R. v. Tynes-Dempsey, 2025 ONCJ 602
DATE: November 17, 2025
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
(TORONTO REGION)
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
TREY AUBIN TYNES-DEMPSEY
Before Justice P. Downes
Heard on November 4, 5, 6, 2024, March 11, 12, May 12, 13, 15, August 6, 7, 2025
Reasons for Judgment Released on November 17, 2025.
Sandra Duffey — Counsel for the Crown
Jordan Weisz — Counsel for Trey Aubin Tynes-Dempsey
P. DOWNES J.:
1. INTRODUCTION
[1] Trey Tynes-Dempsey is charged with several counts of assault, assault causing bodily harm and failing to comply with probation orders in relation to alleged assaults on Kodianne Anakons on three different occasions in 2023. I accepted the Crown's invitation to dismiss the charges in relation to the third alleged incident in November 2023. The other two relate to May 19th and October 26th, 2023.
[2] Ms. Anakons was the principal witness for the Crown, although her stepmother, Ashley Fountain, also testified in relation to the November charges that have now been dismissed. I also heard from some police officers who attended the scenes and witnessed various things including the physical conditions of both Ms. Anakons Mr. Tynes-Dempsey.
[3] The defence called no evidence.
2. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
[4] There are a few fundamental principles which guide decision-making in any criminal trial.
[5] First, Mr. Tynes-Dempsey is presumed to be innocent of these charges. He has no burden to prove anything. Rather, it is the Crown's burden to prove Mr. Tynes-Dempsey's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a high standard, much closer to absolute certainty than to a balance of probabilities. If, after considering the evidence as a whole, I am left with a reasonable doubt about whether Mr. Tynes-Dempsey assaulted Ms. Anakons, I must find him not guilty.
[6] Second, I need not believe everything a witness says; I can accept some, none, or all of their testimony.
[7] Third, the defence is under no obligation to identify, let alone establish, a motive to make false allegations. Motives can sometimes remain hidden. [1]
3. MS. ANAKONS' CREDIBILITY & RELIABILITY
[8] The credibility and reliability of Ms. Anakons is the central question guiding my assessment of this case. Before I turn to my findings with respect to the particular charges, I will address Ms. Anakons' credibility both generally, and in relation to the particular manner in which she testified under cross-examination.
a. Under Cross-Examination
[9] While Ms. Anakons gave her evidence in-chief with relative ease and clarity, cross-examination presented more of a challenge.
[10] Ms. Anakons was combative, sometimes insulting to counsel, often dismissive, at times disinterested, and, increasingly in the course of her cross-examination, reluctant to engage counsel in any meaningful way.
[11] With respect to reliability, she was candid that her memory, at least when she was being cross-examined, was far from perfect. According to her, she suffered memory loss as a result of multiple traumas to her head over the years.
[12] The defence urges that as a result of these difficulties I should disregard Ms. Anakons' evidence entirely. The Crown submits that, notwithstanding Ms. Anakons' difficulties and demeanor, the heart of her evidence with respect to Mr. Tynes-Dempsey's assaultive conduct remained intact and can fairly ground a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In any event, the Crown argues, there are understandable reasons why a witness like Ms. Anakons reacted to cross-examination in the way she did.
[13] I have assessed the evidence in light of these very real concerns. I have considered whether Ms. Anakons, by her conduct, effectively deprived the defence of any meaningful opportunity to cross-examine such that I am unable to rely on her evidence at all.
[14] After careful consideration, that is not a conclusion I have reached.
[15] It is tempting to simply dismiss Ms. Anakons' evidence because of her hostile and uncooperative approach to being cross-examined. But in my view, a careful and considered analysis of Ms. Anakons' responses under cross-examination and in-chief reveal that, while she was clearly resentful and at times verbally aggressive, this was not a reflection on her credibility as a witness. Rather, it was reflective of the prolonged nature of the proceedings and the manner in which cross-examination was conducted, viewed in light of Ms. Anakons' own background and circumstances.
[16] In R. v. Barton [2] the Supreme Court highlighted the fact that Indigenous women face compounded discrimination in the justice system. I do not suggest in any way that the treatment of Ms. Anakons was motivated by racism or prejudice, but only observe that there are some participants in the criminal justice system who are resentful and uncooperative, not because they want to be obstructionist or difficult, but because it is reflective of their background and experiences. I believe Ms. Anakons is such a person.
