ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025-03-10
NEWMARKET
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
MARK MOLLISON
JUDGMENT
Evidence Heard: February 24, 25, 2025
Delivered: March 10, 2025
Ms. Tharziha Ganeshamoorthy — counsel for the Crown
Mr. Bruce Daley — counsel for the defendant
KENKEL J.:
Introduction
[1] The complainant and her husband separated in 2023, but they continued living together in the same house in separate bedrooms. One morning the complainant had a friend and her husband over to help replace a light bulb in her shower. After the friends left, the complainant walked down to the garage to leave. Her husband went downstairs and confronted her about having people in the house without his permission. She testified that he slammed the door shut and grabbed her by the shoulder. When she left, he told her that she couldn’t come back to the house. That caused her to go to the police. Her statement about that incident and two prior incidents in their marriage resulted in the three assault charges before the court.
[2] Credibility is the central issue at trial. That assessment must be made in the context of the burden on the Crown to prove the charges alleged beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence conceded that other than the accused’s testimony, there was little in the evidence to suggest that the complainant was not a credible witness. The defence submits that the same applies to the defendant. The conflicting evidence of the two witnesses must at least leave a reasonable doubt. The Crown submits that the accused was not a credible witness and that the evidence as a whole proves all three counts beyond a reasonable doubt.
February 2024 Light Bulb Incident
[3] The complainant arranged for a friend’s husband to replace the light bulb in her shower room. Mr. Mollison was away when she made that arrangement, but he returned the night before and was working in his office when the friends arrived. They passed by and said hello to him as they went to the complainant’s bedroom.
[4] The friends left shortly afterwards, and the complainant went downstairs to go to her sister’s house. Just as she was putting on her coat, Mr. Mollison came downstairs and confronted her. He was angry about her having people in the house without his permission.
[5] The complainant testified that as she tried to leave, he grabbed her arm to stop her and slammed the door shut. She was in shock. She didn’t argue but opened the door again and stepped into the garage. Mr. Mollison told her she could not come back home. Although the physical altercation was brief, the incident caused her to feel unsafe and she went to the police.
[6] In cross-examination the complainant explained that she arranged to have her friends come replace the lightbulb while her husband was away. Even though he returned, it didn’t occur to her that he would be angry over such a minor thing. She identified the loud external sounds on the defence audio record of the incident as the moment of the physical altercation.
[7] Mr. Mollison testified that he didn’t think much of it when he heard the doorbell ring as the complainant’s friends arrived. The friends said hello to him, and he acknowledged one of them. He heard them saying how easy it would be to fix the light. When he heard the friends leave, he went downstairs to confront his wife.
[8] He said he wanted to talk to her, so he simply reached out as she opened the door. His hand was on the door, but he let go once she opened it. He did not grab her in any way and there was no physical altercation. He was trying to get her attention, but he didn’t touch her. As she left, he told her not to come back and he pushed the door closed.
[9] That day Mr. Mollison used his cellphone to secretly make an audio record of the confrontation with his wife. The audio record is marked as Exhibit 1 at trial. The record includes the following:
- MOLLISON – … does it look like I am fucking around with you? You don’t bring anybody into this house without consulting me. Just like …
- MOLLISON – Anything you fucking break in this house, you have to consult me, all right?
- COMPLAINANT – [muffled response]
- MOLLISON – No, No …. it doesn’t work like that.
- COMPLAINANT – No it doesn’t?
- MOLLISON – No, it doesn’t … no, no
- 00:46 – 00:51 LOUD EXTERNAL SOUNDS OF ALTERCATION
- MOLLISON – I am talking to you, I am talking to you
- 00:52 – Alarm system announces door open
- MOLLISON – Don’t even bother coming back in here alright? Don’t bother.
- Door to garage slammed shut
[10] The audio record is consistent with the complainant’s evidence. The loud altercation lasting 5 seconds confirms the central point in her testimony, that Mr. Mollison physically prevented her from opening the door and grabbed her to stop her from leaving. Her stated shock at the angry confrontation over such a small thing is shown in her recorded responses.
