ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE DATE: 2022 03 28 COURT FILE No.: Central East Region: Oshawa Courthouse: File # 20-22603
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
— AND —
AUSTIN BOYLE
Before Justice Peter C. West
Evidence Heard on December 15 and 16, 2021 Oral Submissions Heard on February 28, 2022 Written Reasons for Judgment released on March 28, 2022
Ms. K. Buker.................................................................. counsel for the Crown Mr. S. Fraser...................................... counsel for the defendant Austin Boyle
WEST J.
Introduction
[1] Austin Boyle was charged with assaulting Taylor Slugg. He pleaded not guilty and a trial took place on December 15 and 16, 2021. Two surveillance videos from the La Quinta Hotel, 63 King Street, Oshawa were entered as Exhibits 2 and 3 from October 14, 2020. The parking lot of La Quinta Hotel is off May Street, which runs north/south and intersects with King Street, where the front entrance to La Quinta Hotel is situated. There is a back door going to the parking lot. The Crown called one witness, Taylor Slugg and the defence called Austin Boyle and his mother, Kathryn Labrecque. Oral submissions were made on February 28, 2022, and judgment was adjourned to March 28, 2022.
Law relating to R. v. W. (D.) and R. v. Villaroman
[2] As in any criminal case, Austin Boyle is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I have reminded myself that I need not firmly believe or disbelieve any witness and that I can accept all, some or none of a witness’ testimony. I have also reminded myself that the Crown must prove the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, as this term has been defined and explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W. (D.). [1] Proof of a probability of guilt does not amount to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of guilt to a near certainty is required in criminal proceedings.
[3] The onus remains on the Crown to prove Mr. Boyle’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt throughout his trial. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, one that arises logically from the whole of the evidence or absence of evidence. I recognize that the rule of reasonable doubt applies to the issue of credibility. Accordingly, I must acquit the defendant if I accept his evidence or if it raises a reasonable doubt after considering it in the context of the evidence as a whole. If I reject his evidence, and it does not leave me with a reasonable doubt, I must go on to ask whether the evidence that I do accept convinces me of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case Mr. Boyle testified on his own behalf and called his mother, Kathryn Labrecque as a witness supporting his version of the events. I must consider his evidence to determine whether I accept it together with the evidence of his mother or if I do not accept his evidence or the evidence given by his mother, whether it raises a reasonable doubt in respect of the evidence as a whole.
[4] A determination of guilt or innocence must not, however, devolve into a mere credibility contest between the Crown’s evidence and the evidence of the defence. Such an approach erodes the operation of the presumption of innocence and the assigned standard of persuasion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt: W.(D.); [2] and Avetsyan v. The Queen. [3]
[5] As the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Hull, [4] noted:
W.(D.) and other authorities prohibit triers of fact from treating the standard of proof as a credibility contest. Put another way, they prohibit the trier of fact from concluding that the standard of proof has been met simply because the trier of fact prefers the evidence of Crown witnesses to that of defence witnesses.
[6] I must assess the evidence of the Crown and each of the defence witnesses in light of the totality of the evidence, which includes and permits comparing and contrasting the evidence of those witnesses, other witnesses and the exhibits. The Court of Appeal in Hull continued:
However, such authorities do not prohibit the trier of fact from assessing an accused’s testimony in light of the whole evidence, including the testimony of the complainant, and in so doing comparing the evidence of the witnesses. On the contrary, triers of fact have a positive duty to carry out such an assessment recognizing that one possible outcome of the assessment is that the trier of fact may be left with a reasonable doubt concerning the guilt of the accused.
[7] Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means what it says. There is thus nothing illogical in rejecting a defendant’s evidence but still not being sufficiently satisfied by the other evidence to find that the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A state of uncertainty at a trial is not uncommon. Ultimately, if I have a reasonable doubt on the whole of the case that arises from the evidence of the Crown witnesses, the evidence of a defendant or the evidence of any other defence witness, or the absence of evidence, the charge must be dismissed: Lifchus. [5]
[8] I have also reminded myself that circumstantial evidence may or may not prove a fact from which an inference may be drawn, that is, a factual conclusion that logically and reasonably flows or may be drawn from that evidence. However, I have also reminded myself that the only inferences that may be drawn are those based solely on the evidence in this case, and that they may not and must not be based on conjecture or speculation. It is speculative to draw an inference when there is no direct or indirect factual or evidential basis to support it. However, it is the cumulative effect of all of the evidence that must meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not each individual item of evidence.
[9] More importantly, I have reminded myself that where the only evidence relative to a particular fact that is alleged is circumstantial evidence, before I can find the accused guilty on the basis of that evidence, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that proof of the particular element of the offence, or guilt relative to the offence as a whole, is the only reasonable or rational conclusion or inference that can be drawn from the whole of the evidence. It is important to note that I do not need to be satisfied to that standard relative to each individual piece of evidence, particularly where more than one conclusion may flow from the particular piece of evidence under consideration. However, within the context of the evidence as a whole, I must be satisfied that the Crown has made out the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.
[10] Therefore, where the Crown relies upon circumstantial evidence to prove the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, the test, pursuant to R. v. Villaroman, [6] is “whether the trier of fact, acting judicially, could reasonably be satisfied that the accused's guilt was the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence,” ( see R. v. Wu. [7] )
[11] Justice Cromwell, for the Court in Villaroman, cautioned in para. 30:
It follows that in a case in which proof of one or more elements of the offence depends exclusively or largely on circumstantial evidence, it will generally be helpful to the jury to be cautioned about too readily drawing inferences of guilt. No particular language is required. Telling the jury that an inference of guilt drawn from circumstantial evidence should be the only reasonable inference that such evidence permits will often be a succinct and accurate way of helping the jury to guard against the risk of "filling in the blanks" by too quickly overlooking reasonable alternative inferences . . . The inferences that may be drawn from this observation must be considered in light of all of the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense.
[12] These are the principles I must use in my assessment of the totality of the evidence led during Mr. Boyle’s trial.
Factual Background and Analysis of the Evidence and Findings of Fact
[13] Taylor Slugg and Austin Boyle had been dating for four years.
[14] On October 14, 2020, [8] Austin Boyle and Taylor Slugg went to Reilly’s Restaurant in Oshawa with some friends for drinks to celebrate one of the friend’s birthdays. Everyone first met at one of the friend’s homes where everyone consumed some alcoholic drinks. They went to another bar before arriving at Reilly’s where alcoholic beverages were also consumed. Before entering Reilly’s Mr. Boyle had to go to the bathroom and decided to relieve himself in some bushes that were located close to Reilly’s Bar and Restaurant, which led to an argument between Ms. Slugg and Mr. Boyle as to whether he should do this, according to the version Ms. Slugg testified to. Ms. Slugg described how after Mr. Boyle relieved himself they argued and he took a lit cigarette he was smoking and pushed it into her chest through her white blouse. This caused a black streak of ash on her blouse and caused a burn mark in the center of her chest.
[15] Mr. Boyle agreed he did use the bushes but he testified Ms. Slugg continued to walk with their friends when he did this with another of the men in their group and there was no argument between he and Ms. Slugg over his doing this. He denied using his cigarette to burn Ms. Slugg and he denied Ms. Slugg ever criticizing him using the bushes as a washroom.
