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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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.
Court Information
Ontario Court of Justice
Date: August 13, 2025
Court File No.: Toronto 4811-998-23-48106049
Between:
His Majesty the King
— and —
Luis Gordones
Before: Justice Christine Mainville
Heard on: October 28, 2024, and August 11-12, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on: August 13, 2025
Counsel:
Hannah Duhme and Lu Zhao — counsel for the Crown
Robert Geurts and Gregory Leslie — counsel for the accused
Judgment
Mainville J.:
Introduction
[1] Luis Gordones is accused of having sexually assaulted a former employee, K.V., at his company's offices on May 18, 2023.
[2] K.V. was the sole witness for the prosecution. She recounted that at some point in the late morning of May 18th, she found herself alone in the office with Mr. Gordones for the first time. She alleges that he approached her from behind on two occasions, first smelling her hair and placing his hands on her shoulder and neck. The second time he approached her, he touched her arms. She described noticing a soft erection. She conveyed that this was making her uncomfortable and told him to stop. He ultimately backed away and she did not return to work for the company after that day.
[3] The accused testified in his defence and denied the allegations. No other witnesses were called.
Facts
[4] K.V. was hired as an administrative assistant for the accused's meat processing company, Venerica Meats, in April of 2023. She worked with the accused and others in a basement office space. The office staff each had a desk in the same open space in the basement.
[5] On May 18, 2023, staff and butchers who typically work in the above-ground facility were gathered in the basement office to celebrate a birthday. At that point in time, K.V. had been working for the company for approximately one month.
[6] K.V. says that after the morning celebrations, everyone left the office except her and the accused. One had class and the other office employee who would typically be around, Shiv Patel, went out to meet clients. K.V. says that this was the first time she was alone with the accused.
[7] K.V. alleges that after making some coffee for Mr. Gordones, she returned to her desk to work. She then felt him approaching from behind and noticeably smelling her hair, commenting on how good it smelled and asking her what she used on her hair. She was initially on the phone with a client. Mr. Gordones then went away but returned.
[8] When he approached her a second time, she grabbed the phone and turned the other way. She was also trying to text her husband. She says that Mr. Gordones asked her about her health and if he could touch a tumour she had at the time. He began touching her neck and the front of her shoulder. She expressed discomfort with this. He then touched her wrist and forearm, commenting that she had very soft skin.
[9] She told him to stop, and he asked "Oh, you are uncomfortable." He moved away and she tried to contact her husband so that he could pick her up.
[10] Ultimately, she finished her work and eventually left as she had a dental appointment. She disclosed the incident to her husband later that day. She also texted Mr. Gordones referencing this allegation and requesting her pay as well as two weeks compensation. She reported the matter to the police later that evening, after speaking with a pro bono lawyer. She also brought a compensation claim before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) based on these same events.
[11] The accused denied touching K.V. in a sexual manner or at all. He confirmed some of the benign details of the day but denied that any inappropriate touching occurred.
[12] Other than the birthday celebration and the fact that he had just returned from vacation in the early morning, he stated that May 18th was a normal workday.
[13] He confirmed that he and K.V. were at the office that day but said that Shiv Patel was also there throughout the day. He never sent Mr. Patel on any errand nor is it possible that Mr Patel went away on his own accord without Mr. Gordones noticing. He testified that Mr Patel never visits clients outside the office, and he would have known if he had left the office that day because he must walk right by his desk to exit, and people don't leave without telling him. He said that Mr. Patel remained in the office and never left. K.V. confirmed the office layout and that Mr. Gordones' desk was closest to the door.
[14] Mr. Gordones said that he himself remained at his desk and any verbal communications he had with K.V. and other employees were from where he was seated at his desk. It is a small office, and he does not need to yell to do so. He testified that he never stood behind K.V. in the manner described that day or ever, and he has never touched her or smelled her hair.
[15] He insisted that after the birthday celebration, other than to go to the washroom, he never even got up from his desk until the end of his shift, from about noon until 7 pm. K.V. handed him the coffee as he was sitting at his desk, and he had it there.
[16] Mr Patel was not called by either party to testify.
The Principles to be Applied
[17] The accused is presumed innocent. There is no obligation on him to do anything to establish his innocence. The presumption of innocence remains in place, unless and until the Crown has proven each essential element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
[18] Reasonable doubt is based on reason and common sense. It is logically connected to the evidence or the lack of evidence. It is not enough for me to believe that the accused is probably or likely guilty. Reasonable doubt requires more than mere probability. Although it cannot be described with mathematical precision, reasonable doubt is a high standard, consistent with its role as a safeguard against wrongful convictions. At the same time, reasonable doubt does not require proof beyond all doubt, nor is it proof to an absolute certainty.
