ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Spence-Branagh, 2026 ONCJ 210

DATE: 2026 04 09

COURT FILE No.: 3011-998-25-30100028-00

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

CAIDEN SPENCE-BRANAGH

Before Justice B.C. Oldham

Heard on October 3, 2025, December 9, 2025, and February 25, 2026

Reasons for Judgment released on April 9, 2026

E.Metz / S. Scharger.......................................................................... counsel for the Crown

D.Lakie..................................................................... for the defendant C. Spence-Branagh

OLDHAM J.:

[1] Caiden Spence-Branagh stands charged of one count of assault against Echo Hamilton contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code (the “Code”) and one count of breach of probation order by failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour contrary to s. 733.1(1) of the Code.

[2] The Court heard from six witnesses for the Crown, three officers from the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”),Provincial Constable (“PC”) Jordan DaSilva, the investigating officer, Sergeant (“Sgt.”) Matthew Roberts the arresting officer, PC Hannah Dombrowskie who assisted with the arrest, Kyle Mitchell a customer staying at the Best Western who called 911, Amrit Hota the front desk staff at the Best Western who also called 911 and the complainant, Echo Hamilton.

[3] Defence called Heather Potvin, Mr. Spence-Branagh’s mother to testify.

[4] Counsel for Mr. Spence-Branagh confirmed that date, jurisdiction and the identification of Mr. Spence-Branagh as the accused were not at issue. The Probation Order was admitted and filed as an exhibit. Counsel for Mr. Spence-Branagh acknowledged that he was on conditions to keep the peace and be of good behavior by the Order of Justice Dawson made on August 29, 2024. In closing submissions, the Crown confirmed that the allegation of breach turned on a committal on the assault charge.

[5] The issue, therefore, is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Spence-Branagh assaulted Echo Hamilton on January 5, 2025 at the Best Western in Parry Sound, Ontario.

Position of the Parties

[6] Counsel for Mr. Spence-Branagh submits that there are too many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Ms. Hamilton’s evidence to render her evidence reliable enough to support a conviction. Counsel reminded the Court that no amount of credibility can remedy a finding that a witness’s evidence is not reliable.

[7] The Crown acknowledged the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Ms. Hamilton’s evidence but submits that they are not significant and that they can be explained by the circumstances. Ms. Hamilton was bleeding, hysterical and in a state of shock. She was scared and focused on getting to safety. She provided a significant level of detail on the assault itself and was not challenged by conflicting evidence. The Crown submits that the Court cannot make a finding of diminished credibility on the basis of her delayed and conflicting statements. Courts must accept that in cases of domestic violence there may well be legitimate reasons why a report is delayed or not accurately described. Ms. Hamilton provided a credible explanation for the delay and her ultimate decision to report, in the Crown’s submission.

[8] The Crown also notes that there is corroborating evidence which includes the injuries themselves, the witness that overheard the argument and Ms. Hamilton’s own spontaneous utterances. As soon as she came down the stairs, she reported that her boyfriend had assaulted her. The assault was the punch to the nose, which drew blood and the second punch to the forehead which caused a visible goose egg.

Law and Analysis

[9] The Crown filed two cases. The first, R. v. Stairs 2022 SCC 11 (“Stairs”) for the proposition that it is not uncommon for a complainant not to co-operate with the police and that the lack of co-operation should not be used to assess credibility or reliability. The Crown refers to paragraph 94 which states the following:

[94] The police often respond to domestic violence calls with limited information. For example, they may not know if other family members, including children, are involved. This is further exacerbated when victims at the scene of the arrest are uncooperative, a common phenomenon in the domestic violence context. For example, in R. v. Lowes, 2016 ONCA 519, the police responded to a 9‑1‑1 call in which a neighbour reported hearing a man threaten to kill a woman. The woman insisted to the police that no one else was in the apartment. The Court of Appeal found that the police would have been “derelict in their duty” had they accepted the woman’s response at face value (para. 12 (CanLII)).

[10] Counsel for Mr. Spence-Branagh submits that this is an improper application of that principle. The context in Stairs relates to a statement made by a domestic partner as part of a search and seizure and provides guidance to how a police officer investigating may utilize that information. It does not, counsel submits, necessarily translate to how a court should assess credibility in a trial dealing with an allegation of domestic assault.

