R. v. Jones, 2017 ONSC 7442

CITATION: R. v. Jones, 2017 ONSC 7442

COURT FILE NO.: CR-17-10000747-0000

DATE: 2017-12-14

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

WAYNE JONES

COUNSEL:

Sonia Beauchamp and Cara Sweeney, for the Crown

Randall Barrs, for Mr. Jones

HEARD: 23-27 October; 30 October, 2017, 3 November; 6-8 November, 2017

BEFORE: S.A.Q. Akhtar J.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

[1] The accused, Wayne Jones, stands charged with the sexual assault and other offences relating to four separate complainants: X, Y, Z, and B. The allegations relating to three of those complainants, X, Y, and Z, are historical, having occurred in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Those matters only came to the attention of the police after the broadcast of a media release detailing Mr. Jones arrest with respect to allegations made by the fourth complainant, B.

[2] Mr. Jones is the pastor of the Spiritual Baptist Church, which is currently located in Markham. He immigrated to Canada in 1985 after marrying Deborah (Debbie) Jones, a Registered Practical Nurse. They are the parents of a son, Trevor and a daughter, Chatelle. In 1985, Mr. Jones obtained employment with Van Rob Stamping, a company involved in supplying parts to the automobile industry. Mr. Jones initially worked as a machine operator before working his way up to production supervisor, and then leaving in 2003.

[3] Mr. Jones was originally raised as a Baptist but, aged nine, began to attend a Spiritual Baptist church. After arriving in Toronto, Mr. Jones and his wife continued to practise their faith by attending and worshipping at a local house in Scarborough.

[4] At some point, Mr. Jones decided to start his own church, the Mount Ararat Baptist Church on Warden Avenue in Scarborough, and did so under the auspices of Bishop Norris Ashton who conferred the status of pastor upon him. Debbie took the title of Mother, a supervisory position where her responsibility was to look after the female members of the church.

[5] Mount Ararat was a success and, as its membership expanded, the Joneses decided to move to a bigger premises on Rogers Road, where it remained until around 1995.

Counts 1 to 7: The Allegations Made by X and Y

[6] During this time, Mr. Jones met Y, and her younger sister X, who were members of the church. In 1990, they were elevated to become Deaconnesses of the church, along with Mr. Jones’ sister. X alleges that Mr. Jones was responsible for her elevation even though she was not ready for the position. She also alleges that shortly after her ordination as deaconness, Mr. Jones began sexually assaulting her.

[7] Y lived with her younger sister for a period of time but they had their differences. Accepting an invitation from Mr. Jones, Y and her two children moved into Mr. Jones home. Shortly after doing so, she testified that he sexually assaulted her.

[8] Both X and Y allege that Mr. Jones took money from them and, despite his promises, never paid them back.

Count 8: The Allegations Made by Z

[9] Another young woman, Z, joined the church sometime in 1993 attending every Sunday and becoming acquainted with Mr. Jones. She testified that she lent him a sum of money which he refused to repay. After attempting to retrieve the funds by request, she retained a lawyer and successfully sued Mr. Jones in Small Claims Court. Z testified that before their financial dispute, Mr. Jones visited her at her home and sexually assaulted her.

Counts 12 to 16: The Allegations Made by B

[10] Later on, Mr. Jones created a new church called the United Baptist church, originally on Kennedy Road, before moving to its present location at Nashdene Road in Markham.

[11] In 2010, during a visit to Ghana, Mr. Jones met B, who had been taken there by another pastor who, at the time, was B’s spiritual mother. During their trip, Mr. Jones witnessed a “prophecy” involving B and saw a local priest purport to cast out demons within her. When B returned to Canada, she met Mr. Jones at a banquet hosted by Debbie Jones, who by then had separated from Mr. Jones.

[12] According to B, Mr. Jones became possessed by a medium who warned her that she was in danger and the victim of a curse. The medium who came to be known as “the Gorgan” appeared to possess Mr. Jones and held meetings with B, first in the company of Debbie Jones and another member of the church, Claire Beckford. Later on, the meetings became private sessions where Mr. Jones, apparently possessed by the Gorgan, demanded B submit to acts of violence and sex in order to escape the curse. B also testified that she gave Mr. Jones valuable possessions: approximately $20,000; a Toyota Camry, and jewellery belonging to her boyfriend. None of these items were ever returned to her despite repeated requests.

[13] After B reported these claims to the police, a media release was broadcast on television with a request to other alleged victims to contact the authorities. As a result, X, Y, and Z provided statements to the police.

[14] Each of the allegations will be discussed in detail later on in these reasons.

[15] The Crown seeks convictions on all counts in the indictment and asks this court to apply the evidence in relation to each count to the others. The defence denies all of the allegations and opposes the use of similar fact evidence in this court’s determination of a verdict.

II. RULINGS ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

A. The Ruling on the Crown’s Similar Fact Application

[16] The Crown applies to have the evidence of all complainants apply to each other on a count-to-count basis.

[17] The leading case of R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908, sets out the principles relating to the admission of similar fact evidence. Due to its presumptive inadmissibility, the onus lies upon the Crown to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that in the circumstances of this case, the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect: Handy, at para. 55; R. v. Shearing, 2002 SCC 58, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 33, at para. 33; R. v. Cresswell, 2009 ONCA 95, [2009] O.J. No. 363, at para 10.

[18] Handy clarified that even though similar fact evidence may show a general propensity of an accused to behave in a certain manner, the admissibility of the evidence depends on showing more than just general propensity but a relevance to a live issue in the offences before the court: Handy, at para. 71. That requirement means that although a “hallmark” or repeated conduct would normally lead to the admission of the evidence it does not have to exist for the evidence to be admissible.

[19] Factors to be considered when assessing probative value include:

1. The live issue that the evidence seeks to relate to;

2. Proximity in time of the similar acts;

3. Similarity of the acts;

4. Number of occurrences;

5. Circumstances surrounding or relating to the similar acts;

6. Distinctive features;

7. Intervening events; and,

8. Any other factor supporting or rebutting the underlying unity of the acts.

[20] These factors are not exhaustive and must be considered on a case specific basis. They must also be balanced by factors that indicate prejudice including the inflammatory nature of the acts (“moral prejudice”) and whether the issue that the evidence relates to can be proven with less prejudicial evidence. In addition, the court must be mindful of the risk that the evidence becomes a distraction drawing focus away from the actual offence and consuming a disproportionate amount of time (“reasoning prejudice”).

[21] In the circumstances of a judge alone trial, however, the risk of both moral prejudice and reasoning prejudice is significantly reduced: R. v. McCormack, 2009 ONCA 72, 241 C.C.C. (3d) 516, at paras. 68-69; R. v. T.B., 2009 ONCA 177, 95 O.R. (3d) 21, at para. 33; R. v. J.M., 2010 ONCA 117, 251 C.C.C. (3d) 325; R. v. Brissard, 2017 ONCA 891, at para. 2.

In this case, identity is not in issue. The question is whether Mr. Jones committed the actus reus of the offences. In Handy, at para. 78, the court pointed out that in such cases “the drivers of cogency in relation to the desired inferences” will not be the same as a case where Mr. Jones had not been identified as the perpetrator of the offences by the complainants. There, the court found that if the issue had been identity the similar fact evidence would not have been admissible because “it was not so ‘peculiar and distinctive’ as to amount to a ‘signature’ or ‘fingerprints at the scene of the crime’”: Handy, at para. 79. By contrast, if the issue had been something other than identity, a dissimilar act would still be admissible if it yielded an inference on the issue to be decided.

In J.M.,at para. 91, Watt J.A. explained this doctrine in the following way:

The degree of similarity required to justify reception in a case will depend on the issues raised in the case, the purpose for which the evidence is proferred (sic) and the other evidence in the case: Handy at para. 78. Where the evidence of similar acts is summoned in support of proof of the actus reus, it is not an invariable requirement that there be a strong peculiarity or unusual distinctiveness underlying the events being compared: Handy at para. 81. The cogency of evidence of similar acts may arise from the repetitive and predictable nature of an accused's conduct in closely defined circumstances. What becomes necessary in such cases is a persuasive degree of connection between the events of alleged similar acts and the offence charged in order to be capable of raising the necessary inferences: Shearing at paras. 48 and 50. The underlying unity need not lie in the distinctive nature of the acts themselves but may reside in the circumstances in which those acts occurred.

[22] In evaluating the probative value of the evidence, I make the following findings:

(a) Proximity: The allegations made by X and Y arise in the same time frame. Z’s allegations arise from an incident a few years later whereas B’s allegations are separated by over two decades.

(b) Similarities between the allegations:

i. Mr. Jones was in a position of trust and authority over all of the complainants in this case.

ii. All the complainants were members of Mr. Jones church.

iii. Mr. Jones began his relationships with offers of help to all the complainants (with X it was to help her financially; with Y it was to assist with immigration; with Z it was to talk about her personal difficulties; with B it was to reverse the curse placed on her).

iv. Mr. Jones obtained money from all the complainants and made promises to repay each of them.

v. All the complainants report that he never repaid the money.

vi. The sexual assaults are initiated with Mr. Jones promise that sex is required spiritually (with X Mr. Jones tells her that he “has to cover her” so that whatever he was going to do to help her “would work”; with Y Mr. Jones tells her that there is a spirit that wants him to have sex with her; with Z he tells her that having sex will cure what happened to her in Barbados; with B, Mr. Jones tells her it is the only way to reverse the curse).

vii. All the complainants were vulnerable members of the church who have a religious belief in Mr. Jones’ spiritual powers.

viii. In the case of X and Y, a stupefying substance is used.

ix. In both X and B’s case there were commands that they not have sex with other individuals.

x. In both X and Y’s case Mr. Jones demanded a key to have access to their homes.

xi. In X and B’s case Mr. Jones cut their breasts for blood.

xii. In X, Y and B’s case, Mr. Jones ordered the performance of specific rituals (with X, Mr. Jones ordered the erection of an altar, and placement of fish on a plate beside her bed; with Y he directed that she obtain fresh grave dirt; with B, there were a number of rituals ordered by Mr. Jones as the medium, for example taking chickens to the lake or crossing the waters to reverse a curse).