[16] Ms. Slugg described Mr. Boyle as drinking beer over the course of the evening at the three locations in a large quantity, which Mr. Boyle denied. Mr. Boyle described Ms. Slugg as consuming a large quantity of alcoholic beverages over the course of the evening. Ms. Kathryn Labrecque testified that Ms. Slugg appeared to be intoxicated when she saw her at La Quinta, however, as I will explain later I do not accept her evidence on this issue. Based on the video evidence I viewed that was presented during this trial, (Exhibits 2 and 3) I do not believe Ms. Slugg was intoxicated or impaired to the extent described by Mr. Boyle in his evidence. Kathryn Labrecque’s evidence on this issue was not supported by the video evidence and her testimony was inconsistent with the video evidence. I will discuss this later in my reasons.
[17] Nothing of any significance occurs inside Reilly’s bar other than Mr. Boyle sitting with the men and Ms. Slugg sitting with the women in their group at a table upstairs and having very little contact with each other. When they left the bar to go their separate ways Ms. Slugg indicated someone made a suggestion to Mr. Boyle about punching a homeless man outside the Pizza Pizza restaurant. Mr. Boyle, according to Ms. Slugg, started walking across the street towards this homeless man and said he was going to do it. Ms. Slugg stepped in front of him and it was at this point that Mr. Boyle got into an argument with Tamara. Everybody was yelling and Mr. Boyle got into an argument with Tamara and his friend, Jacob, Tamara’s boyfriend. Everybody separated and Ms. Slugg told them it was okay for them to leave and she would stay with Austin.
[18] Mr. Boyle denied there being any discussion about a homeless man. He testified his best friend, Jacob’s girlfriend (Tamara) made derogatory comments to him about his cheating on Ms. Slugg and his being a drug dealer when they were outside Reilly’s. Mr. Boyle testified Tamara further said his mother, Kathryn Labrecque, was also a drug dealer. In chief he could not explain why Tamara would say this to him outside Reilly’s as there had been no friction between them that evening in the bar. He testified in chief,
“I don’t remember why but Tamara,…Taylor’s friend, and my best friend’s girlfriend at the time, started randomly calling me an embarrassment and saying that I was a cheater through the whole relationship of mine and Taylor’s and something about – of me being – of me being a drug dealer and my mother being a drug dealer.”
[19] In fact, Mr. Boyle agreed he sat with the men and Ms. Slugg sat with the women and had no involvement with Tamara inside Reilly’s. He did not describe any interactions between himself and Tamara that could explain her comments to him, although he conceded to his counsel it was possible. According to Mr. Boyle, Tamara’s attack came out of nowhere and she just randomly started saying he was an embarrassment. Mr. Boyle testified Tamara was screaming and yelling all of these things at him outside. After she said these things Mr. Boyle testified he said something about how he knew she liked to hide her phone and that he knew Tamara was cheating on his best friend, Jacob. He was also yelling back at Tamara. At that point his friend Jacob told him to stop arguing with his girlfriend and they left to go home. Mr. Boyle testified he and Jacob are no longer friends.
[20] Mr. Boyle testified he was upset by what Tamara said and he told Ms. Slugg to just go with their friends, as he did not want her around him. He said he did not want her arguing with him, however, he could not point to anything specific that she said to cause him to say this. He could not think of anything specific and could not recall anything she had said to him after. He told her he was going to go see his mother, who was staying at La Quinta Hotel. According to Mr. Boyle Ms. Slugg followed him to La Quinta. Mr. Boyle described Ms. Slugg as being drunk when she left Reilly’s Bar. On his evidence she would have had as many as 10 drinks over the course of the evening and she was intoxicated.
[21] It was much later in his examination-chief that Mr. Boyle said for the first time that when Tamara accused him of cheating on Ms. Slugg and being a drug dealer, she said it was Ms. Slugg who told her these things. Initially he told Mr. Fraser he had no idea why Tamara had said these things to him. On the evidence I find Mr. Boyle was very upset with Ms. Slugg because of her comments when they first arrived at Reilly’s and as a result of his argument with Tamara and the things Tamara had said to him. It is my view Mr. Boyle believed Ms. Slugg had told Tamara these things and this was why he forced Ms. Slugg to come to the hotel, as she testified. He denied in cross-examination that he brought Ms. Slugg to the hotel to tell his mother the lies that Taylor was spreading among her friends about him and about her, yet he also told the Crown, in cross, he told Ms. Slugg he was going to tell his mother the lies Taylor was spreading about him and his mother and sister. He thought his “mother had a right to know.” As I will discuss in greater detail the two videos tell a completely different story as to Mr. Boyle’s interaction with Ms. Slugg at the La Quinta Hotel, a story which in my view demonstrates and proves that Mr. Boyle and his mother are both lying and fabricating a version of events that exculpates Mr. Boyle and puts the blame on Ms. Slugg. Their version, however, is wholly inconsistent with the video evidence, which clearly shows Mr. Boyle’s assaultive behaviour and actions towards Ms. Slugg.
[22] Ms. Slugg told Mr. Boyle she wanted to leave as well, as she had a curfew with her parents. She described how Mr. Boyle grabbed her phone and threw it away before she could call her parents. She could tell he was angry by the look in his eyes and the posture of his body, he was puffing and breathing heavy and he said he wanted to go to his mom’s hotel and she was coming too. Ms. Slugg told him she was not going to go there and went to retrieve her phone. This was when he pushed her over the curb and she fell backwards and hit her head. He pushed her in the chest area with one hand and she fell backwards over the curb and her head hit the pavement. She felt a bump on the back of her head and although she did not see any blood after she felt the bump, her head hurt. She was able to retrieve her phone.
[23] Mr. Boyle agrees that Ms. Slugg tripped over a curb after they had parted company with their friends and she had invited herself to go to the hotel where his mother was staying. His explanation for why she stumbled over a curb was because she was so drunk. According to him she did not fall to the ground. He testified she did not appear to be injured in any way by this stumble. He did not even notice if she had her phone. He denied having any physical contact with Ms. Slugg when they were on their way to the hotel.
[24] Ms. Slugg described how Mr. Boyle grabbed her from the ground and forcefully pulled her up with his arms. He then grabbed her from the back of her hair and by her arm and walked her towards to the La Quinta Hotel. She said she was in pain from the fall and her hair was being pulled and he had a grip of her arm. He let go of her hair and he called his mom on his phone to come and open the back door of the hotel to let them in.
[25] In cross-examination Mr. Boyle further became evasive as to his description of how Ms. Slugg was walking when they were going to the La Quinta Hotel. He had previously described her as having difficulty walking up the stairs to the second level of Reilly’s when they first arrived because of the four or five alcoholic drinks she had consumed earlier. According to him, she had another four or five drinks at Reilly’s, however, she was “just a little bit worse than from when they first got” to Reilly’s. He denied holding her arm or holding her hand as they were walking to La Quinta. She was just walking beside him. She was drunk, but when he was asked if she was stumbling as she walked he said, “She was walking gingerly.” Then he asked for a moment to think of the proper term for how she was walking and he came up with, “Let’s just say she wasn’t necessarily walking in a straight line.”