[11] The Crown also submitted a decision from the Court of Appeal (“COA”) in R v. Khinda 2023 ONCA 198 (“Khinda”) to demonstrate that even in cases where an accused waits two years before reporting an assault, a court may still find that the delay does not undermine their credibility.

[12] Counsel for Mr. Spence-Branagh submits that the case before this Court is less about the delay and more about the inconsistencies in the statements. The front desk employee, Amrit Hota testified that Ms. Hamilton told her that her boyfriend ‘hitted’ her and that she ran from the room and she fell on the stairs and got hit on the nose. At trial, ten months later, not only did she deny that she fell, she denied even telling the front desk staff that she fell on the stairs. The fact that she made the utterance at the time, raises a question about how she obtained the injuries. Maybe they arose from the fall or maybe in the room. Maybe, counsel submits is insufficient for a committal.

[13] The Crown submitted that the Court should accept Ms. Hamilton’s evidence and noted that there was no evidence of a motive to lie. She reported that she loved Mr. Spence-Branagh and did not engage in negative commentary when the opportunity arose. She was cooperative with his family in the retrieval of his belongings from the room. All of which are indicators, the Crown submits, that she was not vindictive and that her evidence was not tainted by a motive to lie or fabricate.

[14] Counsel for Mr. Spence-Branagh referred to the COA decision of R. v. L.L. 2009 24 (3rd) 149 at paragraphs 44 to 49, which read as follows:

[44] When dealing with the issue of a complainant’s motive to fabricate, it is important to recognize that the absence of evidence of motive to fabricate is not the same as absence of motive to fabricate. As Rowles J.A. stated in R. v. B. (R.W.) (1993), 24 B.C.A.C. 1(B.C.C.A.), at para. 28: “it does not logically follow that because there is no apparent reason for a witness to lie, the witness must be telling the truth.” Put another way, the fact that a complainant has no apparent motive to fabricate does not mean that the complainant has no motive to fabricate.

[45] The complainant’s good relationship with her father and the negative consequences she may have experienced as a result of making her allegations are not capable of proving that she had no motive to fabricate. As this court held in R. v. White (1996), 1996 CanLII 3013 (ON CA), 29 O.R. (3d) 577, at p. 608, (Ont. C.A.); affirmed 1998 CanLII 789 (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72, in the context of an accused’s motive to commit a crime, evidence of a good relationship does “no more than reinforce the absence of evidence of proved motive.” The same reasoning applies to evidence of negative consequences that may ensue from making serious allegations. Although they highlight the significance of absence of evidence of motive, they do not prove the absence of a hidden motive.

[46] In my view, the Crown’s suggestions that the complainant’s great relationship with her father and the negative consequences she may have suffered by making her allegations amounted to no motive to fabricate required a corrective instruction from the trial judge to put the issue of absence of evidence of motive to fabricate into its proper context.

[47] Further, in my opinion, the Crown’s emotive rhetorical questions asking why the complainant would bring various negative consequences on herself also required a corrective instruction. The problem with these questions is that they called on the jury in a compelling way to focus on what had not been proven (a credible motive to lie) rather than on what was proven and therefore created a risk that the jury would reason that failure to demonstrate a motive to lie proved that the complainant was telling the truth.

[48] In Batte at para. 121, this court identified the pitfalls that should be avoided in a trial judge’s instructions to the jury on motive to fabricate. The same pitfalls must be avoided in Crown counsel’s closing address:

What must be avoided in instructing a jury is any suggestion that the accused has an onus to demonstrate that a complainant has a motive to fabricate evidence, that the absence of a demonstrated motive to fabricate necessarily means that there was no motive or, finally, that the absence of a motive to fabricate conclusively establishes that a witness is telling the truth. The presence or absence of a motive to fabricate evidence is only one factor to be considered in assessing credibility.

