ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. Glasgow, 2015 ONSC 2026
COURT FILE NO.: CRIMJ(P) 70/14
DATE: 2015-03-30
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
S. Andersen, for the Crown
- and -
ANTHONY GLASGOW
Uma Kancharla, for the Defence
HEARD: February 2 to 6, 17 to 20, 23 to 26, 2015 and March 4, 2015
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Fairburn J.
Overview of the Case
[1] Anthony Glasgow is charged on a ten-count indicment with offences involving assault, sexual assault, and threatening death. C.S. is the complainant in respect to each matter. Mr. Glasgow pled not guilty to all ten counts.
[2] Mr. Glasgow and Ms. C.S. met in late August 2011 at a G[…] (“G[…]”) on H[…] Street in Brampton. They immediately commenced a relationship. The complainant testified that on October 11, 2011, after a short time apart, the accused had forced sexual intercourse with her at the G[…]. When she attended at his home later that evening, he again had forced intercourse with her. According to Ms. C.S., the sexual assaults that occurred on October 11, 2011, were the first of many criminal acts that were perpetrated on her by the accused, only ending when she went to the police and reported his misconduct on June 19, 2013.
[3] Mr. Glasgow testified in his own defence. While Mr. Glasgow acknowledged that he was not kind to Ms. C.S., in the sense that he used her for money, car rides, and sex, he denied that he ever threatened, assaulted, or engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with her. He testified that Ms. C.S. was obsessed with him and that, by June 2013, he had decided the relationship had “run its course”. He said that he shared this with the complainant during the evening of June 18, 2013, and that she responded angrily. It was in the wake of this event that the accused said the complainant made these false allegations to the police. His sister, June Williams, and her daughter, Dorothea Williams, testified and provided some important confirmatory evidence for the accused. While I do not believe him, to the extent that his evidence is corroborated, it gives rise to a reasonable doubt on a few counts. With respect to the balance of the counts, I also find that they have not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
[4] I find him not guilty in respect to all counts on the indictment. Given that Mr. Glasgow was in custody, I provided my decision on March 4, 2015, with written reasons to follow. These are my reasons.
The Trial
[5] This trial took place over 13 days. Two witnesses were called by the Crown: C.S. and one of the initial officers to whom Ms. C.S. reported, Constable Louie Di Matteo. Three witnesses were called by the defence: the accused, and June and Dorothea Williams. June is the accused’s sister and Dorothea his niece. He lived with them and others in June Williams’ home, during much of the time that the offences are alleged to have occurred.
The Complainant’s Evidence
The Complainant’s Background
[6] Ms. C.S. is 32 years of age. She worked in the telecommunications industry since before the alleged conduct occurred. Commencing in March of 2011, she took time off of work. This was precipitated by some personal issues that arose out of the breakup of a previous relationship that Ms. C.S. testified had been abusive in nature. She did not return to work until April of 2012.
[7] The complainant testified that she had been experiencing some sleeping, anxiety, and depression issues. She acknowledged that she started to misuse substances like marijuana and alcohol. While she was off of work, she was seeing a number of mental health and other professionals to assist with her life challenges.
[8] While off of work, Ms. C.S. used her sister’s membership pass to access the G[…]. It is undisputed that Mr. Glasgow also used this gym facility for about an eight-month period that included the summer and fall of 2011. This is where the complainant and accused first met one another and commenced a relationship. They were intimate on the first day they met, and Ms. C.S. testified that it was clear from the outset that it would only be a sexual relationship. Nonetheless, she testified that she quickly found the accused demanding of her. He would call “incessantly” and, as such, she told him to stop contacting her around the beginning of October 2011.
The Alleged Conduct
Count 1: Sexual Assault
(October 11, 2011)
[9] The complainant testified that when she ran into the accused at the G[…] on October 11, 2011, she had not spoken to him in six days and had been intentionally avoiding him. It was around mid-morning and she was in the studio located at one end of the larger gym space. Mr. Glasgow approached her and inquired where she had been.
[10] According to Ms. C.S., Mr. Glasgow offered to assist her with her exercises and she agreed. He later said that he wanted to show her something at the back of a studio. She followed him back to that area. She testified that Mr. Glasgow grabbed her and said that he had missed her. He then kissed her, pulled her shorts and underwear down and, while holding her, had vaginal intercourse with her from behind. He did this without her consent.
[11] After he was finished, according to the complainant, she returned to the front of the studio. She said that she was shaking and he came over and told her to go clean herself up. She said that she did not report the incident to staff because she felt stupid and embarrassed. After she emerged from the washroom, she went back to working out.
[12] In cross-examination, Ms. C.S. agreed that she attended the gym for at least three consecutive days, around the same time after the alleged assault. She described the studio room in which the assault had allegedly occurred and agreed that the room had glass doors and glass on a wall that permitted people to see into the studio. The next day, as her cross-examination continued, the complainant said that she had attended the G[…] the previous evening and taken notes of what she could observe about the stuido. She said that she simply went to the gym to work out at 9:00 p.m. the previous evening and, after her work out, and as she was sitting there, she started to think about the questions she had been asked and answers she had given in her testimony at trial. She made notes that she brought to court the next day.
[13] Having reviewed drawings and a video of the studio, I find that there is a little alcove area at the back where it is possible that the offence may have occurred without someone outside of the studio seeing.
[14] According to the complainant, as the accused was leaving the G[…] on October 11, 2011, he told her that he wanted to see her that night. When she said she likely would not be able to see him, he apparently gave her a “stern look” and said that she was going to see him. As a result, she attended at the accused’s home that night, after having earlier been sexually assaulted at the G[…]. She drove over to his home in her car. She did shots of vodka with the accused, despite the fact that she did not want to drink alcohol that evening. Then Mr. Glasgow is said to have forced himself on her again. She testified that this occurred in the living room area, in front of the couch. He got behind her on the floor, pulled her jaw open so he could pour vodka down her throat, and then he had vaginal intercourse with her from behind again. She testified that this was non-consensual sexual activity.
[15] During cross-examination, the complainant was asked about why, on June 19, 2013, she told Officer Singh, the officer-in-charge, that she “didn’t” go to the accused’s home after the G[…] incident. The transcript of the interview uses the word “didn’t”. At first, she agreed that she said “didn’t”. She did not have an explanation for why she said that. Later, she testified that the transcript was wrong and she actually said “did” go to his house that night.
[16] Officer Di Matteo, the first officer to interview the complainant on June 19, was called as a Crown witness. He was cross-examined on the complainant’s use of the word did or didn’t. He insisted that the word used was “did”. I find that she said “did”. It is clear, though, that she did not disclose what is alleged to have happened at his home during the evening of October 11th. Nor was she asked.
[17] The complainant agreed that over the next number of days she attended the G[…] to workout. She agreed that she did so around the same time that she had run into the accused on October 11, 2011.
[18] Seven days later, on October 18, 2011, the complainant went into the Renascent Rehabilitation Centre, emerging on November 9, 2011. This is a facility that focusses on drug and alcohol abuse. She said that she went into rehabilitation because she thought she was drinking a bit too much and was smoking weed. When the suggestion was put to her in cross-examination that she had a drug and alcohol problem, she denied that this was the case. She said that it was not a “daily thing”, and she only sought assistance because, instead of having one drink when she went out at night, she was consuming two to three glasses.