[19] In assessing the evidence of the witnesses in this case, I must consider their credibility and reliability. Credibility relates to the honesty of the witness, including whether the witness was trying to tell the truth and if the witness was candid, sincere, biased, evasive or prone to exaggeration or minimization. Reliability relates to the accuracy of a witness' testimony and involves a consideration of the person's ability to accurately observe, recall and describe the events in issue. Any witness whose evidence on an issue is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on the same point. However, credibility alone does not establish reliability, as a truthful witness may give unreliable evidence.
[20] Testimony can be assessed through a non-exhaustive list of factors, including (a) the plausibility of the evidence; (b) the presence of independent supporting or contradicting evidence; (c) the external and internal consistency of the evidence; (d) the witness' apparent willingness to be fair and forthright without any personal motive or agenda; and to a limited extent, (e) the witness' demeanour while testifying.
[21] In assessing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, I do not simply choose one conflicting version of events over another. Instead, I must apply the framework set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.D.:
(i) If I believe the evidence that is inconsistent with the accused's guilt, I must acquit him.
(ii) Even if I do not believe the evidence that is inconsistent with the accused's guilt, if I cannot decide whether that evidence is true or if it raises a reasonable doubt in my mind, then I must acquit.
(iii) Even if I entirely disbelieve the evidence inconsistent with guilt, the mere rejection of that evidence does not establish guilt. Instead, I must be satisfied that the evidence I do accept proves the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[22] The defence does not concede that the elements of the offence of sexual assault are made out if I accept K.V.'s evidence in relation to the incident alleged. Nevertheless, I do not need to engage with the elements of the offence as I am unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that what is alleged in fact occurred.
Analysis
[23] Given that the Crown bears the burden of proof, I will first address the complainant's evidence before turning to the accused's evidence, though I have ultimately considered the evidence as a whole, as I am required to do.
K.V.'s Testimony
[24] K.V.'s demeanour while testifying generally came across as credible and reliable. She was confrontational with defence counsel at times, and occasionally questioned the relevance of questions asked, but she ultimately answered questions directly and in a fulsome manner.
[25] And while she was forceful and insistent in some of her answers, such that I cannot say that she testified without any agenda, in a forthright and matter-of-fact way, I do not view that as detracting from her credibility in the circumstances of this case. She explained the impact that what she says happened had on her, both emotionally and financially, which – if true – would serve to explain these aspects of her demeanour in this trial. Still, I am cautious not to use her anger as evidence that what she claims happened in fact happened, as that would lead to circular reasoning.
[26] There were, however, some issues and inconsistencies that emerged with K.V.'s version of events.
[27] Most significantly, I have concerns about the inconsistencies relating to the circumstances in which K.V. came to leave the office that day, after the sexual assault is said to have taken place.
[28] She first testified that she was nervous and was trying to text her husband right away. After Mr. Gordones had returned and touched her a second time, he asked her to work on processing payments and making collections from restaurants. She was trembling and went to the washroom to contact her husband and see if he was home, but she couldn't reach him. She was trying to see if he was home and whether he could pick her up, but she couldn't reach him because he was in class.
[29] Her colleague Mr. Patel eventually came back to the office, and she was relieved by that. She was able to complete the job and finish her shift.
[30] Indeed, K.V. testified in chief that she was able to complete her tasks and her hours, and that she first went home after leaving the office. She told her husband about the incident sometime between leaving work and her dentist appointment. They called a legal clinic and were told to report the matter to the police. They did so as soon as she could speak again, after the anesthesia from the dental appointment wore off. She did not mention any vomiting or otherwise being ill.
[31] In this testimony in chief, there was no talk of having to run off to her dental appointment, or of Mr. Gordones not allowing her to leave before her work was done to attend her appointment on time.
[32] In cross-examination, K.V. said that after the sexual assault, Mr. Gordones requested that she do a job that takes a lot of time and concentration, and she didn't feel able to do that so she said she needed to go home. He said no, that she needed to do this job.
[33] At a different point in her evidence in cross-examination, she said she became very nervous after Mr. Gordones had touched her and she asked him to leave early because she had a dental appointment. She explained that she needed to make it to this dental appointment, otherwise she would need to pay a penalty or fee for missing it.
[34] K.V. also testified in cross-examination that she in fact did speak to her husband while still at work – twice. There was a fair bit of specificity to her account of these conversations. Indeed, she indicated that she first called him right after the sexual assault from the office bathroom. They spoke and at that moment, her husband only knew that she was running late for her dental appointment, nothing else. While she does not suggest that she informed him of the assault at this time, he told her to talk to her boss and ask him to leave respectfully – presumably because he would not let her leave to go to the appointment. She told her husband that she had done that, but that Mr. Gordones had said no.
