ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: March 4, 2026

COURT FILE No.: 4711-998-24-21003514-00

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

OWEN VANDERBURG

Before Justice Robert S. Gee

Heard on September 10, 2025, October 6, 2025, and January 13, 2026

Reasons for Judgment released on March 4, 2026

R. Thiara............................................................................................... counsel for the Crown

D. Farquhar……………………………………………………………………for the accused

Gee J.:

[ 1 ] Owen Vanderburg is before the Court facing seven charges arising from his relationship with the complainant, Ella Groves. The Information alleges, the accused, on or about September 29, 2024, committed an assault, contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code . It is further alleged that between September 1 and October 31, 2023, he committed another assault against Ms. Groves, also contrary to s. 266 . A third count alleges that between September 1 and December 31, 2023, he choked, suffocated, or strangled Ms. Groves while committing an assault, contrary to s. 267(c). A fourth count alleges that between July 1 and August 31, 2024, he again choked, suffocated, or strangled her, contrary to s. 267(c). The fifth charge alleges that between August 10 and August 13, 2024, he committed an assault with a weapon, namely a knife, contrary to s. 267(a). A sixth charge alleges that during the same period, August 10 to 13, 2024, he knowingly uttered a threat to cause death to Ms. Groves, contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a). Finally, the seventh charge alleges that on or about November 6, 2023, in Haldimand County, he committed another assault, contrary to s. 266 .

[ 2 ] The complainant testified for the Crown as did three police officers, Constables Mike Logozny, Kyle West, and Theodore Nicholson. The defence called Mr. Vanderburg and Mr. Vanderburg’s mother, Kimberly ‑ Ann Vanderburg.

[ 3 ] In this, as in all cases, the accused is presumed innocent, and the Crown bears the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a particularly high standard. It is a much higher standard than that of proof on a balance of probabilities which is the standard in a civil case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt lies much closer to an absolute certainty than to a finding the accused is more likely than not to have committed the offence, which is how the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities is defined.

[ 4 ] In R. v. W.D. 1991 93 (SCC) , [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 , the Supreme Court set out a useful framework for me to follow in a case such as this where an accused testifies and denies or gives different version of events from the complainant or other witnesses.

[ 5 ] The framework, when followed, ensures that the burden on the Crown to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt stays in focus when credibility assessments are being made. It reminds judges that this is not a simple credibility contest. It is not proper for me to choose which side has the more believable version. The side that tells the better or more believable version, is not because of that, entitled to win.

[ 6 ] Also, if I do not believe a witness either entirely or on a particular point, it is not proper because of that disbelief, to simply conclude the other side’s competing version must be true or accurate.

[ 7 ] W.D. tells me to approach the case in this manner. First, I should ask myself if I believe the accused or any evidence presented at trial that is inconsistent with guilt. If I do, then the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

[ 8 ] The second part of the W.D. framework comes into play if I conclude I do not believe the accused or the evidence inconsistent with his guilt. If I do not, in order to remain focused on the Crown’s burden, I should ask if I am still left in a reasonable doubt by it. At this stage I have to ask if there is a basis to reject this evidence outright. If I find that even though I do not accept this evidence, I am still unable to reject it as either untruthful or unreliable, then I would have to find I am left with some doubt. The accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and is again entitled to an acquittal.

[ 9 ] If I have found that I do not believe the accused or the other evidence inconsistent with guilt, and this evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt then the third part of the W.D framework would be engaged.

[ 10 ] This part of the framework reminds me that even if I have not believed the accused’s evidence and have in fact rejected it in its entirety that does not necessarily lead to a finding of guilt. I must then ask myself if, based on the evidence I do accept, does that evidence convince me beyond a reasonable doubt the accused is guilty. That is the only pathway to conviction. I must be convinced of the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence I do accept.

[ 11 ] Turning to the evidence in the case, Ms. Groves described a relationship that began in May 2023 and a series of violent episodes; an initial slap in September 2023 at the Burford residence; repeated incidents in September/October 2023 and December 2023, where the accused is alleged to have covered her nose and mouth with his hand preventing her from breathing. The pressure in these incidents applied to her nose she stated was forceful enough to cause the stem of her nose ring to dig into her septum or nose and cause bleeding. She would then start to choke on the blood from this until the accused eventually removed his hand. Further incidents she alleged occurred in August 2024 at her parents’ home, including further suffocation and explicit death threats; an incident with a paring ‑ knife in August 2024 during which her palm was cut as she wrestled the knife away; and the September 29, 2024 bathroom incident, during which she said the accused grabbed her neck, forced her to the floor, stood on her hair, and later struck her head as she tried to leave. She recorded two videos that night which were made exhibits at trial and about two days later sought medical attention. She stated she had bruising around her neck and scalp and her scalp was irritated.