[17] Ms. Anakons is a young indigenous woman. She met Mr. Tynes-Dempsey through Native Child and family Services. She is the recipient of both government benefits as well as funds from the government arising out of the Robinson Huron Treaty compensation payments. Ms. Anakons clearly has health issues, and I heard evidence in relation to the effects of her alcohol consumption. She is, regrettably, the very type of person who has not always felt fairly treated by the justice system and who bears a grudge as a result. She does not have the conventional respect and deference which most people in a courtroom exhibit. She is angry and resentful. In my view, however, it is important not to simply dismiss her as unworthy of belief as a result.
[18] Ms. Anakons attended court on November 4, 2024, the scheduled start of the trial. Her testimony commenced, however, the following day. She finished in-chief shortly before 3 p.m. that day and defence counsel requested that cross-examination not commence until the following day. I acceded to that request. Cross-examination did not proceed that day, however, because counsel raised some disclosure concerns. Nor did it proceed on the next scheduled day, March 11, 2025, because counsel was ill. It finally started on May 12, 2025, some six months after the completion of the examination- in-chief. It lasted a full day and was supposed to continue for another two days that week, but counsel was again unwell so the matter could not proceed. It continued another three months after that, on August 6, 2025.
[19] I need not go into the detailed reasons for that chronology. Suffice to say that Ms. Anakons attended the courthouse on four occasions expecting to testify, three times for cross examination, and, through no fault of her own, did not take the stand. It is hardly surprising then that Ms. Anakons' memory of events suffered as a result, nor is it particularly surprising that a witness in her circumstances demonstrated a level of hostility both to counsel and in effect to the court, given what she had experienced.
[20] I appreciate that cross-examining a witness like Ms. Anakons is challenging. Effective cross-examination is a delicate and difficult skill, and not all counsel approach it in the same way. Each is entitled to conduct the cross-examination they think will be most effective. But when, as here, that cross-examination encounters challenges, counsel must either live with that result or change tack and try a different approach.
[21] The cross-examination of Ms. Anakons was frequently laboured and at times aggressive and argumentative. It was not something Ms. Anakons responded to well, and several times it descended into sharp, impatient and condescending exchanges between counsel and Ms. Anakons, which only further aggravated her demeanor.
[22] It is difficult to articulate this dynamic with precision. I have conducted a thorough review of both the written and oral record in this case. In my assessment of Mr. Anakons' testimony and demeanour in court, and as I listened back to and read the transcript of her evidence, while many of Ms. Anakons' answers were clipped, hostile or rude, those answers have to be appreciated within the context of the tenor, timing and nature of the cross-examination as a whole.
[23] The first hour of Ms. Anakons' cross-examination was illustrative. Counsel questioned her on three basic areas, two of which were at best peripheral in relation to the events in question and to her credibility, and one of which was so confusingly put to Ms. Anakons that by the end of it her exasperation was in my view entirely understandable.
[24] Counsel wanted Ms. Anakons to agree that she had altered a doctor's note (an issue I will return to later in these reasons). The culmination of that prolonged examination had counsel putting to Ms. Anakons that she altered the date on the note to say Tuesday March 12, 2025. Counsel got the day wrong. He attempted to rephrase and again got it wrong before Crown counsel intervened to correct the record. By this time Ms. Anakons had her head on the table in frustration. Her frustration was not unreasonable.
[25] Mistakes happen. But counsel cannot expect a witness in Ms. Anakons' situation to exhibit much patience when the line of questioning is faulty in its premise, yet aggressive, pedantic and impatient when the witness cannot answer a proposition that is premised on a factual error and unfairly put.
[26] The cross-examination was prolix and halting in the extreme. The first hour of cross-examination again exemplified this. There were ten occasions on which counsel paused before asking a question, totalling some twenty minutes of dead air. The first hour of cross-examination concluded when, after a pause of fully five minutes between Ms. Anakons' response and counsel's next question, I determined that the court would take a morning recess and urged counsel to proceed with a little more dispatch.
[27] Again, I appreciate that cross-examination will not always proceed uninterrupted and as counsel planned or hoped for. But counsel must live with the consequences of how they choose to prepare for and conduct the examination of witnesses. Here, in my respectful view, the manner of cross-examination did nothing to ameliorate the hostility shown by Ms. Anakons. Indeed, it only made it worse.
