Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-14-0052 DATE: 2016-07-18

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Her Majesty The Queen Andrew Sadler, for the Crown

- and -

B.L.W.K., Accused David Bruzzese, for the Accused

HEARD: April 25 and 26, 2016, at Thunder Bay, Ontario Regional Senior Justice: D. C. Shaw

Reasons For Judgment

[1] B.L.W.K. is charged with four counts:

(1) sexual assault, contrary to s. 271(1) of the Criminal Code; (2) unlawful confinement, contrary to s. 279(2) of the Criminal Code; (3) uttering a threat to cause serious bodily harm, contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; and (4) theft under $5,000, contrary to s. 334(b) of the Criminal Code.

[2] The charges relate to an occurrence during the early morning hours of November 24, 2013, involving Mr. B.L.W.K. and Ms. S.F. at a motel in Thunder Bay.

Background

[3] At 6:43 am on November 24, 2013, Constable Tanka Awosika and his partner with the Thunder Bay Police attended at Room 21 of the N[…] Motel in Thunder Bay in response to a dispatch call received less than five minutes earlier. The dispatch followed a 911 call from the motel.

[4] In the room, Constable Awosika observed Ms. S.F.. She was crying and hysterical. She had a cigarette in her mouth. She was unable to stand on her feet. She was wearing a housecoat, a t-shirt, socks and underwear that had been torn and was hanging off her waist. She had superficial cuts on her left arm. She told Constable Awosika that the cuts had been self-inflicted just prior to the arrival of the police.

[5] An ambulance had been dispatched and Constable Awosika accompanied Ms. S.F. in the ambulance to the hospital.

[6] At the hospital, Ms. S.F. initially told Constable Awosika that she had met a male in the bar attached to the motel. She told Constable Awosika that she did not know the identity of the male. She later told Constable Awosika that she was afraid to say the name of the individual who had hurt her. She wrote the name “B.L.W.K.” in Constable Awosika’s notebook.

[7] A sample of Ms. S.F.’s blood was taken at the hospital between 7:40 am and 7:54 am. It showed that Ms. S.F.’s blood alcohol level at that time was just over twice the legal limit for driving. It showed the presence of benzodiazepine. Ms. S.F. also tested positive for cocaine and opiates.

[8] A sexual assault nurse at the hospital performed an examination of Ms. S.F.’s genitalia. The examination was normal. No other physical examination was done.

[9] After the examination, police attended at the hospital around noon. Although evidence as to the sequence of what followed was not clear, police took Ms. S.F. to the police station for an interview, to a home in Westfort where she retrieved her purse and some personal items from a car that Mr. B.L.W.K. had been using that morning, and to a home on Minnesota Street where she was dropped off and retrieved other personal items that had been left there earlier in the day by Mr. B.L.W.K..

[10] At about noon on that day, Mr. B.L.W.K. was arrested and charged with the within offences. He gave a video statement that afternoon to police, which the Crown entered as an exhibit at trial. Reference will be made later in these reasons to that statement.

[11] S.M., who had been staying with her husband at the motel on November 24, 2013, testified at trial. She said she was awoken by a woman screaming from the balcony above her that she had just been raped. At trial, Ms. S.M. said that the time could have been 5:50 am, as indicated in a statement she gave to police, but she could not remember the time. She said she might have had a cigarette at about 6:00 am before she went upstairs to see the woman. When she saw the woman, who was Ms. S.F., the woman was not wearing much and she was distraught. The phone in Ms. S.F.’s room was unplugged. Ms. S.M. helped her to plug it back in. Ms. S.M. then went back to her room. The police arrived about five minutes later.

Evidence of Ms. S.F.

[12] Ms. S.F. testified that she had been living in Winnipeg when she met Mr. B.L.W.K. at a strip club in Thunder Bay where she was working. She agreed that she had pursued Mr. B.L.W.K.. They began dating. She returned to Winnipeg after her schedule at the strip club was finished. She then returned to Thunder Bay and lived with Mr. B.L.W.K. at the motel for about two weeks before the events in question.

[13] During these two weeks she did some infrequent work at the strip club, but did not work a regular schedule. Also during these two weeks her friend from Winnipeg, S.E., who was also working as a stripper in Thunder Bay, stayed with her and Mr. B.L.W.K. in the room.

