Warning
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Ontario Court of Justice
DATE: 2025-04-03
COURT FILE No.: 22-40003134
Toronto Region
BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
— AND —
Jun-Feng Zhang
Before Justice C. Faria
Heard on May 27, 28, 29, November 5, 6, 21, 26, 2024, and January 14, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on April 3, 2025
Daniel DeSantis — counsel for the Crown
Jake Shen — counsel for the accused Jun-Feng Zhang
Faria J.:
I. Introduction
[1] Jun-Feng Zhang is charged with three counts of sexual assault on YC regarding three separate events that allegedly occurred between mid-April and the end of May 2022.
[2] The Crown proceeded by indictment and called the complainant as its only witness. Mr. Zhang testified in his defence and filed numerous messages exchanged between himself and YC during the relevant time period.
[3] The trial took some time to complete as it was the subject of two Motions for Directions on a Defence s. 278 application, both before the trial and mid-trial, as well as two s. 11(b) applications, both before trial and mid-trial, both of which were dismissed.[1]
[4] Evidence was heard during 3 days in May 2024, and for 4 days in November 2024, with submissions on January 14, 2025.
[5] The central issue is the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.
II. Legal Principles
[6] As in every criminal case, Mr. Zhang is presumed innocent. The burden rests on the Crown to prove each essential element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. Reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense from the evidence or lack of evidence.[2]
[7] The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
i. Mr. Zhang touched YC directly or indirectly.
ii. He touched her intentionally.
iii. The touching took place in circumstances of a sexual nature.
iv. YC did not consent to the sexual activity in question.
v. Mr. Zhang knew that YC did not consent to the sexual activity in question.
[8] I instruct myself not to approach the evidence with unwarranted assumptions as to what is or is not sexual assault, what is or is not consent, or what kind of person may or may not be a complainant of sexual assault. I also instruct myself not to make unwarranted assumptions on the kind of person who may or may not commit a sexual assault, or what a person who is being, or has been, sexually assaulted will or will not do or say. There is no typical victim or typical assailant or typical situation or typical reaction.[3]
[9] When considering the credibility and reliability of a witness, I may accept some, none, or all of a witness’ evidence. Credibility relates to whether a witness is speaking the truth. Reliability relates to the actual accuracy of the testimony. The credibility and reliability of a witness must be “tested in the light of all the other evidence presented.”[4]
[10] As the Defence raised the issue of motive, I instruct myself that the accused is not required to demonstrate the complainant had a motive to fabricate evidence. Nor does the absence of a motive to fabricate conclusively establish that a complainant is telling the truth. “The presence or absence of a motive to fabricate evidence is only one factor to be considered in assessing credibility”.[5]
[11] As Mr. Zhang testified in his defence, the applicable analytical framework is that of W.(D.).[6]:
i. If I accept the evidence of Mr. Zhang, I must acquit him.
ii. Even if I do not accept the evidence of Mr. Zhang, if his evidence raises a reasonable doubt, I must acquit him.
iii. Even if I do not accept the evidence of Mr. Zhang, nor does it raise a reasonable doubt, on the totality of the evidence I do accept, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the Crown has proven every element of each offence.
III. Position of the Parties
[12] The Defence submits the court should reject the evidence of the complainant, accept the evidence of Mr. Zhang, and acquit him of all three counts. He submits there are 4 reasons to reject YC’s evidence:
i. YC was inconsistent and thus unreliable and not credible.
ii. An adverse inference should be made regarding the timing of YC’s reporting the allegations to police.
iii. YC has a motive to fabricate the allegations, namely jealousy and revenge as Mr. Zhang did not assist her with her pursuit of permanent status in Canada; and
iv. YC’s demeanour both post-offence and during her testimony undermined her credibility.
[13] The Crown submits YC’s evidence should be accepted as both credible and reliable. He argues YC’s evidence should be reviewed through a trauma informed lens, and that the court should be cautious of engaging in any analysis that relies on myths and stereotypes. Moreover, he submits Mr. Zhang’s evidence was not credible, does not raise a reasonable doubt and the Crown has proven every element of each offence to the requisite standard. Therefore, Mr. Zhang should be found guilty of all charges.
IV. Summary of Evidence
[14] YC and Mr. Zhang met in February 2022, and they became romantically involved shortly thereafter. Mr. Zhang moved into YC’s bedroom in a rooming house at Greenbush Rd. in North York in March 2022. In April 2022, they signed a lease to rent a whole house on Vanda Ave., but they broke up before they moved into the new address.