[49] I recognize that in Batte, this court concluded that the trial judge did not err when, in setting out the Crown’s position at trial, he invited the jury to consider why the complainant would subject herself to the rigours of the trial process if her allegations were not true. This court stated that at least some of the potential problems arising from such an instruction are overcome by the trial judge’s general instructions on credibility. Further, the trial judge’s instructions in their entirety would not have “led the jury astray from applying its common sense to the question of why the complainants would make the allegations they did, and the significance of the answer to that question, to their overall assessment of the credibility of the complainants”: Batte at para.

[15] There was clearly history between Ms. Hamilton and Mr. Spence-Branagh. They had dated for approximately a year. Ms. Hamilton was upset by the fact that Mr. Spence-Branagh had cheated on her and that he had a child with another woman as a result. It appears that the relationship between Ms. Hamilton and Mr. Spence-Branagh was tense and even toxic at times. That is grounded in the evidence of Mr. Mitchell who overheard a very heated argument coming from their room at the Best Western on January 5, 2025 and the fact that Mr. Spence-Branagh was on a probation order as a result of an earlier incident involving Ms. Hamilton. While counsel for Mr. Spence-Branagh submits that the Court should be cautious of that evidence as it was not the result of a discreditable conduct application, it is evidence before the Court. That said, it is of limited detail and of limited value.

[16] In this case, there is no evidence before the Court that Ms. Hamilton had a motive to lie or to fabricate. That does not buttress her credibility. Mr. Spence-Branagh bears no onus to prove that she had a motive to lie or that she is vindictive. The lack of evidence of a motive to lie, is simply that. There is no evidence that Ms. Hamilton was motivated to lie in this case.

[17] Given that there was no witness to the alleged assault, this issue is whether Ms. Hamilton’s evidence, with the assistance of any corroborating evidence, is sufficiently reliable to support a conviction.

[18] The Crown acknowledges the inconsistencies in Ms. Hamilton’s evidence and submits that they are not sufficient to render her evidence unreliable. The Crown notes that all of the inconsistencies arise out of facts and circumstances following the assault and therefore do not speak to the veracity of the evidence around the assault. The fact that Ms. Hamilton was bleeding and in a state of shock after having been beaten and possibly suffering from a concussion provides a reasonable explanation for her inability to be a good historian.

[19] While one might expect some inconsistencies, Ms. Hamilton’s evidence was fraught with internal inconsistencies, and inconsistencies with clear uncontradicted evidence provided by other witnesses. Those inconsistencies, coupled with her lack of co-operation, delay in providing a statement impacts the reliability of her evidence around the critical facts. When taken together she simply cannot meet the threshold of a reliable witness. In arriving at that conclusion, it is important to review the evidence and to assess the Crown’s submissions.

[20] With respect to her statements to the police, PC DaSilva testified that he was the first officer to arrive at the Best Western. Ms. Hamilton was at the front desk and was still in an animated state. She was not able to communicate any information to him. She was not willing to provide a statement. She did not want him to take photos of her injuries and she just kept yelling at him to get her a cigarette. He ultimately took her outside for a cigarette. This calmed her down, but she maintained that she did not want medical assistance and did not want to co-operate with the investigation.

[21] PC DaSilva was off shift following the incident and contacted Ms. Hamilton to obtain a statement eight days later, on January 13, 2025. At this point, she advised him that she would rather not talk about how she got the injuries. When he posed the follow-up question about whether she recalled how she got the injuries, she said ‘no’. There was a considerable exchange in cross-examination on whether ‘no’ meant she did not recall or whether her response ‘no’ was just solidifying her position that she did not want to talk about the incident. PC DaSilva assumed the later which was a reasonable assumption in the circumstances. Ms. Hamilton did not elaborate or provide any clear statement that she had no recollection of the events of that night.

[22] Ms. Hamilton testified that she only provided her second statement the day before the trial (which would have been October 2, 2025, almost 10 months after the incident). She acknowledged that this represented a change in the position she took on January 13, 2025. By way of an explanation, she indicated that initially she was scared and just wanted to get out of Parry Sound. That response may explain her decision on the night of January 5, 2025, but does not really explain her decision on January 13, 2025, eight days later, to decline to provide a statement.

[23] Ms. Hamilton testified that she decided to provide a statement when she realized that she was summoned to attend in court. At this point, she had decided that enough was enough and that she was ready to tell the truth.