[14] At about midnight on November 23, 2013, Mr. B.L.W.K. was sleeping. Ms. S.F. woke him to ask him to go down to the bar with her for drinks. He said he did not want to go and went back to sleep. Ms. S.F. then went down to the bar by herself. She was at the bar for about two hours until it closed at 2:00 am. She said she was drinking vodka. She did not keep track of how many drinks she had. She said that it was possible that there were people in the bar who bought her drinks, but she did not know. She did not remember paying for her drinks, although she said that she either could or could not have.

[15] When asked about the positive test for opiates at the hospital, Ms. S.F. said that she had not been doing anything of that nature, “to her knowledge”. She said that the only reason she could think of for the positive test was that one of her drinks at the bar may have been spiked when she left the drink unattended at the bar. She had seen an older man at the bar loitering around her. She said that she did not believe that the quantity of drinks she had consumed reflected the way she was feeling. She said that she did not believe that she had enough drinks to get really drunk, but that she did feel “slightly different”.

[16] Ms. S.F. has a prescription for temazepam, which is included in the class of benzodiazepines for which she tested positive at the hospital. She said that she took the drug at bedtime for a sleep disorder. She could not remember if she took it on the afternoon of November 23, 2013, when she and Mr. B.L.W.K. went to sleep. She was aware from her physician that she should not consume alcohol while taking the drug. She agreed that if she did, that it possibly affected her memory. When asked in cross-examination if she was confused about the events of that evening, she responded: “Confused, but I just couldn’t remember”.

[17] Ms. S.F. said that it would be expected that she would have tested positive for cocaine. She did not remember the last time she had done cocaine prior to her examination at the hospital, but she was using it throughout the two weeks that she was at the motel.

[18] Ms. S.F. said that after the bar closed, at 2:00 am she returned directly to the motel room. She asked the bouncer from the bar to accompany her.

[19] She said that she did not remember how she got into the room. When asked if it was possible that she had to knock because she did not have a key, she said it was possible, but she did not remember.

[20] She said that she was not sure if there was anyone in the room other than Mr. B.L.W.K.. She said that Ms. S.E. could have been in the room. She vaguely remembered a man being with Ms. S.E. in the room at the same time, but she did not know when that was.

[21] When asked if Ms. S.E. was working every day, Ms. S.F. said she could not remember. She said she could not remember how much she interacted with Ms. S.E. in the two weeks before November 24, 2013. She could not remember if Ms. S.E. was working the day of the incident.

[22] Ms. S.F. said that when she got back to the room after being in the bar, Mr. B.L.W.K. was awake and angry. She testified that she thought he was angry because she had gone to the bar by herself.

[23] Ms. S.F. said there was a verbal argument and a physical fight between her and Mr. B.L.W.K. when she returned to the room. When asked to describe what happened in the physical fight, Ms. S.F. responded: “It’s really hard to remember specifically”. When asked about the verbal aspect of the interaction, she said she could not specifically remember “… but there was threats or what I perceived to be threats made at some point … something to the effect of he’ll get his friends after me or I know what his friends can do.”

[24] Ms. S.F. said that Mr. B.L.W.K. then sexually assaulted her. She did not know how it started, but she said she remembered him grabbing her by the hair and throwing her down on the bed. He then tried to take her underwear off. While she tried to hold her underwear up, he ripped it. She said he then told her not to move. He walked away for a minute and then came back and had sexual intercourse with her while she was lying face down. She said that Mr. B.L.W.K. then took his bag of clothes and left the room. When asked if she tried to leave while Mr. B.L.W.K. was there, she responded that he put a chair in front of the door and sat in it to block the door.

[25] She said that when she came back to the room at 2:00 am, Mr. B.L.W.K. took her cell phone. She could not remember whether this was before or after the sexual assault. He did not say why he was taking it away. She said she broke Mr. B.L.W.K.’s cell phone because she did not think it was fair that he could have a phone when she did not. She did not remember how she broke it or from where she got it.

[26] Ms. S.F. said that she had a history of cutting herself. She said that she cut herself after she came back from the bar. She could not remember whether she cut herself before or after the sexual assault. She said she had a couple of knives. She was not sure which one she used, but it was a pocket knife. She was not sure where she was in the room when she cut herself – it might have been the bathroom, but she was not sure. She said Mr. B.L.W.K. was in the room when she cut herself, but she could not remember where he was in the room or what he was doing.