(c) Distinctive Features and the Unity of the Allegations

[23] There are clearly dissimilarities between the complainants, most particularly in the case of the allegations made by B. However, as the case law recognises, that will always be the case. In this regard, the case at bar is similar to Shearing where the accused was the leader of a cult who preached that sexual experience was an avenue to higher levels and that he could enable young girls to be elevated through spiritual and sexual contact. There were 11 complainants in Shearing, nine of whom were cult members. The remaining two had contact with the accused because their mother was a member and was the resident housekeeper of the cult group’s home. The allegations spanned a 10 year period and there were understandable differences in details between each complainant’s account. However, the court found that despite the sexual acts not being distinctive, the underlying unity of the evidence lay in the alleged abuse of the cult leader’s authority. It was the “sales pitch and rationale” developed by the accused that was “particular and distinctive”.

[24] The court emphasised that there was no point adding up similarities and dissimilarities on some form of judicial ledger. At para. 46, the court said that “the central issue in the case was the actus reus and whether the appellant’s blanket denial in that regard is credible”. The same applies here. As in Shearing, the Crown in the instant case seeks to use what it says are the exploitative techniques developed by Mr. Jones as part of his repertoire to set up his assault victims. It argues that in the absence of collusion, it cannot be the case that all of the complainants would provide testimony with so many similarities. I agree with this submission.

(d) Collusion

[25] Turning to the crucial issue of collusion, I note that if there is an air of reality to an allegation of collusion, the Crown is required to satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence of similar fact that it seeks to tender is not tainted by collusion: Handy, at para. 112; Shearing, at para. 41.

[26] Mere opportunity for contact between the witnesses, however, does not give rise to an “air of reality” to an allegation of collusion: R. v. J.W., 2013 ONCA 89, [2013] O.J. No. 654, at para. 37. Even if there is an opportunity for collusion with a possible tainting, then the evidence should still be admitted with consideration to be given to its weight: Handy, at paras. 110-112; Shearing, at para. 44; R. v. Dorsey, 2012 ONCA 185, 288 C.C.C. (3d) 62, at para. 25-26.

[27] I am also cognisant that any collusion or tainting that may have occurred need not be deliberate but may occur inadvertently, for example where witnesses have communicated with one another and subconsciously or consciously coloured each other’s evidence: R. v. C.B. (2003), 2003 32894 (ON CA), 167 O.A.C. 264 (Ont. C.A.). If that is the case, the effect on the reliability of the evidence is the same and the impact may result in the inadmissibility of the evidence: R. v. J.F. (2003), 2003 52166 (ON CA), 177 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 77; R v. M.B., 2011 ONCA 76, 267 C.C.C. (3d) 72, at para. 19.

[28] The evidence led at trial in this case answered many of the questions dealing with collusion. For the following reasons, whilst I conclude that there is an air of reality to the issue of collusion, I find that no collusion or tainting occurred.

[29] Of the four complainants, only two, X and Y actually knew each other. B and Z had never met each other, or the other two complainants. Although X and Y were sisters, they had had no communication for years and only spoke of the offences after the preliminary inquiry in the matter and after they had gone to the police and given statements.

[30] Although Z saw the media reports and may have seen television and newspaper reports about Mr. Jones’ arrest, she was only aware that he was charged with fraud and some sort of exorcism.

[31] X had seen the police news release on television in February 2015 but was only alerted to the report because she saw Mr. Jones’ image. All that she knew was that he was arrested for sexual abuse and was unaware of the details. X testified that she did not read any articles in the Toronto Sun or elsewhere which might have contained specifics of Mr. Jones’ arrest.

[32] Similarly, Y had seen the television report about sex and exorcisms. However, she too testified that she was not aware of the specific details and had not read anything about Mr. Jones arrest before she was contacted by S, X’s daughter, asking her to go to the police.

[33] Finally, and most tellingly, the accounts given by X, Y and Z do not replicate those of B as detailed in the media.

[34] Based on the above evidence I find there was no concoction, collusion or tainting of the evidence.

[35] Accordingly, I find the evidence of the sexual assaults to be admissible on a count to count basis. Having said that, I will only refer to those items of evidence that I find assist in determining the case.

B. The Ruling on the Admissibility of the Defence Expert Evidence

[36] Mr. Barrs sought to introduce expert evidence on behalf of Mr. Jones through Timothy Moore, Professor of Psychology at York University’s Glendon College, and Chair of the department of Psychology.

[37] If admitted, Professor Moore would testify giving opinion evidence on:

• How memories are formed and how gaps arise;

• Factors the compromise the reliability of autobiographical recollections;

• Phenomenon of source amnesia;

• Phenomenon of false memories;

• Distinguishing an authentic memory from the one which may have arise through imagination inflation;

• The difficulty in distinguishing an illusory memory from one based on actual experience;

• The notion of where memory comes from;

• The notion that imagined events can be mistaken for actual events; and,

• The constructive and reconstructive nature of memory.

[38] The leading case for the admission of expert evidence is R. v. Mohan, 1994 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9. Since then two other landmark cases clarified and changed the parameters of the reception of expert evidence: R. v. Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624, 97 O.R. (3d) 330, and White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 182, which added limitations to the previous test.

In R. v. Abbey, 2017 ONCA 640, 350 C.C.C. (3d) 102, (hereinafter referred to as Abbey No. 2), at para. 48, the Court of Appeal for Ontario consolidated the legal principles of all three cases into the following test:

Expert evidence is admissible when:

(1) It meets the threshold requirements of admissibility, which are:

a. The evidence must be logically relevant;

b. The evidence must be necessary to assist the trier of fact;

c. The evidence must not be subject to any other exclusionary rule;

d. The expert must be properly qualified, which includes the requirement that the expert be willing and able to fulfil the expert’s duty to the court to provide evidence that is:

i. Impartial,

ii. Independent, and

iii. Unbiased.

e. For opinions based on novel or contested science or science used for a novel purpose, the underlying science must be reliable for that purpose,

and

(2) The trial judge, in a gatekeeper role, determines that the benefits of admitting the evidence outweigh its potential risks, considering such factors as:

a. Legal relevance,

b. Necessity,

c. Reliability, and

d. Absence of bias.

[39] At para. 53 of Abbey 2, the court emphasised the gatekeeper role first referenced in Abbey and then expanded upon in White Burgess: it was no longer permissible for an expert’s evidence to be admitted with the proviso that its weight would be determined at the conclusion of the trial by the trier of fact.

[40] Both parties agree on the principles of the test. However the Crown objects to the admission of Professor Moore’s evidence on the basis of necessity.

[41] Dr. Moore’s report, served in compliance with s. 657.3(3) of the Criminal Code, indicates that his evidence would inform the court of the phenomenon of source amnesia - an inability to distinguish information at the time of the experience from information added later. Dr. Moore would also testify that when witnesses rely on their memory, gaps can occur, details fade over time, and the gaps might be compensated for by inferences of which the witness is unaware.

[42] Dr. Moore’s report indicates that he would give opinion evidence on the length of time between the allegations and reports, and on the question of: “are these complainants ‘remembering’ sexual assaults or are they reinterpreting past interactions with the defendant as sexual assaults as a result of the recent media coverage”. In effect, his evidence would be to suggest that it was possible that the media coverage of B’s allegations caused X and Y to incorrectly recall what had happened to them over two decades earlier.

[43] In the circumstances of this case, I agree with the Crown that Dr. Moore’s evidence fails to overcome the threshold test of necessity.

[44] In R. v. Sekhon, 2014 SCC 15, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 272, at para. 45, Moldaver J. commented that “if on the proven facts a judge or jury can form their own conclusions without help, then the opinion evidence of the expert is unnecessary”. Much of Dr. Moore’s evidence could be characterised as self-evident. A trier of fact needs no assistance in determining that memories fade over time and might become impaired by other past incidents.

[45] As for Dr. Moore’s proposed evidence that people can develop false memories, and might be “reinterpreting past actions as a result of the media coverage”, this is a question that a trier of fact is more than well equipped to answer on the evidence tendered in court. It requires no expert opinion. As Rosenberg J.A. explained, when upholding the decision to exclude the same expert in R. v. T.C. (2004), 2004 33007 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 623 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 33, these matters are the “stock in trade of what trial judges do, day in and day out”.

[46] I also find that Dr. Moore’s proposed evidence intrudes upon the trier of fact’s jurisdiction as the sole arbiter of credibility. Even though Dr. Moore writes, in his report, that he has no opinion on the truth or falsity of the allegations, his previous paragraph is directed to the issue of whether the complainants are correctly remembering the allegations that they have made. As Charron J.A. (as she then was) stated in R. v. K. (A.) (1999), 1999 3793 (ON CA), 45 O.R. (3d) 641 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 95:

In cases of sexual abuse such as this one, the proposed expert evidence often touches upon matters of credibility. This presents an even more difficult task for the trial judge in the application of the criterion of necessity. In determining whether expert opinion is necessary to assist the trier of fact in arriving at his or her own conclusions, it becomes particularly important to keep in mind that the credibility of witnesses is a question that is reserved to the trier of fact. The Supreme Court, in R. v. Marquard, 1993 37 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223,85 C.C.C. (3d) 193 at 228, held it to be "a fundamental axiom of our trial process that the ultimate conclusion as to the credibility or truthfulness of a particular witness is for the trier of fact, and is not the proper subject of expert opinion."