[24] There are many reasons why complainants and/or victims delay reporting traumatic incidents and the delay and even a change in storyline is not necessarily determinative of credibility or reliability, but it is one factor to be considered. Had Ms. Hamilton provided a clear statement on January 5, 2025, which was consistent with her evidence at trial, that might have buttressed her credibility and the reliability of the evidence provided. Had she provided her statement at the time of the incident instead of 10 months later that might address some of the concerns about her inability to recall certain details. Again, that is not to say that she is less credible because she delayed in reporting the incident, only that the Crown cannot rely on the immediacy of her statement and the consistency throughout to buttress the credibility and reliability of her evidence.

[25] The Crown refers to her immediate utterance to Ms. Hota that her boyfriend hit her. It is noteworthy though, that Ms. Hota told the 911 operator that Ms. Hamilton also uttered that she fell on the stairs in those first moments.

[26] With respect to Ms. Hamilton’s evidence the following are examples of inconsistencies in her own evidence, and circumstances where her evidence cannot be reconciled with the facts provided by other witnesses.

(1) It is clear on the evidence of PC DaSilva and Ms. Potvin that Ms. Hamilton, Ms. Potvin, her daughter and PC DaSilva went to Ms Hamilton and Mr. Spence-Branagh’s room to obtain his belongings. This occurred right after Ms. Hamilton spoke with PC DaSilva. It happened after she had a cigarette. It happened after Mr. Potvin stayed with her outside while PC DaSilva went into the hotel to see if they could go up to the room. Ms. Potivn testified that she was at the Best Western for approximately 20 minutes and that she was with Ms. Hamilton for most of that time. Ms. Hamilton had no recollection of seeing, speaking with or attending her room with Ms. Hamilton. Not only did she not have any recollection she was adamant that did not happen. She stated to Counsel for Mr. Spence-Branagh that ‘I almost feel like you are lying to me”. When asked again, she replied ‘what are you talking about? No. His mother was never there “. She continued on, ‘you are wrong’ No one went up there.’ The Crown submits that Ms. Hamilton was in a state of shock and that may explain why she does not recall. If there had been a short interaction, that may explain the gap in memory. This, however, was a 10 to 20 minute interaction which included three people going up to the room with Ms. Hamilton. By Ms. Potvin’s evidence, Ms. Hamilton assisted in identifying which items belonged to Mr. Spence-Branagh, helping her daughter located his phone and providing those items to the family to return to him. It is difficult to reconcile how she could not remember this exchange and what that means in terms of her recollection of other details of what occurred that night.

(2) Ms. Hamilton was also adamant that she took the elevator down to the ground floor after she fled from the room. It is clear from the evidence of Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Hota that she took the stairs. Mr. Mitchell testified that his room was directly across from the elevators. He looked out the peephole of his door and saw Ms. Hamilton and Mr. Spence-Branagh in the hallway. He did not see Ms. Hamilton enter the elevators. Ms. Hota could not clearly see the elevators from the front desk but saw Ms. Hamilton emerge from the hallway in the direction of the stairs. Standing alone, this would not be a significant inconsistency. It is quite possible that in that moment, Ms. Hamilton may not have remembered how she got down to the ground level.

(3) Ms. Hamilton testified that it took approximately 45 minutes to coax Mr. Spence-Branagh out of the room. She alleged that he barricaded himself in the room and would not come out for police. This is clearly not accurate. Police were only at the Best Western for approximately 53 minutes; arriving at 10:07 and leaving by 11:00 pm. Sgt Matthews arrested Mr. Spence-Branagh. He testified that he arrived at the Best Western at 10:17 pm. He was at the front desk making inquires about the man accused of assaulting Ms. Hamilton when Mr. Spence-Branagh walked into the hotel, from the outside, toward the elevators as if to return to his room. This was at 10:20 pm. He placed Mr. Spence-Branagh under investigatory detention at that time and arrested him at 10:23 pm after obtaining grounds. Even though Ms. Hamilton admitted at other times to other people, for example Ms. Hota, that she did not really know where Mr. Spence-Branagh was, this testimony is problematic. It has no basis in fact and appears to be a complete fabrication. The Crown submits that she was not completely committed to that evidence because at other times she said she was not sure where he was. The Court does not agree. Ms. Hamilton was asked in different ways in cross examination whether she was possibly wrong or mistaken and that in fact Mr. Spence-Branagh was arrested without incident and shortly after the police arrived. She was adamant that ‘that never happened’ and ‘that will never be said’. This inconsistency raises concerns about Ms. Hamilton’s credibility as well as the reliability of her evidence.