[27] She said she believed that Mr. B.L.W.K. left immediately after the sexual assault. She said she then ran outside and started screaming. A woman came up and helped her plug in the motel’s phone which had been left unplugged. Ms. S.F. did not see whether Mr. B.L.W.K. unplugged it.

[28] Ms. S.F. then called for police. She said she did not remember how long after she called that the police arrived. She did not remember talking to the police at the motel. She did not remember telling police that she had just cut herself prior to their arrival. She did not remember telling police that there was no alcohol in the room. She did not think there was alcohol in the room, but she was not sure. She did not know if Mr. B.L.W.K. was drinking alcohol the day of the incident. She said that she did not remember telling the police that the argument with Mr. B.L.W.K. happened within a couple of minutes of getting back from the bar, but it was possible. She had no recollection of telling the police that the sexual assault occurred within 10 or 20 minutes of returning to the room. She said that she had no recollection of when in the course of coming back to the room the sexual assault occurred.

[29] In cross-examination, it was suggested to Ms. S.F. that when she came back to the room from the bar, she was upset, depressed and threatening to harm herself and it was at that point Ms. S.E. came to the room and tried to calm her down in the bathroom. Ms. S.F. replied that she could not recall.

[30] Ms. S.F. agreed that a big problem in her relationship with Mr. B.L.W.K. was that she was accusing him of cheating on her. She could not remember if that is what they argued about that evening. She could not recall if he had told her in the wee hours of that morning that the relationship was over and that is what upset her.

[31] Ms. S.F. said she only “very vaguely” remembered being in an ambulance from the motel to the hospital. She had no memory of talking to the ambulance attendant, notwithstanding his notes of a conversation. She remembered vaguely talking to the police at the hospital. She said she lied when she told Constable Awosika that she did not know who attacked her. She said she had lied because she was afraid of repercussions from Mr. B.L.W.K. or his friends.

[32] Ms. S.F. said that as a result of the assault, she had bruising. She could not remember where the bruising was. She could not remember discussing with the sexual assault nurse whether she had bruising. She could not remember if she told the nurse that she did not want a physical examination.

[33] Ms. S.F. said she vaguely remembered being taken by police from the hospital to a car and the house on Minnesota Street. She understood that Mr. B.L.W.K. had delivered her belongings to the house. She thought that she recovered her purse and cell phone from the car that Mr. B.L.W.K. had been using earlier in the day.

[34] She said she could not remember if she had any money when she came to Thunder Bay. She agreed that she was dependent on Mr. B.L.W.K. to support her while she was in Thunder Bay.

Evidence of Mr. B.L.W.K.

[35] Mr. B.L.W.K. said that on November 24, 2013, he had been sleeping since noon of the prior day in the motel room when Ms. S.F. came back drunk, waking him up. Ms. S.E. was present in the room. Ms. S.E. tried to console Ms. S.F.. Mr. B.L.W.K. said he left to go to a Tim Horton’s to buy some chili. When he came back, Ms. S.F. was crying and Ms. S.E. was continuing to try to console her. Ms. S.E.’s boyfriend was also in the room. Ms. S.F. took a knife from her purse and threatened to kill herself. Ms. S.E. tried again to console Ms. S.F. in the bathroom, at which time Mr. B.L.W.K. hid her knives. Ms. S.E. had to catch a bus that left for Winnipeg at 8:45 am. Although she was reluctant to leave Ms. S.F., Ms. S.E. said that she would not be able to get any sleep at the motel before she caught her bus, so she left the motel with her boyfriend at about 3:00 to 3:30 am.

[36] Mr. B.L.W.K. said Ms. S.F. was in the bathroom, with the door locked. He knew there were disposable razor blades in the bathroom. He knew of Ms. S.F.’s history of cutting herself. He said Ms. S.F. had been cutting herself during the two weeks that he and she had been at the motel. He got a coat hanger and used it to open the door. He said that when he entered, he saw Ms. S.F. standing in the shower with blood dripping down her arm. He told Ms. S.F. that if she was not going to calm down, wrap up her arm, go to bed to sleep off the alcohol and wait until the morning to deal with her allegations that he was cheating on her, he was going to call an ambulance. He started dialing 911. Ms. S.F. grabbed his flip phone and in the process it snapped in half.

