

The only thing I threatened N. [the complainant] with, is to say to her, you know you're – you know you guys bought stolen goods from me. The management – little do you know the management has asked me to back that claim up 'cause they're onto you guys. So, are you seriously going to kick me out, 'cause if you kick me out, I'm going to report you. Yeah, you guys are buying stuff from me. That's the gist of it.

[67] His warning to the complainant was that if she caused him to get kicked out of the shelter, he would tell the staff that she bought stolen goods from him. This does not mean that while he was a resident in good standing in the shelter, he told the staff that he had sold stolen shoes to the complainant.

[68] Mr. Walters testified that he had a conversation with a staff member named Sean about the staff purchasing stolen merchandise in the shelter. But this was during one of the times that he came back to the shelter to see if he could get back in after Ms. Gill kicked him out on the night in question. He said that Sean asked him about it because it was circulating on the grapevine.

[69] Although the Crown's question appears to imply that Mr. Walters was the one selling the stolen shoes: "And you said that you spoke to management about – about selling the boosted or stolen shoes"? he did not tell Sean that he was the one selling stolen merchandise.

[70] As shown above in paragraph 45, in answering Sean's question Mr. Walters did not implicate himself as the one that was selling the stolen merchandise. He just suggested to Sean that he would tell him what he knew in exchange for being allowed to return to the shelter. Sean declined his offer. That ended the conversation. In addition, Mr. Walters said that he never told Ms. Gill about it.

[71] The Crown submitted that had his bumping into the complainant been an accident, he would not have gotten so agitated. I do not agree with this argument in these circumstances. I find that Mr. Walters had credible and strong reasons for not wanting to get into trouble. That is what made him agitated.

[72] He was on a peace bond that required him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. He had been released from jail four months prior after serving a 10-year sentence. He did not want to return to jail. In addition, it was very cold outside, and he did not want to get kicked out of the shelter. I believe his evidence that the reason that he got so upset was because he feared these repercussions would occur should the shelter staff believe that he sexually assaulted the complainant.

[73] The Crown made a good point that Mr. Walters did not have any reservations about breaching the conditions of the peace bond that prohibited him from consuming alcohol and illegal drugs. But I find that Mr. Walters' reasoning that he thought that he could hide this and get away with it is believable. He went far away from the shelter to consume these intoxicants. He smoked a marijuana cigarette at the back of the shelter right after he returned, but he testified that he has a licence to smoke medical marijuana. After he consumed the marijuana cigarette he was going straight to bed. In this way he was minimizing the chance that any staff member would notice that he was intoxicated on other substances.

[74] Additionally, his behaviour in consuming alcohol and illegal drugs is a far cry from sexually assaulting the complainant, which would have been an infraction that involved others as witnesses and, therefore, would be much more difficult to hide than would be his consumption of beer and crack cocaine. Moreover, he knew that there was a surveillance camera in the atrium that would likely record such an act.

[75] The Crown argued that Mr. Walters was involved in a high-risk lifestyle by breaching his peace bond by taking illegal drugs and selling stolen shoes to persons in the shelter. This is evidence which contradicts that he was avoiding getting into trouble due to the peace bond.

[76] I find that it is unlikely that the persons that were buying the stolen items from him would denounce him because by doing so they would be implicating themselves in purchasing stolen goods. In that sense, it was unlikely that this activity would be discovered and lead to his arrest.

[77] I find that the surveillance video allows for a reasonable interpretation that Mr. Walters was genuinely trying to just get around the complainant when she moved into his path and his body accidentally touched hers. It does not have to unequivocally establish this; it just has to raise a reasonable doubt. I do not put an onus on Mr. Walters to raise a reasonable doubt. I am simply commenting on the reasonableness and effect of his interpretation of the surveillance video.

[78] I watched the surveillance video many times. The quality and scope of it is not the best. It is not a smoking gun that would take the Crown directly to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor does it do so when I consider it in conjunction with all the rest of the evidence.

[79] Further, the complainant's evidence does not improve the evidentiary cogency of the video because she was reacting to events that occurred behind her, which all happened very quickly. Even when I consider the video together with the other evidence, I find that the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Walters sexually assaulted the complainant.