[19] When Ms. C.S. emerged from the Renascent Rehabilition Centre, she went directly to the accused’s home.
Count 2: Assault
(during an eight-day period ending on November 18, 2012)
[20] The next incident on the indictment is alleged to have occurred over a year later. The accused and complainant were out for the evening at Andy Poolhall in Toronto. She testified that she was speaking with another male person when the accused tapped her shoulder. She went to meet him at the bar and he said: “don’t make me break this bottle over your head”.
[21] She retrieved her coat and headed to the car, which was parked on the next street over. The accused caught up to her and put her into a chokehold. She testified that she fell face first to the sidewalk, although she did not seem sure as to whether she was pushed or just fell. Mr. Glasgow pulled her back up and continued guiding her to the car. Once at the car, according to the complainant, a few young men walked by, inquired about her wellbeing, and said that they had her licence plate. She testified that she did not seek their assistance because she did not like making a scene.
[22] Once she was in the car, the accused climbed over the driver’s seat and took up a position on the passenger side. She testified that he then put her into a chokehold and pulled her hair down to the floor of the backseat. When something “popped” on the left side of her throat, he let go. He also banged his fists and told her she was disrespectful. On the drive home, they stopped at a gas station. According to Ms. C.S., he cried and said that she hurt him that night and he had wanted to put a ring on her finger.
Count 3: Assault
(during a 62-day period ending November 30, 2012)
[23] In-chief, the complainant testified that a few weeks after the Andy Poolhall incident, she and the accused were driving from Toronto to Brampton when he looked at some text messages on her phone. According to Ms. C.S., he was angry because she had been text messaging a man. While she was driving on the Gardiner Expressway, she said that Mr. Glasgow got into her space and started slapping her and grabbing the wheel. She claims he said he could crash the car and walk away because he was “god body”.
[24] During the altercation, her phone fell between the seats. She eventually pulled off of the Gardiner and parked at a Cineplex. She went to retrieve the phone from under her seat by opening the back passenger door on the driver’s side of the vehicle. Ms. C.S. testified that, when she located the phone, she quickly deleted all of the problematic text messages without the accused’s knowledge. She testified that she was able to do this with a few simple strokes. After she gave the accused the phone, she explained to him that the texts must have been deleted when the phone was dropped, and apparently this assuaged his anger and ended the matter.
[25] In cross-examination, she said that she did not have a password on the phone because she is not a big fan of passwords. She was confronted with her preliminary inquiry transcript where she agreed that her phone had a password. She then said that she was not sure if there was a password on the phone in November 2012.
Count 4: Assault
(March 8, 2013)
[26] The complainant testified that she had to work late on March 8, 2013. When she finished, she was tired and wanted to go home, but the accused, who had waited in her car while she had gone back to work for awhile, did not want to end the evening early. She testified that, when she tried to take him home, he grabbed the wheel and forced her to go to a parking lot close to a Petro Canada.
[27] After she was parked, he apparently jumped toward her and started to choke her with both hands around her neck. The complainant testified that he banged her head against the side panel of the driver’s door three times. She was crying and tried to pry his fingers off of her neck. She testified that he then stuck his fingers into her sides and tried to pull the left side of her jeans down. She testified that she said: “please don’t do this. I will do it.” Apparently he said that he would never force himself on her and allowed her to remove her own pants. He then placed her face down between the driver and passenger’s seat and had vaginal intercourse with her.
[28] Ms. C.S. testified that, by taking her own pants off, she was trying to calm things down and make the situation less intense. She did not want to have intercourse with the accused that evening. She said that she had headaches following the incident, which she attributed to the “hair pulling” and banging of her head. She then qualified her evidence to say that she did not experience hair pulling in this specific incident, but other incidences of hair pulling by the accused would lead to headaches.
Counts 5 and 6: Sexual Assault and Assault
(Month of May 2013)
[29] In May 2013, the complainant got a call from the accused after midnight. He said that he had something that she wanted. He owed her $400 from a loan she had given to him about a year previously. For some reason that was explored, but is not clear to me, Ms. C.S. thought that when she got that call after midnight a year after the loan was made, the accused was implying that he had the money ready for her to pick up. She drove to his home to get the money. When she arrived, he told her to go downstairs to the basement where he was residing at the time.
[30] According to the complainant, he told her to go to his bedroom because she was staying the night. She said there was no way she could leave at that point. He then had her fellate him by forcing her head down onto his penis. She said she did not want to and resisted, but he pushed her onto her back on the bed.
[31] Ms. C.S. testified that she fought very hard and he hit her with an outstretched hand on her left cheek. She saw white lights and felt an intense burning on the side of her face. She started to cry and tried to turn over. He then turned her onto her stomach and had intercourse with her as she cried into the pillow. She later noticed there was blood on the pillow cover.
[32] After the intercourse was complete, the accused went to the washroom and got ice for her face. While she testified that she tried to leave, he said that she had to stay. She slept there, and eventually arose to her alarm and left. He asked her if she was going to tell anyone and she asked, rhetorically, “tell who”?
Counts 7 and 8: Assault and Utter Death Threat
(June 14, 2013)
[33] The complainant went to the Dominican Republic with her siblings on June 5, 2013, and returned around June 12. On the same day she returned, she immediately drove to see Mr. Glasgow. She had brought a gift back for him. He had some fake designer bags and wallets that he offered to sell Ms. C.S.. She said that he passed them off as authentic, and that she went to her bank, retrieved cash, and paid for a bag. When her family pointed out to her that it was a fake bag, she was upset and asked for her money back. The accused said that he had to deal with his sister in order to determine whether the money could be returned.
[34] According to the complainant, on June 14, 2013, they met at the Gillingham Plaza in Brampton. She was attempting to retrieve a bottle of rum that she had purchased for a friend and had left at his place. She testified that Mr. Glasgow approached her vehicle at the plaza and told her he was “crunked”, which she understood to mean that he was feeling drunk. She was upset because he had consumed most of the rum.
[35] The complainant said that he entered the front passenger’s seat and directed her to drive to, and park at, the Cassie Campbell Recreation Centre in Brampton. While she could not recall exactly, Ms. C.S. seems to recollect that Mr. Glasgow grabbed her throat and slapped her. She asked him why he always had to hit her, to which he responded that she could hit him if she wanted. She then “tapped” his left cheek, which apparently angered him. He leaned over, pulled her face in and bit her lower lip. According to Ms. C.S., he then pinched her vagina.
[36] He also choked her during that encounter and threatened her by placing his index and middle fingers together, pointing at the dashboard around where the radio is, and saying that he is half Guyanese and half Jamaican and he could kill Ms. C.S. and her family and no one would know. He said that he would put a bullet through her head. She agreed in cross-examination that she had never told Officer Singh about the bullet comment. She believed these threats to be true.