[ 12 ] Under cross ‑ examination, the defence highlighted inconsistencies and omissions between Ms. Groves’ trial evidence and her October 1 and November 18, 2024, police statements. The defence’s strategy focused heavily on demonstrating that Ms. Groves’ account changed over time regarding what happened first, second, or next arguing that these sequence inconsistencies undermined her reliability. Some of the inconsistencies raised were, in the first incident from September 2023 she said in her police statement that they were “laying in bed watching a movie” when she went upstairs, whereas at trial, she said she did not remember watching a movie.

[ 13 ] For the December 2023 incident, at trial, she testified her legs were folded underneath her when pushed backward onto the bed. In her police statement, she said the accused grabbed her head and pushed it into blankets, then flipped her over, and then pinched her nose and covered her mouth.

[ 14 ] In relation to the incident with the paring knife, when and how she fought for the knife was challenged. She testified she grabbed for the knife and was cut in the struggle. The defence noted inconsistencies in the order of; when she confronted him, when she rolled over, when she searched his clothing, and when the cut happened. She acknowledged she did not remember the precise order.

[ 15 ] During the September 29 bathroom incident, the defence pointed out whether she retrieved her phone before or after being grabbed. In one telling, she grabbed her phone after the first pull. In another, she suggested she grabbed it before backing into the corner, because it was on the towel cart. As well, whether she was pulled once or twice was said to be unclear. The defence highlighted what could be described as confusion in her narration distinguishing “drag,” “throw,” and “pull,” implying sequencing was also unclear.

[ 16 ] Mr. Vanderburg denied all assaults. He said Ms. Groves became angry when she did not take her mental health medication and that on September 29, 2024, she accused him of infidelity, struck him multiple times in the face with a phone, and that he only restrained her briefly to stop the blows. He said he suffered a swollen face and black eye that co ‑ workers noticed and commented on the next day. His mother, Kimberly ‑ Ann, described Ms. Groves as sometimes irritable and apologetic for at times missing her medication, and testified she observed a black eye on the accused after the incident, when she next saw him on October 1, 2024.

[ 17 ] The September 29, 2024, incident occurred at Ms. Groves house, where the two had been staying while her parents were in Europe. It took place in the evening, shortly after they had returned home, eaten dinner, and taken a shower. Ms. Groves made two videos on her phone during this incident without the accused knowing she was doing so. She also stated she sent these videos to a friend shortly after making them, again without the accused knowing, in case he was to find, and make her delete them. They spent the night together and both went to work the next morning on September 30. Mr. Vanderburg started work earlier than Ms. Groves so was gone by the time she woke up. It was during the day of September 30 that Ms. Groves contacted the police and gave her statement. The police eventually attended the home that evening, and after some time, were able to enter the house and arrest the accused.

[ 18 ] The accused testified while he was at work on September 30, the whole side of his face was very swollen and multiple co-workers commented on it and asked him what happened. He also provided a picture of his eye that was time stamped for October 1, that showed bruising under his left eye.

[ 19 ] Constables Mike Logozny and Kyle West were the officers involved in the arrest of the accused. Both testified that when the accused was arrested on the evening of September 30, neither observed any black eye or facial injury to the accused. As well, Constable West took a mugshot photograph of the accused that night. In this photo, there is no detectible swelling to his face or black eye. At its highest, it might be said there may be some slight discolouration under the accused’s left eye, but it is so slight that it is unclear if that was the accused’s natural colour, some effect or shadow from the picture, or from an injury. Additionally, another mugshot of the accused, taken approximately one month later was also shown. The same, slight discoloration under the same eye appears in that photo, so this slight discolouration seems to be natural to the accused face.

[ 20 ] Whatever it is, I find the mugshot picture of Mr. Vanderburg taken the day of his arrest for the September 29 incident, is supportive of the evidence of the two officers that they did not observe any injury, either swelling or black eye, and his appearance in that photo is inconsistent with his testimony that he had a very swollen face that was noticed and commented on by his co-workers.

[ 21 ] When Mr. Vanderburg’s testimony is assessed against the two recordings made by Ms. Groves, his overall credibility is significantly undermined. In the first video, the bathroom recording the camera lies on the floor angled upward. Ms. Groves is heard crying hysterically and screaming, “you’re standing on my hair.” Mr. Vanderburg is visible in this recording, nude and wearing a ball cap, positioned directly over her. His voice is clear and calm enough to articulate, “I told you you had two options,” followed shortly by, “you didn’t want to do it the easy way.” This footage functions as near ‑ contemporaneous documentation of a situation in which the complainant is already on the ground, distressed, and pleading about her hair being stepped on, while the accused stands above her making statements that unmistakably convey coercion and punishment. Nothing in the video supports his testimony that he merely attempted to restrain Ms. Groves after she violently attacked him with a phone; instead, the image and tone suggest dominance, control, and deliberate escalation. These observations directly contradict his claim to be the one defending himself and undermine his portrayal of Ms. Groves as the aggressor that night.