(4) Ms. Hota confirmed that she told the 911 officer that Ms. Hamilton said that she fell on the stairs. Ms. Hamilton denies that she ever told Ms. Hota that she fell. She maintained that she did not go down the stairs but rather took the elevator. Even after listening to the 911 call and Ms. Hota advising the operator of that fact, Ms. Hamilton said that was Ms. Hota’s evidence, not hers. The fact that she could not even acknowledge that she may have made that statement to Ms. Hota is concerning. The Court does not accept that Ms. Hota just made up the statement or came up with that explanation on her own. The Court accepts Ms. Hota’s evidence that, in that immediate moment of just coming down the stairs, Ms. Hamilton told Ms. Hota that she fell. She also told Ms. Hota that her boyfriend hit her.

(5) Mr. Mitchell testified that he observed Mr. Spence-Branagh to be towering over Ms. Hamilton in the hallway when he peered out of the peephole. Ms. Hamilton denied that happened. She testified that when she left the room, Mr. Spence-Branagh never caught up with her and never touched or towered over her. Again, standing alone, this inconsistency would not necessarily be problematic. This occurred right after leaving the room and the evidence before the Court is that Ms. Hamilton was in a state of shock at the time. She had blood on her and was trying to get away from Mr. Spence-Branagh. Her focus was going to the lobby. Mr. Mitchell did not provide any context around how long this particular observation lasted. It could have been fleeting which would also explain her lack of recollection.

[27] The Crown submits that there was a quality to Ms. Hamilton’s evidence and noted the level of detail she provided around the assault. She testified that he came out of the bathroom and she that was “cornered between the nightstand and the bed and that is where he hit me… and once I fell to the ground, he hit me again.”. The problem with that submission is that she initially described the incident differently. When asked to describe how it started Ms. Hamilton explained how Mr. Spece-Branagh fell asleep across the bed. She testified that she decided to wake him up. She was hesitant because when she had woken him up earlier and on other occasions they got into an argument. On this occasion, she testified that “so I had woken him up, and he was in a rage from earlier. And he also snapped when I woke him up and he was mad and – he got very mad and came into my face and hit me in the face and he punched me right in my nose and he made my nose bleed instantly. There was blood all over my sweater. I was cupping my hands because of the amount of blood that was coming out of my face. He punched me in my head, and there was an instant huge bump on my head. After that happened, I was scared, so I ran out of the room.” There is no mention of him coming out of the bathroom. There is no mention of being cornered or falling on the ground and being punched. Moreover, Ms. Hamilton initially testified that he punched her twice, once in the face and once in the nose. In cross-examination, she testified that he punched her in multiple places.

[28] These are significant inconsistencies which taken together raise real concerns about the reliability of Ms. Hamilton’s evidence.

[29] Ms. Hamilton was also less than candid about the amount of alcohol she consumed. Initially she testified that she only had two drinks while she was with Mr. Spence-Branagh on January 5, 2025. In cross examination she acknowledged that they went to Tailwinds earlier in the day. She testified that they were there for two or three hours, but that she only had one drink. When questioned about what type of drink it was she testified that she doesn't know and that she drinks all different kinds of drinks depending upon her mood. When she was asked about what was purchased at the LCBO she initially testified that they only purchased a couple of cans of alcohol and denied that it would have been 12 cans of vodka sodas or hard seltzers. She later confirmed that she did in fact buy a bottle of something for Mr. Spence-Branagh but did not recall what it was. She acknowledged that any alcohol purchased was from her because Mr. Spence-Branagh had no money. PC DaSilva and Ms. Potvin both describe the room as being in disarray with alcohol beverage cans and clothing strewn about. Ms. Potvin described seeing 5-6 cans on the coffee table and 5-6 on the floor. In cross examination she confirmed that she was unable to confirm how many were empty and could not say who drank them. What is noteworthy, however, is that the number of cans in the room does not support Ms. Hamilton’s evidence that she only bought a couple of cans and raises questions about her sobriety that evening.