[37] While Ms. C.S. wanted to see her mother, who was in the hospital, the accused insisted that they go have intercourse. He directed her to Van Kirk Drive in Brampton, where they stopped in a factory parking lot. The car was positioned so that it could not be seen from the road. He said that she had to fellate him or have intercourse. While she said she wanted to do neither, he pulled her head toward him and forced fellatio. He then placed her face down between the seats, like on an earlier occasion, and had vaginal intercourse with her from behind.
Count 9: Sexual Assault
(during a three day period ending June 17, 2103)
[38] A day or two after the above incident, Ms. C.S. testified that she again went over to the accused’s home in the afternoon. In-chief she testified that she went over because he told her that he had money for her. She believed that the money was for the fake bag she had bought from him a few days earlier. In cross-examination she said there was no particular reason she went there that afternoon.
[39] While there, and sitting on a couch in his basement, he pulled her into his bedroom. He placed her on the foot of his bed and took his pants down and had her fellate him. He then turned her over onto her stomach and had intercourse with her on his bed. That lasted a couple of minutes. He then went into the bathroom and emerged after a short while.
[40] About ten minutes later, he started it all over again. The second time was rougher and lasted longer. Like the first time, he attended in the bathroom after this incident and then returned. Her lower stomach and legs were hurting. He then had intercourse with her a third time. She was in pain during this third incident, but doesn’t think that it lasted as long as the second time. She did not consent to any of this sexual activity.
[41] The complainant was cross-examined on the statement she gave to Officer Di Matteo when she first reported to the police, where she said that the incident involving three acts of intercourse at the accused’s home occurred on June 14, 2013, following the Cassie Campbell incident set out at Counts 7 and 8 above. Later, in a different statement, she told Officer Singh that the triple sexual assault occurred on June 16, 2013 at 9:00 p.m. Both of these statements were given June 19th, three to five days after the alleged triple sexual assault is said to have occurred. At trial, when confronted with these inconsistencies, Ms. C.S. explained that she simply did not have all the incidents accurately aligned with the dates when she first spoke to the police.
[42] When confronted with the fact that she had testified in-chief that the sexual assaults had occurred in the afternoon, and she told Officer Singh that she did not attend at the accused’s residence until 9 p.m., she said that she must have been mistaken in-chief and that the time was actually 9 p.m.
Count 10: Assault
(June 18, 2013)
[43] The complainant testified that, on June 18, 2013, she went back to see the accused again. She picked him up after midnight. She testified that Mr. Glasgow was angry with her because she had gone out with a male colleague that night. She drove with the accused to a Wendy’s restaurant and they purchased some items. She then drove the accused home. While sitting in the car in the accused’s driveway, he “whipped” a fountain pop in her face. The ice hit her around her right eye and the drink spilled everywhere in the car. According to Ms. C.S., it went onto the roof, the seats, “everywhere”. She got very angry and told him to get out of the car. He did and she drove home. During cross-examination, the complainant denied throwing garbage into the accused’s driveway when she left.
[44] The next morning when she entered her car, it was sticky everywhere. She left work around noon and went to have her car cleaned. According to Ms. C.S., the accused called her and said he was sorry and he just “snapped”. She said ugly things to him and called him names. She proceeded to the Peel Regional Police.
[45] She testified that when she attended at the police station, she had only intended on asking the police to get the accused to stop contacting her. She had not intended on making a formal complaint, but the police wanted her to give a statement.
[46] Officer Di Matteo testified and confirmed that when he first met Ms. C.S. on June 19, 2013, her primary concern appeared to be to get the accused to stop calling her. While he looked at her phone, she told him that she had deleted his phone number and text messages. There were only unknown numbers showing in her call list.
The Complainant’s Calendar Entries
[47] The complainant was asked in cross-examination about electronic calendar entries that she had made respecting some of the alleged conduct. She testified that, on occasion, she would enter things into her calendar to catalogue the abuse. Although it is not clear how, she testified that most of her entries had been deleted from her calendar. Nonetheless, when challenged in cross-examination, she maintained that the entries for counts 2 (Andy Poolhall), 3 (Gardiner Expressway), and 4 (Petro Canada) had been kept.
[48] Photos of the calendar entries were all filed as exhibits during cross-examination. They read as follows:
November 10, 2012 at 23:00: “First physical”.
November 17, 2012 at 23:00: “Hair pull threatened in car pulled wheel scared me told me he would put a bullet thru my head crash this car walk away god body.”
March 8, 2013 at 22:00: “Second phys choking banging my head slaps attempted rape oral hair pull sex after to ease things.”
[49] The defence suggested that Ms. C.S. put the entries into her calendar while she was alone in the interview room during the initial statement to the police and later when she went home in between the first and second police statements, all on June 19, 2013. (After she had gone home after the first statement, she was asked to return to the police station a few hours later for a second interview.)
[50] I had the opportunity to watch the video of the complainant alone in the interview room a few times in court and have watched it again since. The video reveals the following. Prior to being alone in the interview room, Officer Di Matteo asked Ms. C.S. whether she had anything that would assist in corroborating what she was telling the police. She said no. Approximately 30 minutes later, while left alone in the interview room, she is seen on video taking her cell phone out of her purse. She is seen looking at and swiping the screen. She is also seen typing something on at least two occasions.
[51] When Officer Di Matteo returned to the room, the following exchange occurred:
I’m sorry I’m using my phone. I used to um write down when things happened so I found first physical November 10th, choke throw to sidewalk, hair pull. I didn’t write much but that was the first, 10th of November that I wrote. Um, there’s another one I saw again I’m writing it very quickly it’s not in, in depth.
[Officer]: Oh you just writing it right now?
[Complainant]: No-no-no, not now I’m going through my calendar to find it. There’s another one I saw um, may I? … these are just so that I have um written. Trial date, okay so on um ah March 8th I’m putting second physical, choking, I don’t what I, I think I put bad on that. Um, attempted rape, oral, hair pull, sex after to ease things …”.
[52] Notably, there is no mention of the November 17 entry during the statement to Officer Di Matteo. Also notable is the fact that what Ms. C.S. read to Officer Di Matteo in relation to the March 8th entry, did not include the words: “banging my head slaps”, which appeared in the screen shot that was taken of the March 8th entry and filed as an exhibit at trial. As well, the March 8, 2013 entry includes the word “oral”, yet the complainant’s evidence in-chief made no reference to an act of fellatio on this occasion. When challenged about this in cross-examination, Ms. C.S. said she could not recall the oral sex on March 8th.
[53] Also notable is the fact that what was ultimately produced for the November 10th entry at trial was a screen shot that merely states: “first physical”. The balance of the entry, as read to Officer Di Matteo during the June 19th statement, seems to be missing. No explanation was offered for what happened to the missing words.
[54] As for the November 17th entry, while there is no reference to it in her first statement to Officer Di Matteo, when she returned to the police station for her second interview, Ms. C.S. read this entry to Officer Singh. When she showed it to Officer Singh and read it aloud, she clearly connected it to the Andy Poolhall incident (count 2), while her evidence at trial was that it corresponded to the Gardiner incident (count 3).