[28] I find that Ms. Anakons did not deprive counsel of a meaningful cross-examination. Rather, it was the decisions of counsel about how to conduct that examination which yielded the result it did. The cross-examination was often impatient and argumentative, and gave the impression that counsel was seeking to bait the witness into responding in a hostile manner. Counsel more than once referred to the witness being "under oath". He complained to me about being called names by Ms. Anakons, and when she was not responsive, he became frustrated, argumentative and at times incredulous in tone.
[29] None of this did anything to elicit meaningful responses from Ms. Anakons; it only served to provoke and upset her. Cross-examination devolved into a two-person dynamic where counsel and the witness fed off each other's frustrations and hostility. Counsel chose to adopt a certain style of cross-examination. Again, the defence must live with the results.
[30] In responding to the Crown's submission on this issue, Mr. Weisz pointed out that I had only occasionally admonished him in the course of cross-examination. That is true. A trial judge more inclined to intervene may well have done more. But just because cross-examination is not per se improper, does not mean that it is not counter-productive. Unfortunately, that in my view is what this cross-examination ended up being.
[31] That said, these circumstances cannot forgive or explain away otherwise unreliable or unbelievable evidence. While I must approach Ms. Anakons' evidence sympathetic to her circumstances, it must also be subject to careful scrutiny in light of the evidence as a whole to determine whether I can rely on it in support of any of these charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
b. Other Credibility Concerns
[32] I will next address Ms. Anakons' credibility generally, with reference to particular concerns, which the defence correctly points to, relevant to that assessment.
[33] First, Ms. Anakons displayed an obvious animosity to Mr. Tynes-Dempsey. She agreed she had posted demeaning content on social media about Mr. Tynes-Dempsey while he was in custody.
[34] Second, Ms. Anakons also agreed that in Sept 2023 she had lied to the police about the cause of an injury she had received at the hand of Mr. Tynes-Dempsey because at the time she did not want him to go to jail.
[35] Third, as I have already mentioned, there was a suggestion that Ms. Anakons may have altered the date on a medical document she provided to the Crown and police in March 2025. Had she done so, that may have raised concerns about her credibility generally.
[36] The alteration appears to change the date from March 11 to March 12. Had it been genuine, it would have excused Ms. Anakons from testifying, at least in person, on March 11, which was to be the first day of cross-examination. While it is possible that Ms. Anakons altered the date, I am unable to be sure about that. Ms. Anakons was adamant that the date was not altered (that it still said March 11) and that she had no reason to want to delay the proceedings. As she put it, "I'm not having this case thrown out...that happens if I don't show up." That makes sense.
[37] As it turned out, Ms. Anakons did attend court on March 11, but defence counsel was ill and so cross-examination could not commence in any event. In my view the issue of the altered note was not something that eroded Ms. Anakons' credibility.
[38] Fourth, although the Crown is not seeking a finding of guilt on the charges relating to allegations from November 5, 2023, the evidence touching on what happened that day can nevertheless be considered by me in assessing Ms. Anakons' credibility.
[39] I say that because I find that she was not correct in her account of the events surrounding her attendance at Mr. Tynes-Dempsey's apartment at 2570 Kingston Rd. that day.
[40] Ms. Anakons' stepmother, Ashley Fountain, was an excellent witness. Not surprisingly, her memory of the exact sequence of events, conversations, texts and phone calls that night was far from perfect and at times confused. But I accept the core of her narrative about picking up Ms. Anakons that night. She made no mention of picking up her 10-year-old daughter from a fund-raising event near Kingston Rd. and Midland Ave., something Ms. Anakons had insisted was part of the sequence of events that night. I find that Ms. Anakons' on that issue was not credible.
[41] I must therefore ask whether Ms. Anakons' evidence about that evening impacts her credibility or reliability so significantly that I cannot rely on her evidence to any meaningful extent.
[42] I have concluded that, while it would have been a factor in my consideration of whether the Crown had proved the November 5 counts beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not materially diminish Ms. Anakons' credibility with respect to the other two incidents. They are supported by evidence that corroborate her version of events, and I accept that she was being truthful about what happened on May 19 and October 26, 2023. Nor is it clear to me whether Ms. Anakons was testifying untruthfully about the circumstances surrounding the November 5 allegations or whether she was just mistaken.
[43] I note as an aside that Ms. Anakons' evidence of an assault by Mr. Tynes-Dempsey on November 5 was not the type of serious physical attack she alleged on the other occasions. And in any event, I would have struggled to find that her evidence of what occurred established a forcible confinement beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of the Crown's position with respect to the November 5 counts, however, I need not say anything further about that.