[35] Her husband subsequently called her, or they spoke for a second time. She initially wasn't sure who called whom but then testified that the reason for the second call was that her husband wanted to know where she was, whether she had taken an Uber. He simply wanted to ensure she got to her appointment on time because she has a habit of being late.
[36] During this second call, her husband requested to be put on speaker so that he could inform Mr. Gordones that she had to leave, given the dental appointment. It was only after she put her husband on speaker phone that Mr. Gordones let her leave.
[37] She did indicate that her work hours were over by then, but that Mr. Gordones had wanted her to stay on to complete a fairly lengthy task. It was this, she said, and the fact that Mr. Gordones didn't want to let her go, that led her to put her husband on speaker phone so that Mr. Gordones would let her leave. Otherwise, she was not going to be able to go to dentist and would have to pay a fee. After that call, Mr. Gordones let her leave.
[38] This implies that she was not able to complete the task that Mr. Gordones wanted done, contrary to her evidence in chief where she said that she completed her work before going home. It also implies that she was running late to go to the dentist and had to go there directly and right away – that she did not go home beforehand. It also contradicts the fact that she simply left after completing her work, as she testified to in chief, with no suggestion that Mr. Gordones initially prevented that. Instead, she says Mr. Gordones first told her she could not leave, and that her husband in fact had to persuade Mr. Gordones to let her leave – and that the dental appointment was the reason for her early departure. Yet in her testimony in chief, the dental appointment was later in the day.
[39] K.V. also said in cross-examination that she first went to the dentist, that she vomited after going to that appointment, and told her husband about the incident after that. In her evidence in chief, she went home and told her husband before going to the dentist, and there was no mention of vomiting or feeling ill.
[40] In my assessment, these are not merely inconsistencies relating to the chronology of events, or relating only to whether she in fact did speak to her husband or not at the office. They are two entirely different and detailed accounts of what transpired. And they bear on whether Mr. Gordones initially sought to prevent her from leaving, which is something she had earlier asserted in her complaint to the HRTO. The discrepancies bear on whether she lied or made up some excuse to leave (if the appointment was only later in the day) – whether because she had just been assaulted or to avoid doing the work requested. And they bear on whether she had any work-related issue with Mr. Gordones that arose on May 18th – just prior to making these allegations. At minimum, this bears on whether she had a motive to fabricate the allegations.
[41] Based on the evidence adduced, I am unable to determine which of these accounts or which aspects of these accounts is truthful or accurate.
[42] At minimum, the discrepancies undermine her reliability. K.V. admitted as much.
[43] Indeed, when questioned about the inconsistency relating to whether she spoke to her husband or not on the phone at the office, she explained that she does not have a good memory, that she suffered a trauma that she is still in treatment for, that she is not lying but saying her truth, and that she could be having trouble recalling accurately but is under pressure and feeling nervous.
[44] She maintained that there were two calls with her husband and that the reason her evidence on the first trial date was different is because that initial appearance was very difficult for her, that she was asked to leave the courtroom several times, and she just got pretty messed up. She felt she was not able to speak normally because every time she spoke in English, she was made to leave the room, and by time she came back she had lost her train of thought. (K.V. testified through a Spanish interpreter.)
[45] While I cannot gainsay that testifying would be a difficult and stressful experience, in particular when recounting details of a sexual assault, this explanation raises questions about the reliability of the evidence K.V. provided, in particular on the first day of trial. Indeed, this explanation raises reliability concerns on its face given that what she describes may have impacted the accuracy of other aspects of her testimony in chief, given on the first day of trial.
[46] But there is more to it. To my mind, the issue with the vastly differing narratives provided during K.V.'s examination-in-chief and cross-examination cannot be explained by the witness having lost her train of thought, or even recalling certain details inaccurately. Losing one's train of thought can certainly lead to some omissions or gaps in the narrative. I struggle to see, however, how it could lead to two different and detailed narratives that are difficult to reconcile.
[47] It should also be noted that K.V. was not asked to leave the courtroom as frequently as her answer implies. By the Crown's count, this occurred twice. This number aligns with my recollection.
[48] To be fair, other than the discrepancies relating to her communications with her husband, the gist of the inconsistency I set out above was not put to K.V., such that she did not have an opportunity to address it.
[49] Nevertheless, this is not a minor point, or an inconsistency contained in some small portion of her evidence. The two versions contain quite a bit of detail. They are very different and irreconcilable on their face. Indeed, both accounts cannot be true. This was no mere slip of the tongue. These two accounts of the circumstances leading her to leave the office and the ensuing events of that evening raise questions about what part of her evidence I can in fact rely on. This impacts my ability to assess the credibility of the central allegations.