[55] I have concerns about the authenticity of these calendar entries. In addition to the inconsistencies set out above, the Andy Poolhall incident was not the “first physical” alleged by Ms. C.S.; it was the second – the first being the sexual assault at the G[…] on October 11, 2011. The November 17 entry makes reference to the accused saying that he would “put a bullet thru [her] head”. The complainant did not testify to this effect and, in fact, when challenged in cross-examination, said that she could not recall the accused saying this to her during the Gardiner incident. Instead, she testified at trial that the only time she recalled him saying this to her was during the Cassie Campbell incident, something she never shared in her statement to the police. The complainant brushed these inconsistencies (and more) off as minor details that she could not remember.
[56] As it relates to the “first physical” entered on November 10, 2012, when challenged about the fact that it was not the “first physical”, given the allegations related to the October 11, 2011, incidents, she said that it was the first incident after the accused had said he would not abuse her again. This doesn’t explain, though, why the March 8 entry is in as the “second physical.” In fact, even if one were to accept the complainant’s evidence about why she called the November 10th incident the “first physical”, that would make the November 17th Gardiner incident the “second physical” and not the March 8 incident.
[57] In the end, I find that there is something wrong with the calendar entries and the complainant’s evidence does not hang together well as it relates to how they came to be. While I am not prepared to find that the complainant fabricated the calendar entries, I have a significant doubt about their authenticity.
The General Relationship Between the Complainant and Accused
[58] During cross-examination, it was suggested to the complainant that she loved Mr. Glasgow. At first she vehemently denied this fact, saying there was no love and “no one ever said those words”. Later in her cross-examination, she agreed and said that she may have said this on one occasion. She testified that she covered her mouth immediately.
[59] Two cards were produced during the cross-examination. One was a birthday card that she acknowledged she wrote to the accused in January 2013. It is a large card with nine pink lipstick kisses, which she acknowledged she placed on the card. It reads, in part: “My darling Tony, You are an absolutely wonderful man! May God continue to bless and keep you. From the bottom of my heart, I wish you all the happiness, success and good health …. Happy Birthday Darling. Lovingly yours, C.S..”
[60] When challenged in cross-examination that the card suggested that she loved the accused, she was vehement that it did not say “I love you”. She said she would not write a birthday card telling someone he was a monster. She wanted Mr. Glasgow to see that there were good people out there and she wanted him to feel “special”, “like he matters”.
[61] A Valentine’s Day card was also produced in cross-examination. At first the complainant suggested that she did not know if it was her card. She said that only some of it looked like her handwriting. She said that it didn’t “jive” with her because it looked like it was written hurriedly and without much thought. She gave this evidence on February 5, 2015. She said that, while some of the words in the card were words she would use, the absence of a date on the card caused her to think she was not the author of the card.
[62] When she was testifying again on February 17th, she finally acknowledged that she had authored the card. She said that while she had no memory of it on February 5th, she could now recall that the accused was upset that she had not got him anything for Valentine’s Day, and he wanted her to get him a card. They bought it together and she wrote it quickly with what he wanted her to write.
[63] Among other things, it read: “You are the cutest, sweetest most adorable … You are mine … You are an angel … You are my baby boy … You are mine … Love Always! C.S..” In other words, the complainant’s memory about the card went from none to a memory of the card and details around how it came to be.
[64] The complainant denied that she was ever jealous of Mr. Glasgow or his dealings with other women. She also denied that she was obsessed with him. She said that she paid for everything in the relationship, spending over ten thousand dollars, yet other than the $400 she had loaned the accused in the spring of 2012 when he went to school in Toronto, she did not expect to receive any money back. (This is aside from the money she wanted back for the fake bag.)
[65] She denied that she found him attractive. She said that he was not her “type”, but that she fell into a routine with him. This is despite a $2,000.00 phone bill she incurred speaking to him when she vacationed in Cuba in January of 2013. This is also despite the fact that the first thing she did when she returned from the Dominican Republic in June 2013 was go to his home. Indeed, she attended at his home before going to see her mother who had taken ill and was hospitalized while Ms. C.S. and her sisters vacationed in the Dominican Republic. She also went directly to his home after getting out of the Renascent Centre in November 2011.
[66] There was a great deal of evidence led about phone contact between the complainant and accused. Having listened to, and considered, this evidence, it is clear to me that they were both in contact with one another a great deal, both by way of phone conversations and texting.
The Complainant’s Evidence on February 6, 2015
[67] There was an incident that occurred during the complainant’s evidence on February 6, 2015, where concerns were raised about her ability to continue testifying that day. After lunch, and upon the cross-examination continuing, she temporarily appeared unable to continue to assist the court. Following a few breaks, and addressing the matter with counsel, there was agreement that she could not testify further that day. When the complainant resumed her evidence, no further concerns were evident in this respect. She testified over several days regarding the alleged events. In all of the circumstances, I have not taken the complainant’s condition, as noted above, into account one way or the other in my reasons.
Following the Charges Being Laid
[68] After the charges were laid, Ms. C.S. was told by the police not to have any communication with Mr. Glasgow. However, she acknowledged in-chief that she called him after being told this. She said that she did this because she felt guilty and badly for him. In cross-examination she agreed that she had also gone to his house after the charges had been laid. The accused testified that she called him twice on July 2, and then again on July 13, 2013. The July 13 call was 4 minutes and 42 seconds in length.
The Accused’s Evidence
[69] Mr. Glasgow denied that he ever threatened, assaulted, or sexually assaulted Ms. C.S.. He also denied that he ever had intercourse with Ms. C.S. at the G[…].
[70] He did not dispute that he had a sexual relationship with the complainant, which commenced in the late summer of 2011. He agreed that he and Ms. C.S. met at the G[…]. He characterized their relationship in 2011 as a sexual one. He acknowledged that at various times he had sexual relations with Ms. C.S. on the first floor of his house and in the basement. In-chief he testified that he had sexual intercouse with Ms. C.S. in a parking lot in Toronto, but never in Brampton. In cross-examination, he changed this answer, suggesting that they had sex together in the Shoppers World parking lot in Brampton.
[71] The accused said that Ms. C.S. had a drinking problem. She also smoked marijuana. He agreed with some evidence that the complainant had given that he and she would sometimes stay at hotels. By the end of 2012, they had stayed at hotels up to about fifteen times. She would pay for them. According to him, she would drive him around a lot. He said that she paid for almost everything in their relationship. He acknowledged that it was not nice, but that to him, Ms. C.S. was there out of “convenience” and that was all. He said that he cared about her, but that he did not see the relationship as exclusive or serious. He testified that he was always dating other people throughout his relationship with the complainant.
[72] As for the alleged incident on November 10, 2012, the accused said that it could not have occurred because he would have been celebrating his son Shaquille’s thriteenth birthday. While Shaquille turned thirteen on November 12th, the accused said that he would have gone to his son’s home on Saturday November 10th to celebrate.
[73] He testified that on one occasion the complainant said that she loved him. She was parking the car one evening, she put her hands around his neck and said that if he did anything, she would “kill [him]”. He was shocked by this behavior. He also acknowledged that he provided a love poem to the complainant on one occasion. He said he found it on the internet and sent it by email. He said that he did this because she was complaining that he never sent her anything. The email containing the poem was filed as an exhibit, and, based on what I observed of Mr. Glasgow’s potential literary skills, the poem does indeed appear to be someone else’s work.