[26] The difficulty I have with Mr. Boyle’s evidence on this point is that when Mr. Boyle and Ms. Slugg come fully into view in the parking lot behind La Quinta Hotel on the outside video (Exhibit 3) at 23:01:50, Ms. Slugg is not walking beside Mr. Boyle, rather, she has broken free from him and commences running ahead of him in what appears to be her running as fast as she can run and she looks to be terrified and scared. She is running in a straight line. In fact, when Mr. Boyle is asked by the Crown if Ms. Slugg appears to be afraid of him, he answers, “From what I can see now, yes.” When they are first able to be seen on the video by May Street it appears as if the person in the dark coat (turns out to be Mr. Boyle) is grabbing the person in the lighter coloured coat (Ms. Slugg), which also in my view corroborates Ms. Slugg’s evidence of seeing Kathryn Labrecque at the back door and breaking free from Mr. Boyle’s grasp and running to the back door. Kathryn Labrecque testified when she first saw Taylor and Austin they were walking side by side holding hands. Mr. Boyle denies he was ever holding Ms. Slugg’s hand and Ms. Slugg testified Mr. Boyle was holding her arm and she had to break free of his grasp before she was able to run for the back door.
[27] Mr. Boyle agreed in chief that when Ms. Slugg went into the back door Ms. Labrecque had opened and was standing outside in front of, Ms. Slugg can be seen running past Ms. Labrecque and Ms. Slugg tried to close the door behind her. But it was not fully closed he just walked in behind her and his mother followed him in and she closed the door. Yet it is clear from the video that Mr. Boyle pulls open the door as Ms. Slugg is trying to pull it closed and Mr. Boyle can be seen pushing his mother out of the way, completely ignoring his mother, as he grabs the door to prevent it from being closed by Ms. Slugg.
[28] Mr. Boyle initially testified he was not running after Ms. Slugg but in cross-examination he reluctantly agreed he was running to the door after watching the video. When he was asked if he shoved his mother out of the way he asked for the video to be replayed. This portion of the video had already been played two times and when it was replayed a third time Mr. Boyle testified he saw himself trying to get past his mother but he wasn’t trying to shove her out of the way. In my view this is a further example of Mr. Boyle being very evasive in his evidence because the video clearly shows him running after Ms. Slugg, she looks very afraid, she is trying to close the door to prevent him from coming into the hotel and he is pulling the door open and pushing his mother out of the way to prevent the door closing and locking. In the end he agreed he did not want to be locked out and he did shove his mother out of the way. On the video Mr. Boyle’s mother is outside and the door is being pulled closed by Ms. Slugg behind her. It is also clear Kathryn Labrecque is trying to speak to her son as she is clearly talking to him as she reaches out her hand towards him; however, Mr. Boyle ignores her as he is clearly focused on catching Ms. Slugg and preventing the door from closing. The video clearly depicts Ms. Slugg trying to escape Mr. Boyle and get away from him.
[29] As they got to the back parking lot Ms. Slugg testified she saw Kathryn Labrecque at the door and she broke free of Austin’s grip on her arm and ran towards the back door to get away from him. As she ran past Ms. Labrecque to the back door, Ms. Labrecque asked her “What’s going on?” and Ms. Slugg told her “You need to keep me away from him.” Ms. Slugg attempted to close the door after she ran into the hotel but Mr. Boyle got his arm in the door and prevented her from pulling it closed. Ms. Slugg’s evidence is completely consistent with the video evidence of what occurred at the back door of the La Quinta Hotel.
[30] I find the video (Exhibit 3) corroborates Ms. Slugg’s evidence of what occurred in the parking lot of La Quinta Hotel between she and Mr. Boyle and puts a lie to Mr. Boyle’s evidence in many respects, as I have discussed. The video further adds credibility to Ms. Slugg’s evidence of what happened after the friends they had been with at Reilly’s left to go home after Mr. Boyle and Tamara had been yelling at each other and the altercation Ms. Slugg described that took place where Mr. Boyle pushed her hard in the chest and she fell over the curb. I also find photographs DSC0012.JPG and DSC0014.JPG, which show a bruise on Ms. Slugg’s right upper chest, just above her bra (there is blood on the material of the bra); and the photographs DSC0016.JPG to DSC0019.JPG (also contained in Exhibit 1), which show blood in Ms. Slugg’s hair, provide corroboration of Ms. Slugg’s evidence that she was pushed by Mr. Boyle in her chest area with such force that she stumbled backwards, tripped on the curb and fell to her back hitting her head on the pavement. Ms. Slugg testified this caused a bump to form on the back of her head and it hurt. She did not believe there was blood because after feeling the bump she did not see blood on her hand; however, blood can clearly be observed in the photographs of her head and the blood is on and through her hair. There is also a black and blue bruise forming on her chest in the other two photographs, which in my view corroborates Ms. Slugg’s evidence of Mr. Boyle pushing her hard in the chest causing her to fall backwards over the curb and striking her head on the pavement.
[31] Kathryn Labrecque testified she saw her son, Austin, and Ms. Slugg walking together holding hands in the back parking lot as she was standing at the back door after opening it. This evidence was completely inconsistent with what was depicted on the video looking towards the back parking lot, which clearly showed Ms. Slugg running away from Mr. Boyle and his running after her. Further, Mr. Boyle’s evidence is also inconsistent with Kathryn Labrecque’s testimony as he testified he was not holding Ms. Slugg’s hand as they walked to the back door of La Quinta Hotel and that she was following him there. I have already discussed how his evidence is also inconsistent with the video surveillance from the parking lot. Kathryn Labrecque also testified Ms. Slugg was staggering as she walked because she was drunk, Taylor “was very, very intoxicated” and she testified Ms. Slugg did not appear to be afraid. In my view the video proves Ms. Labrecque’s evidence on these issues was also a complete lie and not truthful. Ms. Slugg was not staggering and as I have described she was running full speed to get away from Mr. Boyle in a straight line directly towards the back door. In my view Kathryn Labrecque was fabricating her evidence so it was favourable to her son, Austin Boyle. It was not only inconsistent with Mr. Boyle’s evidence, but it was also completely inconsistent with what can be observed on the video (Exhibit 3).
[32] Kathryn Labrecque testified that when Ms. Slugg ran up to the door she said to Ms. Labrecque before going inside that “I am not a fucking liar.” It is clear from the video that Ms. Slugg runs right past Ms. Labrecque and Ms. Labrecque is clearly stepping toward her son and reaching for him, as if to stop him, which is completely consistent with Ms. Slugg’s evidence that she told Kathryn Labrecque, “You need to keep me away from him.” Ms. Labrecque on the video is attempting to stop her son from getting to Ms. Slugg, as Ms. Slugg is attempting to close the back door but Mr. Boyle pushes past his mother and grabs the door to prevent it from closing. Mr. Boyle then pulls the door open.