Count 1: Sexual Assault
[15] YC testified that in mid-April she and Mr. Zhang were consensually kissing and hugging on her bed when he removed her clothes, and his own clothes. She asked him to use a condom before they engaged in sexual intercourse, and he reached into the nearby cabinet and got one. She saw him put it on himself. They had consensual vaginal intercourse. Mr. Zhang asked her to turn over and lie face down on her bed, which she did. She felt him vaginally penetrate her with his penis. Shortly thereafter, she testified he ejaculated on her back and she saw the condom on the floor.
[16] YC asked Mr. Zhang why the condom was on the floor. She testified Mr. Zhang said he had removed it. She asked him why he did so. She testified that he responded that it felt better that way and said “it is ok nothing is going to happen” because he had not ejaculated inside her. They argued. Then they showered separately and dressed. Mr. Zhang discarded the condom and left. She said they had agreed that a condom was going to be used. She testified she was very unhappy, disappointed, sad, and disturbed. She had not consented to have sexual intercourse without a condom.
[17] Mr. Zhang’s version of events is that indeed he engaged in consensual vaginal intercourse with YC in mid-April. That evening, he reached into a nearby drawer, got a condom, and put it on himself before he engaged in sexual intercourse.
[18] He described that he penetrated YC as they faced each other, then she turned over to lie face down on the bed and then he vaginally penetrated her from behind. When he changed from this second position to a third position, he testified that the condom “got stuck” in her vagina and slipped off his penis.
[19] Mr. Zhang testified he asked YC if he should get another condom before he continued. She told him, “No, just don’t ejaculate”. He threw the condom to the floor and continued penetrating her as they faced each other. He then withdrew, masturbated, and ejaculated on her. He testified they both showered afterward. There was no argument.
Count 2: Sexual Assault
[20] YC testified the relationship soured about a week or two after the first alleged sexual assault, and she messaged Mr. Zhang and broke up with him. When she returned home, Mr. Zhang had moved out.
[21] Prior to the breakup, YC testified she was vomiting and felt sick. She did not think she was pregnant at first, but then did a pregnancy test and learned she was. She told Mr. Zhang. Mr. Zhang asked her to do the test again. He accepted she was pregnant. They discussed abortion and he researched where she could get the medical procedure. They made an appointment at a clinic and attended together. YC was provided abortion medication and told to attend follow up appointments.
[22] YC testified she was at the new address the day she took the first pill. She testified Mr. Zhang came to visit her and care for her. She was in bed most of the time and unable to attend to herself. In the afternoon, after work, he came to cook for her. He made vegetables and they ate in her room. He located a small bottle of a liquor in her fridge and drank it. She did not drink as she had taken the medication.
[23] YC testified that after their meal, Mr. Zhang lay down on the bed. As there was only a desk and a bed in the room, YC sat by the desk. She testified Mr. Zhang tried to get her to lie on the bed with him. He grabbed her from behind in what she demonstrated as a bear hug and held her from standing to sitting on the bed to lying down on the bed. She said “no”, “stop” “what are you doing” and Mr. Zhang responded he was just hugging her. Over her clothes, he was rubbing his penis on her buttocks.
[24] Mr. Zhang then tried to take off her top, her pants, her underwear and undo her bra. He succeeded in undoing her bra but was unsuccessful taking off her top. She could not remember if her pants came off, but she knows her underwear were not removed. YC testified that Mr. Zhang removed his own underwear, grabbed her hand, and tried to use it to masturbate his erect penis for a few seconds as she tried to get away from him. He was rubbing his hand and body on the outside of her vagina. She told him to stop touching her.
[25] Mr. Zhang rubbed YC’s vagina over her underwear with his hand, and then put his hand under her underwear. She was “bleeding a lot”. Mr. Zhang got blood on his hand. He then went to wash his hand. He put his clothes on and left.
[26] YC testified she had not consented to Mr. Zhang touching her at all that day. She was offended. She described that they had broken up, and he was the only person who was aware of her physical condition at the time. She saw him as a family member and did not expect any physical touching.
[27] Mr. Zhang testified to this encounter very differently. He identified it to be exactly on May 1, 2022 as that was the day they needed to complete the move from the rooming house address to the new house rental.
[28] Mr. Zhang agreed they had broken up, but he testified he was the one who had initiated it after the mid-April event. He was precise that he did it on April 20th, as they had argued on April 18th, the day he signed the lease, and on April 19th. He took his belongings and moved back to his parents’ home while YC was at work. He testified that though YC kept pursuing him, for instance attending at his workplace on April 27 unannounced and uninvited, waiting for him contrary to his wishes.