[74] He painted a picture of Ms. C.S. as a jealous person. He said that when female staff members would come and converse with him at the gym, she would hide, watch, and later take it up with him. He testified that she would also be jealous of waitresses in restaurants.
[75] In February or March of 2012, the accused testified that he went into the glove box of Ms. C.S.’s car when he was left alone in it for a while. He found medical papers and read them. They included reference to the fact that Ms. C.S. had a number of psychiatric issues. He said that he was in shock, and after reading the papers he started trying to distance himself from the complainant. Nonetheless, they continued to see one another.
[76] A good deal of evidence was led about his sister’s home where he was living during the alleged assaults. He testified that numerous people lived at that location, including his sister, June, and nieces Whitney, Dorothea, and Maleeka. Whitney’s boyfriend also seemed to be living in the house for a period of time. June is also the legal guardian to Malaki, who was six in 2013, and who was also living in the house. The accused’s brother was also living there for a time, although in cross-examination the accused accepted that he had left before the fall of 2011.
[77] The accused testified that, in October of 2011, he was occupying the living room on the main floor of the home. He moved into the basement in March of 2013. On school days, up until when he moved into Toronto to go to school in 2012, and again when he moved back from Toronto, he was responsible for picking Malaki up from the bus stop when he returned from school. He would then give Malaki a snack and check his homework. According to Mr. Glasgow, his sister worked almost all of the time, moving between multiple jobs. If the kids wanted to get him, they would simply come to get him, including when he lived in the basement.
[78] Mr. Glasgow denied that he ever asked the complainant to get him a Valentine’s Day card or that he told her what to put in the card. He said that by the time that he received the January 2013 birthday card, the relationship was starting to “fizzle out”.
[79] He denied knowing where the Cassie Campbell Recreation Centre is and that he had any recollection of being on Van Kirk Drive. He testified that he did not have intercourse with Ms. C.S. in May or June 2013, because the relationship had “run its course”. He was contradicted on this point in cross-examination, because he had sworn an earlier affidavit, for the purposes of a s.276 application, suggesting that they had continued with consensual sexual intercourse in those months.
[80] The last time he saw her was late on the night of June 17 or 18, 2013. He said that she was drunk and so he suggested they go to a Wendy’s restaurant to get her food to sober her up. According to him, Ms. C.S. drove. Once back in the driveway, she spilled her drink on herself. He told her that the relationship was over. He deleted her number from his phone and told her to do the same with her phone. He testified that she started “ranting and raving”. She called him a number of names, including asshole and the “n word”. According to the accused, Ms. C.S. said that he would pay and a number of other things. When he called her to see if she was alright, she said that she had left a surprise for him in the driveway and told him to “pick it up because you are my little bitch”.
The Evidence of June and Dorothea Williams
[81] June Williams is the accused’s sister. She is a hard working woman, holding down three jobs. In 2010, living in her home were Maleeka, Malaki, the accused, Justin (his brother), Justin’s girlfriend, Dorothea, and Whitney. When Justin got a job at a fitness facility, he and his girlfriend moved out. Whitney got pregnant and her child was born October 9, 2011. (This is two days before the alleged incident on October 11, 2011.) Whitney and her baby lived in the basement of the home with the baby’s father until five to six months after the baby was born. Then she moved upstairs and the boyfriend moved out.
[82] June Williams provided evidence consistent with the accused, that there are no doors or barriers between the living room, family room, and kitchen of the home. She also testified that either Justin or Mr. Glasgow were using Malaki’s room upstairs at some point, but she could not remember which one or when. At one point, she testified in cross-examination that she could not recall with precision who was sleeping where and when, as it was a family house and one might be up or down. For a while no one was living in the basement as a pipe burst and the basement required repairs.
[83] June Williams testified that the week of October 9, after Whitney had her child, she took the week off of work. Her family had come in to visit from New York and she wanted to assist with the baby. The family left on October 10, 2011, and Whitney came home from the hospital with her newborn.
[84] She confirmed that the accused and his brother, Justin, are the emergency contacts for the children, Dorothea and Malaki. The accused would assist by picking Malaki up at the bus stop. He played a babysitting role. She considered him her “built-in” babysitter, given that her hours often had her leaving the home by 6:00 a.m. and not returning until very late at night, if not into the next morning. She said that the accused was often in charge, particularly after Whitney moved out.
[85] One day in June 2013, she recalls returning home from work one morning to find garbage in the driveway. She found an LCBO paper bag and Styrofoam containers, as well as liquor bottles on the driveway. She was quite upset.
[86] As for Dorothea, she testified in a similar way as to who was living in the home. She said that when her mother was not there, her (Dorothea’s) sister, Whitney, would take care of her, and, if Whitney was not there, the accused would be in charge.
The Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof
[87] Mr. Glasgow started this trial with the presumption of innocence and the Crown carries the burden of displacing the presumption with proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes with which he is charged: R v Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 320, [1977] SCJ No 77 at para 27. As Laskin J (as he then was) held in R v Appleby, 1971 CanLII 4 (SCC), [1972] SCR 303, [1972] SCJ No 112 at para 33: “[T]he presumption of innocence gives an accused the initial benefit of a right of silence and the ultimate benefit … of any reasonable doubt”.
[88] In this case, the accused testified and, as such, I must apply the principles that are set out in R v W(D), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742, [1991] SCJ No 26 at para 11:
(1) if I believe the accused that he did not commit the offences, then I must acquit him;
(2) even if I do not believe him, that he did not commit the offences, but his evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt in respect of the alleged offences, I must acquit him; and
(3) even if I do not believe him, and his evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt about his guilt regarding any of the offences, I may only find him guilty of the alleged offences if on the evidence I do accept, I am satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[89] While it has been said that these three W(D) steps are not a “magic incantation”, following the process set out above ensures that the correct burden and standard of proof are applied: R v S(WD), 1994 CanLII 76 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 521, [1994] SCJ No 91 at para 24. As noted by Charron J in R v Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24 at para 23:
In a case that turns on credibility, such as this one, the trial judge must direct his or her mind to the decisive question of whether the accused's evidence, considered in the context of the evidence as a whole, raises a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Put differently, the trial judge must consider whether the evidence as a whole establishes the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[90] Importantly, cases like this are not about a choice between the accused and complainant’s evidence. While there is no dispute here that the conduct that Ms. C.S. alleges meets the various elements of the offences of assault, sexual assault, and threatening, the central issue is whether, based on the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt about Mr. Glasgow’s guilt in relation to any of the offences with which he is charged: R v CLY, 2008 SCC 32 at para 8. I am not.
Application for the Counts to be Considered Against One Another
[91] Ms. Andersen requested that I consider the counts on the indictment against one another. She argued that this should be done in order to understand the context for Ms. C.S. and Mr. Glasgow’s relationship and the reason for why she stayed in the relationship for so long. The Crown relied upon R v F(DS), 1999 CanLII 3704 (ON CA), [1999] OJ No 688, 118 OAC 272 (CA) [DSF] as support for the position that the counts could be considered with one against the other.