[80] I have a doubt that the surveillance video shows that Mr. Walters grabbed the complainant by the waist and thrust his hips into her as she said, and the Crown argues. I find that Mr. Walters's evidence that he was just trying to get by her and bumped into her accidentally and reached out with his hands to brace her could reasonably be true. The complainant agreed that there was more room to her right, which is the path that Mr. Walters took to get by her.

[81] Therefore, after considering all the evidence, the submissions of counsel and the law, I am left in reasonable doubt that Mr. Walters sexually assaulted the complainant. The charge is dismissed.

The Threatening Charge

[82] The Crown argues that Mr. Walters threatened to cause bodily harm to the complainant by telling her that he was going to "fuck you up". Mr. Walters agrees that he was upset and swearing, but he denies that he said this to the complainant.

[83] In the circumstances of the case at bar, an important aspect of the evidence on this charge is that the complainant's first language is not English. Although she has some command of English, she elected to testify through a Lugandan interpreter.

[84] The Ministry of the Attorney General does not have any accredited Lugandan interpreters. Fortunately, the court's interpreter office was able to find a Lugandan interpreter at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. After a voir dire, I qualified Mr. Benedict Ddungu as competent to serve as an interpreter for the case at bar.

[85] I certainly do not criticize the complainant for testifying through an interpreter. It is a perfectly reasonable and prudent thing to do and she is entitled to have an interpreter if she wants one. Nor does the fact that she testified through an interpreter diminish her credibility or reliability in the least.

[86] I only point this out because concerning this charge her ability to understand English in a stressful situation is key. And her decision to use an interpreter to testify demonstrates that she does not have sufficient confidence in her command of English to go through the stress of a trial without an interpreter.

[87] Mr. Walters agreed that he was swearing a lot, but he denies that he told the complainant that he would "fuck you up". Therefore, the complainant's command of English is relevant regarding the threatening charge because it is an important factor in determining whether there could be a reasonable doubt that she heard correctly.

[88] Another important factor is that when she heard what she thought was Mr. Walters telling her that he was going to "fuck you up" she was very emotionally distraught, in shock and afraid. In addition, things were happening very quickly. It was a stressful situation.

[89] Ms. Gill never heard Mr. Walters tell the complainant that he was going to "fuck you up". The Crown asked Ms. Gill "…. you said that – he said, I'm going to find you outside. Is there anything else, that you recall, that he said"? Ms. Gill replied, "That was about it. He was just threatening her".

[90] I interpret this "threatening" to mean that Mr. Walters was presenting as threatening in a general way due to his upset demeanour.

[91] I grant that Mr. Walters' upset and angry way of speaking could be threatening in a general sense, but that is not the same as threatening to cause bodily harm to the complainant by telling her that he was going to "fuck you up", which is what the complainant is saying and what the Crown is arguing.

[92] The complainant said that in the office, Mr. Walters told her that he was going to "fuck you up". Ms. Gill did not recall this. It is hard to believe that she would not have heard it because she was positioned perfectly to hear such a thing. She was right there with Mr. Walters and the complainant in the staff office.

[93] Consequently, when I consider all the evidence, I have a reasonable doubt that the complainant heard correctly in the staff office. This leads me to have a reasonable doubt that she heard correctly in the atrium where Mr. Walters was also upset and swearing, and she says that he told her the same thing. I have a reasonable doubt that if she misunderstood in the staff office, she misunderstood in the atrium, too.

[94] Regarding whether telling her that he was going to find her outside could be a threat to cause bodily harm, the complainant does not allege that this statement threatened her. Nor did the Crown argue that it constituted a threat to cause bodily harm.

[95] In any case, although in some circumstances telling someone that you are going to find them outside could constitute a threat, in the circumstance of this case, I find that it does not.

[96] Therefore, I have a reasonable doubt that Mr. Walters threatened to cause bodily harm to the complainant by telling her that he would "fuck you up", or in any other way. The charge is dismissed.

The Breach of the s. 810 Peace Bond

[97] This charge is particularized as failing to "keep the peace and be of good behaviour". The proof of this charge depends on proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least one of the other two charges. Consequently, as a result of my findings on the other two charges, this charge is dismissed.

Released: December 28, 2020

Justice J. W. Bovard