[29] He confirmed YC told him she was pregnant, and they discussed an abortion. He testified he located a women’s care clinic, at Lawrence and Dufferin and researched the process. He gave YC the contact information for the clinic. She had a 10:30 a.m. appointment on May 1. YC called him, and he went to her place that morning, leaving at 8:00 a.m. He stopped at Shopper’s Drug Mart and purchased a second pregnancy test, to make sure YC was “truly” pregnant before they went to the clinic, and she was.
[30] Mr. Zhang testified that he drove the two of them to the clinic. They then went to the pharmacy and filled the prescription for YC. It was a 2-pill procedure that would cause bleeding and YC would need his care. He testified she took the medication, and they went to the rooming house first to pick up boxes, then to the new Vanda address. He remembered they had moved items from Greenbush on the last day of her lease there, April 30, and they had to go back for more items on May 1, 2022, the day they visited the clinic.
[31] At the Vanda address, YC was not feeling well and told him she had started bleeding. Mr. Zhang recalled he cooked ribs for YC, as this is his best dish. They chatted as they ate and watched a show. He drank a small bottle of sake, but YC did not because of the medication.
[32] Mr. Zhang testified they were lying on the bed in the small room which only had a bed, a table and two chairs. YC began to cry and talk about their disagreements. He tried to calm her and kissed her on the forehead.
[33] Mr. Zhang testified that YC rubbed his shoulder, and his chest. She put one hand into his pants and pulled his pants down with the other. He testified he did not want to do that. YC then masturbated him until he ejaculated. He got up, got a tissue, and told her they should go no farther, and she should rest. YC fell asleep and he then left at around 7:00 p.m. or so. He went back to his parents’ home.
[34] When asked how he felt, he testified he was confused. He had broken up with YC, but she was upset and crying, and he did not want to make it worse. He thought she had misunderstood his kiss on her forehead.
Count 3: Sexual Assault
[35] A few days later, YC testified she had her 2nd follow up appointment at the clinic. Mr. Zhang again attended with her. She was unsure if it was that day when Mr. Zhang came to her home again to cook for her. He attended around the same time of day, and it was just the two of them in the new address on Vanda. She testified Mr. Zhang either ordered take-out or brought food and they ate it together.
[36] YC testified that after the meal Mr. Zhang laid down on her bed. He told her that he was tired and YC said he looked sleepy. He said he would take a nap and then would be ready to go. He took her hand and pulled her to the bed. She said “no”, that they had “broken up” and that he was only there to take care of her “that is it.” She testified Mr. Zhang pulled her to the bed, and she lay down beside him. She tried to keep her distance from him, but he came closer.
[37] YC testified Mr. Zhang then tried to remove her pants. “This time he did not put his hand inside” but rubbed his penis against her and tried to masturbate himself that way. She did not recall if he took her pants off, but she kept her adult disposable diaper on. He tried to remove it, but she “stressed to him multiple times there is a lot of blood” and he never removed the adult diaper.
[38] YC testified Mr. Zhang grabbed her hand to masturbate his exposed erect penis as he sat on her hips and vaginal area. He straddled her with only one leg in his underwear as she lay face up on the bed. YC broke her hand free. Mr. Zhang masturbated himself. After some time, Mr. Zhang ejaculated on her belly. After doing so, he cleaned himself and handed her tissues to clean herself.
[39] They had a fight. YC told him that if this was how he was going to take care of her, not to bother. Mr. Zhang then left.
[40] Mr. Zhang’s testimony was that no sexual activity occurred on this day at all. He testified YC called him because she was to take the 2nd pill of the 2-pill abortion procedure and needed his help.
[41] It was May 4, 2022. As it was around 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. and too late to cook. Mr. Zhang ordered food delivered to the Vanda address. He arrived there before the food did. They ate it together and she took the pill. YC asked him to unblock her from social media as she wanted to contact him if she needed a follow up appointment with the clinic and needed his help. He agreed to unblock her.
[42] Mr. Zhang had a work shift the next day, and after he put YC to bed, he left at about 11:00 p.m. and went to his family home.
V. Analysis
[43] Counsel for Mr. Zhang submitted the court should reject YC’s evidence because she was inconsistent and thus not credible nor reliable. This is a persuasive submission.