[92] In the normal course, the court must assess each count on a multi-count indictment separately. The reason for this lies in a concern about prohibited propensity reasoning, meaning that a trier may use the evidence in respect to some counts to reason that the accused is the sort of person to have committed the offences alleged in the other counts: R v Last, 2009 SCC 45 at paras 36, 40; R v WL, 2015 ONCA 123 at para 6; R v Blacklaws, 2012 BCCA 217 at paras 58, 62. It is widely accepted that, provided the probative value of considering one count against others outstrips the prejudicial effect, then concerns over propensity reasoning in jury trials can be cured by clear, sharp instructions. This is equally true with respect to considering evidence of extrinsic misconduct.
[93] DSF involved a domestic abuse allegation. The accused and complainant were married. The husband was charged on a ten-count indictment involving various forms of assault and sexual assault. Unlike this case, the Crown led extrinsic misconduct evidence relating to the accused’s abusive behaviour that did not form any part of the offences contained on the indictment. On appeal, DSF argued that the prejudicial effect of that evidence outweighed its probative value, and that its admission resulted in reversible error. The court focussed on the key issues of whether the discreditable conduct was relevant and material and, if so, whether its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.
[94] The extrinsic misconduct evidence in DSF, involving alleged non-indicted sexual assaults, assaults, name calling, and general abuse, was relevant to demonstrate the context of the overall relationship. As noted by O’Connor JA (as he then was) at para 22:
…[I]t was important to put the complainant’s evidence supporting the charges in the context of the overall relationship. The complainant’s evidence was that the allegations underlying the charges were consistent with the attitude and behaviour that the appellant exhibited towards her throughout the one year period that they lived together. The challenged evidence would enable the jury to more fairly evaluate the complainant’s evidence regarding the specific allegations. Excluding that evidence would have left the jury with an incomplete and possibly misleading impression of the relationship. In my view, the disputed evidence was relevant for the purpose of setting forth the contextual narrative in the course of which the alleged events occurred.
[95] In addition to supporting the context of the relationship that formed the backdrop for the charges, the court found the evidence of extrinsic misconduct admissible as going to motive, in the sense that it would assist the jury in understanding why the appellant did what he was alleged to have done on the indictment. The extrinsic misconduct demonstrated an animus toward the complainant consistent with the charges he faced. Finally, the conduct was relevant to explaining why the complainant did not leave the relationship sooner. When challenged on this point in cross-examination, the complainant responded by saying that she stayed because of the relentless abuse and her fear of the appellant if she were to leave.
[96] In this case, the Crown did not seek to lead evidence of extrinsic misconduct. Instead, in a well argued position, the Crown advanced the view that the factual underpinnings for the ten counts on the indictment set the context for the relationship between the complainant and accused and served to explain why she stayed with him despite the alleged abuse. The Crown also observes that this is a judge alone trial and the normal concerns about prohibited reasoning are muted.
[97] The defence took the position that in respect to a number of counts, they are so far apart in time that they are not material to the issue of context. In particular, there is an over one-year gap between the October 11, 2011, and the November 10, 2012 incidents. There is also a four-month gap between the November 17, 2012, and March 8, 2013, incidents. It is only with the last few incidents in May and June, 2013, that a real temporal connection arises and supports an argument that the context for the relationship can be gleaned from them.
[98] I find that, in some situations, it is open to consider multiple counts on an indictment, one against the other, for purposes of assessing the context of a relationship. Depending on the depth and breadth of the allegations contained on the indictment, the Crown need not seek the admission of extrinsic misconduct evidence for this purpose. The key is that the factual underpinnings for the counts, assuming those facts are accepted as true, must serve to assist the trier of fact in assessing the contextual narrative for the relationship.
[99] While this case is a far cry from the DSF situation, if accepted as true, I find that the evidentiary foundation for each of the counts could have the potential to provide some insights into the relationship between the complainant and accused. As such, I am prepared to consider the counts, one against the other, for this purpose.
[100] As for why the complainant stayed in the relationship, I am not sure that the factual underpinnings for the counts are that helpful. Ms. C.S. gave an explanation. The highest it got was that she was trying to leave for some time. She had tried to leave at the end of September and again when she got out of the Renascent in November 2011. In retrospect, she felt that she was likely looking for his permission to leave; and, presumably, she never received that permission. She specifically denied in cross-examination that she was afraid of the accused. According to Ms. C.S., the abuse was simply part of the relationship, but she was not afraid of him.
The Testimony of Ms. C.S.
Overview
[101] Ms. C.S. testified over numerous days as to the various events that constituted the alleged offences. I had the opportunity to observe her demeanour. In both chief and cross-examination, she gave extremely long, oftentimes rambling answers. In cross-examination, her answers were sometimes non-responsive. I note, though, that at times the cross-examination seemed interminable and it must have been an ordeal to go through. I also note that Ms. C.S. admitted to having anxiety and other health issues that could have impacted how she appeared in the witness stand.
[102] I appreciate that one should not place too heavy an emphasis on demeanour to make an assessment of credibility. As noted in Megens v ORC (2000), 2003 CanLII 30010 (ON SCDC), 64 OR (3d) 142, 170 OAC 155 (Div Ct) at para 28, demeanour is a “weak reed upon which to base an adverse credibility finding in an important case.” See also: R v Norman, 1993 CanLII 3387 (ON CA), [1993] OJ No 2802, 68 OAC 22 (CA) at para 55; R v NS, 2012 SCC 72 at paras 99-103. In this case, and particularly bearing in mind the many challenges that Ms. C.S. has, I place little weight on her demeanour when assessing her credibility.
[103] My real concerns relate to her credibility and reliability. These are different concepts. As noted by Watt JA in R v C(H), 2009 ONCA 56, credibility focuses on a witness’s veracity, while reliability has to do with the witness’s accuracy. Accuracy has to do with the ability to observe, recall and recount events in issue. As held in C(H) at para 41: “Any witness whose evidence on an issue is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on the same point. Credibility, on the other hand, is not a proxy for reliability: a credible witness may give unreliable evidence.” See also: R v NLP, 2013 ONCA 773 at paras 25-6; R v HPS, 2012 ONCA 117 at para 72.
[104] There are various things that arose during evidence that impact my assessment of the complainant’s credibility and reliability. I will provide only some examples.
When the triple sexual assault occurred
[105] As noted above, Mr. C.S. testified that on June 14, 2013, Mr. Glasgow threatened and sexually assaulted her in the car at the Cassie Campbell Recreation Centre and later on Van Kirk Drive. These allegations form the basis of counts seven and eight on the indictment. At trial, she testified that she was then sexually assaulted three times, during a violent triple rape, in the basement of the accused’s home on June 15 or 16, 2014 (count 9).
[106] When she initially reported this incident to the police three to four days later, on June 19, 2013, she told the police that the triple rape occurred following the incidents at Van Kirk and Cassie Campbell (counts 7 and 8, respectively). When challenged on this in cross-examination, Ms. C.S. said that when she was first speaking to the police, she did not have everything straight in her mind.