[37] Mr. B.L.W.K. said he told Ms. S.F. that he wanted out of their relationship because when she got drunk, she would accuse him of cheating on her. He told her he would buy her a ticket for the bus, so she could travel with Ms. S.E.. He told her that he would pay for the room. He said that Ms. S.F. told him that he was not leaving her and sat naked on a chair, blocking the door.

[38] Mr. B.L.W.K. said that he put his clothes in a garbage bag and started to pack Ms. S.F.’s belongings so that he could put her on the bus. He said Ms. S.F. came over from the door, tried to hug him and started crying, asking him what he was doing. He told her that he was packing for her so she could go on the bus with Ms. S.E. and that the relationship was over. He said Ms. S.F. became louder. She tried to go into the bathroom. Mr. B.L.W.K. closed the door so she could not get in, because there were still razor blades in the bathroom. He said that Ms. S.F. then ran out the door to the balcony, having stripped herself down to a shirt and no pants or underwear, and was screaming “help, help, rape”.

[39] Mr. B.L.W.K. said that he then grabbed the bag with his clothes and left the room and walked to Tim Horton’s, where he remained for about 1 ½ hours. He then called a friend in Westfort at 7:00 am or shortly thereafter, following which he called a cab at about 7:20 am. The cab arrived about 7:45 am. Mr. B.L.W.K. took the cab to his friend’s house. He picked up his friend’s car, drove to Walmart and purchased a new cellphone. He then drove back to the motel to pay for the room, which was in Ms. S.F.’s name. He said he told the desk clerk to tell Ms. S.F. to check out when the cleaning staff went to her room, and to have her call him on his new cell phone. He said the desk clerk told him that the police had come and that Ms. S.F. had been taken away in an ambulance. Mr. B.L.W.K. said he went to the room, took Ms. S.F.’s belongings, put them into his friend’s car and dropped them off at the home of a mutual friend. He also brought her purse and her cell phone. He said he took a change of clothes for her and proceeded towards the hospital. On nearing the hospital, his friend’s wife called and Mr. B.L.W.K. learned that the police were looking for him. He drove the car back to his friend’s home and was arrested on arrival.

[40] Mr. B.L.W.K. told police that although he and Ms. S.F. had sexual intercourse in the morning of November 23, 2013, before they went to sleep, they had no sex after their argument on November 24, 2013.

Submissions

The Crown

[41] The Crown submits that Ms. S.F.’s inability to remember events concern only peripheral matters, not the substance of what Mr. B.L.W.K. is alleged to have done. The Crown submits that Ms. S.F. had a sufficiently clear recollection about the events, supported by the observations of Ms. S.M. and the police witnesses with respect to her condition and her torn underwear to enable the court to find that Mr. B.L.W.K. kept Ms. S.F. in the room when she wanted to leave, that he forced intercourse upon her, that he threatened her and that he took her cell phone so that she would not be able to call for help.

The Defence

[42] The defence submits that there is nothing inherently inconsistent in the explanation which Mr. B.L.W.K. gave in his statement to the police. The defence points out that having chosen to include Mr. B.L.W.K.’s statement as part of its case, the entire statement is evidence and that I may accept all, none or parts of it. The defence submits that Ms. S.F.’s evidence is unreliable because of her consumption of alcohol and medication. The defence points to Ms. S.F.’s inability to remember numerous details as to times, persons and events relating to the occurrence at the motel and its aftermath.

[43] The defence submits that the Crown has failed to prove any of the four charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Discussion

[44] Credibility is a central issue in the trial of these charges. The rule of reasonable doubt applies to that issue. The required instruction from R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, at p. 409 C.C.C is well known:

“The trial judge should instruct the jury that they need not firmly believe or disbelieve any witness or set of witnesses. Specifically, the trial judge is required to instruct the jury that they must acquit the accused in two situations. First, if they believe the accused. Secondly, if they do not believe the accused’s evidence but still have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt after considering the accused’s evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole: see R. v. Challice (1979), 45 C.C.C. (2d) 546 (Ont. C.A.); approved by R. v. Morin, supra, at p. 207.