[ 22 ] The second video compounds this credibility problem. Ms. Groves is again audibly distraught, crying and screaming, “why did you just hit me,” while Mr. Vanderburg, off ‑ camera, repeatedly responds with “shut the fuck up before I come over there,” along with multiple commands to “shut the fuck up,” “shut up,” “be quiet,” and “get up,” even interjecting “go walk your dogs.” Nothing in this recording suggests he is attempting to de ‑ escalate a situation with an out ‑ of ‑ control partner; instead, the tone is angry, threatening, and commanding. These remarks are impossible to reconcile with his testimony that he remained calm and only held her down to protect himself. His verbal behaviour here reflects neither fear of being harmed nor any reasonable self ‑ defensive posture.

[ 23 ] Both videos also expose a disconnect between the version of events the accused advanced at trial and the objective reality captured on video. At trial, Mr. Vanderburg claimed that Ms. Groves had assaulted him so severely that he developed a visible black eye and significant facial swelling noticed by co ‑ workers, yet both arresting officers testified that they observed no injury of any kind the next evening when they found him asleep on the couch, and the police photograph taken the same night, corroborates their view. This contradiction, already problematic to his credibility, becomes even more severe when juxtaposed with the videos. In neither recording does the accused appear injured, winded, or distressed in the manner he later claimed. Instead, he appears physically unthreatened and in control, contradicting his assertion that the complainant had launched a sudden, violent attack requiring him to forcibly restrain her. The videos therefore undermine his version as they contradict the foundational claim underlying his defence.

[ 24 ] Furthermore, the accused’s own words in the recordings stand in contrast with the persona he portrayed of himself at trial; that of a patient, calm partner navigating the volatility of someone who frequently missed her medication. In the video, he does not sound beleaguered or frightened. On the contrary, he sounds angry, dismissive, and threatening. His tone is precisely the opposite of the restrained, reluctant participant he sought to portray. His comments about Ms. Groves having had “two options” and refusing to do things “the easy way” do not reflect someone attempting to disengage or protect himself. These utterances by him have a coercive undertone that severely damages the believability of his claim that he never used force, never threatened her, and never acted violently.

[ 25 ] The videos also demonstrate that the complainant’s emotional condition, her crying, pleading, and panic, was not a performative product of later reflection or police involvement but an immediate, visceral reaction unfolding in real time. This undercuts defence suggestions that her testimony was exaggerated or influenced by later interpretation. The distress she demonstrates in the videos, supports her assertion that she felt terrorized and physically overpowered during the events of that night. In contrast, the accused’s behaviour and tone do not display any sign of self ‑ protection or fear, undermining yet another element of his testimony.

[ 26 ] Taken together with the officers’ evidence that the accused exhibited no visible injuries, the videos paint a portrait of someone whose description of himself at trial was incompatible with his actions and words captured without his knowledge. His categorical denials at trial become difficult to believe when weighed against the clear evidence of anger, threats, and coercion. In these videos, he behaves in a manner fundamentally irreconcilable with his sworn testimony.

[ 27 ] Accordingly, when the two recordings are considered alongside the testimony of police witnesses and the inconsistencies in the accused’s own narrative, his credibility is compromised significantly. The videos serve as powerful, real-time, and objective evidence that his version of events cannot reasonably be accepted. They do not merely fail to support his account, they directly contradict it and reveal a pattern of behaviour wholly inconsistent with the way he sought to portray himself at trial.

[ 28 ] Under step one of the W.D. framework, the videos make it extremely difficult to accept his version of events as truthful. His narrative is also incompatible with the testimony of two arresting officers who saw no injuries whatsoever on him on September 30 and documented this through the mugshot photograph, despite his claim that Ms. Groves struck him repeatedly the night before and left him with a swollen face and a black eye. This inconsistency, combined with the threatening and controlling behaviour captured on video, undermines the reliability of his account. Because his descriptions of the incident are contradicted by objective evidence, his testimony cannot be believed on the crucial facts.

[ 29 ] This finding extends beyond the September 29 incident itself and materially affect the first two stages of the W.D. analysis across the remaining counts. The first step requires determining whether I believe his evidence. His testimony is that he never assaulted Ms. Groves, never placed hands over her nose or mouth, never straddled her, never used her nose ring to cause pain, never brandished or used a knife, and never uttered any death threats. Yet the videos portray an accused who is not calm, defensive, or attempting to prevent violence, but instead threatening, angry, and exerting control. He speaks in unmistakably coercive language, telling her she had "two options" and refused "the easy way." In the hallway video, he repeatedly tells her to “shut the fuck up,” threatens to “come over there,” and issues commands such as “be quiet,” “shut up,” “get up,” and “go walk your dogs.” Nothing in these recordings is compatible with how he describes himself in his testimony.