[47] For these reasons, I find that the proposed evidence does not meet the necessity requirement of the test for the admission of expert evidence. The application is accordingly dismissed.

III. COUNTS 12 to 16: THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY B

The Counts

[48] With respect to B, Mr. Jones is charged with the following offences:

1. Sexual Assault between 1 January 2010 and 1 May 2013, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code;

2. Aggravated Assault between 1 January 2010 and 1 May 2013, contrary to s. 268 of the Criminal Code;

3. Fraud Over $5000 (Money) between 1 January 2010 and 1 May 2013, contrary to s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code;

4. Fraud Over $5000 (Jewellery) between 1 January 2010 and 1 May 2013, contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code;

5. Fraud Under $5000 (Toyota Camry) between 1 January 2010 and 1 May 2013, contrary to s. 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code;

B’s Version of Events

(1) Encountering the Medium

[49] B, now 45 years old, is a hair stylist.

[50] She was raised as Catholic but, growing up, did not have strong religious beliefs. Her mother, however, did and began to attend the St. Francis Spiritual Baptist Church where B, then 19 to 20 years of age, was introduced to Carmela Falisci, a high ranking member of the church. Ms. Falisci was a Tarot card reader who performed readings for B, impressing her by her knowledge and understanding of B’s past. Eventually B was baptised in the Spiritual Baptist church and Ms. Falisci became her spiritual mother. Understandably, the two became close. B testified that she would make trips to Montreal where Ms. Falisci lived to pick her up for church functions. Due to the strength of their relationship, B assiduously followed Ms. Falisci’s advice and instructions.

[51] B testified that she met Mr. Jones at the church but did not know him well. In September 2010, she was instructed by Ms. Falisci to go to Ghana with her and Bishop Hardway, B’s spiritual father. Whilst there, she met Mr. Jones but had no real interactions with him.

[52] When she returned from Ghana, B moved churches transferring from St. Francis to the United Baptist church, on Ms. Falisci’s advice. B testified that she found the energy at United Baptist to be more to her liking.

[53] B was contacted by Ms. Falisci regarding an invitation to a banquet at Debbie Jones’ house. Ms. Falisci was unable to go but suggested B go in her stead. When B arrived for the banquet, everyone from the United Church was present including Debbie Jones – who was at that point Mr. Jones’ ex-wife -and Claire Beckford, his new partner and the mother of his child. Ms Beckford’s title was that of the Captress, a church member who stood at a steering wheel placed in the centre of the church. The symbolic value of the wheel, as explained by Mr. Jones in cross-examination, was that the church was a ship sailing out of the perils of darkness into light.

[54] As the banquet proceeded, the guests socialised and sang hymns. There was a knock at the front door and Mr. Jones entered. However, he was not the Mr. Jones everyone knew. This Mr. Jones had been transformed into a “medium”, a man possessed and controlled by a spirit.

[55] Each of the guests were allowed to ask the medium questions, and B, who had been concerned about losing business clients, queried the loss of her customers. The medium told B that he wanted to speak with her privately and, in the presence of Debbie Jones, warned B that someone that she knew “had done a lot of bad things to her to control her”. Debbie Jones told B that the person that the medium was referring to had to be Carmela Falisci.

[56] The next morning B spoke with Ms. Jones and arranged another meeting with the medium which took place at Debbie Jones’ house with both Ms. Jones and Claire Beckford present. Shortly after Mr. Jones arrived he invoked the medium to appear so that B could discuss her concerns. The exchange was recorded in written form by Claire Beckford who also asked questions on B’s behalf.

[57] The medium confirmed Ms. Falisci to be the source of B’s difficulties. He told B that Ms. Falisci had travelled to Cuba and partaken in a number of voodoo rituals involving animal sacrifice and sex. The medium explained that Ms. Falisci had sex with seven voodoo priests, and permitted herself to be wounded so that her blood could be shed. Ms. Falisci had done all of these things for one purpose: to place a curse on B. The medium told B that the Ms. Falisci’s actions were motivated by jealousy. The medium also came to have a name: he was to be known as “the Gorgan”.

[58] One of the most controversial aspects of B’s testimony was the transportation of $250,000 in cash to Ms. Falisci’s residence in Montreal. B’s boyfriend, had been convicted of trafficking drugs and received a seven year sentence. At some point, before the banquet in which she met the medium, B had taken $250,000 belonging to her boyfriend to Ms. Falisci to ensure that she was not implicated in her boyfriend’s crimes. When she had later asked for it to be returned, Ms. Falisci told her that someone else had stolen it. It was clear that B wanted the money back.

[59] The initial sessions between B and the medium were attended by Debbie Jones or Claire Beckford who recorded the question and answer sessions so that they could be reviewed by Mr. Jones when the medium left his body.

[60] Soon, however, the meetings would be at B’s house with only herself and Mr. Jones present. As she was hosting the meetings, the medium came to refer to her as the Hostess as well “mortal”. At these meetings, a protocol had to be followed: the medium had to be provided with an alcoholic drink served in crystal which would be consumed throughout the sittings. Claire Beckford advised B that it was mandatory to match the medium’s consumption by waiting for him to finish his drink before she finished hers. B had to address the Gorgan as “sir”. She was advised by Ms. Beckford, Debbie Jones and Mr. Jones that if the medium was left alone, he would punish her.

[61] B was also told to obtain a second cell phone, a Nokia handset, to communicate with Mr. Jones who, as the medium, would send text messages to B.

(2) Count 13: The Aggravated Assaults

[62] The sessions with the medium involved violence. The medium bit and kicked B on various parts of her body including her stomach, arms and fingers. At certain sittings, the medium would cut her with a razor blade, leaving a scar on her left breast. If B failed to fulfil his orders, she would be physically hurt. On one occasion the medium spat on her head.

[63] The medium’s commands were not confined to drink and protocol. As the sessions progressed, the medium ordered B to dress in a certain manner, dictating, for example the colour of her underwear, and the use of a robe. Failure to comply would mean that the medium would not provide further advice or instructions and issue a penalty.

(3) Count 12: The Sexual Assault Allegations

[64] The Gorgan’s decrees went further. B was compelled by the medium to open her robes so that he could examine her. The Gorgan would then touch various parts of B’s body with his hands and mouth. If a body part was not “provided”, the medium threatened to end the question and answer session.

[65] Eventually, the medium asked to see her bedroom. He lay on her bed and ordered her to lie down with him. She did so and they had sexual intercourse. The sexual activity continued throughout their sessions with Mr. Jones, apparently possessed by the Gorgan, ejaculating at the conclusion. When this happened, he would ask for B to use a rag to wipe his genitals and leave with the rag. The Gorgan told B that the rags would be taken to the lake so that “he could do what had to be done”. Later on, he told B to keep some of the rags and she did, providing them to the police when she reported the allegations.

[66] B testified that she did not want to have sex with Mr. Jones but felt obliged to do so because the Gorgan had told her that sex was necessary if she wished to undo Ms. Falisci’s wrongs. B described the repeated body “examinations” conducted by the Gorgan. Each session would consist of an initial question and answer period followed by the Gorgan’s instruction to retire to her bedroom for sex. B estimated approximately 30-35 sessions taking place at her house and only two occasions when she and Mr. Jones did not have sex.

[67] On other occasions, the Gorgan performed sexual rituals such as expelling smoke into her vagina. The Gorgan would remind B that if she failed to follow his instructions, there would be consequences. When B questioned the Gorgan about the need for sexual activity, he continued to tell her that it was necessary to repair Ms. Falisci’s wrongdoing. The Gorgan warned B that Ms. Falisci’s curse put both her and her boyfriend’s life was in danger, telling B that there was a grave with her name on it.

[68] B was also told that she had to sleep with other people to put things right. Since Ms. Falisci had had sex with seven people in Cuba, B had to do the same. As a result, B testified that she ended up having sex with a man named Frank. On the flip side, when the medium found out that B was going to visit her boyfriend, as part of his conjugal visits, he forbade any sexual activity between the two. When B disobeyed his command and told him, he ordered her to pay $1500 as compensation. She transferred the money to Mr. Jones and received a confirmation text message informing her that the money had been received.

[69] According to B, there were other rituals that had to be followed. On one occasion, the medium arrived with a live chicken. At the conclusion of the session, the medium ordered B to release the chicken on the lakeshore into the lake.

[70] B also travelled to Trinidad on the medium’s instructions after being told she had to “cross the waters” and have sex as Ms. Falisci had when creating the curse. She travelled to Trinidad at the same time that Mr. Jones was visiting his daughter, Chatelle. Despite spending time together no sex took place because of Chatelle’s presence. B testified that in Trinidad she stayed at Mr. Jones’ sister’s home.

(4) Count 14: The Allegations of the Twenty Thousand Dollars

[71] As noted, during one of the early sittings with the medium, Ms. Beckford recorded the questions and answers. The medium instructed B to bring $20,000 that she had accrued as part of her personal savings. When B did so, the medium brushed his hands together and demanded the money which Ms. Beckford counted. At the time, B had no concerns about handing over the money to the medium. Later, however, she asked Mr. Jones for its return. She received only $1000 and was told that the remainder could not yet be “released”. Despite repeated requests for the money to be handed back, it never was.

(5) Count 15: The Allegations of the Jewellery

[72] B testified that she gave Mr. Jones some of her boyfriend’s jewellery including three gold chains. She estimated the total value of the jewellery to be $10,000. When she asked for the return of these items, Mr. Jones would prevaricate and evade the issue. Later she was told that they could not be released to her by the medium.