[33] The video surveillance continues inside the hotel and in my view further provides significant corroboration to Ms. Slugg’s evidence as to Mr. Boyle’s assaultive conduct towards her. Further, it is completely inconsistent and clearly demonstrated that Mr. Boyle’s description of what he said occurred in the first floor hallway by the elevator between he and Ms. Slugg was untruthful and false. The video is also inconsistent and clearly demonstrated how Kathryn Labrecque further attempted to fabricate her evidence to assist her son and support his version of the events and in my view plainly established her deceitfulness.
[34] This is what is shown on Exhibit 2, the video of the hallway outside the elevator. At 23:02:35, Brandy Labrecque and Taylor Slugg can be seen on the interior video by the elevator slowly walking backwards from what must be the back door of La Quinta Hotel that leads into the outside parking lot. When they both come into view Ms. Slugg is behind Brandy Labrecque, with her right hand on Brandy’s back. Brandy has her cigarette in her right hand and she is pushing her brother, Austin Boyle, back with her left hand, as Mr. Boyle is reaching over her left side trying to grab Ms. Slugg. Ms. Slugg appears to be trying to avoid being grabbed by Mr. Boyle (23:02:37). Brandy has her left hand pushing on Mr. Boyle’s chest and his back is now against the wall of the hallway to the right of the elevator. Kathryn Labrecque now comes into the video and she is standing directly in front of her son speaking to him. Mr. Boyle is ignoring his mother and sister and is reaching for Ms. Slugg, who in my view clearly looks scared and upset and has backed away further down the hallway, almost out of sight of the video (23:02:38).
[35] Ms. Slugg backs up off camera (23:02:41), and Mr. Boyle pushes past his mother and sister, as they are both attempting to prevent him from getting to Ms. Slugg (23:02:42). I have no doubt from this video that Mr. Boyle is extremely angry, he appears to be yelling and is intent on grabbing hold of Ms. Slugg. Mr. Boyle continues to move towards where Ms. Slugg is, as she disappears from view and Mr. Boyle reaches out and grabs her, pulling her back into view of the camera (23:02:44-46). He has Ms. Slugg by the back of her neck, holding her hair and neck with his right hand. Mr. Boyle has pushed Ms. Slugg down so she is now bent over at the waist and Mr. Boyle is pulling her back to the area by the elevator (23:02:46-7). He forcefully pulls Ms. Slugg by her hair and neck, standing her upright. In my view this was done violently and with considerable force. At one point Mr. Boyle released his grip on Ms. Slugg’s neck and hair only to regain his grip very quickly pulling Ms. Slugg’s head violently backwards by her hair. Ms. Slugg’s hair is flying all around in front of her face as Mr. Boyle pulls her into a standing position. (23:02:48). It is my view there is considerable force being imparted by Mr. Boyle towards Ms. Slugg throughout his physical interaction with her. Ms. Slugg testified she did not consent to Mr. Boyle manhandling her in the manner he did. I find the conduct I have described by Mr. Boyle towards Mr. Slugg on the video is an assault. Ms. Slugg was clearly attempting to avoid being grabbed by Mr. Boyle and he succeeded in grabbing her without her consent and assaulting her in the process.
[36] Kathryn Labrecque has her right hand on her son’s left arm and wrist and she is clearly trying to get Mr. Boyle to stop what he is doing to Ms. Slugg. Brandy Labrecque is standing in front of the elevator watching what is happening. Ms. Slugg is clearly crying now and grabbing Brandy Labrecque’s left hand with her right hand and appears to be pleading with her for assistance (23:02:52). Kathryn Labrecque is pointing the index finger of her left hand at Mr. Boyle and using it to push him in his chest. Mr. Boyle continued his hold of Ms. Slugg by the back of her head/neck and hair (23:02:55). Throughout the incident on the video Mr. Boyle appears to be extremely angry and enraged from the expression on his face. There is no audio but he appears to be yelling. Ms. Labrecque testified she was concerned she would be asked to leave the hotel because of the commotion and noise caused by this altercation.
[37] Both Mr. Boyle and Kathryn Labrecque testified the reason that Mr. Boyle had to grab Ms. Slugg by the back of her jacket was because she was so drunk she looked like she was going to stumble face first into the brick or cement wall of the hallway. Ms. Labrecque testified she saw this and told her son to grab Taylor, which he did by grabbing the back of her jacket. This version of the events was an attempt to put a positive spin on Mr. Boyle’s conduct. I have watched the video of Mr. Boyle’s interaction with Ms. Slugg and his mother and sister and I have described how he initially was reaching for Ms. Slugg over his mother and sister, as they were trying to stop him from getting to her. The video further shows Mr. Boyle pushing past his mother and his sister after Ms. Slugg backs up out of view of the camera.
[38] At no time does Mr. Boyle ever grab Ms. Slugg by the back of her jacket, rather, he grabs her aggressively by the back of her neck and her hair. Ms. Slugg is not falling forward nor is she in danger of striking her face into the cement wall of the hallway as she and Mr. Boyle are standing in the middle of the hallway facing in the direction of the back door. Initially Mr. Boyle bends Ms. Slugg over at her waist towards the floor and then straightens her upright violently. He then released his grip but regains his grip pulling her head backwards and shaking her head causing her hair to fly around. What can be observed on the video is completely inconsistent with Mr. Boyle’s and his mother’s version of what he testified he did to Ms. Slugg. There was no possibility of Ms. Slugg falling into the cement wall of the hallway and striking her face given her position in this area. What is seen on the video does not in any way support the allegation that Ms. Slugg is intoxicated and falling down drunk. As a result of what can clearly be seen occurring I find that both Mr. Boyle and Kathryn Labrecque lied and fabricated a story about Ms. Slugg being intoxicated. The video in no way supports that Ms. Slugg was intoxicated, falling down drunk as testified to by Mr. Boyle and Ms. Labrecque. I have no doubt that the video in Exhibit 2 clearly shows Mr. Boyle assaulting Ms. Slugg repeatedly after he first grabbed her.
[39] Another inconsistency in Kathryn Labrecque’s evidence is her evidence in chief she did not know Ms. Slugg drank alcohol, she testified thought Ms. Slugg was a good girl; however, in cross-examination she testified that Taylor got very aggressive from alcohol. In my view two completely inconsistent positions. Further, Ms. Labrecque said her son was calm when he and Ms. Slugg first got to the hotel but nothing could be further from the truth observing Mr. Boyle on the video of Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3.
[40] Taylor Slugg testified she was terrified by Mr. Boyle’s actions coming into the hotel and in the hallway by the elevator (Exhibit 2). She did not consent to the manner in which Mr. Boyle grabbed her by her hair and neck. His actions caused her pain. When she was first in the area by the elevator she said to Brandy and Kathryn Labrecque that she had to go and Austin said, “She’s not going anywhere. She’s coming to the room with us.” Ms. Slugg testified she told them she did not want to go and she said to Austin’s mother and sister that she did not feel safe. Ms. Slugg testified when Austin grabbed her by her hair and neck she tried to get away. Mr. Boyle then turned Ms. Slugg around so she is facing away from the back door and began walking her with his right arm across her back as he moved his hand from her neck and hair to her shoulder (23:02:58). His right hand is gripping Ms. Slugg’s shoulder as he pushes her down the hall out of view of the camera. Kathryn Labrecque’s hotel room is down this hall and Ms. Labrecque follows behind her son and Ms. Slugg who are now off camera (23:03:00). Brandy Labrecque opened the back door (23:03:01) and stepped through it and then came back into the hallway by the elevator (23:03:19). She then followed down the hallway out of sight of the camera (23:03:21) in the direction of her mother’s hotel room.