[44] Counsel also submits the court should make adverse findings because she delayed reporting the allegations to police,[7] had a motive to fabricate,[8] and her demeanour[9] undermined her credibility. He provided caselaw to support his position.
[45] It is not in dispute these factors can be relevant to a credibility and reliability assessment. However, I must instruct myself to avoid stepping into myth and stereotype when taking these factors into consideration.
[46] The Defence theory is that YC was jealous, and she was angry, and so she fabricated the sexual assault allegations to harm Mr. Zhang.
[47] However, a complainant can be both jealous and angry and be telling the truth about a sexual assault. A complainant can also choose to report a sexual assault because she is jealous and angry. Neither jealousy nor anger are inconsistent with having been sexually assaulted. To conclude otherwise without an evidentiary basis, is to assume that sexual assault complainants, in this case, YC, cannot be simultaneously jealous, angry, and a victim of sexual assault. She can.
[48] Counsel’s arguments and reasoning is also dangerously close to the historical, and still persistent stereotypical argument, that jealous and angry women lie about sexual assault, and that is what YC did.
[49] I make no adverse findings against the complainant based on when she reported the allegations to police. Although there is evidence of jealousy, and anger, I do not find them to be a motive for YC to fabricate these allegations. Finally, I instruct myself on the limited role of demeanour in the assessment of credibility. Culture, personality and pressure can have an effect on behaviour during testimony, and a risk that stereotypes about credibility may distort the evaluation of this behaviour is present.[10]
[50] I will focus my analysis on the substance of the witness’ evidence, the internal consistency or inconsistency of their narratives. I will accept some, none, or all their evidence, and make findings of credibility and reliability in light of all the evidence.
Reliability and Credibility
[51] YC was cross-examined in detail about her characterization of her relationship with Mr. Zhang during the period of the sexual assault allegations, her conduct, his conduct, and the sexual assault allegations themselves.
[52] Counsel put WhatsApp, Instagram, and WeChat messages exchanged between YC and Mr. Zhang at the relevant times to YC to challenge her testimony. I note that throughout this lengthy cross-examination, Counsel was polite and patient.
[53] At least 3 notable inconsistencies, or irregularities emerged during cross-examination that undermined YC’s credibility. Namely:
i. Who initiated the breakup of the relationship and when.
ii. The timing of the sexual assaults vis-à-vis YC’s abortion medication process.
iii. The reason YC testified she reported the allegations to police.
The Break-Up
[54] Firstly, YC testified firmly that she broke up with Mr. Zhang about mid-April 2022, after the first sexual assault, and before she learned she was pregnant. She was firm she did not want anything to do with Mr. Zhang.
[55] However, YC signed a lease with Mr. Zhang on April 18, 2022 (Exhibit 1), and continually engaged him in digital conversations late into the night, and into the early morning hours as late as April 26, 2022 and before the second and third sexual assault allegations. She wrote things such as “If we are really going to break up, do you have to treat me like an enemy?” (Exhibit 3a) and “I just hope that one day in the future, we can achieve the goal together” (Exhibit 6b) (emphasis added). These conversations demonstrate YC is persistent in her pursuit of connection with Mr. Zhang contrary to her testimony.
[56] The WhatsApp messages also demonstrate that it is Mr. Zhang who repeatedly tries to end the relationship, end the conversations, and wants to move on from the relationship but for caring for YC during the abortion process when she needs it.
[57] When confronted with the messages, YC testified that she meant to be speaking in the 3rd person and that she was speaking in general. However, given the number, content, and tone of her messages to Mr. Zhang, I do not find her testimony on this point credible.
Timing
[58] YC testifies that the second and third sexual assaults occur on the two days that she takes the two abortion inducing pills, which makes her reliant on Mr. Zhang for care. These events also occur at the same time as she moves into a new residence.
[59] However, YC is unclear about the timing of any of these events. She is unclear about the timing of the 2-pill abortion process, particularly the timing between the taking of the two pills. She is unclear about the sexual assaults vis-à-vis when she took the pills. She is unclear when she moved to the new address. She estimates that the second sexual assault was around May 10, but that is 10 days after the May 1st move, and inconsistent with the timing evident in the messages she sends Mr. Zhang about when she needs his help. Even the messages she wrote, when put to her, do not clarify or refresh her memory.
[60] In addition, YC testifies she did not want anything to do with Mr. Zhang after she broke up with him, but for his help with her care during the abortion process. However, the messages she sends him are engaging and persistent, and demonstrate otherwise.
