Warning and Non-Publication Order
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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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: 2025-04-04
COURT FILE No.: Toronto 4810 998 23 48114102
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
DRU NORRIS
Before Justice R. Wright
Heard on March 17 and 18, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on April 4, 2025
C. Tsilingiris — counsel for the Crown
N. Sandhu — counsel for the defendant Dru Norris
Reasons for Judgment
R. WRIGHT J.:
[1] Dru Norris stood trial before me on five counts; four are for allegations that he breached the conditions of a release order. The fifth and most serious allegation is that he committed a sexual assault on L.T. while he was breaching conditions that he not communicate with her, be at her residence, or be within a 100 metre radius of her. He also faces a further allegation of breach for communicating with her the next day.
[2] L.T. and Mr. Norris had been acquainted for approximately 10 years. There is no dispute that their relationship was sometimes sexual. L.T. testified that Mr. Norris had arranged to visit her on August 13, 2023, and that he penetrated her vagina digitally and with his penis without her consent while at her apartment.
[3] L.T. was the only witness called by the Crown and, with the exception of some text message communications that were entered through her (which I will have more to say about), the only evidence called by the Crown.
[4] Mr. Norris testified in his defence. This is therefore a case to which the framework from R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 applies. If I accept the evidence upon which the defence relies, then I must acquit. If I do not accept that evidence but am left in a state of reasonable doubt by it, I must also acquit. Finally, I must acquit Mr. Norris of the offences charged unless satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, on the evidence I do accept, of his guilt. As a matter of logic, it follows that, if, after a consideration of all the evidence, I cannot decide whom to believe, I must find Mr. Norris not guilty.
[5] Mr. Norris admitted he was bound by the conditions of his recognizance:
(1) Not to be at [address removed], Toronto;
(2) Not to be within 100 metres of L.T.; and,
(3) Not to communicate with L.T.
He also acknowledges knowingly breaching these conditions when he attended her apartment on August 13, 2023, and communicated with her by phone on August 14, 2023. Therefore, the only issues for me to decide are the credibility and reliability of the two witnesses I heard from in the framework I have set out from D.W. to determine the count of sexual assault.
Evidence of the Crown
[6] L.T. testified that Mr. Norris attended at her apartment, at [address removed], Toronto, on the afternoon of August 13, 2023. He had called her and arranged to visit on his way to Mississauga.
[7] She left the door open for him and he stopped to speak to some neighbours. When he entered the apartment, she was in the kitchen, which is the first room through the door. She was cooking plantain. She was wearing a t-shirt and shorts without underwear. Mr. Norris offered to order her more food. They had not seen each other in a number of months. He told her he had been in custody and had not had sex for some time. He began touching her flirtatiously and told her he “wanted to smack,” which meant he wanted to have sex.
[8] She told him she was seeing someone. She told him she did not want to have sex. He expressed surprise. It was typical in their relationship that she would initially not want to have sex but would give in. On this date, she told him no several times before he seemed to understand that she was serious.
[9] He picked her up, put her over his shoulder, and brought her to the couch. She was laughing while this happened. He asked again “are you serious, you really don't want to have sex.” She kept repeating that she was serious and that “it is a no.”
[10] He asked her “would you call the Jakes if I raped you?” Jakes meant the police. She had called the police on him in the past. She could not recall if she responded specifically to this question; she said she might have exclaimed “what the hell.”
[11] Mr. Norris then penetrated her with his finger for a brief time. He pulled her shorts down and pulled his penis out through the front of his pants. He then penetrated her with his penis. Penetration lasted less than a minute, perhaps only 30 seconds.
[12] L.T. was crying before he penetrated her with his penis. When he penetrated her with his penis she screamed, loudly, saying words to the effect of what the fuck, get the fuck off of me. She described herself as freaking out. He stopped and stood up. She stood up as well. He was saying why are you freaking out, why are you being unstable.
[13] He gathered his things and left within a couple of minutes.
[14] Shortly thereafter she received text communication from him, screenshots of which became an exhibit at trial. They show the following conversation:
Yesterday 5:01 PM
Are you telling your friend bout today
The food should be there in 20 min
Ur gonna have to go down for it
No I'm not and okay thanks
But ur bless
Are you still on the phone
Yeah
The food is outside
In the lobby
Did you get it
How's ur vagina
Whatchu mean
Does it hurt
From what exactly?