[ 30 ] Given these contradictions, the accused’s testimony cannot reasonably be believed for the purposes of W.D. step one, and this disbelief does not apply only to the September 29 count. His defence to all of the allegations consists of categorical denial. He maintains that no suffocation occurred in 2023, that the December 2023 event did not happen, that the August 2024 suffocation incidents did not occur, that he never produced or used a knife, and that he never threatened to kill the complainant. But the videos show someone who, when unobserved, behaves in a manner entirely incompatible with that blanket denial, someone who is angry, punitive, verbally aggressive, and exerting physical dominance. Once the recordings reveal that his description of himself during the September 29 event is false, it also becomes difficult to accept his denial of having engaged in similar acts earlier in the relationship. The videos do not directly demonstrate the earlier assaults, but they do reveal his capacity to act in precisely the kind of domineering, demeaning, and violent manner consistent with the pattern Ms. Groves described. Under the first step of the W.D. test, his credibility is therefore profoundly compromised and incapable of belief across all counts.

[ 31 ] Under the second step of the W.D. framework, the question becomes whether his evidence, though disbelieved, nevertheless leaves a reasonable doubt. For the counts other than the September 29, 2024, count, the videos cannot retroactively prove those events, but they do directly affect whether his denials will leave me with a reasonable doubt. The second step does not require believing him, it requires assessing whether his account might still be reasonably possible. But once the videos demonstrate that, at least on September 29, 2024, he behaved in a manner markedly similar to that described by Ms. Groves, using physical dominance, coercive language, and anger, his denials lose the ability to raise doubt. For the reasons noted above, his account of September 29, 2024, incident cannot be accepted and that his testimony that he is a calm, passive, and non ‑ violent partner is inconsistent with how he behaved when he believed he was not being observed. This lack of credibility means his denials in relation to the other counts, all also in situations where the two were alone and unobserved, do not leave me with a reasonable doubt.

[ 32 ] Turning to the evidence of Ms. Groves, she presents as a witness whose core narrative is consistent, emotionally credible, and partially corroborated by contemporaneous, objective material. Her account traces a line from early episodes of slapping and suffocation in 2023 to escalating coercion in August 2024 and culminating in the bathroom and hallway events on September 29, 2024. The most probative aspects of her testimony are the two recordings she made that night without the knowledge of the accused. These recordings directly and contemporaneously support the core of her testimony about the September 29 incident, depicting her as distressed, panicked and overborne while he exerts control with demeaning language and behaviour.

[ 33 ] Her credibility is also supported by the police witnesses whose observations the following evening are difficult to reconcile with the accused’s version. Both arresting officers testified that they found no visible injuries on him, and that the mugshot taken that night shows no obvious facial injury.

[ 34 ] At the same time, cross ‑ examination exposed inconsistencies and memory gaps in Ms. Grove’s testimony about some of the events. Defence counsel highlighted shifting details about whether a movie was on before the first slap, the exact positions of bodies during the December suffocation, whether pillows or blankets were involved, how her legs were situated, and the precise order of actions during the knife episode in August 2024. She often answered that she did not remember specifics, sometimes acknowledged that earlier statements might have been more accurate on certain points, and conceded uncertainty about exact wording for threats. Those weaknesses may impact the weight that can be given to some of these minor details, but they do not, undermine the essential believability and reliability of her core allegations, which remained unshaken even after cross-examination.

[ 35 ] Kimberly ‑ Ann Vanderburg’s evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt or undermine the credibility of Ms. Groves because her testimony is both limited in scope and contradicted by the objective, closer in time observations of the police witnesses. She acknowledged that she never witnessed any of the alleged assaults and relied almost entirely on her son’s explanations, including his claim that Ms. Groves had given him a black eye. Her testimony that she never heard any violence in the home carries little weight given that the charged incidents frequently occurred when others were not present, and her account of the complainant’s irritability when off medication is anecdotal and does not address or negate the behaviour captured on the September 29 videos.

[ 36 ] In the end, I do not believe the accused nor does his evidence or that of his mother leave me with a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, I do believe the complainant. Her testimony detailed a compelling pattern of assaults, suffocation episodes, threats, and one knife incident. It was corroborated by the videos she recorded without the accused’s knowledge and supported by the evidence of the police. I believe her testimony. I believe that the events she described happened as she described them. I am convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt based on her evidence that all the acts she described the accused doing to her, happened as she described.

[ 37 ] It is because of this belief beyond a reasonable doubt, that findings of guilt will be made against the accused on counts one through six in the Information. Count seven, that being the alleged assault on November 6, 2023, is dismissed, as the Crown acknowledged no evidence in relation to any incident on that date was presented at trial.

Released: March 4, 2026

Signed: Justice Robert S. Gee