[61] Moreover, YC testified that if this is how he would treat her after the third sexual assault, that he “need not bother caring” for her, yet YC went on to testify she wanted and expected Mr. Zhang to attend at 3rd follow up appointment which did not require she be cared for at all.
[62] To be clear, it is not that YC engaged with or wanted to be with Mr. Zhang after the alleged sexual assaults, that undermines her credibility. It is not that she may have had mixed feelings or was not definitive about breaking up. It is that YC was not candid about her feelings, her conduct, and her communications, that undermines her credibility.
Reason she reports to the police
[63] Finally, YC is inconsistent about her concern for other women as the reason why she went to the police.
[64] YC testified she did not want to report the sexual assaults:
“as long as he fulfilled his obligations. But I discovered that he was lying to me again and also, he’s also lying to other girls, and I didn’t want these kind of things to happen again, and that is why I went to the police.”
[65] Although YC testified she did not want “these kinds of things”, ostensibly the sexual assaults she experienced “to happen again” to “other girls”, her messages to Mr. Zhang and to the woman she suspected was his lover contradict her in court evidence.
[66] On the day YC expected Mr. Zhang to attend with her to the medical appointment, YC testified she saw his social media profile of him and another woman. YC messaged Mr. Zhang “fall in love so soon”, and “you’d better announce it officially”. She called the woman Mr. Zhang’s “lover”. She offered to be the “matchmaker” as she knew the woman via WeChat.
[67] YC contacted this woman and offered to be a “matchmaker” between her and Mr. Zhang. YC confirmed she did not warn or express any concern to this woman about Mr. Zhang’s conduct. This is in direct contradiction to her expressed concern for other women’s well-being and the reason she goes to police.
[68] Furthermore, YC was pedantic and deliberately argumentative when she was cross-examined about the messages between her and Mr. Zhang. She disagreed Mr. Zhang was being “sarcastic” in the messages and then used that very word in her messages to him. She took issue with the use of the word “lover”, but then used the word in the messages and in her testimony. At times, she was evasive and challenged both counsel and the interpreter on semantics, only to be shown to be inaccurate or inconsistent.
[69] Inconsistencies, irregularities, and lack of clarity when testifying about incidents that occurred over a year or more before need not be fatal to the reliability and credibility of a witness. However, in this case, in their totality, and how they relate to the material events, the number and quality of these inconsistencies, irregularities, and lack of clarity seriously undermine YC’s credibility and reliability.
[70] The deficiencies in YC’s evidence were made more stark by Mr. Zhang’s straight-forward, detailed, and candid testimony. His evidence was clear as to what he did, when he did it, why he did it, and how he did it. His evidence was specific and supported by the messages he exchanged with YC. His explanations were cogent, coherent, and unshaken in cross-examination.
Sexual Assault #1
[71] Both YC and Mr. Zhang testified that in mid April 2022, they had consensual vaginal intercourse with a condom and then continued without a condom until Mr. Zhang ejaculated on YC.
[72] YC testified Mr. Zhang did not get her consent to vaginally penetrate her without a condom. Mr. Zhang testified he did obtain her consent.
[73] There were minor inconsistencies in YC’s narrative as to whether she told Mr. Zhang to get a condom, or communicated the same via body language, and whether she saw the condom on the floor first or felt the ejaculate on her body first. These are peripheral matters.
[74] However, a criminal trial is not a credibility contest. A trial judge does not simply decide which version of events to believe.[11] The credibility assessment is not an either/or process where the trial judge is "required to choose a version of the events in order to reach a verdict".[12]
[75] Given YC’s compromised credibility, and Mr. Zhang’s consistent and unshaken evidence on this count which raises a reasonable doubt, I am not satisfied to the requisite degree required that Mr. Zhang did not obtain YC’s consent.
Sexual Assault #2
[76] YC testified that the evening of her first abortion treatment, when she was bleeding heavily, Mr. Zhang groped her, undid her bra, and put his hands into her underwear while she protested. He only stopped when he saw the blood on his hands.
[77] Mr. Zhang testified that he kissed her on the forehead while she was crying, and YC proceeded to touch him and then masturbate him. He did not consent to this activity and felt confused. In effect, he was sexually assaulted.
[78] YC’s evidence was unclear as to when this sexual assault happened and does not relate it to moving to the new address, however, the lease, and her messages to Mr. Zhang suggest it is May 1 as she says she will be busy and will have to move the next day.