Dru, you know what happened. To be quite honest I'm worried. But please, don't ask me silly questions
I didn't give you permission to stick your dick inside of me
Why are you worried
Delete that last message
But what's ur problem wid me let me know so I could change
I did not want to have sex. I said no plenty times… you didn’t give me a choice. That's my problem
Yesterday 9:49 PM
U hungry?
Are you sleeping?
Im looking at the last message you sent and you kinda worded it crazy
L.T. are you okay ?!?!
I'm good
Wydrn
Could you talk on the phone?
Today 1:10 PM
You know after what you did to me you could at least make sure I had weed
[15] L.T. testified that Mr. Norris also phoned her a number of times during this period. At some point she blocked his number. She was deciding what her next step would be, whether she would report the assault.
[16] She called a friend to ask her for support. She decided she would report the incident to the police. Her friend was now dating an ex of hers, who was staying with her at the time. The two of them came to her residence later that evening and she discussed reporting with them. She went to the police the next day and also went for a Sex Assault Examination Kit.
[17] In cross examination she responded to a number of suggestions:
(1) She agreed that she weighed 200 pounds. She did not agree that Mr. Norris was slim, rather describing him as muscular and tall. She maintained that Mr. Norris had no difficulty lifting her and carrying her to the couch.
(2) She agreed that she was quiet between when he used his finger and the penile penetration.
(3) She agreed that she screamed loud enough that the neighbours would have heard.
(4) She agreed that there were further texts after the exchange with Mr. Norris.
(5) She acknowledged some texts between her and Mr. Norris’ partner Breanna, in which she indicated satisfaction that Mr. Norris was taken into custody.
(6) She did not agree with a suggestion that she wanted Mr. Norris in custody, but she said rather she felt he deserved to be in custody.
(7) She did not agree that Mr. Norris had told her at this visit that he was having another baby with Breanna; she testified that she learned this directly from Breanna, after the date of the allegations.
(8) She also disagreed with a suggestion that she disliked Breanna, but she did agree to suggestions that their relationship had been difficult.
(9) Finally, she disagreed with the suggestion that she fabricated her allegations because Mr. Norris was having another child with Breanna.
Evidence of the Defence
[18] Mr. Norris testified that it was L.T. who invited him over; he agreed to visit. He attended [address removed] and spoke with her neighbours for approximately half an hour before going into her apartment. His evidence is that her neighbours warned him against going into her unit as other men who had gone in had ended up charged by the police.
[19] When he entered the apartment, she was in the kitchen cooking plantain. He offered to order her food, which she initially declined. He went through into the living room and spoke to her from the couch, catching up. He told her that Breanna was pregnant with their second child. L.T. looked shocked, and a bit angry. He then told her he was going into the second bedroom or smoking room to have a smoke.
[20] When he came back into the living room, L.T. was sitting on the couch. He sat beside her. They continued talking about Breanna, and he was also asking how L.T. and her son were doing. He told her that neighbours had warned him against coming into her apartment, saying that everyone who has been in the house has been charged. He asked her if they could have sex. Her response was, “I am dirty and I need a shower.” He told her ok, no problem.
[21] He went into the smoking room to roll some weed. He was in there for between 10 and 15 minutes. He heard the shower run. When he came out of the smoking room, L.T. was dressed in a t-shirt and shorts and seated on the couch. He went and sat next to her. His memory of their conversation at this point was “cloudy” but he believed they had discussed Breanna. He asked if they could have sex. L.T. replied, “not right now.” They had further discussion and he asked her if he could put his arm around her. She said, “yes you can.” He put his arm around her and put his arm on her leg.
[22] She was right next to him and appeared comfortable. She was smiling and laid her head on his shoulder. He asked her if he could move his hand up. She said yes. He moved his hand to her vagina for approximately 30 seconds. He asked again if they could have sex. She replied, “just do it.”
[23] She had been laying on the couch, on her back, when he asked to have sex this time. He got up, “took it out,” and they started having sex.
[24] After they had been having sex for about 30 seconds, out of nowhere, L.T. kicked him. She let out a little scream and kicked him. He flew back and landed on the floor. He said, “what was that for?” He told her she was unstable. She said she did not want to have sex. Mr. Norris stood up and pulled up his pants.