[107] I accept that a person who has endured significant abuse will sometimes, and quite understandably, confuse dates when reporting matters to the police. My concern over this, though, is that the alleged events were only a few days earlier and the confusion is over something very substantial. There is a significant difference between being raped at the accused’s home following the Cassie Campbell/Van Kirk incident on the Friday evening and it occurring a couple of days later. There is also a big difference between it occurring in the afternoon (as she testified to at trial) and during the evening after 9:00 p.m., as she told Officer Singh in the second police interview.
[108] While minor inconsistencies between a witness’s evidence and prior statements may not diminish an assessment of credibility, substantial inconsistencies can raise a doubt. This can only be described as a substantial inconsistency. As it relates to count 9 on the indictment, within days of it occurring, the complainant gave two versions to the police about the day on which it happened. Then, at trial, while the complainant settled on the same date that she had given during her second police interview, the time of day fluctuated substantially.
[109] This causes me credibility and reliability concerns.
The Valentine’s Day Card
[110] When first confronted with the Valentine’s Day Card, Ms. C.S. attempted to distance herself from it. Despite her attempts to distance herself from the card, it seemed obvious to the court that she knew she from the time she was confronted with it that she was the author of the card.
[111] It is hardly unheard of that a victim of serious abuse will express “love” for their abuser and even send them love notes. I harbour no concerns over the fact that a Valentine’s Day card was written, or over the birthday card for that matter. What I am concerned with is what appeared to be an attempt to deny the obvious. It defies reason that Ms. C.S. did not recall being the author of the card. Even if one can forget such a card, signed “lovingly yours”, her sudden recovered memory about the card left me with concern about her credibility. Once “remembered”, she did not simply say that she had authored the card. Instead, she blamed the accused for forcing her to write it and dictating its contents. Yet the card is similar in spirit and tone to the birthday card she admitted to writing. I have serious concerns for her credibility in respect to this issue.
The Denial of Serious Feelings for the Accused
[112] I am concerned that Ms. C.S. persistently denied having strong feelings for the accused. I reject this evidence.
[113] The evidence in the trial belied this denial. She spent over $2,000.00 in Cuba speaking with him on the phone. She went directly to his house when she got out of Renascent Centre. She went directly from the airport to his house when she returned from the Dominican Republic. This is despite the fact that her mother was hospitalized while she and her sisters were out of the country. Instead of going to her mother, who she appeared to have genuine and warm, loving feelings for, she went to the accused’s home. Phone records were led by both the Crown and defence at trial that demonstrated she was in constant contact with him. Equally, and importantly, he was also in constant contact with her.
[114] The birthday and Valentine’s Day cards also contradict the denials of feelings for the accused. Signing cards “lovingly yours” and addressing them to “darling”, saying that the accused was a “wonderful man”, all suggest strong feelings for the accused that Ms. C.S. was not prepared to acknowledge at trial.
[115] Her behaviour after the charges were laid also suggests strong feelings for the accused. In defiance of the court order she had been informed about, she called the accused on a few occasions and, in fact, went by his house.
[116] At trial, she denied the obvious about her strong feelings for the accused, and this too caused me concern about her credibility and whether I could rely upon her evidence.
The Calendar Entries
[117] I have reviewed the calendar entries in detail above. For all of the reasons I set out in those passages, I have doubts about their authenticity. They are inconsistent within the police statements and they are inconsistent with the evidence at this trial.
Going to G[…] the Trial
[118] As above, during cross-examination, Ms. C.S. was asked about the layout of the G[…] gym and, in particular, the studio where she alleged that the sexual assault occurred. The following day she returned to court and gave evidence about the fact that she had returned to the G[…] the night before and taken notes of the layout of the studio and wanted to clarify her evidence. When asked about the circumstances behind attending the G[…] the night before, while she was under cross-examination, she said that she had simply gone to do a workout the previous evening and at the end of her workout she was sitting there and then thought about the questions she had been asked and so she decided to take some notes. This evidence did not have the ring of truth.
iPhone Password
[119] I also have concerns about the Gardiner incident - count three on the indictment. As noted above, at trial, Ms. C.S. gave evidence that, after pulling off of the highway and into a Cineplex parking lot, she deleted the string of messages that had caused the accused’s anger. She did this when she found her phone while looking in the back of the car from the driver’s side. She testified that she told the accused that it must have been deleted when it fell under her seat and his rage immediately dissipated.
[120] When asked in cross-examination, she said that there was no password on her phone, implying that this is how the string of text messages was so easily and quickly deleted. Yet in the preliminary inquiry, she testified that the phone did have a password. When confronted with this inconsistency, the complainant gave a long explanation about how the phone was Bluetooth enabled, there were music playlists, perhaps it was an android, and so on.
[121] I found Ms. C.S.’s answer to this question similar to answers she gave when confronted with other inconsistencies. She would tend to make efforts to divert attention from the inconsistency. I also find the inconsistency about the password of concern because, of course, it appears that Ms. C.S. may have been attempting to tailor her evidence to make it appear easier and quicker to delete a string of text messages while the accused was sitting irate in the car.
Conclusions Regarding the Complainant’s Evidence
In the end, I have serious concerns about the complainant’s credibility and reliability.
The Testimony of Mr. Glasgow
[122] The accused testified over a number of days. His demeanour in the witness stand was calm, quiet, and almost reserved. He seemed to focus on the questions asked and make an effort to answer them directly. When he was confused, he sought clarification. While his demeanour did not raise any concerns for me, as above, I acknowledge the frailties inherent in relying too heavily upon demeanour as an indicator of truthfulness. As such, and as with the complainant’s demeanour, I give it little weight in assessing his credibility.
[123] I believe the accused exaggerated on a few occasions in his evidence. Like the complainant, this has caused me to question his overall credibility. For instance, he made repeated efforts in his evidence to paint Ms. C.S. as an out-of-control alcoholic. While I accept that Ms. C.S. had a much more substantial substance abuse problem during the relevant time frame than she was prepared to acknowledge in her evidence, I found Mr. Glasgow’s evidence at the other end of the spectrum, overstating her substance abuse issues. For instance, he testified that Ms. C.S. used to keep alcohol bottles stored in the back seat of her car and that they would jangle around when she drove.
[124] In an effective cross-examination, Crown counsel elicited from him that, despite the fact that he was constantly in her vehicle, accepting rides and treating Ms. C.S. as a virtual chauffeur, she had never been stopped by the police in his presence. Nor was he aware of her having been charged with any alcohol related driving offence. I do not accept his evidence on her substance abuse problem and find that he intentionally exaggerated on this occasion and others in a transparent effort to paint the complainant in a poor light.
[125] I also find that the accused attempted to sully Ms. C.S.’s character by suggesting she had all manner of psychiatric conditions. I believe that he exaggerated about many of these conditions that he said he read about in her private documents contained within her glove box. The Crown cautioned me not to take Ms. C.S.’s mental health issues, to the extent that they do exist, into account when assessing her credibility and reliability, and I have specifically not done so.