[41] Ms. Slugg testified that Austin brought her into the hotel room, which was down the hall by the front doors of the hotel. She testified when they got in the room Austin was yelling and arguing with her and said, “I am done with her shit. She’s not loyal, she is not faithful to me. I’m done with her.” His mother, Brandy and his nephew Jayce were in the hotel room, as well as his mother’s two dogs, both puppies. Ms. Slugg testified she was continuously saying she wanted to leave but Mr. Boyle would not let her leave. She was sitting on the floor in front of the bed farthest from the door, with her knees against her chest. She said she was crying and upset.
[42] Ms. Slugg testified at one point Brandy came up to her and punched her directly in the face with her fist. Ms. Slugg noticed her white top had blood all over it as her nose was bleeding from the punch. Brandy then began to choke her by grabbing Ms. Slugg’s throat and she put her other hand over Ms. Slugg’s mouth. Brandy also struck her twice in the side of her head. The choking did not last very long, 10 seconds. Ms. Slugg testified Mr. Boyle then started to choke her with his right hand and his left hand was over her mouth. She testified this went off and on for about five minutes. Jayce was in the corner and was never involved. Kathryn Labrecque was telling Austin to stop and to let her go and at one point tried to get Mr. Boyle off her but couldn’t. At that point Mr. Boyle’s mother was just telling him to let Taylor go.
[43] The photographs, Exhibit 1, depict injuries to Ms. Slugg’s nose (Photograph DSC0003.JPG; DSC0004.JPG, DSC0005.JPG; JPGDSC0006.JPG) and (Photographs DSC0007.JPG; DSC0008.JPG; DSC0009.JPG; DSC0010.JPG) show marks around her neck – finger marks and bruising.
[44] Mr. Boyle testified his sister Brandy punched Ms. Slugg while she was sitting on the floor in the hotel room for no reason, out of the blue, and Ms. Slugg’s nose began to bleed all over her white blouse.
[45] Kathryn Labrecque, however, testified she never saw her daughter Brandy punch Ms. Slugg in the hotel room. According to her this did not occur. Ms. Slugg and Brandy had gone into the bathroom and closed the door. She heard a bang and when the bathroom door was opened Ms. Slugg had blood all over her white blouse and her face was bloody. Kathryn Labrecque said Brandy told her she smacked Taylor a good one to her nose in the bathroom. Taylor told her it was okay because Brandy was going to help her clean up the blood. Ms. Labrecque testified in cross that she would not agree with her son’s evidence that Brandy punched Ms. Slugg in the hotel room for no reason. It was Kathryn Labrecque’s evidence she did not see anyone do anything to Taylor Slugg in the hotel room. Taylor was in the bathroom the whole time with Brandy for three minutes. I do not believe Kathryn Labrecque’s evidence as to what she said took place inside the hotel room. Further, her evidence respecting Ms. Slugg not being upset by Brandy punching her in the bathroom does not accord with logic or common sense and in my view is another example of Kathryn Labrecque’s evidence being completely unbelievable.
[46] Ms. Slugg testified Jayce was not involved in any of the assaultive behaviour in the hotel room. He was off in a corner. Jayce had looked outside the hotel room at some point and said there were police officers outside the hotel. He said, “The cops are here, you need to be quiet.” Ms. Slugg testified it was at this point that Mr. Boyle had let go of her throat and he went into the washroom and sat on the toilet with his hands on the side of his head. He was saying he might as well kill himself as he was going to be going to jail. Brandy and Kathryn, according to Ms. Slugg, told Austin to “Stop talking like that.” Brandy was beside Austin in the bathroom, rubbing his back. According to Ms. Slugg, Austin then said, “We have to kill her now.” He was looking directly at her when he said this, according to Ms. Slugg. She testified she realized then that things could go terribly wrong and Brandy looked at her and said, “Run.” She grabbed her purse and ran out of the hotel room door out the front entrance to the hotel. Nobody tried to stop her. Ms. Slugg testified Mr. Boyle never told her to leave the hotel room. Kathryn Labrecque testified that Taylor just said she was going to go home and Austin just said that was a good idea. Ms. Labrecque testified her son never said to Taylor, “Get the fuck out of this room”.
[47] Ms. Slugg testified when she exited the hotel onto the street she saw three people, two females and a male, standing outside. Her face had blood on it, and they asked her if she needed help. Ms. Slugg said she did need help and she needed to hide and she asked them to say that she ran the other way to anyone who came looking for her. They hid her behind a bicycle and put a blanket on her and stood in front of the bicycle. Austin Boyle came running outside a minute or two later and the people said she had run the other way. When Austin left these people asked if she wanted them to call the police. Ms. Slugg testified she told them the police would not get there in time and she asked the people to get her a cab, which they did. She told the cab to bring her to the Costco parking lot and she called her friends, who came there within minutes.
[48] Ms. Slugg said in the hotel room after Brandy punched her in the face, her nose bled all over her white shirt. This white shirt can be seen in the videos, Exhibits 2 and 3, which show her wearing a white blouse under a light blue jacket before she entered the hotel and while out in front of the elevator in the hallway. Ms. Slugg testified in the hotel room, after Brandy punched her, choked her and Mr. Boyle choked her, Kathryn and Brandy Labrecque gave her a black top to change into, which she did. Ms. Labrecque confirmed that Ms. Slugg was given a black top. When she was picked up by her friends one of them gave her a black hoody to wear. In Exhibit 1, Photograph DSC0002.JPG, Ms. Slugg is wearing a black t-shirt and a black hoody. She is still wearing the same black pants she had on when she ran into the La Quinta Hotel through the back door on video.
[49] Both Mr. Boyle and Kathryn Labrecque testified that Jayce left the hotel room with the two dogs, a black Doberman and a French Bull dog puppy shortly after everybody came into the hotel room. Both Mr. Boyle and his mother testified that Jayce never came back to the hotel room with the dogs; however, this evidence is completely inconsistent with the evidence seen on the two videos (Exhibit 2 and 3).
[50] Mr. Fraser suggested this scenario to Ms. Slugg but she was emphatic that Jayce did not leave the room shortly after she arrived. She testified when Jayce came back into the hotel room after first leaving he said the police were outside the hotel and everyone should be quiet.
[51] Exhibits 2 and 3 clearly show Jayce leaving through the back door and then very shortly returning back into the hotel. At 23:05:48, Jayce can be seen walking around the corner of the hallway leading from the hotel room Kathryn Labrecque had rented, walking with the Doberman and holding a pink and black pet carrying case, which I assume had the French Bulldog puppy inside, in the hallway beside the elevator and he went out the back door into the parking lot. He is wearing a grey t-shirt and black shorts with no jacket. This video (Exhibit 2) was played by the defence to show Jayce leaving the hotel. It was argued by Mr. Fraser that this video showing Jayce leaving the hotel with the 2 dogs proved Ms. Slugg was not telling the truth about Jayce leaving and seeing the police and coming back to advise everyone to be quiet. It was his submission this should negatively affect my assessment of Ms. Slugg’s credibility and reliability as to what she said occurred in the hotel room.