[25] She immediately said sorry, and that it had been an emotional outburst. He asked her what kind of food she wanted as he was pulling up his pants. At first, he was standing, but he sat down with her after she told him what she wanted. He ordered her food. He saw a book he was interested in and asked her if he could have it. She asked him if he could still buy her weed and he said yes. After about 15 minutes he told her he had to go to Mississauga but that he would come back with weed.
[26] He texted her when he received notification that the food was being delivered. He also acknowledged asking how her vagina was, and if it hurt. When asked in chief why he had posed this question to her he stated, “Because she once told me that when women don’t want to have sex and are uncomfortable their vagina is tight but when they are comfortable their vagina opens up and it becomes comfortable so that is why I asked her if it hurt.” He was then asked when he thought it has been uncomfortable for her and said it was when she had kicked him.
[27] He testified that the text messages provided by the complainant were not complete. He had responded to her assertion with words to the effect of I did not force myself on you, I did not do anything without consent, you gave me consent, and that is when - I did not force myself on you. That message had been deleted.
[28] He also testified that they spoke on the phone. It was approximately two days after police had called letting him know he was being charged for sexual assault. She called him and he asked her why he was being charged. She told him the police had told her they didn’t have enough evidence to charge him. He told her that there was a warrant out for him. It was a brief conversation, and then he blocked her. She kept calling; when he answered she would tell him, “I hope you rot in jail, and that you never see your kids again.” In other conversations she would tell him that she was sorry and that she didn’t mean for this to happen.
[29] His evidence was that he had experienced this type of erratic behaviour from her before, in particular when she was using cocaine. He was asked about her relationship to Breanna and, in his view, L.T. did not like Breanna. This opinion was based on text messages he had seen exchanged between them.
[30] He testified that he weighed just over 160 pounds at the time and that he would have had a struggle carrying L.T. His evidence was he had never done so before.
[31] He denied asking her if she would call the Jakes if he raped her.
[32] In cross examination he was challenged on his evidence that messages he had sent were deleted. He testified he had lost his phone, so could not show the messages. He maintained that he had responded to her allegations but agreed that many of the texts appeared to flow as back-and-forth conversation. He explained he had asked her to delete the question about whether her vagina hurt because it could be misinterpreted. He further explained that he thought she meant to go to the police all along and she was trying to get him to elaborate by sending the texts. But he was not worried, he knew what direction things were heading, but the sex had been consensual.
[33] He was asked to explain how L.T. kicked him. He testified that she was lying on her back on the couch and he was standing up while penetrating her. She kicked him once with both of her legs. She kicked him, he flew back, and she screamed. He fell back, not very far, but he did fall back when she kicked him.
[34] His evidence about staying in the apartment after was also explored. He said he did so because he was confused; she was saying she did not want to do it, and then apologizing and saying that she was a bit overwhelmed emotionally.
Legal Framework and Analysis
[35] The Crown faces a high burden in a criminal trial. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires credible and reliable evidence in order to displace the presumption that the person charged and before the court is innocent.
[36] Credibility relates to a witness’s truthfulness. One of the most valuable means of assessing it is to examine any inconsistency between what the witness said in testimony and what he or she has said on other occasions, or said differently at different times within testimony, or from omitting to refer to certain events at one time while referring to them at other occasions. Inconsistencies vary in their nature and importance. Some are minor; some concern material issues. Where an inconsistency involves something material about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken, the inconsistency may demonstrate a carelessness with the truth about which the Court should be concerned. Evidence may also lack credibility where it doesn’t make logical sense, or it is inconsistent with human experience and common sense.
[37] Reliability relates to an account’s accuracy and whether the witness may be mistaken in their memory or narrative. Reliability of a witness’s evidence can be undermined by the circumstances under which the observations were made, but it can also be undermined by a diminished recollection of the events over time, evidence of tainting by other sources of information, or other factors.
[38] As I assess the testimonial accounts in this case, I am mindful that I may accept some, none, or all of an account and can give different weight to the portions of evidence that are accepted.