[79] As to the details, she testified Mr. Zhang was unable to take her top off, but was able to both undo her bra, and remove it from under her top. She could not recall if he removed her pants. Though she testified he tried to have her masturbate him, she did not recall if he had clothes on, only to then testify that he removed his underwear.
[80] YC testified that she felt Mr. Zhang was like a family member at this point because they had broken up, but her messages to him either the night before, or that night, are about their romantic relationship, their future, and trying to convince him to perceive her in a better light than he does.
[81] It would appear unusual for Mr. Zhang to reach into YC’s underwear knowing she would be bleeding profusely as he was informed by his research and she told him, or that he would seem surprised he had blood on his hands as YC testified.
[82] Similarly, it would appear unusual that YC would feel motivated to masturbate Mr. Zhang since both YC and Mr. Zhang testified that she was in significant physical discomfort because of the abortion medication.
[83] I am unable to determine what these two young people did during this difficult evening, and what role sexual activity played in their interaction. Though I am not prepared to accept the entirety of Mr. Zhang’s evidence, however, in light of YC’s compromised reliability and credibility on the significant details on the timing of this event, Mr. Zhang’s straightforward evidence raises a reasonable doubt on this count.
Sexual Assault #3
[84] On the day YC took the 2nd abortion inducing pill, YC testified Mr. Zhang rubbed his penis against her and tried to masturbate himself in that way while she told him several times not to. Mr. Zhang grabbed YC’s hand to masturbate his exposed erect penis and when she took her hand away, he masturbated himself and ejaculated on her belly.
[85] Mr. Zhang testified no sexual activity occurred at all.
[86] YC is unclear as to when this event occurred, although it is directly related to the 2-pill abortion treatment she was in the process of. She was unclear about when they attended the clinic together, she testified Mr. Zhang came in the afternoon as before, but that appears inconsistent with the appointment being earlier in the day the first time, and it being moving day. In the small confines of the room, YC does not recall if Mr. Zhang removed her pants or not. She testified she told Mr. Zhang she did not want his help anymore, but then testified she was upset Mr. Zhang did not attend the 3rd appointment in June, the day she learned he “lied” to her when she saw his profile photo with a woman.
[87] Again, the challenges with the credibility and reliability of YC’s evidence, both in its totality, and in regard to her inconsistent evidence on her own conduct and intentions during this period, particularly in contrast to Mr. Zhang’s detailed evidence, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the Crown has proven this count.
VI. Conclusion
[88] Based on the evidence, my findings of credibility and reliability, and the analytical framework of W.(D.), I find Jun-Feng Zhang not guilty of all three counts of sexual assault.
Released: April 3, 2025
Signed: Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria
Footnotes
[1] R. v. Zhang, 2024 ONCJ 100, R. v. Zhang, 2024 ONCJ 617
[2] R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 at para. 39
[3] R. v. Seaboyer; R. v. Gayme, [1991] 2 SCR 577 at paras. 679-680; R. v. Darrach, 2000 SCC 46 at paras. 32-37; R. v. Find, 2001 SCC 32 at para. 103; R. v. JL, 2018 ONCA 756 at paras. 46-47; R. v. JC, 2021 ONCA 131 at paras. 93-98; R. v. JJ, 2022 SCC 28 at para. 1
[4] R. v. B (BW), [1993] No. 758 at para. 28
[5] R. v. Batte, 2000 ONCA 5751 at para. 121
[6] R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 SCR 742
[7] R. v. D.D., 200 SCC 43 at para. 65; R. v. J.M., 2018 ONSC 344 at para. 67; R. v. Roth, 2020 BCCA 240 at para. 134; R. v. S.G., 2022 ONCA 727 at para. 43
[8] R. v. Batte, 2000 ONCA 5751 at para. 120; R. v. Walters, 2024 ONSC 978 at para. 7
[9] R. v. L.S., 2017 ONCA 685 at paras. 88-89; R. v. Roth, 2020 BCCA 240 at para. 130; R. v. Rose, 2021 ONCA 408 at para. 22; R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 at para. 65; R. v. R.E.G., 2024 ONSC 6302 at paras. 158-179; R. v. D.G., 2024 ONSC 2487 at paras. 62, 65, 66; R. v. R.D., 2016 ONCA 574 at para. 25; R. v. Lennox, 2019 ONSC 5703 at para. 16
[10] R. v. J.L., 2022 ONCA 271 at para. 6
[11] R. v. Y.(C.L.), 2008 SCC 2 at para. 6
[12] R. v. W.(J.), 2014 ONCA 322 at para. 27