[52] The difficulty with the defence position is that Jayce does come back into the hotel, as evidenced by viewing Exhibit 3, which is the surveillance camera looking from the back door out into the parking lot. At 23:05:52 (4 seconds after he is seen on Exhibit 2), Jayce can be seen exiting the La Quinta back door and walking into the parking lot. He has the Doberman and the pink/black pet carrying case. He has a cell phone in his right hand and he is holding the leash with his left. He walks to the middle of the parking lot and at 23:06:15 he turns around and walks back to the back door (23:06:32) but cannot get back inside, as he does not have a pass key. He then walks over to a man, who is sitting against the wall of the building on the right side of the parking lot (as one looks toward May Street), speaks to him at 23:06:55. This man gets up, comes with Jayce to the door and uses a pass key to open the back door (23:07:22). Jayce goes through the back door into La Quinta Hotel.
[53] At 23:07:30, on Exhibit 2, Jayce can be seen coming back into the hallway by the elevator, walking past the elevator to the hallway leading to Kathryn Labrecque’s hotel room and disappears from sight.
[54] Almost eight minutes later on Exhibit 2, at 23:15:08, Kathryn Labrecque can be seen walking around the corner of the hallway leading to her hotel room with her Doberman dog and she takes the dog outside through the back door into the parking lot. At 23:15:13 on Exhibit 3, Kathryn Labrecque exits the back of La Quinta Hotel with her Doberman dog into back pkg lot. She walks away from back entrance towards the street (23:15:36-23:15:56) but she stops in the center of the parking lot and appears to be waiting for someone.
[55] At 23:15:39-41, Jayce can be seen on Exhibit 2, carrying a pink and black plastic pet carrying case as he walks by the elevator going to the back door. He is now wearing a light coloured (white/beige) hoody with a zipper that was open, showing the grey t-shirt he was wearing at 23:05:48 and he is now wearing long sweatpants (same colour as the hoody) and not black shorts. At 23:15:44, on Exhibit 2, Jayce exits the back door, carrying the pink carry container and he meets up with Kathryn Labrecque in the middle of parking lot at 23:15:56 and they walk to May Street together, turning right onto May Street at 23:16:24 and go out of sight.
[56] Kathryn Labrecque testified Jayce left the hotel room to go stay at the house and he never came back to the hotel room. She testified she did not see him until the next day. As a result of the video footage on Exhibit 2 and 3 Ms. Labrecque’s evidence was not true. Only the first portion of the video, Exhibit 2, at 23:05:48 was played by the defence; however, Jayce came back into the hotel and then left again just after Kathryn Labrecque left about eight minutes later and they met up in the parking lot and walked off together with the two dogs.
[57] It was Ms. Labrecque’s evidence and Mr. Boyle’s evidence that shortly after Ms. Slugg cleaned up the blood on her face and changed her top after Brandy had punched her in the face causing her nose to bleed, Mr. Boyle opened the hotel room door and told Ms. Slugg to leave and get out. Ms. Slugg testified she left the hotel room when Brandy told her to run, after Mr. Boyle said, “We have to kill her (referring to Ms. Slugg) now.” Ms. Slugg testified she spoke to some people in front of the hotel and they told her to hide. After hiding she heard Mr. Boyle asking these people if they had seen a woman and they told him she had gone the opposite way. Mr. Boyle denied this although Ms. Labrecque testified she later saw Ms. Slugg getting into a cab. Interestingly Ms. Labrecque added to this evidence in cross-examination that she had spoken to Ms. Slugg as she got into the cab and Ms. Slugg told her she was fine and the people in the front of the hotel called her an uber. It was difficult to know what Ms. Labrecque was going to say given her evidence was either changing or pieces were being added.
[58] Another video clip on Exhibit 3 shows Mr. Boyle and Kathryn Labrecque coming from different directions on May Street and meeting up in the back parking lot. At 23:23:59 Mr. Boyle can be seen walking from May Street into the parking lot from the right side of the video. He is walking into the parking lot. At 23:24:23 Kathryn Labrecque can be seen on this video walking from May Street from the left side of parking lot and she walked to where Mr. Boyle was standing in the middle of the parking lot. At 23:24:42 they meet and appear to be talking to one another and looking back towards where they each had come from. At 23:25:15 they began walking towards the back door of La Quinta Hotel when the video ends abruptly, as this was the end of the portion of La Quinta’s surveillance video of the back door that was seized by the police. It is my view that Mr. Boyle and Ms. Labrecque were trying to find Ms. Slugg as she described in her evidence but she had already left in a cab, which was testified to by Ms. Labrecque. It appears from the video that they are looking for someone, which supports the inference that they were trying to find Ms. Slugg and supports Ms. Slugg’s evidence that she heard Mr. Boyle speaking to the people who had assisted her in hiding at the front of the hotel before she got into the cab. I do not accept Mr. Boyle’s evidence that he told Ms. Slugg to leave the hotel room after his sister punched Ms. Slugg and she had cleaned up. The only reason for Mr. Boyle and his mother to be going around the hotel would be to search for Ms. Slugg who had escaped the hotel room. In my view this increases Ms. Slugg’s credibility.
[59] Ms. Slugg testified her friends who picked her up at Costco told her she had to get the police involved and tell her parents what had happened. The police were called and they came to her house and then took her to the police station where she provided a statement in the early morning hours of October 15, 2020. She testified she did not tell the police that Austin had choked her and put his hand on her mouth to suffocate her in the hotel room and she did not tell them of his threat to kill her. She could not recall if she had told them about the cigarette incident before they went into Reilly’s. I was not provided a copy of Ms. Slugg’s statement by counsel but from the questions put to her and her answers, Ms. Slugg told the police in her first statement that Mr. Boyle pushed her in the chest after her friends left and she fell backwards over a curb and hit her head on the pavement. After she fell Mr. Boyle grabbed her by her arms and forced her to stand. He told her he was bringing her to the hotel and he had hold of her hair at the back and one of her arms. He was pulling on her hair. She told the police in this statement that Mr. Boyle grabbed her in the hallway of the hotel by her neck and hair and was shoving her around. She also told the police in her first statement that Mr. Boyle in the hotel room had grabbed her by her hair and pulled her out of the bathroom or away from the bathroom area.
[60] She agreed she told the police in her first statement what Brandy had done to her in the hotel room because she had visible injuries to her nose and eye and had marks on her neck that had to be explained both to her parents and to the police.