(6) Count 16: The Allegations of Fraudulent Sale of the Car

[73] B’s boyfriend was the owner of a Toyota Camry which B had been driving after his arrest. During one of their sessions, the Gorgan told B that the Camry had been “flagged” by the police which would lead to her being implicated in her boyfriend’s crimes.

[74] As a precautionary measure, Mr. Jones suggested she leave the car on his driveway with the keys in his safekeeping. In return, B paid Mr. Jones the amount of $1000. B testified that she saw the Camry on Mr. Jones’s driveway for about a month after which it disappeared. When she enquired of its whereabouts, Mr. Jones told her it was safe. Despite repeated requests for the car, Mr. Jones did not return it.

[75] Although the sessions with the Gorgan continued, B demanded to be informed of the car’s whereabouts. Finally, Mr. Jones gave her an address where he said it was being stored. Attending this location, B found that it was the site of a construction company and the car was nowhere to be found.

[76] B’s final recourse was to go through the Ministry of Transportation where she discovered that the car had been sold two years after it had been given to Mr. Jones. The Ministry paperwork appeared to show that her boyfriend’s signature had been forged on the ownership documents left in the car. When Mr. Jones was confronted, he continued to insist that the car was in his possession.

(7) The Journals

[77] As I have previously described, the sessions with the Gorgan were originally recorded by either Debbie Jones or Ms. Beckford. The necessity for a written record was explained by Mr. Jones: he had to review the Gorgan’s answers after the Gorgan had left his body. Later, when only B and Mr. Jones met, it was B who had to record the exchanges with the Gorgan. She did so in a series of notebooks, three of which were tendered into evidence at trial. B testified that there were originally five or six of the books but some had been given to Mr. Jones.

[78] Each of the notebooks that were made exhibits is filled with numerous pages with single lined notes purportedly made contemporaneously during each session. The notes contain references to the Gorgan’s instructions; explicit details of the amount, and nature of the sexual activity; the sacrifices that were required of B; the physical abuse committed by the Gorgan; the money paid over to Mr. Jones; and the threats made by the Gorgan if B did not follow his instructions.

[79] The notes are interspersed with a number of significant entries identified by B as written by the Gorgan or Mr. Jones after he had reviewed the sessions following the disappearance of the medium from his body.

(8) The Final Session

[80] B testified that she first met the medium in 2010 and her meetings with him continued throughout 2011. However, in 2012, their encounters became more sporadic because she had moved back into her mother’s home, and the ability to conduct private sessions became more difficult. She testified that a nine month gap ensued between her previous session and the one that would ultimately become the swansong.

[81] The final session took place in Ajax at a home belonging to another church member known as Josanne. B was apprehensive because of the length of time that had taken place since the previous session. When Mr. Jones arrived, he was not yet the Gorgan. Shortly afterwards, he began to twitch and display signs stretched facial expressions signalling the spiritual possession had begun.

[82] The question and answer session took place in Josanne’s basement. First, came a spirit that dealt with Josanne’s issues; he was followed by the Gorgan who expressed his anger at the nine month interlude that had occurred. As a consequence, the Gorgan decided that B needed to be chastised. His original punishment was to cut B’s nipples but Josanne intervened asking the Gorgan to find an alternative. According to B, the Gorgan produced a cutlass and drew it across her back. The shirt that she was wearing was shredded but she suffered no lacerations.

[83] Prior to attending Josanne’s house, B testified that she had begun to realise that there was no Gorgan and that Mr. Jones was playing a game. After they had had sex at Josanne’s house, B told Mr. Jones that she would not have sex with him again. According to B, she was desperate for the sessions to end.

[84] Sometime afterwards, she met with Mr. Jones and Debbie Jones at Debbie Jones’ house. B demanded the return of her jewellery and Mr. Jones responded by saying that the medium had decreed that it could not be released to her until “things were finished”. Mr. Jones continued to deny selling the car. As B left, she told Mr. Jones that she would go to the police.

[85] Before doing so, however, B reached out to Ms. Beckford to see if she could intervene. Ms. Beckford was unwilling to do so, telling B that she “should do what you have to do”.

(9) The Meeting with Pastor Kyere

[86] B’s final bid to retrieve her possessions resulted in her going to Emmanuel Kyere, pastor of the church she was attending. He scheduled a meeting with Mr. Jones for 9 January 2014. B, along with the pastor and two other members of his congregation, met at Mr. Jones’ church where Michelle Alexander, Mr. Jones’ secretary, greeted them. She made it clear that Mr. Jones did not want B present at the meeting and would cancel it if she was allowed to participate.

[87] As a result, B waited in a nearby donut store whilst Mr. Kyere and the two other church members met with Mr. Jones. When the meeting concluded, all three church members returned to tell her that Mr. Jones had denied taking any money or jewellery from her. He did, however, agree that he had sold B’s car but planned to give her the proceeds. With respect to the allegations concerning the Gorgan, Mr. Jones informed Mr. Kyere that he and B had been involved in a consensual sexual relationship and denied all accusations relating to the existence of a medium.

[88] Unbeknownst to Mr. Jones, however, Mr. Kyere had secretly recorded their conversation.

[89] After the meeting, Mr. Kyere advised B to go to the police and she did so in April 2014 after her boyfriend was released.

The Testimony of Mr. Jones

(1) The Trip to Ghana

[90] Mr. Jones denied B’s allegations.

[91] He did indeed meet B in Ghana but had seen her long before that at the St. Francis Baptist church although the two had never conversed.

[92] He told the court that he had been invited to Ghana in 2010 by the St. Francis church to attend an ordination ceremony for 22 pastors in Ghana. Ms. Falisci, whom he described as a good friend, offered to pay half of his airfare for the trip. Mr. Jones described Ms. Falisci as a very popular person in the religious community as she had been one of the first white people to embrace the religion. She was also a skilled tarot card reader.

[93] In Ghana, he saw B approached by a local priest who began to utter a prophecy telling B that he saw a dark cloud over her and that her companion was in trouble. Mr. Jones testified that he saw B scream for 45 minutes as the priest sought to cast out her demons. B travelled back to the airport in a minibus with Mr. Jones and other members of the church, all of whom were curious about the prophecy that they had just witnessed. According to Mr. Jones, B acknowledged it to be true revealing that someone close to her had been incarcerated.

[94] At the end of the trip in Ghana, B and Mr. Jones exchanged telephone numbers before returning to Toronto.

(2) The Offer of Assistance

[95] One week later, Mr. Jones received a call from Ms. Falisci telling him that B wanted to speak to him. When B called, he invited her to a banquet being held at Debbie Jones’ house in Ajax. By then, he and Ms. Jones had ended their marriage and Mr. Jones was living with Claire Beckford. Ms. Jones had agreed to B’s attendance because Ms. Falisci was unable to attend.

[96] When B arrived, Mr. Jones informed the other guests about B’s difficulties and asked for everyone to offer an intercessory prayer to help. Mr. Jones denied any possession by a spiritual medium or the idea that anyone in his church could ever become a medium. At the end of the banquet, B indicated to Ms. Jones that she would like to speak to Mr. Jones and a meeting was arranged two weeks later.

[97] B told Mr. Jones about her incarcerated boyfriend and that she had given Ms. Falisci $250,000 but was unsure what had happened to that money. B left Mr. Jones in no doubt that she was scared of her boyfriend and that even though he was in custody, she felt he retained the ability to influence events outside prison. B told Mr. Jones that their relationship was an abusive one. One of her biggest concerns, however, was the prophecy and its warning of a curse placed on her. B was trying to identify who would have done such a thing and had narrowed her search to two alternative suspects: her mother and Ms. Falisci.

[98] Mr. Jones felt that B had approached him having seen the closeness of his relationship and Ms. Falisci in Ghana. According to Mr. Jones, B began to get closer with Debbie Jones and began to confide in her, recounting the details of the relationship with her boyfriend and the injuries he had inflicted upon her. His abusive nature drove her anxieties about the $250,000 that she had given to Ms. Falisci. B indicated that whenever she asked Ms. Falisci about the money she would be given the run-around. Later on, B would tell Mr. Jones that she had driven to Montreal with both the money and a firearm. Mr. Jones assured B that he would speak with Ms. Falisci about the money.

[99] According to Mr. Jones, he made good on his word. On Ms. Falisci’s next visit in Toronto, he confronted her about B’s concerns about the $250,000 and was met with laughter and denial. Whilst Mr. Jones felt that Ms. Falisci was being somewhat evasive, he took that to be normal. Mr. Jones suggested a meeting between B and Ms. Falisci where he would be present and Ms. Falisci told him that she would let him know when she returned to Toronto.

[100] After joining Mr. Jones’ church, B underwent what Mr. Jones described as a “spiritual rewash”. In cross-examination, Mr. Jones denied that he had re-baptised B even though he had signed a certificate to that effect. Mr. Jones’ focus became B’s belief in Ms. Falisci’s curse and whether Ms. Falisci actually had B’s money. During his subsequent conversations with Ms. Falisci, she warned him to stay away from B as he would regret any involvement with her. Mr. Jones dismissed the warnings as confusion.

[101] Mr. Jones told the court that he called Ms. Falisci over 20 times to talk about the money but Ms. Falisci never admitted anything other than that she had kept some of B’s belongings and wanted them removed. Mr. Jones continued to promise B that he would persist in his efforts to recover the money from Ms. Falisci although, when testifying, he admitted that he did not think he would be successful.

[102] B’s real fear was what her boyfriend would do when he found out that she had given away his money. Mr. Jones also suspected that B had a lot more money in her possession than she was letting on. His suspicions were aroused by her expensive clothing, luxurious furniture and the cosmetic surgery that she had undertaken.