The Text Messages
[39] The texts between L.T. and Mr. Norris must be treated with special caution. L.T.’s statements are both hearsay and prior consistent statements. They are not admissible for the truth of their contents or to bolster her testimony. As the Court of Appeal stated in R. v. D.K., 2020 ONCA 79:
[34] Prior consistent statements are presumptively inadmissible. There are several rationales for this rule, including that prior consistent statements (1) lack probative value; (2) are often self-serving; and (3) are hearsay: see S. Casey Hill, David M. Tanovich and Louis P. Strezos, eds., McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto: Thompson Reuters, 2019) (loose-leaf updated 2019), at p. 11-2; R. v. Stirling, 2008 SCC 10, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 272, at para. 5; and R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788, at para. 36.
[35] The overwhelming danger is that a trier of fact may improperly use the mere repetition of a statement as a badge of testimonial trustworthiness. As Hourigan J.A. said for the majority in Khan: “[S]uch evidence cannot be used for the prohibited inference that consistency enhances credibility, or the incorrect conclusion that the simple making of a prior consistent statement corroborates in-court testimony”: at para. 41; see also Stirling, at para. 7; R. v. Divitaris (2004), 188 C.C.C. (3d) 390 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 28; R. v. D.C., 2019 ONCA 442, at para. 19; and R. v. S.K., 2019 ONCA 776, 148 O.R. (3d) 1, at para. 90.
[36] The rule against prior consistent statements is subject to a number of exceptions. For example, a prior consistent statement may be admitted for the limited purpose of rebutting an allegation of recent fabrication: Stirling, at paras. 5-7.
[37] Prior statements may also be admitted where they are “necessary to the unfolding of the events or narrative of the prosecution”: see Dinardo, at para. 37. On this basis, a prior consistent statement may be admitted to assist with understanding how the case came before the court or to appreciate the “chronological cohesion” of the case: R. v. Fair (1993), 16 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), at p. 18; Khan, per Hourigan J.A., at para. 30. To be admissible under this exception, the statement must be “truly essential” to the unfolding of the narrative: R. v. M.C., 2014 ONCA 611, 314 C.C.C. (3d) 336, at para. 91.
[38] Further, prior statements may be admissible under the narrative as circumstantial evidence exception. Admissibility on this basis of such does not hinge on the mere repetition of the same information. As explained by Hourigan J.A. in Khan: “A prior consistent statement can be used not to corroborate the evidence of the witness, but to provide the surrounding circumstances and context to evaluate the credibility and reliability of the witness’s in-court testimony”: at para. 39; see Dinardo, at para. 31.
See also R. v. R.A., 2024 ONCA 696; R. v. Morin, 2024 ONCA 562.
[40] L.T.’s text messages are admissible for evaluating the context in which her complaint was made and in assessing what the defence submitted was a motive to fabricate. There are portions that were also put to her as inconsistencies in her cross-examination and they can be used in assessing her credibility and reliability.
[41] The messages from Mr. Norris were also used in cross-examination as inconsistencies and can be used to assess his credibility and reliability. While the Crown cross-examined Mr. Norris to suggest that there was a tacit admission by him when confronted with her allegation, the Crown did not pursue this argument in submissions, and I have not considered the texts in this manner.
[42] The second set of text messages put to and acknowledged by L.T. are texts between her and Breanna. These texts were tendered by the Defence through L.T. as supportive of a motive to fabricate. I have considered these text messages in the context of that defence and as to whether they are inconsistent with L.T.’s testimony.
My Analysis of the Evidence of Mr. Norris
[43] I was not impressed with Mr. Norris' evidence. It contained a number of material internal inconsistencies, and inconsistencies with his text communications. It was illogical and inconsistent with common sense and human experience on a number of points. It was also somewhat evasive in cross-examination. I will provide five examples.
(1) Mr. Norris was inconsistent in his evidence about the impact of L.T. kicking him off of her. In his evidence in chief, he described flying back and landing on the floor. In cross-examination, this evidence shifted to falling back, but not very far. This change came in the context of the Crown suggesting that his account of her kicking him was illogical. In my view, this is a material inconsistency; he was now downplaying the force of what he had described as it was made clear that what he had testified to in chief sounded illogical.