[44] These concerns must all be taken into account when assessing Ms. Anakons' credibility and reliability. I do not find that any of them displace what I find to be her compelling and credible evidence that she was assaulted both on May 19 and October 26, 2023.
[45] Ms. Anakons' hostility towards Mr. Tynes-Dempsey is not surprising given the obviously volatile nature of their relationship, even without considering the veracity of the allegations before the court on this trial.
[46] I find that she was truthful when she said on more than one occasion that she was reluctant to report Mr. Tynes-Dempsey to the police because she was afraid of him, and that she stayed with Mr. Tynes-Dempsey after the May 2023 incidents because she accepted Mr. Tynes-Dempsey's representations that things would change.
4. THE MAY 2023 ALLEGATIONS
[47] I turn next to the particular allegations.
a. Summary of the Evidence
[48] Mr. Tynes-Dempsey is charged with assaulting Ms. Anakons on or about May 19, 2023.
[49] Ms. Anakons testified that in May 2023 she and Mr. Tynes-Dempsey got into an argument which she said escalated into a physical fight in which Mr. Tynes-Dempsey, as she put it, "started hitting me and he was punching me in the face to the point where my face split open." She testified that he repeatedly hit her in the same spot on the left side of her forehead above the eyebrow. She said that to the extent that she touched Mr. Tynes-Dempsey it was to push him off to defend herself. She did not want to engage in a physical fight. She recalled pushing him off and telling him to stop hitting her. She had not hit him first nor had she threatened him in any way.
[50] Ms. Anakons said that she received stitches for this wound and still has a scar on her face from this incident.
[51] Ms. Anakons described a second incident which she said was a couple of days later when Mr. Tynes-Dempsey hit her in the face again in the same spot popping open stitches she had received for it and forcing her to return to hospital to get them glued.
[52] Ms. Anakons identified herself in a May 19, 2023 CCTV video from inside the elevator in in her apartment building after the assault. [3] Blood can clearly be seen dripping from her head onto the floor of the elevator and Ms. Anakons is seen repeatedly holding her head, hunching down, and then punching the walls of the elevator. She said that she was angry and upset.
[53] Ms. Anakons said that she did not provide a statement to the police about this incident because she was scared of any repercussions from Mr. Tynes-Dempsey if she did.
b. Findings
[54] I accept Ms. Anakons' evidence that Mr. Tynes-Dempsey punched her forcefully and repeatedly in the head on May 19, 2023, opening up the wound above her eye. There is no air of reality to the suggestion that she attacked him first and he was acting in self-defence. Nor can it be reasonably suggested on the evidence before me that this was some sort of consensual fight.
[55] Ms. Anakons' description in-chief of what happened was clear, detailed and consistent. It is corroborated by the CCTV of her bleeding from the head in the elevator, as well as by the photographs of the elevator and apartment lobby [4] and the medical records, [5] which reflect paramedics having found Ms. Anakons behind her building at 5:45 p.m. on May 19, 2023, with blood coming from the left side of her forehead.
[56] The medical records caused some confusion with respect to the date of this incident. The record, which as a business record is admissible for its truth, at least with respect to the date and observations of her injuries, is dated May 19, 2023. It refers to an injury to her head in the area where she had received earlier stitches.
[57] At the same time, it appeared that Ms. Anakons believed that when she was testifying about the injuries that can be seen in the May 19 CCTV, she was referring to the first incident in which she initially received stitches, not the second incident which opened them up, which she described as happening a few days later.
[58] In my view this is immaterial. Ms. Anakons was asked first by Crown counsel about the May 19 incident. It is not too surprising then that she was confused about the precise date when she was hit, and the stitches opened up. In any event, the date is not an essential element of the offence, nor was it material to any issue advanced by the defence. [6] What matters at the end of the day is whether the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about May 19, 2023, Ms. Anakons was assaulted by Mr. Tynes-Dempsey.
[59] I find as a fact that Mr. Tynes-Dempsey punched Ms. Anakons repeatedly in the head causing a gash above her left eyebrow, and that he assaulted her again on May 19, 2023, opening up the previous wound. On Count 1 I find Mr. Tynes-Dempsey guilty.