(3) The Affair

[103] Mr. Jones felt a great deal of sympathy for B and their relationship grew closer. He began to visit her regularly and, one night, sometime in the Spring of 2011, their talk turned to her prior sexual history. The conversation became more intimate and they began kissing. After that, they retired to her bedroom where they had sex. After that, Mr. Jones testified that he and B continued to have regular consensual liaisons. Mr. Jones testified that he began to lie to B about speaking Ms. Falisci even though there had been no contact.

[104] The sexual relationship became more exotic and unusual. According to Mr. Jones, the pair began to act out sex games, playing fictitious roles. He became the Gorgan and she the Hostess. According to Mr. Jones, B was consumed with sex and fixated on her inability to achieve orgasm which further fuelled her sexual desires.

[105] Mr. Jones married Claire Beckford in August 2012. This, according to Mr. Jones, was the precipitating event that led to the end of his sexual relationship with B, who became angry and resentful towards him. Even though she was angry, Mr. Jones testified that B asked to be part of the wedding party and delivered a moving speech acknowledging the help provided by Mr. Jones.

[106] The affair continued even after his marriage but Mr. Jones began to fear that B would reveal everything to Ms. Beckford.

[107] Shortly after the wedding, Mr. Jones went to Trinidad to visit Chatelle, his daughter who was studying there. After he arrived, he received a call from B informing him that she had arrived in the country and asking him to collect her from the airport. Contrary to B’s testimony that she went to Trinidad on Mr. Jones instructions, Mr. Jones testified that he had no idea that she was coming but agreed to meet and had sex with her. Again, this was contrary to B’s testimony that no sexual activity took place in Trinidad.

[108] Mr. Jones was insistent that, at no time, was he ever possessed by a spirit or medium. He told the court that he and his church did not believe in voodoo or possession by other spiritual beings.

(4) The Toyota Camry

[109] Mr. Jones testified that B had left her boyfriend’s 2002 Toyota Camry on Ms. Falisci’s driveway and Ms. Falisci indicated that she wanted it gone. According to Mr. Jones, B believed that the police were conducting a surveillance operation on the car and wanted to dispose of it. He agreed to keep the car so it could be sold and it remained on his driveway for almost seven months. According to Mr. Jones, although B wanted to sell the car, she wanted to do so with minimal attention. Accordingly, she forbade him from putting a “For Sale” sign on it.

[110] Finally, Ivonella O’Garo, a fellow employee at Van Rob Stamping, told him that she was in the market for a vehicle and agreed to buy it. Mr. Jones testified that he informed B of the potential sale and she approved.

[111] An appraisal of the car showed its resale value to be $3500 but Mr. Jones managed to negotiate a price of $4500. B was unhappy with this figure because she felt it was too low. When he met with Ms. O’Garo to finalise the deal, she told him that she did not have the money but needed the car. Mr. Jones told the court that he let her take the car because he knew that Ms. O’Garo would make good on her word and pay.

[112] Mr. Jones insisted that he had told B that the car had been sold. However, because she had not received any money she continued to make enquiries about it. Mr. Jones pursued Ms. O’Garo for the money threatening to give B her contact details. Ms. O’Garo reassured Mr. Jones that she would pay but, before that could happen, the car was damaged in an accident and had to be written off. Ms. O’Garo received compensation from her insurance company and gave Mr. Jones a money order in the sum of $4000 and deposited the remaining $500 into his account.

[113] Mr. Jones testified that he had loaned B the sum of $1000 on a previous occasion. He therefore believed that he only needed to repay $3500 of the funds he had received from Ms. O’Garo. However, he gave her only $3000.

[114] Mr. Jones testified that B attended the church and they got into an argument. After telling B that he had the money for the car, Mr. Jones summoned Michelle Alexander, his step sister and secretary, and gave her an envelope with the money, asking her to count it for him.

[115] When he gave B the envelope, she initially dropped it on his desk but then walked out of his office with it. Mr. Jones testified that he believed that B’s complaints about the car were based on her feeling that Mr. Jones had actually sold it for more than he was telling her.

The Parties’ Positions

[116] The Crown submits that B’s account of events should be believed. Ms. Beauchamp, for the Crown, argues that Mr. Jones acted out the role of the Gorgan to convince B that he could assist her in recovering money from Ms. Falisci and lift a curse of Ms. Falisci’s making. Using his position as a pastor, Mr. Jones exploited B’s trust and faith in his position to obtain sexual favours and money. When B finally realised that the medium was a charade, she demanded the return of her money and car, and when these demands were not met, she went to the police.

[117] Mr. Jones denies the allegations strenuously. B was a selfish, vengeful, scorned woman who engaged in a fully consensual relationship with him. Once he married Ms. Beckford, she grew resentful. Realising that the relationship might end, and suspecting that Mr. Jones had some of the money stolen by Ms. Falisci, she made demands and then threats. Once she failed to get what she wanted she went to the police. Fearful that her relationship with Mr. Jones would anger her incarcerated boyfriend, she created a fictitious set of notes purporting to record spiritual sessions to support a falsehood that any sex that had occurred had happened against her will.

Consent

[118] The Crown’s position on the sexual assaults rest upon the interaction between various sections of the Criminal Code defining consent.

[119] The definition of assault in the context of sexual assault can be found in s. 265(1) of the Criminal Code:

265 (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

[120] Consent is vitiated under s. 265(3) where the complainant submits or does not resist because of:

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

[121] A further layer of requirements with respect to consent is added by s. 273.1(1) of the Code in relation to sexual assaults:

273.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), consent means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.

(2) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where

(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;

(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;

(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;

(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or

(e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.

[122] The Crown relies on s. 273.1(2)(c) and submits that B’s consent was obtained by Mr. Jones abusing his position of trust, power or authority as pastor and persuading B to engage in sexual acts because she thought he was possessed by a medium summoned by Mr. Jones to assist her in her troubled personal life.

[123] In defining the phrase “position of trust, power or authority” the courts have rejected the requirement that a person must be in a position to command the complainant: R. v. Matheson (1999), 1999 3719 (ON CA), 44 O.R. (3d) 557 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 587-88; R. v. Geddes, 2015 ONCA 292, 322 C.C.C. (3d) 414, at paras. 33-6.

[124] The determination of whether consent is vitiated by abuse of trust, power or authority is not confined to a finding of coercive behaviour. As explained by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Lutoslawski, 2010 ONCA 207, 258 C.C.C. (3d) 1 aff’d 2010 SCC 49, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 60, at para. 12:

I agree with Crown counsel’s submissions that s. 273.1(2)(c) is broader than s. 265(3)(d). Section 273.1(2)(c) speaks not only to the abuse of a position of authority but also to the misuse of a position of power or trust. The section addresses the kinds of relationships in which an apparent consent to sexual activity is rendered illusory by the dynamics of the relationship between the accused and the complainant, and by the misuse of the influence vested in the accused by virtue of that relationship. The term “exercise of authority” in s. 265(3)(d) suggests a coercive use of authority to overcome resistance to a consent. Inducing consent by abusing the relationships set out in s. 273.1(2)(c) does not imply the same kind of coercion. An individual who is in a position of trust over another may use the personal feelings and confidence engendered by that relationship to secure an apparent consent to sexual activity.

[125] It cannot be seriously disputed that as B’s pastor Mr. Jones was in a position of trust, power or authority. In this case, B gave evidence of how she had been re-baptised by Mr. Jones and there is some corroborative evidence of this in the baptism certificate bearing his signature.

[126] I note that in Norberg v. Wynrib, 1992 65 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226, at pp. 255-56, La Forest J. identified a number of situations where a person would fall within the definition of authority. He focused on relationships in which a power imbalance existed and cited a clergy-penitent relationship as an example.

[127] The central question in this case, therefore, is whether B’s account of how the sexual activity occurred is true. If so, that would certainly fall within s. 273.1(2)(c) as explained in Lutoslawski, and result in the vitiation of consent.

The Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars

[128] There is no doubt that the sum of money B left with Ms. Falisci plays a major part in this case and, in many ways, determined the events that followed. For B, part of her recourse to the Gorgan resulted from the need to reclaim the money. As previously described, Mr. Jones testified that B’s understanding of his friendship with Ms. Falisci led to their involvement and his attempts to retrieve the money on her behalf. He also candidly admits that after his initial enquiries of Ms. Falisci, he would lie to B about his continued conversations with her in order to appease B and continue the sexual relationship.

[129] I start with B’s testimony that she was unaware of the origin of the money. In cross-examination, she testified that although she knew it belonged to her boyfriend, she was unsure of how it had been earned. At one point, she testified that she thought it might have come from a cleaning service run by her boyfriend.

[130] Mr. Barrs, on behalf of Mr. Jones, submits that this is simply incredulous. He argues that B is clearly lying and must have known that the money was the proceeds of drug trafficking, the very offence for which her boyfriend received a custodial sentence. I agree.

[131] It beggars belief that B did not know how her boyfriend had earned the money and conflicts with her testimony that she gave the money to Ms. Falisci to ensure that she would not be implicated in her boyfriend’s criminal activities. I also find that she did not mention the money to the police, as she claims, when she first reported the allegations. In my view, B knew that the money came from her boyfriend’s drug dealing activities and left it with Ms. Falisci so that if the police searched her property, it would not be found.

[132] As is evident, I take a dim view of B’s efforts to mislead the court. Those efforts also cast a shadow over the rest of her testimony. Ms. Beauchamp submits that even if I accept that B was less than truthful about her knowledge of the money, that fact should not fatally impact the rest of her testimony: B’s reluctance to acknowledge the transport of proceeds of crime is understandable given the criminal consequences that might follow. Ms. Beauchamp is correct in the sense that I can accept all, some or none of a witness’s evidence. However, the willingness to lie under oath means that I approach B’s testimony with respect to the allegations made against Mr. Jones with considerable caution.