[11] The audio record is completely inconsistent with Mr. Mollison’s evidence that he briefly touched the door and then released it as it opened. On his testimony none of the loud noises heard over those 5 seconds should have happened.
[12] The defence played the recording because there was only one open door announcement by the security system. On the complainant’s evidence there could have been two: the first when she attempted to open the door but it was forced closed by Mr. Mollison, and the second when she left. I agree with the defence that there is only one audible opening announcement. There’s no evidence whether that system generates an announcement for attempted openings or at what point such an announcement is triggered. It’s not plain that detail is inconsistent with the complainant’s evidence. The accused’s statements recorded on the audio and the 5-second series of loud bumps or bangs are consistent only with the complainant’s evidence that there was an altercation at the door.
[13] The complainant was a credible witness who testified in a forthright manner. She was responsive to questions in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination. Her evidence was internally consistent, and it was consistent with the external evidence of the audio record. I accept her testimony as credible and reliable.
[14] Mr. Mollison’s evidence is completely undermined by the audio recording he made. The angry and intimidating words and the threat to the complainant that she could not return home are all inconsistent with his testimony that he simply wanted to talk to her. He was so angry he could not restrain himself even though he knew he was secretly recording the event. The loud noises of the altercation directly contradict his evidence as to the events at the door. I do not find Mr. Mollison’s evidence to be credible nor do I find it could reasonably leave a doubt either alone or in combination with any other evidence.
October 2012 Wedding Guests
[15] Shortly after they were married, the complainant was sitting at the dining room table with Mr. Mollison. They were discussing their wedding. She said Mr. Mollison became very upset because there had been people at their wedding that he hadn’t approved. She explained why she invited them. He was still angry, so she left the table and went to their room. He followed, putting his hands around her throat and pushing her to the bed. She kicked him in between the legs, and he let go.
[16] In cross-examination the complainant agreed that the accused’s hands were on her neck for seconds and her breath wasn’t cut off. She also agreed that a few days later she spoke with Mr. Mollison’s sister about the incident. She told his sister that Mr. Mollison tried to choke her. She denied the suggestion that Mr. Mollison was sitting on a sofa and not at the dining table. She disagreed that she went over to the sofa and physically confronted him.
[17] Mr. Mollison testified that he was sitting on the sofa when the incident began. There was discussion about their recent wedding as the complainant was at the dining table doing thank you cards. There was an argument about guests and expenses. She came over to the sofa and confronted him. He held her arms and pushed her away with his chest. He wasn’t sure why she came over to the sofa, but once there he told her she wasn’t like him as he had a moral compass. It’s at that point he said he had to restrain her.
[18] In cross-examination Mr. Mollison said that they argued about the guest list and expenses, he “sat back down” and then she came over to the sofa. When asked when he got up, he said he got up and stood during the argument. He did not walk over to the table. As he continued, he referred to standing at the end of the table. When asked about the inconsistencies he confirmed the sofa wasn’t very close to the table. He told the Crown that he walked over to the table during the argument.
[19] Mr. Mollison didn’t remember why his wife left the table to come over towards him. He thought carefully and then suggested, “I may have said to her that you’re always doing things on your own” referring to her inviting a few guests without obtaining his approval first. He didn’t remember exactly what was said.
[20] The defence called the accused’s sister who confirmed that the complainant told her in 2012 that Mr. Mollison tried to choke her. The sister confronted her brother, and he denied doing that. The sister’s testimony does not add weight to the evidence of either witness. However, it does foreclose any assertion that the 2012 complaint is a recent fabrication to gain advantage in the current marriage breakup.
[21] Mr. Mollison’s evidence was internally inconsistent on small but important points. His description of where he was during the argument matters as he said the complainant was the one who came over to confront him physically and not the other way around. In cross-examination, he said he got up to stand during their argument. Then he said he walked over to the table. On his own evidence he’s the one who is angry enough to physically change location and position. Then he sat down. Nothing in his evidence explains those three actions during the course of the argument.
[22] He wasn’t able to remember what was said just before she rushed over to confront him directly. There is nothing in the evidence of either witness that provides a reason for her to do so. His example of what might have been said would not have provoked such a response.