5. THE OCTOBER 2023 ALLEGATIONS
[60] I turn next to the incident alleged to have occurred on October 26, 2023.
a. Summary of the Evidence
[61] Ms. Anakons testified in-chief that on the evening of October 26, 2023, she bought beer and liquor and was hanging out at her apartment with Mr. Tynes-Dempsey. She said that Mr. Mr. Tynes-Dempsey saw something on her phone, and they got into a stupid argument. It escalated and she said Mr. Tynes-Dempsey started getting physical and was screaming in her face. They were in the bedroom. Mr. Tynes-Dempsey was sitting and at times standing on the opposite side of the bed to her and they were screaming at each other, so she called the police.
[62] She told the 911 dispatcher that she did not know who the guy was and explained that she did this because she was afraid for her life if Mr. Tynes-Dempsey heard her giving his name to the police. At that point she said Mr. Tynes-Dempsey threw an empty glass beer bottle at her.
[63] Later in-chief Ms. Anakons said that after Mr. Tynes-Dempsey threw the bottle at her, she threw one back which broke and then they got into a physical fight.
[64] Ms. Anakons testified that she was not sure exactly what happened, but her ear was split open: "I'm not really sure what happened, or how my ear got split open, but I know it happened during the fight. It was just a lot of punches to the face and just, I could barely see what was in front of me, because of how many times I was getting hit."
[65] Ms. Anakons testified that she thought the punches happened both during and after her call to 911. She said that she did hit Mr. Tynes-Dempsey back in the course of this incident, but only after he started hitting her.
[66] Ms. Anakons also described Mr. Tynes-Dempsey hitting her on her legs and arms with his cane and caused bruising to her ankles by ramming into her with his wheelchair in the hallway of her apartment.
[67] Ms. Anakons described the injuries she sustained during this incident: her ear was split open, as was the inside of her lip, and she sustained bruises to her body, and a black eye. She identified injuries in photos she took of herself a few hours after this incident which she said were caused by Mr. Tynes-Dempsey on October 26. [7] They show a significant gash to her left ear, a cut to her inner upper lip and scratches to her face. She also described injuries shown in photos taken of her by police ten days later. [8] They show bruising to both arms and her left thigh as well as bruising to both legs just above the ankles.
[68] The body-worn cameras of the two officers who attended Ms. Anakons' apartment in response to the 911 call show Ms. Anakons in a white onesie with significant blood staining to the left upper side, and significant bleeding to her left ear.
[69] One of those officers, P.C. McGarry, testified to having observed injuries to Ms. Anakons' upper lip and seeing blood on the onesie. He also observed, and the body-worn cameras show, broken brown glass on the floor of the bedroom. He also saw Mr. Tynes-Dempsey's belongings on the ground outside the apartment building. Ms. Anakons testified that she threw them over her balcony that night. Those items included a walker which Mr. Tynes-Dempsey used as a result of serious injuries sustained in 2022.
[70] P.C. McGarry described Ms. Anakons' demeanour when he attended her apartment. He said she was very distraught and crying. The body-worn cameras bear this out; Ms. Anakons is extremely agitated, breathing sharply and crying.
[71] The defence put to Ms. Anakons that prior to testifying in November 2024, she had told the police that the injury to her arm had occurred on a different date. She could not remember when she testified in-chief that it had occurred on October 26 whether she was absolutely certain of that, or whether she was mistaken when she told the police that it had occurred on a different date.
[72] Nor could she remember whether her account to the police on October 26 about what Mr. Tynes-Dempsey was doing immediately prior to the assault on that date differed from her evidence in court on that issue. Again, however, it is worth recalling that Ms. Anakons was asked about this at least six months after her evidence in-chief.
[73] Defence counsel suggested to Ms. Anakons that she had told the police on November 5, 2023, that her ear was injured when Mr. Tynes-Dempsey threw the beer bottle at her. Under cross-examination on August 6, 2025, Ms. Anakons seemed to suggest that the injury was caused by being bitten by Mr. Tynes-Dempsey. When pressed, she ultimately said she could not remember one way or the other.
[74] Ms. Anakons testified that as of October 26, 2023, Mr. Tynes-Dempsey was able to walk, but that he used a cane and a brace, and that he used a wheelchair, "just so that he can get around faster in the chair."
b. Findings
[75] I find that Mr. Tynes-Dempsey assaulted Ms. Anakons on October 26, 2023, by hitting her with a beer bottle and by hitting her in the face and ears and striking her with his cane. That she could not remember precisely how each injury happened is immaterial. The body-worn camera and the photographs of Ms. Anakons' injuries that night leave no room for doubt that these were injuries inflicted by an aggressive assault. There is no other reasonable inference available, and I believe Ms. Anakons that they were caused by Mr. Tynes-Dempsey.