[126] Mr. Glasgow also has a criminal record from 2002 and 2003, which I take into account in assessing his credibility. During those years he was convicted of a number of offences, including criminal harassment. He received sentences ranging from a one-day sentence for assault and a three-month sentence and probation for the harassment conviction. More recently, in 2012, he was convicted of obstruct a peace officer and failure to comply with probation. He testified that he received a $50 fine in respect to these latter offences.
[127] The criminal record of an accused can be relevant to assessments of credibility. In R v Watson, 1996 CanLII 4008 (ON CA), [1996] OJ No 2695, 92 OAC 131 (CA) at para 76, Doherty JA held: “the existence of previous criminal convictions may render a witness less credible”. There is ample support for this proposition in the law and I rely upon it: R v Murray (1997), 1997 CanLII 1090 (ON CA), 115 CCC (3d) 225, 99 OAC 103 (Ont CA) at p 229 at para 9; and R c. Tremblay, 2006 QCCA 75 at para 18. I note that while I can use Mr. Glasgow’s record to assess his credibility, I cannot infer propensity to commit the offences with which he is charged from that record: R v Corbett, 1988 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1988] 1 SCR 670 at paras 31-32. I do not do so.
[128] I also find that he went to lengths in his evidence to distance himself from a few locations where he is alleged by Ms. C.S. to have committed offences. For instance, he said he did not know where Cassie Campbell Recreation Centre is and suggested that he had never been on Van Kirk Drive in Brampton. While there was some support from Dorothea Williams that he may know the location of Cassie Campbell Recreation Centre, as for Van Kirk Drive, June Williams testified that he knew that street because he worked up there for awhile.
[129] Mr. Glasgow was also cross-examined on an affidavit he swore for purposes of a s. 276 application that he brought prior to trial. In that affidavit, he swore that Ms. C.S. and he were having consensual sexual relations between July 2011 and June 2013. At trial he testified that he had stopped having sexual relations with Ms. C.S. from May to the middle of June 2013. He said this was because the relationship had run its course. He was cross-examined on his prior statement and did not offer an explanation for this obvious inconsistency.
[130] Mr. Glasgow gave me a number of reasons to approach his evidence with reservation, if not suspicion. With that said, I do not reject all of his evidence or consider him to be a completely unreliable witness. There are some things he testified to that I am confident he is telling the truth about. The court can believe none, some, or all of a witness’s evidence: R v REM, 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 SCR 3 at para 65.
[131] I believe him when he says that Ms. C.S. was obsessed with him and that he wanted to end their relationship in June of 2013 and, in fact, took steps in that direction during the evening of June 18, 2013. I also believe his evidence that he told Ms. C.S. that their relationship was over during the incident in his driveway, late in the evening of June 18, 2013. I also believe that he deleted her contact information from his phone and that she got very angry and, after he exited the car, she threw garbage all over the driveway.
[132] I believe this evidence, in part, because it was partially corroborated by the accused’s sister, June Williams. Ms. Williams was an impressive witness. She is a hard working woman who holds multiple jobs and manages a home where the accused and numerous children (including her adult children) live. She struck me as honest and without any agenda. She gave careful and frank evidence, some of which helped the accused and some of which hurt him. The Crown took no issue with Ms. Williams’ credibility and, in fact, accepted that she gave credible evidence as it related to garbage in the driveway in June 2013. I accept that Ms. C.S. dumped garbage in the accused’s driveway on the night of June 18, 2013 - an allegation that the complainant specifically denied.
[133] I also accept the accused’s evidence with respect to how many people were living in June Williams’ home at the time that the offences were alleged to have occurred. Again, Ms. Williams’ evidence provided him with substantial corroboration on this point. While there was a little uncertainty as to when his brother, Justin, was living in the home, there were multiple people living there from 2011 to 2013. June, Dorothea, and Whitney Williams lived there. So too did Maliki and Maleeka. At times, so did Whitney’s boyfriend and her baby, born October 9, 2011. This was a busy and bustling family home with many people, including children present.
[134] I find that the accused’s evidence about the circumstances in which he was living was supported by Ms. Williams and Dorothea Williams. While it is not impossible to have committed the offences alleged within this seemingly busy and people-packed home, particularly when the accused moved into the basement in 2013, I find that it would have been difficult.
[135] This is particularly true when it comes to the October 11, 2011 incident, where Mr. Glasgow is alleged to have sexually assaulted the complainant in the living room. This is the assault that is alleged to have taken place during the evening after the G[…] sexual assault, where Ms. C.S. testified she drove over his home.
[136] June Williams testified that her daughter Whitney had a baby on October 9, 2011. She came home from the hospital the next day on October 10, 2011. It was Thanksgiving weekend and June Williams’ family had come to visit from New York. They left on October 10, 2011. As noted above, June Williams was off of work for the week, helping Whitney out with the new baby.
[137] There was consistency between Mr. Glasgow and Ms. Williams’ evidence that on October 11, 2011, there were at least eight people living in the house: Maliki, Maleeka, June, Dorothea, Whitney, Whitney’s boyfriend, Whitney’s baby, and Mr. Glasgow. I find that with that many people living in the house at the time, and with June Williams off of work during the week of October 11, 2011, and a baby of two days of age being in the house, Mr. Glasgow’s evidence raises a doubt in my mind about this incident having occurred.
[138] As for the June 18th incident, where he is alleged to have thrown a pop at Ms. C.S. in the driveway of June Williams’ residence, his evidence also raises a doubt in my mind. His evidence again receives important corroboration from June Williams, who testified about the garbage she found in her driveway early one morning in June of 2013. The garbage described by Ms. Williams is partially consistent with the containers that would have been bought at Wendy’s that night.
[139] The accused’s evidence, as corroborated by Ms. Williams, raises a doubt in my mind about whether the assault took place on June 18, 2013. It seems possible that the relationship had, in fact, run its course, that the accused told the complainant this, and she got angry, leaving a trail of garbage behind. While there may have been a spilled Wendy’s pop in her car, I have a reasonable doubt about whether the accused threw it in her face.
None of the rest of Mr. Glasgow’s evidence raises a doubt in my mind in respect to the balance of the charges.
The Totality of Evidence
[140] In respect to the balance of the counts, while I do not believe the accused and his evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind, having regard to all of the evidence in this case which I have carefully considered, I conclude that I have a reasonable doubt about whether the conduct alleged occurred.
[141] While I accept that the accused behaved in a most disgraceful way with the complainant, using her in the most classic sense of the word, bearing in mind all of the evidence I have reviewed above, and taking into account my findings about the credibility and reliability of the evidence led by the prosecution, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt – as I must be – that the alleged criminal acts occurred. The Crown has a very heavy burden and, in this case, I find that based on all of the evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not been met. In all of the circumstances, I must acquit the accused on all counts.
Fairburn J.
Released: March 30, 2015
CITATION: R. v. Glasgow, 2015 ONSC 2026
COURT FILE NO.: CRIMJ(P) 70/14
DATE: 2015-03-30
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
ANTHONY GLASGOW
COUNSEL: S. Andersen, for the Crown
U. Kancharla, for the Defence
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Fairburn, J.
Released: March 30, 2015