[50] Another concern relates to K.V.'s failure to mention that she observed Mr. Gordones having an erection or semi-erection, until after her memory was refreshed by her statement to the police. Her first account did not reference anything about an erection or feeling Mr. Gordones' genitals on her arm, even after the Crown broke down the various instances of touching and reviewed the chronology with K.V. It was only after her memory was refreshed by way of her video statement to the police that K.V. asserted recalling this occurrence, which would have occurred after Mr. Gordones touched her the last time.
[51] This strikes me as a salient point to forget, in the context of the entirety of the allegations.
[52] There were other concerns with K.V.'s evidence, albeit not as significant. One example is the circumstances surrounding Mr. Patel leaving the office that day.
[53] In her evidence in chief, K.V. indicated that Mr Patel went out to visit a client in person. There was no mention of Mr. Gordones sending him on that errand or her potentially going along and Mr. Gordones holding her back. Nor did these elements initially feature in her account of why Mr Patel left in cross-examination. At that time, she indicated that she "had the idea" that Mr Patel was supposed to go and visit some clients in person, but she didn't know for certain as he holds a more senior position to her so doesn't report to her.
[54] It was only when confronted with a statement she made before the HRTO – that Mr. Gordones asked Mr Patel to leave the office because Mr. Gordones was going to teach her some strategies to be a faster worker, that she incorporated this into her account of what happened. She explained that initially Mr Patel wanted her to go with him to visit these clients, but Mr. Gordones said no because he had to teach her how to do her job faster.
[55] This inconsistency in my view is noteworthy. K.V. did not first merely state that she could not recall why Mr. Patel left, or that she did not know for certain where he was going and why. She again first elaborated on why she would not have been aware of that – because he does not report to her – before changing her account of what transpired in a version that made her fully aware of where he went and why.
[56] Moreover, this version, like the one about Mr. Gordones refusing to let her leave the office, was also one that did not feature in her evidence in chief yet featured in her complaint to the HRTO. In both instances, the HRTO version casts Mr. Gordones in a more negative light.
[57] Even if some of these issues can be explained away by the difficulties victims of sexual assault can experience in recalling and conveying the details of a traumatic experience, as the Crown submits and as K.V. says this was, K.V.'s narrative is simply not cogent and reliable enough to enable the Crown to discharge its burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
[58] Defence counsel elicited various complaints or purported grievances that K.V. had with her employer, many of which she acknowledged, in an effort to establish a potential motive to lie. It is not necessary for me to consider these given the above concerns, nor do I need to consider the financial gain motive advanced by the defence.
[59] The above issues call into question the credibility and reliability of K.V.'s account of what occurred on May 18, 2023. While I cannot exclude the possibility that she was sexually assaulted by the accused, I am unable to find that this occurred to the requisite standard. I am also unable to discount the accused's testimony denying the allegations, to which I now turn.
The Accused's Testimony
[60] While I cannot entirely accept Mr. Gordones' testimony, I am unable to reject the evidence that is inconsistent with his guilt.
[61] There were some aspects of his testimony that seemed exaggerated or implausible. For instance, I am dubious of his assertion that he never got up from his desk except to go directly to and from the washroom that day, for an approximately seven-hour period.
[62] I do not take issue with the fact that he can speak to the office employees while remaining seated at his desk, given that it is a relatively small open concept office and the two employees who were there that day have desks that are relatively close to his. But I do deem it doubtful that he generally doesn't get up from his desk except to go directly to and from the washroom, and that he knows this to have happened that given day.
[63] To be sure, I am not overly concerned with Mr. Gordones' detailed recollection of exactly what he did or did not do that day, and what others did or did not do. While in some circumstances it would be dubious for the accused to purport to have a clear recollection of the details of a day that was like any other, in this case he indicated that he received a text from K.V. around 4:53 pm that same day, stating that he had sexually assaulted her. He received a call from the police about a week later. In that context, it would not be unusual for him to have had a precise memory of what transpired as he would have had reason to remember it.
[64] Still, his account that he never got up from his desk from noon onward that day, or that he saw and paid attention to everything that happened around the office, and that he was certain that K.V. had never removed the long-sleeved sweater that she is seen wearing in a video of the birthday celebration from that morning, does seem to be a stretch.
[65] While I am therefore not able to conclude that his evidence, including his denial, is the truth, I also cannot reject this denial. Mr. Gordones' evidence was not disproved on any point, and I did not assess there to be any material inconsistencies in his evidence. Other than some potential embellishments and implausible statements as referenced above, I have no reason to reject the bulk of his evidence and in particular his denial as not being credible or reliable. He generally testified in a forthright manner and although he was at times cautious in his answers, and at times unrealistically categorical, I am unable to reject his testimony, in particular in the face of the issues with K.V.'s evidence.
[66] An acquittal will therefore follow.
Released: August 13, 2025
Signed: Justice C. Mainville