[61] She testified she told the police what she was comfortable telling them but kept thinking for a year she should tell them everything that happened. She knew Mr. Boyle wanted to become a police officer and might get kicked out of his Durham College Police Foundations course. This influenced her not to tell the police everything that happened in the hotel room. She knew what she was telling the police could cause them to charge Mr. Boyle with assault but she did not think it would be as big an issue or be faulted by him for telling only part of what he did. She testified she knew she wanted to talk about it but she was not comfortable telling the full story and she didn’t feel safe to tell the whole story. Mr. Fraser asked Ms. Slugg why she did not just tell the police about what Brandy had done to her and Ms. Slugg said she knew this was going to happen again, that Austin was going to be physical again with her to the extent of her having physical injuries and this was why she didn’t want to just say Brandy had assaulted her. She denied the additional details were to get back at Mr. Boyle for breaking up with her as she was happy to be out of the relationship.
Final Conclusions Respecting Whether the Crown has Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that Austin Boyle Assaulted Taylor Slugg on October 14, 2020
a. The burn mark on Ms. Slugg’s chest
[62] Photographs were entered on consent as Exhibit 1. Photographs DSC0011.JPG to DSC0013.JPG show what Ms. Slugg described as a burn mark in the center of her upper chest, which she said was caused by Mr. Boyle putting out his cigarette on her white blouse and chest. At the time the photographs were taken Ms. Slugg was no longer wearing the white blouse because of the blood on it caused by Brandy Labrecque punching Ms. Slugg in the face and injuring her nose, as she had removed it in Kathryn Labrecque’s hotel room to change into a black t-shirt provided to her by Kathryn and Brandy Labrecque.
[63] Mr. Boyle denied putting his cigarette out on Ms. Slugg’s chest outside Riley’s and he denied arguing with Ms. Slugg outside Riley’s because of his using some bushes to relieve himself. The Crown did not cross-examine Mr. Boyle concerning this altercation alleged by Ms. Slugg concerning the cigarette. There is a mark shown in the photographs referred to above; however, I cannot ascertain what caused that mark based on the evidence led during this trial. If the white blouse had been presented during the trial and it showed a burn mark on the front of the blouse this would have corroborated Ms. Slugg’s evidence as to how the mark visible in the photographs was caused; however, that evidence was not presented. Although Ms. Slugg’s version of what occurred outside Reilly’s Restaurant in respect of her arguing with Mr. Boyle about his relieving himself in some bushes accords more with common sense and logic than Mr. Boyle’s version of relieving himself with one of the other male friends, given they were going to Reilly’s for drinks and it is a restaurant and bar with full washrooms for its patrons, I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Boyle committed this particular assault of Ms. Slugg despite being highly suspicious.
b. Whether Mr. Boyle pushed Ms. Slugg in the chest causing her to hit her head on the pavement and whether his interaction with Ms. Slugg in the hallway outside the elevator was an assault
[64] As I have discussed above; however, respecting other interactions between Mr. Boyle and Ms. Slugg after they left Reilly’s, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of the evidence and my findings of fact that Mr. Boyle assaulted Ms. Slugg as he was forcibly bringing her to the La Quinta Hotel by pushing her in her chest causing her to trip over the curb and strike her head on the pavement. As well I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Boyle assaulted Ms. Slugg when he was violently interacting with her in the hallway outside the elevator before he marched her to the hotel room his mother had rented. I do not believe Mr. Boyle for the multitude of reasons I have referred to in my discussion of the facts. Further, I am not left in any reasonable doubt by Mr. Boyle’s evidence or Kathryn Labrecque’s evidence. I found both Mr. Boyle and Ms. Labrecque lied and fabricated their evidence throughout. I found Mr. Boyle to be evasive in his answering questions in cross-examination. His evidence in chief was often vague at one point but later in cross-examination he was able to provide details he originally indicated he did not know. I found much of his evidence to be self-serving. Both his evidence and his mother’s evidence was completely inconsistent with the video evidence presented in this case. In my view the video evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Boyle and his mother fabricated a version of events that depicted Ms. Slugg to be hopelessly intoxicated such that Mr. Boyle’s altruistic act of grabbing her jean jacket prevented her from causing herself serious injury to her face. Nothing could be further from the truth when observing Mr. Boyle’s actions towards Ms. Slugg. Outside he was chasing her after she broke free of his grasp. Ms. Slugg is clearly terrified of Mr. Boyle, which Mr. Boyle denies until he watches the video where he has to admit, “From what I see now, I have to admit.” It is also clear from the video that Mr. Boyle completely ignores his mother’s attempts to prevent him from going into the hotel after Ms. Slugg. The video clearly shows Mr. Boyle shoving his mother aside. Inside the hallway both his sister Brandy and his mother are trying to prevent him from grabbing Ms. Slugg. Again, he pushes them aside. His facial expressions depict someone who is angry and enraged and completely consumed with being able to get at Ms. Slugg and grab her. Once he does grab her it is my view he manhandles her violently and aggressively. He has her by her hair and neck, bends her over towards the floor, then abruptly, forcefully and violently whips her head up so she is then standing upright. When her hair, which flies every which way, comes off her face it is clear Ms. Slugg is crying, afraid, extremely upset and terrified of what Mr. Boyle will do next. Mr. Boyle’s interactions with Ms. Slugg captured on these videos does not show someone who has been involved in a four year relationship with his girlfriend about to celebrate their fourth anniversary, rather, the videos depict someone completely out of control, furious, enraged, intent on getting to Ms. Slugg and grabbing her so he can exercise his dominance over her and mistreat her in the manner he has already engaged in and clearly intends to continue.
[65] I have no doubt that Brandy Labrecque assaulted Ms. Slugg in the hotel room by punching her directly in the face, causing her nose to bleed and be swollen, as well as Ms. Slugg’s eye being injured. There are clearly finger marks and bruises on Ms. Slugg’s neck consistent with someone choking her. Both Ms. Slugg and Mr. Boyle testified Brandy punched Ms. Slugg directly in the face causing her nose to bleed. There is blood on the edge of Ms. Slugg’s bra as seen in the photographs. She had changed out of her white blouse, although I have no doubt it was bloodied as all of the witnesses said this from Brandy Labrecque punching her in the face. Ms. Slugg testified that Brandy only choked her for a short period of time, 10 seconds in the hotel room.
[66] The more difficult determination is whether Mr. Boyle choked Ms. Slugg in the hotel room and at one point pulled her hair either in or by the bathroom. I do not believe any of Kathryn Labrecque’s evidence as to what occurred in the hotel room for the numerous reasons indicated during my discussion of the evidence and my findings of fact. I also do not believe Mr. Boyle’s evidence respecting what he says he did or did not do in respect of Ms. Slugg in the hotel room. I found that Mr. Boyle was very angry with Ms. Slugg because of what she said to him outside of Reilly’s. There was a constant theme in Mr. Boyle’s evidence, which was first indicated by Ms. Slugg, and that is that he did not believe that Ms. Slugg supported him or was loyal to him. Mr. Boyle repeated this theme in his own evidence and it is my view this is what started Mr. Boyle’s upset with Ms. Slugg. Mr. Boyle became more upset as a result of Tamara, his best friend’s girlfriend, saying derogatory things about him, cheating on Taylor and his being a drug dealer, and his mother being a drug dealer as well as his sister. I found that Mr. Boyle believed Ms. Slugg had told Tamara these negative things about his family, whether Tamara actually said Taylor told her (although I had concerns about Mr. Boyle’s veracity on this given he initially testified he did not know where Tamara got this information) or Mr. Boyle just assumed Ms. Slugg told her. What resulted; however, is that Mr. Boyle’s anger intensified and became more focused on Ms. Slugg. I do not believe that Ms. Slugg followed him to the hotel. I found that Mr. Boyle forced her to come with him to the hotel after getting upset with her after their friends all left and she did not want to go with him. I found based on the videos that Ms. Slugg was not staggering or falling down drunk or intoxicated as both Mr. Boyle and Ms. Labrecque testified. I have no doubt that Ms. Slugg broke away from Mr. Boyle’s grasp and ran to the back door of the hotel, trying to get inside to escape Mr. Boyle.