[76] The defence submitted that the October 2023 incident could not have happened as Ms. Anakons described it because at the time Mr. Tynes-Dempsey was essentially confined to a wheelchair and was not mobile enough to be standing as Ms. Anakons said he was when he threw a beer bottle at her.
[77] I accept that Mr. Tynes-Dempsey's mobility was restricted on October 26, 2023. P.C. McGarry testified that the CCTV from the building shows Mr. Tynes-Dempsey getting onto the elevator in a wheelchair after he left Ms. Anakons' apartment. But I do not accept that Mr. Tynes-Dempsey was not capable of standing on October 26. I believe Ms. Anakons' evidence that he was standing when he threw the beer bottle at her and punched her. While it is true that the body-worn cameras of the officers who participated in Mr. Tynes-Dempsey's arrest and apprehension on November 5, 2023, show Mr. Tynes-Dempsey in a wheelchair and struggling to get into the police car, it does not show that he was incapable of walking. Indeed, the evidence was that he possessed and used a walker. The police had seen it thrown over the balcony.
[78] The defence pointed to certain discrepancies in Ms. Anakons' evidence with respect to the sequence in which things happened on October 26, such as when the 911 call happened in relation to the beer bottles being thrown. It also pointed to Ms. Anakons' comment to the 911 dispatcher that "this guy's trying to get into a fight with me, I need help", that she did not know who he is and that he was "fighting me in the doorway", when she testified that the fight happened in the bedroom.
[79] There are such discrepancies. But they are minor in the extreme. They can have no meaningful impact on the essence of her description of how she was assaulted that night.
[80] I find that Ms. Anakons' injuries were caused by Mr. Tynes-Dempsey on October 26, 2023. I believe her that he punched and struck her causing the gash to her ear and bruising to her body. There is no other reasonable explanation for those injuries that night. Ms. Anakons' demeanour on the body-worn cameras of the attending officers shows her distraught and emotional. That is evidence capable of supporting the inference that something traumatic had just happened to her. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Tynes-Dempsey was the only other person in the apartment with her.
[81] I believe Ms. Anakons that Mr. Tynes-Dempsey assaulted her causing her bodily harm on the early morning hours of Oct 26, 2023. As a result, I find Mr. Tynes-Dempsey guilty of count 7.
6. THE FAIL TO COMPLY WITH PROBATION COUNTS
[82] On consent, the Crown filed certified copies of probation orders imposed on Mr. Tynes-Dempsey on July 15, 2020 (three years), November 18, 2021 (two years), and August 11, 2022 (three years). They prove beyond a reasonable doubt that on May 19, 2023, and October 26, 2023, Mr. Tynes-Dempsey was bound by each of these orders to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
[83] The Crown has therefore proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he breached his probation on May 19 and October 26, 2023, and he is found guilty of counts 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11.
7. CONCLUSION
[84] In conclusion, these are my findings with respect to each count:
- On count 1, the assault of Ms. Anakons on May 19, 2023, I find Mr. Tynes-Dempsey guilty.
- On counts 2, 3 and 4, three counts of fail to comply with probation on May 19, 2023, I find Mr. Tynes-Dempsey guilty.
- Counts 5 and 6 were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.
- On count 7, the assault of Ms. Anakons causing bodily harm on October 26, 2023, 2023, I find Mr. Tynes-Dempsey guilty.
- On count 8, the alleged forcible confinement of Ms. Anakons on November 5, 2023, I have already found Mr. Tynes-Dempsey not guilty.
- On count 9, the alleged assault of Ms. Anakons on November 5, 2023, I have already found Mr. Tynes-Dempsey not guilty.
- On counts 10 and 11, two counts of fail to comply with probation between May 19 and November 5, 2023, I find Mr. Tynes-Dempsey guilty in relation to the October 26, 2023 assault causing bodily harm.
P. Downes J.
November 17, 2025
Footnotes:
[1] R. v. Bartholomew, 2019 ONCA 377
[2] R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33, at para. 198
[3] Exhibit 2
[4] Exhibit 6
[5] Exhibit 11
[6] R. v. G.G., 2025 ONCA 574, at paras. 39-40
[7] Exhibit 3
[8] Exhibit 5