[133] This money, however, was the magnet that drew B and Mr. Jones together. For B, Mr. Jones was the mechanism that would allow her to reclaim her money before her boyfriend was released from prison. Mr. Jones, on the other hand, testified that he became involved with B because he wanted to help broker a solution with Ms. Falisci.

[134] At this point, I pause to consider the scenario described by Mr. Jones. I am, of course, cognisant that the burden of proof remains throughout this trial on the Crown. I also remind myself that under the principles in R. v. W. (D.), 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, that if I believe the defence evidence or it raises a reasonable doubt, I must acquit.

[135] Mr. Jones’s evidence is that B, a woman that he barely knew, was making serious allegations about a person that he, on several occasions in his testimony, described as a close friend and the Mother of another church. According to Mr. Jones, Ms. Falisci was respected member of the church, well known because she was a rare example of a white person embracing the faith. She was also his close friend, paying for half of his fare to Ghana and generously making cash donations of thousands of dollars to his church.

[136] Why then, would Mr. Jones accept that these allegations might have a grain of truth to them? Why would he take B’s word over that of Ms. Falisci? In this context, it would make little sense for Mr. Jones to entertain any possibility that Ms. Falisci might have committed not only a sinful act disavowed by their faith but also an a criminal act punishable by law. Yet Mr. Jones would have this court believe that not only did he entertain the idea he began to conduct his own personal investigation calling Ms. Falisci approximately 20 times to ask her about the money.

[137] Moreover, Mr. Jones supposed efforts yielded no results but he continued to persist. Again I ask why? By doing so, he could have jeopardised his close friendship with Ms. Falisci and lost her generous patronage.

[138] In my view, Mr. Jones is not telling the truth about his actions with Ms. Falisci or his motives.

[139] I find that Mr. Jones had no intention of helping B getting her money back. In my view, B’s revelation that she had given such a large amount of money to Ms. Falisci gave Mr. Jones another idea. Having seen B’s reaction to the prophecy in Ghana and; heard about the money and B’s personal difficulties, Mr. Jones realised that he had found someone who was both vulnerable and trusting enough to manipulate for his own ends.

Are the Journals Authentic?

[140] The Crown tendered the notebooks purportedly created by B as a record of the medium sessions. These handwritten notes, (hereinafter referred to as the journals), are contained in three notebooks of different sizes. The entries are dense and replete with references to “the Gorgan”, sexual activity, the clothing that B wears at night, descriptions of various commands issued by the Gorgan and instructions on rituals that B must follow to ensure she and her boyfriend remain safe. It is not disputed that this text is in B’s handwriting.

[141] As described, although three journals were tendered into evidence by the Crown, B testified that there were others that had been kept by Mr. Jones.

[142] A review of the journals discloses different types of entries. For the most part, the books are filled with questions posed by B along with accompanying answers, supposedly uttered by the medium. Some of the pages, however, contain handwriting in large capital letters taking up the bulk of the page. These segments were identified by B as being written by the Gorgan during the course of the sessions. In addition, there is the occasional signature and date in red ink alongside the word “Read”. B testified that this handwriting belonged to Mr. Jones, who would be reviewing what had happened in the sessions after the medium had disappeared. Finally, littered throughout the journals are random notes such as B’s personal appointments, reminders and numbers noted down, and miscellaneous other items.

[143] Ms. Beauchamp, for the Crown, submits the journals are contemporaneous notes of the sessions described by B. Mr. Barrs describes the journals as a work of fiction, created by B just before she went to the police for the sole purpose of propping up her false allegations. For the following reasons, I agree the journals are an authentic contemporaneous record of B’s sessions with Mr. Jones and the medium.

[144] Mr. Barrs’ suggestion that the journals are the product of B’s desire to incriminate Mr. Jones would mean B having to meticulously create a work covering vast areas of subject matter and creative thought, and tying all of these myriad topics together to create a body of material designed to fool the police, the Crown, and the courts. A reading of the journals discloses substance and detail in each entry, all of which appears to mirror B’s testimony about the sessions. In other words, according to Mr. Barrs, B invented the Gorgan story, fleshed it out with numerous particulars, made sure the details matched the other evidence in this case, namely the text messages sent by Mr. Jones, committed all of these particulars to memory, and then wrote out, in painstaking fashion pages of details before reciting the account to police. With all due respect to B, I cannot for an instant, attribute to her the skill and acumen required to complete such a feat.

[145] Then there is the apparent difference in writing style. Both Ms. Beauchamp and Mr. Barrs invited this court to compare parts of the text that B admitted to writing with those she claimed were written by the Gorgan. A trier of fact is entitled to compare handwriting samples without the assistance of an expert: R. v. Abdi (1997), 1997 4448 (ON CA), 116 C.C.C. (3d) 385 (Ont. C.A.) at paras. 22 to 25. In making the comparison, I remind myself, as is required, that care must be taken in making the comparison in the absence of expert testimony: R. v. Malvoisin, [2006] O.J. No. 3931 (C.A.) at para. 4; R. v. C.F., 2010 ONCA 424, [2010] O.J. No. 2499, at para. 13.

[146] During the course of B’s cross-examination, Mr. Barrs put to her that she had written the text she claims belongs to Mr. Jones. He pointed to page 16 of Exhibit 17(A) on which B had written “2:52 a.m. Mr. Gorgan” and suggested that this was the same handwriting that appeared on pages 37-38 of the same notebook where the following words appear:

“YOU ARE SCARED. YOU ARE SPEAKING WITH THE DUMMY SIDE OF MR GORGAN THE MOST POWERFUL SIDE - GOOD DAY HOSTESS 773719 4^TH PLAIN 8^TH CORRIDOR GOOD DAY”.

[147] B denied Mr. Barrs’ suggestions. Following this, Mr. Barrs asked the court to compare the two sets of handwriting. I have done so but do not agree with Mr. Barrs that the two pieces of text were written by the same author. Once again, I remind myself that I am no expert in the field of handwriting analysis and any observations and conclusions that I draw are limited. However, in my view, even to the untrained eye, the two sets of writing look completely different.

[148] Moreover, Ms. Beauchamp relies upon other sets of samples within the journals to prove the opposite point: there were different hands at work in the entries contained in the journals. I agree with Ms Beauchamp’s analysis as the letter “n”, “g”, “w” and “e” in the Gorgan’s messages are different in style to that of the handwriting claimed by B to be her own.

[149] Ms. Beauchamp, however, would ask me to go further and compare the handwriting identified as Mr. Jones’ signature to the signature on B’s baptism certificate. Ms. Beauchamp asserts that a comparison between the two shows that the red coloured writing in the journal is indeed that of Mr. Jones. However, I decline to do so as I cannot claim the expertise which would allow me to go that far.

[150] Third, Mr. Barrs submits that the personal notations which appear intermittently and have nothing to do with the medium sessions demonstrate the spurious nature of the journals. Again, I take the opposite view.

[151] I note that, on the one hand, Mr. Barrs credits B with being astute and sophisticated enough to forge a series of notebooks that could lend support to her outlandish claims of spiritual possession and, on the other, she is criticised as being sufficiently foolish and ignorant as to spoil her criminal handiwork by using the journals to note personal events. This makes no sense.

[152] The personal notations are important for the exact opposite reason: they show that the journals were being created over a period of time which was punctuated by other events that B noted into the books. In other words, these notes demonstrate the ongoing contemporaneous record that was being created as events in B’s life unfolded.

[153] Finally, I note that, during B’s examination in-chief, the Crown used the journals to refresh B’s memory about certain exchanges with the medium. On more than occasion, when directed to a notation where the Gorgan issued a command, B responded by telling the Crown that she could not remember what the comments meant or did not understand them. These are not the answers of someone who had created the journals for the purpose of incrimination. It would have been very easy for B to have provided an explanation casting Mr. Jones in a bad light. She chose not to, and in my view responded honestly.

[154] For these reasons, I find that the journals were created contemporaneously with the sessions that took place and are authentic.

What Use Can Be Made of the Journals?

[155] Having found the journals to be genuine, what use can be made of them?

[156] As prior consistent statements made out of court, they are inadmissible for the truth of their contents or as self-serving statements providing corroboration for B’s sworn testimony: R. v. Stirling, 2008 SCC 10, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 272, at para. 5; R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788, at para. 36.

[157] There are, however, three admissible uses to be made of the journals.

[158] First, as was done in this case, they can be used to refresh B’s memory during the course of her evidence. Second, the journals constitute evidence rebutting any allegation of recent fabrication. Thus, they refute Mr. Barrs contention that B concocted her version of events just before going to the police to report the allegations. Third, any statements made by Mr. Jones recorded within the journal are admissible (a) for the truth of their contents, and (b) for the fact that they were made.

[159] Having found the journal’s to be a contemporaneous record of the sessions with the medium, I also accept B’s evidence that Mr. Jones wrote the words attributed to the medium and signed the pages identified in red ink. In doing so, I find the text messages support this conclusion, as my reasons below explain.

[160] As an aside, I would address Mr. Barrs’ argument that B made up the story of the Gorgan, in part because, when going to the police, she had to explain the sexual relationship that had existed between herself and Mr. Jones. According to Mr. Barrs, this was essential to appease the wrath of her boyfriend when he was released. If that were the case, however, why would B go to the police in the first place? After all, the sexual relationship only became public because B chose to reveal it. In other words, if B was terrified about her boyfriend finding out about a consensual sexual relationship with Mr. Jones, she would have been far safer not going to the police.

The Text Messages

[161] Ms. Beauchamp also relies upon the text messages sent by Mr. Jones to B as evidence corroborating the offences.

[162] It is undisputed that the author of the messages was Mr. Jones. B testified that she received the messages on a Nokia phone that Mr. Jones instructed her to purchase. Mr. Jones denied this stating that he saw B using two phones early on in their relationship.