[67] Ms. Labrecque tried to stop her son from getting to Ms. Slugg. He ignored whatever his mother was saying to him and shoved her aside to prevent the back door from closing as he wanted to regain his control of Ms. Slugg. Both Brandy and Kathryn Labrecque tried to prevent Mr. Boyle from getting to Ms. Slugg. Mr. Boyle was enraged and extremely angry with Ms. Slugg. It is clear from the video he is yelling at her. He pushes past his mother and sister and grabbed Ms. Slugg in an assaultive and violent fashion by the back of her neck and her hair. Ms. Slugg is crying and looks terrified of Mr. Boyle. Mr. Boyle regains control of Ms. Slugg and he is taking her to the hotel room to advise his mother and sister of why he is so angry and upset with Ms. Slugg. All of this is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the video.
c. Whether Mr. Boyle assaulted Ms. Slugg in his mother’s hotel room by choking her and putting his hand over her mouth and pulling her hair
[68] In determining whether the Crown has met her onus to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this further assault I take into account all of my findings respecting my rejection of Austin Boyle’s evidence and Kathryn Labrecque’s evidence.
[69] Both Mr. Boyle and Ms. Labrecque fabricated a version of what occurred in the hallway by saying Ms. Slugg was intoxicated and Mr. Boyle rough-handling of her was only to prevent her and protect her from injuring herself. They both lied about Mr. Boyle’s actions towards Ms. Slugg. They both lied about Jayce leaving the hotel room within a very short time after Ms. Slugg was brought by Mr. Boyle to the room. Everything in Ms. Labrecque testimony concerning there being no assaultive behaviour to Ms. Slugg by either her son or daughter was a lie. She lied about Jayce leaving. She lied about her son shoving her aside when she was trying to prevent him from getting into the hotel.
[70] Another constant theme was Ms. Labrecque’s concerns about being kicked out of her hotel room because of the disturbance being caused and created by Ms. Slugg. All of the witnesses talked about this being a constant concern and it was mentioned a number of times. Jayce left and came back into the hotel room and said the police were outside the hotel and they better be quiet. The video also, in my view, confirms Ms. Slugg’s evidence on Jayce going out and coming back to the room. This lends credibility to Ms. Slugg’s evidence about Mr. Boyle choking her and putting his hand over her mouth. It is not just choking going on but also a hand over Ms. Slugg’s mouth to prevent her from making any noise. The photographs in my view clearly show bruising and finger marks starting to develop on Ms. Slugg’s neck. I question whether the short time alleged by Ms. Slugg that Brandy did this would have caused what can be seen in the photographs just a few hours after. I accept Ms. Slugg’s evidence about Brandy choking her in the hotel room and do not believe Mr. Boyle’s evidence of his sister only punching Ms. Slugg in the face.
[71] Mr. Boyle testified that he told Ms. Slugg just before she left the hotel room, “To get the fuck out.” I do not accept his evidence relating to this. If he said this there would be no reason for him to be outside the hotel apparently looking for Ms. Slugg with his mother. I believe Ms. Slugg’s evidence relating to her running out of the hotel room when the opportunity presented itself to her. The opportunity is presented because Mr. Boyle is sitting in the bathroom with his hands on his head being concerned he is going to be charged by the police. It lends credibility to Ms. Slugg’s evidence of the threat made towards her by Mr. Boyle, although he was never charged with a threatening charge because Ms. Slugg did not disclose this in her first statement to the police.
[72] In my view I have to consider carefully the evidence relating to Mr. Boyle choking and putting his hand over Ms. Slugg’s mouth in deciding whether the Crown has met the onus of proof in respect of that specific assault. Based on the evidence Ms. Slugg’s second statement to the police was not made until a short time before the trial as a result of meeting with the Crown to prepare her to testify. It was during this interview that new evidence was revealed and a second statement was obtained by a police officer and disclosed to the defence. As I have found for the reasons indicated I do not believe the defence witnesses and their evidence has not left me in a state of reasonable doubt on any issue. I have found both Mr. Boyle and Ms. Labrecque to have lied and fabricated their evidence. In my view they both had an agenda in giving their evidence and it was not to tell the truth. As a result of observing the video evidence, which I found is consistent with and corroborates Ms. Slugg’s evidence respecting Mr. Boyle’s assaultive behaviour towards her, I have accepted Ms. Slugg testimony. I will also say that I found Ms. Slugg’s evidence overall to be very credible and in my view she did not exaggerate or embellish the assaultive actions of Mr. Boyle. An example of this was her testimony that after hitting her head on the pavement she felt a bump and it hurt but she testified she did not see any blood. Yet in the photographs there was a considerable amount of blood that can be seen in and through her hair. Her answers were always responsive to the questions she was asked. I did not find her to be evasive in her answers or reluctant to provide an answer. I could not come to the same conclusions respecting Mr. Boyle or Kathryn Labrecque.
[73] I am of the view that Ms. Slugg’s explanation for not telling the police everything about Mr. Boyle’s actions makes sense to me and did not cause me to disbelieve her evidence. Mr. Fraser’s suggestion to Ms. Slugg that she had added these additional details of assaultive behaviour by Mr. Boyle towards her because he had broken off with her did not accord with logic or common sense having regard to the lengthy passage of time that had elapsed since the evening of the assaults. I also found Ms. Slugg’s explanation for why she disclosed some incidents and not others to be very credible. Again, her answers were responsive to the questions asked and made perfect sense. She knew Mr. Boyle was hoping to be a police officer and she restricted his assaultive behaviour to try to not ruin his career plans but she knew their relationship was over and that this type of incident would happen again and it could lead to physical injuries. This was her explanation to Mr. Fraser’s question of why not just point to Brandy’s assault. She also said another reason was it was not just Brandy who had assaulted her.
[74] I find therefore having rejected Mr. Boyle’s evidence and not being in any doubt by his evidence despite rejecting it and not accepting any of Ms. Labrecque’s evidence and in considering the evidence I do accept, which is the evidence of Taylor Slugg, who I found to be fair, not evasive, credible and reliable, supported by video evidence and completely responsive to the questions being asked of her, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the additional assaultive behaviour by Mr. Boyle that occurred in the hotel room, namely his choking her with his right hand and putting his left hand over her mouth. As well as Mr. Boyle pulling her hair in the hotel room, which can be seen clearly on the video evidence of Exhibit 2.
Released: March 28, 2022 Signed: Justice Peter C. West