[23] It does not appear that Mr. Mollison has a clear memory of his own actions or what was said during the incident. Perhaps that’s not surprising given the passage of time. His present recollection is incomplete and inconsistent on important points. The events as he described them don’t make sense. I do not find his testimony credible, nor do I find it could reasonably leave a doubt.
[24] The part of the complainant’s evidence that was difficult to understand was the reason for the disagreement. She described a pleasant conversation about their recent wedding ceremony. During that discussion her husband became upset about a few extra guests. It didn’t appear to make sense that Mr. Mollison would interrupt a pleasant conversation to argue with his bride on such a small point so soon after the wedding. It didn’t make sense that such a minor thing could cause him to become as angry as she described.
[25] Mr. Mollison’s evidence though was consistent with the complainant’s testimony about his demeanor. He described the fact of a few extra guests as a very big issue to him. He went so far as to call it, “the elephant in the room” in the weeks after their wedding. He also added that he had brought up the issue with her on their wedding day.
[26] She didn’t understand the issue in the same way. She thought it was a minor discussion about money – the cost of a few guests. It wasn’t just about that. It was also about control. When he tried to explain why she left the table to come towards him he suggested he may have said, “You’re always doing things on your own”. As a reason for the complainant to rush over to confront him directly that doesn’t make sense. But those words do express Mr. Mollison’s ongoing further grievance beyond expense, that the complainant added a few guests to the wedding list without obtaining his approval first. As she said, he was very angry.
[27] It’s credible that the complainant did not understand how such a small matter could be an ongoing issue after their wedding. Her description of Mr. Mollison as being the person who was angry is consistent with his testimony about the issues as he saw them. His actions including his evidence that he was at the table during the argument is consistent with her testimony.
[28] This wasn’t a one-way argument, but her evidence that she retreated to the bedroom is logical. Her testimony that Mr. Mollison grabbed her about the neck in the bedroom is unfortunately consistent with the evidence of his state of mind at the time. The limited, brief grab she described was credible as was her response. The grab around her neck so soon after their wedding left more of a mental impression than a physical one, but the circumstances show why it was important to her and why it is something she still remembers today.
2017 – Pillow Fight Struggle
[29] The complainant testified that there was an altercation when they were in bed. Mr. Mollison threw a pillow at her, and she hit him back with the same pillow. She couldn’t recall what the argument was about. She got off the bed, then Mr. Mollison did the same and came to her side. He pushed her down and grabbed her by the throat. He told her he had done wrestling and knew how to strangle someone to kill or break their neck. Her feet were still on the floor, so she was able to push back and push him off. She left and went into a spare bedroom.
[30] Mr. Mollison was uncertain of his position at the outset of the argument, “I was most likely on my back”. He said the complainant threw the first pillow and he threw it back. “That’s when all hell broke loose”. He described her as getting aggressive. He recalled he held her arms for about two minutes to calm her down. He did not choke or threaten her. He conceded in cross-examination that they’d had multiple pillow fights.
[31] The issue was an ongoing one mentioned in the evidence of both witnesses – the distribution of expenses. Mr. Mollison earned more money than the complainant and he was consistently unhappy about having to pay more of the household bills. He was unhappy and no doubt she was tired of hearing about it.
[32] The evidence of both witnesses on this count was relatively brief. The complainant was a candid witness, fully identifying her part in the struggle. She was responsive to questions by both counsel. The grabbing she described was short-lived and did not result in injury, although it was accompanied by alarming words.
[33] Mr. Mollison had a more detailed memory about the argument that led up to hitting each other with pillows and a struggle that followed. His explanation for the argument made sense. On this count it can’t be said that the evidence of either witness was diminished in cross-examination. While I accept the complainant’s evidence as credible and likely, I find the whole of the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt on this count.
Conclusion
[34] The Crown conceded that they have failed to prove “bodily harm” as alleged on counts 2 and 3.
[35] Considering the evidence as a whole, I can find no credible evidence that reasonably could leave a doubt on counts 1 and 3. Mr. Mollison is found guilty of assault s 266 on both counts.
[36] I find that the evidence fails to prove count 2 to the same standard. That count is dismissed.
Delivered: March 10, 2025.
Justice Joseph F. Kenkel