Ideally, appropriate instructions on the issue of credibility should be given, not only during the main charge, but on any recharge. A trial judge might well instruct the jury on the question of credibility along these lines:

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.

Secondly, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Thirdly, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.”

[45] As regards the first step in the W. (D.) formula, I must not consider the accused’s version of events in isolation, as if the Crown had led no evidence. The evidence that favours the accused must be assessed in the context of all the evidence.

[46] The second step should be approached as set out by Binnie J., speaking for a unanimous Court in R. v. S. (J.H.) (2008), 2008 SCC 30 at pp. 307-308:

“The precise formulation of the W. (D.) questions has been criticized …

As to the second question, some jurors may wonder how, if they believe none of the evidence of the accused, such rejected evidence may nevertheless of itself raise a reasonable doubt. Of course, some elements of the evidence of an accused may raise a reasonable doubt, even though the bulk of it is rejected. Equally, the jury may simply conclude that they do not know whether to believe the accused’s testimony or not. In either circumstance the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

… In light of these possible sources of difficulty, Wood J.A. in H. (C.W.) suggested an additional instruction:

I would add one more instruction in such cases, which logically ought to be second in the order, namely: “ If, after a careful consideration of all the evidence, you are unable to decide whom to believe, you must acquit” . [p. 155]

In short, the W. (D.) questions should not have attributed to them a level of sanctity or immutable perfection that their author never claimed for them. [Italics of Binnie J., under-lining added]”

[47] W. (D.) makes it clear that a criminal trial is not a credibility contest where the trier of fact must choose whether to believe one side or the other. At p. 409 in W. (D.), Cory J. stated:

“It is incorrect to instruct a jury in a criminal case that, in order to render a verdict, they must decide whether they believe the defence evidence or the Crown’s evidence. Putting this either/or proposition to the jury excludes the third alternative; namely, that the jury without believing the accused, after considering the accused’s evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole, may still have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. [Emphasis added]

[48] The third step of W. (D.) is based on total rejection of the evidence for the defence.

[49] Whether a person appears to be sincere in the witness box is only one element that enters into a finding of credibility. As O’Halloran J.A. of the British Columbia Court of Appeal observed in Faryna v. Chormy, [1951] B.C.J. No. 152 (C.A.), at paras. 10-12, opportunities for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment, memory and whether the evidence of a witness is in harmony with the preponderance of possibilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable, in that place and in those conditions, must be considered.

[50] Mr. B.L.W.K. entered this trial with the presumption of innocence.

[51] His explanation as to what happened on November 24, 2013, is contained in his statement to police which the Crown tendered in evidence. Having assessed that evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole, I have concluded that the Crown has not proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the four charges.

[52] I have grave concerns as to the reliability of the evidence of Ms. S.F.. There are too many frailties surrounding her evidence to find Mr. B.L.W.K.’s denials to be unworthy of belief and to find that Ms. S.F.’s version of events is the true version.

[53] There is no question that Ms. S.F. was intoxicated during the evening in question. The indicia of intoxication are overwhelming. Ms. S.F. was at the bar for two hours, between midnight and 2:00 am. She had no recollection of the number of drinks she consumed. She had no recollection of whether she bought her own drinks or whether they were purchased for her by other persons in the bar. When she was observed by Constable Awosika at approximately 6:00 am she was unable to stand. She had no recollection of talking to Constable Awosika at the motel. She only vaguely remembered being taken from the motel to the hospital. She had no memory of talking to the ambulance attendant. She vaguely remembered talking to the police at the hospital. She had no recollection of telling the sexual assault nurse that she had bruising and she did not want a physical examination. She could not remember where the bruising was. At the hospital, more than five hours after she had returned to the hotel room from drinking at the bar, her blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit for driving. She also had benzodiazepine, cocaine and opiates in her blood. The benzodiazepine was consistent with her having taken her sleep medication, temazepam. She agreed that the combination of alcohol and temazepam could affect her memory. She acknowledged that she had used cocaine during the preceding two weeks, although it was not clear when she last used it. She suspected that the opiates were the result of someone having spiked her drink at the bar. She said that she assumed that her drink had been spiked because the quantity of drinks she had consumed did not reflect how she was feeling, although she did not remember how many drinks she had. She testified, with respect to the events of the evening, that she was “confused, but I just couldn’t remember.”