(2) He was also inconsistent in his explanations of his messages to L.T. He provided an overall explanation for sending messages beginning with asking her if she was going to tell her friend as being because she had been up and down emotionally, and he was a bit confused. He was asked in chief to explain, in particular, why he had asked if her vagina hurt. He provided his explanation that this question was asked because she had previously told him that a woman's vagina is tight when she is uncomfortable. He stated his belief she had become uncomfortable when she kicked him off of her. Then, through cross-examination, it became clear that his position was he had sent the messages to L.T. because he suspected she might be intending to make an allegation against him. He had asked her to delete the message asking about vaginal pain because he was concerned about how it would be interpreted. It is significant that he omitted this rationale from his evidence in chief.
(3) Portions of his explanation of these messages are also inconsistent with logic and human experience. His explanation for sending the question about vaginal pain, in particular, was illogical and did not make sense in the context of their relationship.
(4) He was inconsistent about the issue of missing messages. He testified in chief that he had responded to her texts about non-consent, saying that he did not force himself on her or do anything without consent; his responses must have been deleted from her phone prior to her giving them to the police. He was consistent on this in cross-examination. What he was inconsistent about was where his response would have fallen in the message chain as it appeared on L.T.’s phone. He was so inconsistent about this point, that it struck me as evasive. He initially agreed in cross with a suggestion that he had not sent her a message asking, “what was she talking about.” After several more questions the Crown then suggested to him that he had not sent a message asking why she was making things up. He responded, “No, well I did tell her, those are the messages that are deleted.” He agreed this was different than what he had said earlier. He was asked to show where his denial message would have been located. He positioned it as after she had written “I didn't give you permission to stick your dick inside of me.” The Crown then challenged him that that did not make sense because of the flow of the messages. He agreed that the messages flowed and now indicated that the denial was actually after his message where he asked her to delete the message. He said he sent a lengthy paragraph of denial. He said it was before the “U hungry” line of messages, because that was a different day (upon review of the messages, that series of messages was not sent on a different day but later the same day). He then said the denial was before she texted that she had said she did not want to have sex many times. He now said he thought she sent this message because she meant to go to the police all along and she wanted him to say something she could take to the police. In my view, this shifting evidence in cross-examination is a significant mark on Mr. Norris' credibility. It appeared to be an ineffective attempt to answer difficult questioning.
(5) His evidence about their conversations on the phone after the incident also did not make sense. He testified that he blocked L.T. after a specific call, but testified that she continued calling him and gave details of further conversations that they had after he had, on his evidence, blocked her. That does not make sense.
[44] Given these concerns with Mr. Norris' evidence, I do not believe it. I do not accept it. I also find that it does not raise a reasonable doubt.
Analysis of the Evidence of L.T.
[45] For much of her evidence, L.T. stuck me as a careful and thoughtful witness. She listened carefully to questions and responded to the questions posed, and her responses made sense.
[46] In one area of cross-examination, she was argumentative and somewhat combative with counsel. This related to several text messages that were shown to her, messages that were between her and Breanna. I note that those messages had been redacted to remove some portions. L.T. expressed particular upset at the redactions. She argued with counsel about the relevance of these messages, and responded that she had further messages that would support her. If these messages were being shown, which cast her in a poor light, she wanted the redacted content shown, as it would, I infer, cast Mr. Norris in a poor light.
[47] I have not considered these text messages for anything other than how they impact L.T.’s credibility and the potential for a motive to fabricate. They were shown to her to suggest an inconsistency with her evidence about her relationship with Breanna. However, in my view, they are not inconsistent with what L.T. testified to of her relationship with Breanna. Rather, they would tend to confirm how she generally characterized their relationship.
[48] L.T. did not want to respond to questions in cross-examination related to these messages, and her evidence could be viewed as evasive in this area. I have carefully considered this portion of her evidence and whether it causes me concern with her credibility and reliability. It does not. I accept that she was caught off guard by this somewhat unexpected area of questioning. Her focus was on what had been redacted from the messages and the sense of unfairness. The manner in which she reacted to this line of questioning makes sense in the circumstances.
[49] It was also suggested that there were inconsistencies in L.T.’s evidence about further texts and communication with Mr. Norris. She agreed that there were further texts after the exchange that formed part of the evidence. She also agreed that in her texts with Breanna, she indicates satisfaction that Mr. Norris was taken into custody. The tone of these messages can be best described as goading toward Breanna. Her explanation for these messages was that she felt that Mr. Norris deserved to have been taken into custody for what he had done to her. I accept that explanation. It makes logical sense.