[163] Like the journals, the messages are explicit in their sexual content and contain references to the Gorgan. Many start with a signature greeting of “Goodday” (sometimes spelt with multiple “d”s and “y”s) or “Shaloam”. In one text, Mr. Jones refers to B as “Hostess” and in others, he calls her “mortal”. B referred to these texts when testifying about the Gorgan’s instructions. Some of the messages deal with the payment of monies, others issue commands to be followed.

[164] In contrast, Mr. Jones insisted that the messages were part of a sex game being played out in a sub-chapter of their affair. He would refer to himself as the Gorgan and B as the Hostess. The messages would provide extra excitement and titillation between the two of them. He explained that the manner in which they were written was akin to a code. If anyone viewed them, said Mr. Jones, they would be unable to understand their meaning thereby affording Mr. Jones protection and privacy.

[165] There are two problems with this explanation.

[166] First, it is clear that there are several texts in which Mr. Jones is playing the role of the Gorgan where no sex talk can be inferred. For example, on 24 July 2017, Mr. Jones texts B with the following message:

“Not going to discuss anything until I return. Just trying to negotiate some funds for your vacation but remember you can’t kick against the PRICK. Always remember if u live to tell this story that you cannot deceive Immortals n they will destroy before they go back on their word. Please don’t let the Evil Mortal words come to pass its called Vanity Fair. Shaloam will tex (sic) at 6 p.m.”

[167] When confronted with this message, Mr. Jones was unable to explain many of its terms much less how it was part of a sex game.

[168] In another text sent on 29 January 2013, Mr. Jones writes “Greetings my dear when r u available to speak. I’m leaving son n d evil mortal will be leaving to relocate. She is on my case.” When asked who the evil mortal was Mr. Jones responded:

A. When we say evil mortal, we mean — I’m wondering it might have meant she was going to move or something like, but, again, I can’t really say what the nature of the conversation was.

Q. What is “She is on my case” mean?

A. I’m not sure.

[169] Another text signed off “Shaloam” tells B that whilst she is concerned about “pennies, dollars are walking away. Crave all loose all n that’s why I’m concerned”. Again, I find nothing in this text that connotes a sex game and is far more indicative of a warning that B should not be concerned about small sums of money. When asked to explain this text, Mr. Jones was again unable to do so, stating that he was “not sure where that came from”.

[170] Second, Mr. Jones’ explanation that the texts were coded messages to ensure that “if anybody came across it, it would mean nothing” flies in the face of reason.

[171] Mr. Jones testified that because he shared a mobile phone plan with Ms. Beckford, she might be able to access and read the messages. Additionally, he explained that use of a code guarded against the possibility of the messages being sent to the wrong recipient. If that occurred, the coded messages would confuse them obscuring the real content.

[172] I find it hard to understand how this “code” acted as any sort of protective measure. If Ms. Beckford picked up the phone it would be readily apparent that Mr. Jones was sending sexually explicit messages to another person. If she was familiar with B’s number she would know it was her. Similarly, any unintended recipient would immediately recognise the sexual content of the text with the references to “vagina”, “underwear” and the other myriad sexual references. What would Mr. Jones be protected from? There is certainly very little confusion about the substantive tone and meaning of the texts.

[173] For these reasons, I reject Mr. Jones’ testimony that he sent the messages as part of a sex game.

[174] There is no doubt that the messages are evidence that provide powerful confirmation of B’s testimony.

[175] First, the terms used in the messages, such as “Goodday”, “Hostess” and “8^th Corridor” match the terms contained in the journal and identified by B as Mr. Jones’ handwriting. They accordingly further support the authenticity of the journals and the fact that Mr. Jones was playing the Gorgan in his meetings with B.

[176] Second, a number of texts confirm other parts of B’s testimony.

[177] For example, B told the court that Mr. Jones forbade her to have sex with her boyfriend when visiting him in prison. When she disobeyed, the Gorgan imposed a financial penalty. The texts dated 29 April 2013, 12 May 2013 and 13 May 2013 confirm this sequence of events. The text dated 29 April where Mr. Jones writes to B telling her that “I got Mr. G to give the okay to go” but “only on one condition. NO SEX NO SEX NO SEX.” The texts dated 12 - 13 May 2013 instruct B to deposit money into Mr. Jones’ bank account. When B appears to question whether it is possible that this payment could be taken from “the 19 k,” Mr. Jones refuses saying that they should not be spending unnecessary funds “because of you.”

[178] In my view, these messages reflect the punishment imposed upon B for defying Mr. Jones and corroborates B’s version of events.

[179] Third, and most significantly, once the notion that the messages form a sex game is rejected, the texts demonstrate Mr. Jones (1) acting out the role of the medium; (2) providing instructions that B must follow; (3) scheduling sex sessions and; (4) warning of impending doom if those instructions are not followed.

[180] These texts provide formidable support for B’s testimony that she was violently assaulted in the manner she described and was exploited for sexual purposes.

The Rags

[181] Then there are the rags. B testified that after intercourse had taken place, the medium would instruct her to clean his genital area with rags which he would then take with him. Later on, he left the rags at her residence and she gave them to the police. There is no dispute that Mr. Jones’ DNA was found upon the rags after they were examined by the police.

[182] Although the value of the rags is limited because Mr. Jones does not deny sexual activity taking place, their existence is consistent with B’s account of Mr. Jones’ request.

Motive

[183] Turning to the defence position on B’s motive to falsify the allegations, Mr. Barrs suggested that B’s account was because she had been rejected and wanted revenge on Mr. Jones. B’s account of sexual activity with the Gorgan was created to explain away the affair with Mr. Jones to her boyfriend.

[184] This makes little sense. First, as I have already noted it was only by going to the police that B’s sexual activity with Mr. Jones was exposed. In other words, if B was truly fearful of her boyfriend finding out about an affair with Mr. Jones, she would not have gone to the police at all. Secondly, by going to the police she must have been aware of the risk that her boyfriend’s drug money would be revealed. There was no reason to do that for the act of revenge.

[185] One must also ponder why, if B was having an illicit affair with Mr. Jones, she would seek to involve Mr. Keyere and his church members in an attempt to mediate the situation. Would this not also expose her sexual activities to her church?

[186] Nor is it clear why B wanted revenge. She was part of the wedding party when Mr. Jones married Ms. Beckford. The photographs tendered at this trial show her to be in good spirits and smiling. Mr. Jones and Ms. Beckford testified that she gave a moving speech at the ceremony. This evidence does not indicate any animus towards Mr. Jones or Ms. Beckford or anger at their relationship. If anything, it shows the reverse.

[187] The only evidence of any animus arises in the text messages to Mr. Jones and Ms. Beckford when B fails to get a response about the money given to him. That, however, is consistent with B’s frustration and her reasons for going to the police rather than any untoward feelings of anger at a failed affair.

The Twenty Thousand Dollars

[188] Mr. Jones denied B’s allegation that, as the medium, he had instructed B to hand over $20,000, as recounted above. B testified that save for one repayment of $1000, she had not seen the money again.

[189] The text messages corroborate her account.

[190] The text of 13 May 2013, previously referred to in the context of the punishment imposed by the Gorgan as a result of B’s breach of his “no sex” order, contains a reference to “19k” that cannot be “touched”. The message occurs in the context of the financial penalty B is ordered to pay for her transgression when visiting her incarcerated boyfriend. B testified that she asked that the “fine” be taken from the $19,000 outstanding from the money previously given to Mr. Jones and Ms. Beckford. The responding text message reads:

I could not answer before bcuz I had to make sure everything is going as planned. Firstly you should not even ask if I couldn’t take it from the 19k cuz we should never be at this point of spending unncessary funds. Thanks to you. Secondly if I could have touched it I surely would have done it but unlike you who don’t understand the Consequences I can’t touch until released. So let’s not go there. Anyways I’m ok for now will keep you posted.

[191] When questioned about this series of texts, Mr. Jones told the court that B was supposed to deposit monies into his account for buying spiritual drugs imported from England. Mr. Jones explanation for the reference to “19k”was that he had mentioned to B that Ms. Falisci had donated $20,000 to the church to repair its roof. B believed that this money was taken from the $250,000 that she had left with Ms. Falisci and therefore belonged to her. Once again, this explanation makes very little sense.

[192] If B mistakenly believed that $20,000 came from the money given to Ms. Falisci, it is unclear why Mr. Jones would tell her that the money could not be touched “until released”. Indeed, the preceding line - that he “couldn’t take it from the 19k” because they should not be spending unnecessary funds - appears to admit to that B had some sort of entitlement to “the 19k”.

[193] Moreover, I found Mr. Jones’ evidence that Ms. Falisci actually donated $20,000 to the church to have very little credibility. When asked whether there were documents recording the donation, Mr. Jones replied that there he had no receipts and that Ms. Falisci gave money in cash. According to Mr. Jones, Ms. Falisci never asked for a receipt and had told him that she could not use a tax receipt in Montreal.

[194] Mr. Jones evidence, once again, makes no sense. Of course, a tax receipt relating to a donation or charitable gift could be used to claim a deduction when filling out a tax return in Montreal. What is even more preposterous is that Ms. Falisci, the owner of a metal finishing business, would not know this. Nor is it believable that a business woman in her position would not ask for a receipt for such a large amount of money and take advantage of the potential reduction of the tax she would pay.

[195] I find that Mr. Jones was lying to the court about the $20,000 donation and that the text messages confirm B’s testimony regarding the $20,000 given to Mr. Jones and Ms. Beckford.

Claire Beckford and Debbie Jones

[196] The defence called Mr. Jones current and ex-wives to testify on his behalf.