[30] Ms. Hamilton also testified that she was not intoxicated, maybe a little tipsy, but nothing that would impair her. Both PC DaSilva and Ms. Hota testified that they could not smell alcohol on her, but PC DaSilva said that it was clear that alcohol was a factor. Ms. Potvin who had seen Ms. Hamilton drunk on other occasions also testified that she was intoxicated. PC DaSilva’s evidence while not confirming any level of intoxication stands in contrast to the evidence of PC Dombrowskie and Sgt Matthews who confirmed that they did not make any note of any concerns about Mr. Spence-Branagh’s level of intoxication. Ms. Hamilton testified that she understood that PC DaSilva did not take a statement from her that night because alcohol was involved. That was not his evidence, which raises questions about how she came to this conclusion. However, if accurate, it supports Ms. Potvin’s evidence that Ms. Hamilton was noticeably intoxicated.

[31] Ms. Hamilton’s allegations are serious and concerning. While Mr. Spence-Branagh did not testify, she was challenged on her account and alternatives put to her. Given the inconsistencies in her evidence and the inaccuracies with respect to certain accounts from other witnesses, these alternatives raise doubt.

[32] The final question is whether there is sufficient corroborating evidence to bolster Ms. Hamilton’s evidence. No one witnessed the exchange between Mr. Spence-Branagh and Ms. Hamilton in their room, but there were two calls to 911 which arose because of the altercation which unfolded at the Best Western.

[33] First call came from the front desk employee Ms. Hota. Ms. Hota was with Ms. Hamilton in the lobby after she came downstairs. She was crying and bleeding and asked that the police be called. The fact that injuries were noted corroborates Ms. Hamilton’s allegation.

[34] The second call came from Kyle Mitchell who was staying in room 420 which was approximately 2 doors down from room 416 which is where Mr. Spence-Branagh and Ms. Hamilton stayed on January 5, 2025. Mr. Mitchell heard an argument which grew louder and more concerning. He indicated that he could hear words but could not recall the context of the argument. He heard profanities and said that it was mostly the male yelling at the female. At one point, he looked out the peephole from his door and could see the parties in the hallway. He described a physical altercation which he explained to mean that the male was towering over the female in a menacing manner. He suggested that his hands were moving like he was going to hit her. He confirmed in cross-examination that while he described it as a physical altercation, he did not see Mr. Spence-Branagh hit Ms. Hamilton. While this evidence is somewhat corroborative, Ms. Hamilton acknowledged that she and Mr. Spence-Branagh got together that night to address the issues around his infidelity. She acknowledged that at the time, she was very upset about this. It is possible that much of the argument was around this issue and Mr. Mitchell acknowledged that Ms. Hamilton was using profanities as well.

[35] The police who attended and the front desk employee and Mr. Mitchell all confirm that they saw blood on Ms. Hamilton. No injuries were observed on Mr. Spence-Branagh.

[36] While this evidence supports Ms. Hamilton’s claim that she was assaulted, given the significant inconsistencies in her evidence, it is not enough to support a conviction. Ms. Hamilton’s evidence is not reliable, and even coupled with the corroborating evidence, the Court is left with a reasonable doubt about the events of that night and the allegation that Mr. Spence-Branagh assaulted Ms. Hamilton. The Court is left to wonder whether it possible that she simply made up the allegation, like her description of Mr. Spence-Branagh barricading himself in the room? Was she so intoxicated that she could not really remember what happened. She spent almost 20 minutes with Ms. Potvin and has no recollection of her even being there. Is it possible that Ms. Hamilton fell on the stairs, or in the room and that the injuries were caused by her own actions.

[37] Given the uncertainty, the Crown has not met its onus in this case and Mr. Spence-Branagh is acquitted of the allegation of assault on Ms. Hamilton. As a result of that acquittal, Mr. Spence-Branagh is also acquitted on the allegation that he was in breach of his probation order.

Released: April 9, 2026

Signed: Justice B.C. Oldham