[50] The purpose of this area of cross-examination, and the messages with Breanna, was to support a suggestion put to L.T. that she had fabricated her allegations because Mr. Norris was having another child with Breanna, leading to animus toward him. L.T. disagreed with this suggestion, stating she did not even know that Breanna was pregnant at the time of the incident. The only evidence that would suggest she did know of the pregnancy was Mr. Norris' testimony, which I have rejected.
[51] I accept that L.T. has a difficult relationship with Breanna and potentially animus against her. I do not accept that she has fabricated her allegations that Mr. Norris assaulted her out of a motive to punish him or Breanna for having another child. This potential motive to fabricate did not make sense to me in the context of the evidence I heard. I accept L.T.’s denial of it.
[52] I have considered whether L.T. was inconsistent in her evidence about whether she was quiet when Mr. Norris first penetrated her. She agreed in cross-examination with this suggestion after having first said she was talking. In my view, there was not an inconsistency here. She was focusing on the specific moment when asked in cross-examination, and her answer was responsive to that narrowing of time. Her evidence of her reactions as the assault occurred made sense to me and was consistent throughout.
[53] I have considered the further suggestion put to her that it did not make sense that Mr. Norris picked her up and carried her to the couch. I have been able to observe both L.T. and Mr. Norris in Court as the trial progressed. As L.T. testified, Mr. Norris’ build is more muscular than slim. Even accepting he weighed some ten pounds less at the time, there is nothing implausible in L.T.’s evidence that he picked her up over his shoulder and carried her the short distance to the couch.
[54] I accept L.T.’s evidence. In my view, there were no material inconsistencies in her evidence. It makes logical sense and conforms to human experience.
[55] Accepting L.T.’s evidence, I am able to make the following findings of fact:
(1) Mr. Norris had called her and arranged to visit on his way to Mississauga.
(2) He attended at her apartment, at [address removed], Toronto, in the afternoon on August 13, 2023.
(3) He told her he had been in custody and had not had sex for some time.
(4) He began touching her flirtatiously and told her he wanted to "smack" which meant he wanted to have sex with her.
(5) She told him she was seeing someone.
(6) She told him she did not want to have sex. She told him no several times.
(7) He picked her up, put her over his shoulder, and brought her to the couch.
(8) She was now laying down on the couch.
(9) He asked again “are you serious, you really don't want to have sex.” She repeated, “No.”
(10) He then asked her “would you call the Jakes if I raped you?”
(11) Mr. Norris then penetrated her with his finger for a brief time. He did not seek her consent first.
(12) L.T. was crying.
(13) He pulled her shorts down and pulled his penis out through the front of his pants.
(14) He then penetrated her with his penis. He did not seek her consent first.
(15) Penetration lasted approximately 30 seconds.
(16) She screamed, loudly, profanity, like “what the fuck, get the fuck off of me.”
(17) He stopped. He stood up. He asked her why she was freaking out and why she was unstable.
(18) He remained in the apartment for several minutes. He offered to and did order her food. He offered to return with weed.
(19) After he left, he commenced texting her. I find he was doing so to gauge her intentions and to attempt to placate her. This is the only available inference to be drawn from the content and context.
[56] With those findings of fact, I find that the Crown has proven the essential elements of the offence of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt. He intentionally penetrated L.T.’s vagina with both his finger and his penis. L.T. was not consenting and had not communicated any consent to either act. Rather, she had specifically told him she did not consent to having sex. He knew that she was not consenting and that she had told him she was not consenting. This was clearly an act of a sexual nature that violated L.T.’s sexual integrity. Mr. Norris is found guilty of count 4.
[57] Mr. Norris has conceded that he is guilty of the other counts of failing to comply with a condition of his release order. He attended [address removed], Toronto, within 100 metres of L.T., and he communicated directly with her while there on August 13, 2023. He further continued to have communication with her by telephone the following day. Findings of guilt are therefore also entered on counts 1, 2, 3 and 5.
Released: April 4, 2025
Signed: Justice R. Wright