[54] It is reasonable to conclude from all of the evidence that Ms. S.F.’s powers of observation, judgment and memory were seriously impaired by the consumption of alcohol and drugs.

[55] I am unable to agree with the submission of the Crown that Ms. S.F.’s memory issues pertain only to peripheral events and that I should, without reservation, accept that her evidence otherwise reliably supports convictions on the offences charged.

[56] Ms. S.F. had no memory of how she got into the room from the bar – whether she had a key or whether she had to knock to be let in. She had no memory if there was anyone in the room other than Mr. B.L.W.K.. She acknowledged that Ms. S.E. could have been in the room. She had a vague memory of a man being in the room with Ms. S.E., but she did not know when that was. She was unable to recall if, when she came back from the bar, she was upset, depressed and threatening to harm herself such that Ms. S.E. tried to calm her down.

[57] She had no memory of when, after she returned to the room, that the sexual assault occurred. She had no recollection of telling police that the sexual assault occurred within 10 to 20 minutes after her return to the room at 2:00 am. On the other hand, she testified that after the sexual assault, Mr. B.L.W.K. immediately took his clothes and left the room and she started screaming on the balcony. We know from the evidence of S.M., who was awakened in the room below the balcony, that she heard Ms. S.F. screaming shortly before 6:00 am, with the police attending at 6:43 am in response to a 911 call.

[58] Ms. S.F. acknowledged a history of cutting herself. She cut herself during this occurrence. She could not remember if she cut herself before or after the alleged sexual assault. However, Constable Awosika testified that Ms. S.F. told him that she inflicted the cuts just prior to the arrival of the police. She testified that she could not remember where she was in the room nor where Mr. B.L.W.K. was in the room when she cut herself.

[59] Although Ms. S. F. testified that she and Mr. B.L.W.K. had a physical fight and a verbal fight after she returned to the room from the bar, she could not remember any details of the physical fight. She could not remember the verbal argument, except for threats or what she perceived to be threats. She agreed that the big issue in her relationship with Mr. B.L.W.K. was her accusation that he was cheating on her. However, she could not remember if that is what they argued about on the evening in question or if she was upset because Mr. B.L.W.K. told her that night that their relationship was over because of her accusations.

[60] Ms. S.F. could not recall if Mr. B.L.W.K. took her cell phone before or after the sexual assault. She could not remember how she got his cell phone or how she broke it.

[61] In my view, the inability of Ms. S.F. to remember most of what transpired in the bar, in the motel room and after she was taken from the motel, is so pervasive that it must reasonably cast doubt on the reliability of all her evidence.

[62] Mr. B.L.W.K.’s statement to the police provided a plausible explanation of the events of the evening. There was no suggestion that Mr. B.L.W.K.’s memory, in contrast to Ms. S.F.’s memory, was affected by alcohol or drugs. He described Ms. S.F.’s return from the bar, drunk and upset, how Ms. S.E. repeatedly tried to console Ms. S.F.. He described how Ms. S.F. cut herself, how she broke his cell phone when he threatened to call 911 over the cutting incident. He described their arguments over her accusations of infidelity. He said that when he told Ms. S.F. that their relationship was over, she became louder, tried to get back into the bathroom where she had cut herself and then, when Mr. B.L.W.K. would not let her into the bathroom, she ran out on the balcony, screaming “help, help rape”, upon which Mr. B.L.W.K. left the room with his clothes. None of this is inherently inconsistent or unbelievable.

[63] Mr. B.L.W.K.’s subsequent actions that day, of returning to the motel to pay for the room, that was registered in Ms. S.F.’s name, retrieving Ms. S.F.’s personal items and returning them to the home where she was staying and then proceeding to the hospital, having been informed that she had been taken from the motel by ambulance, to bring her a change of clothes, does not speak to any consciousness of guilt, but rather, if anything, it speaks to the contrary.

Conclusion

[64] For the reasons given, I find Mr. B.L.W.K. not guilty of all charges in the indictment.

Regional Senior Justice D. C. Shaw

Released: July 18, 2016

COURT FILE NO.: CR-14-0052 DATE: 2016-07-18 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Her Majesty The Queen - and - B.L.W.K., REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Shaw R.S.J. Released: July 18, 2016 /mls