[197] Claire Beckford, the woman with whom Mr. Jones fathered a child in 1996 and later married in 2012, was the Captress of Mr. Jones’ Spiritual Baptist Church.

[198] Ms. Beckford supported Mr. Jones’ testimony and denied B’s allegations of the medium. She confirmed that Mr. Jones was attempting to assist B’s in recovering the money given to Ms. Falisci. When B reached out to her, she rebuffed those requests because she had found out about her illicit affair with Mr. Jones.

[199] There is no doubt that Ms. Beckford had every motive to assist Mr. Jones. As well as being married to him, she is a high ranking member of the church that he leads. I found Ms. Beckford’s testimony to extremely biased, seeking to portray her husband in the best possible light and taking every opportunity to diminish B’s credibility by making gratuitous comments about her clothing and ostentatious possessions.

[200] I also found parts of Ms. Beckford’s testimony scripted and confused. For example, although she maintained that Mr. Jones made efforts to retrieve B’s money from Ms. Falisci throughout 2013 and 2014, she testified, in cross-examination, that she received no updates on those efforts. In cross-examination, she was also asked about Mr. Jones’ admission regarding the affair with B and how long Mr. Jones had said that it lasted. Ms. Beckford testified that she could not remember, evidence that I find less than credible considering the effect these revelations supposedly had on her. When B texted her to request help, Ms. Beckford said that she refused any assistance since she wanted nothing to do with B because of her affair with Mr. Jones. However, in her dismissal messages to B, there is no mention by Ms. Beckford of the affair.

[201] Debbie Jones was called as a witness to testify on a number of the counts on the indictment. With respect to the allegations made by B, Ms. Jones, like Ms. Beckford, denied any instances of ever seeing Mr. Jones possessed by a medium or hearing of “the Gorgan”. She also decried any belief in voodoo or séances. Ms. Jones agreed that B had spoken of the $250,000 given to Ms. Falisci. She added that B had told them that the money had been obtained through her boyfriend’s activities as a drug trafficker.

[202] Debbie Jones’ evidence was also problematic. Like Ms. Beckford, she seemed content to denigrate B’s dress sense. However, she added B’s seemingly distasteful tendencies for violence. She told the court that B, in her anger towards Ms. Falisci, had indicated that she might take a gun and “blow her head off”. This suggestion was never put to B when she testified. Yet for all of her comments about B’s unsavoury past and her fears that B could get a gun, Debbie Jones had no concerns about her daughter, Chatelle going on holiday with B. Nor did she feel the need to warn her about B’s history or violent comments.

[203] Both Ms. Beckford and Ms. Jones’s testimony are contradicted by the overwhelming evidence that the sessions with Mr. Jones did take place. Furthermore, as previously set out, the text referring to the “19k” demonstrates that B’s testimony regarding the $20,000 is accurate.

[204] Even though it could be argued that Ms. Jones might have a reason to feel animosity against Mr. Jones because of his infidelity with Ms. Beckford during their marriage, there is even more reason to protect him: she is the co-founder and high ranking member of their church.

[205] There is an additional motive: Ms. Beckford and Ms. Jones were part of the scheme to dupe B into believing that Mr. Jones was possessed by the Gorgan.

Chatelle Jones

[206] Chatelle Jones, Mr. Jones and Debbie Jones’s daughter also gave evidence to this court. She was friends with B and travelled with her to Miami on vacation. She knew of B’s troubles with her boyfriend and testified that B had told her that it was an abusive relationship. Chatelle told the court of meeting her father and B in Trinidad, where she was studying. This encounter that took her by surprise because B had not told her she was coming. Chatelle testified that she noticed B wearing one of her father’s necklaces but never asked B to confirm that.

[207] Chatelle testified to a suspicion that B and Mr. Jones were having a consensual affair. She told the court that when she saw B and her father on the beach they were flirting. I find it odd that having held that suspicion Chatelle never asked B whether it was true. Having seen the necklace on B’s neck - something that would have certainly lent considerable weight to the notion that Mr. Jones and B were romantically involved - Chatelle testified that she never raised the issue with B. The question that cries out is: why not? Chatelle and B were good friends and one would expect that topic of discussion to be one that would have been natural given Chatelle’s avowed suspicions. Instead, she chose to raise the matter with her father who, she testified, was evasive about the issue. Again, it strikes me as odd that Chatelle, getting no real answer from her father, would not confront B, a friend who had divulged personal issues of her own.

[208] I find that Chatelle’s evidence that B and Mr. Jones were romantically involved is an invention designed to assist her father. It makes no sense that if Chatelle had truly suspected an affair that she would not have confronted B to get an answer.

[209] For these reasons, I disbelieve the defence evidence and it does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind regarding Mr. Jones’ guilt.

The Car

[210] As previously described, Mr. Jones testified that he sold the Toyota Camry to Ivonella O’Garo, a fellow employee at Van Rob Stamping, and that he had made B fully aware of the sale as well as giving her most of the proceeds.

[211] Mr. Jones account of events, however, is significantly undermined by the other evidence in this case.

[212] First, the circumstances of the sale is at odds with what he told Mr. Keyere at the secretly recorded meeting held in January 2014. There, he indicated that after B had asked for the car to be sold, a mechanic in Oshawa inspected the car and diagnosed a “knock in the engine”. Mr. Jones told Mr. Keyere “I’ll be honest with you, the car was sold to a mechanic”. After that, the mechanic told him that “we met someone in Oshawa who wanted a quick buy” and the car was sold to them. This version of events contradicts his in court testimony that the sale of the car was to Ms. O’Garo.

[213] Mr. Jones sought to explain this inconsistency by telling the court that Ms. O’Garo’s husband was a mechanic and that was “the mechanic” to whom he was referring. However, this does not explain why he would tell Mr. Kyere that the mechanic had sold the car on to a third party in Oshawa. I also find it significant that there was no reference to Ms. O’Garo’s husband or the mechanic in Mr. Jones’ examination in-chief. They appeared only when Mr. Jones was confronted with the discrepancy in cross-examination.

[214] In addition, Mr. Jones told Mr. Kyere that the mechanic had informed him of a problem with the engine which is why he settled for the price of $4000. He repeated that claim in cross-examination even though he had not mentioned it when being questioned by Mr. Barrs.

[215] Secondly, his testimony that he had told B of the sale does not accord with Mr. Jones’ comments to that “the problem was because of the mechanic I was having a hard time getting the $4,000… that’s why as God is my witness, I never said to her the car was sold”.

[216] Mr. Jones told Mr. Kyere that he had not informed B of the sale of the car because of his difficulties in getting payment. However, in cross-examination, he agreed that by the time he spoke to Mr. Kyere, he had already received the $4000 from Ms. O’Garo, in addition to the original $500 payment. When asked about this, in cross-examination, Mr. Jones agreed that what he told Mr. Kyere was not true, but subsequently changed his answer and testified that when he spoke to Mr. Kyere he was having a hard time getting the money.

[217] Mr. Jones was evasive about these statements, initially seeking to cast doubt that the voice on the recording was his although he later accepted that it was. In cross-examination, he sought to explain his comments as anger directed towards B for involving Mr. Keyere in their dispute. Once again, I find this hard to understand. Surely, if Mr. Jones had told B about the sale, the best way to end down any inquiry was to tell Mr. Keyere that he had done so. Instead, Mr. Jones chose to do the opposite.

[218] Thirdly, the Crown called Ms. O’Garo as a witness. She did not mention her husband’s involvement and, more notably, testified that when she purchased the car, there was nothing wrong with it. Ms. O’Garo confirmed that the car had been written off after an accident but told the court that the insurance company had paid her $9000 in compensation, more than twice the price she had paid for it.

[219] Finally, at no point, did Mr. Jones tell Mr. Kyere that he had given B the $3000 that he testified about in court, even though he had ample opportunity to do so and end any accusation of wrongdoing.

[220] Mr. Jones’ testimony is peppered with inconsistencies and contradictions. I do not believe his evidence nor does it raise a reasonable doubt.

[221] I also reject the evidence of Michelle Alexander who testified that Mr. Jones had indicated he had to go out and was leaving an envelope to be collected by B. When B arrived, Ms. Alexander counted out the money in the envelope before giving it to B. This evidence, presumably called to corroborate Mr. Jones, actually contradicted him. According to Ms. Alexander, Mr. Jones was not present when B arrived to get the money.

[222] In fact, according to Ms. Alexander and contrary to his evidence, Mr. Jones did not leave instructions to count the money. Nor did he tell her what was in the envelope or why it was being given to B. On her own evidence, there was no reason for Ms. Alexander to open the envelope and count the contents. I note that, in cross-examination, Ms. Alexander could not even recall what the denominations were.

[223] Ms. Alexander made no secret of her loyalty to Mr. Jones, and her unwavering support since the allegations became public. I found her to be an evasive witness when questioned on her discussions with Mr. Jones about the truth of the allegations. For the above reasons, I find her evidence relating to the envelope and counting of the money to be a complete fabrication.

[224] I accept B’s evidence that she was never told about the sale of the Camry and that when she demanded its return, Mr. Jones stalled her by telling her that he was still in possession of it. I find that Mr. Jones sold the car with no intention of giving any of the proceeds to B, and did so as swiftly as possible selling it for less than its true value to make a quick return.

Conclusion on Counts 12 to 16

[225] For the above reasons, I make the following findings and come to the following conclusions about Counts 12 to 16.

[226] I agree with both the Crown and defence that the Gorgan was not real and was invented by Mr. Jones. However, that invention was not part of a sex game but a more sinister plot hatched by Mr. Jones, Claire Beckford and Debbie Jones.

[227] B was a woman who had had a colourful past and an association with persons of bad character. She was also someone who held a strong spiritual belief in the faith that she followed. Indeed, her beliefs drove these events from the start: the purpose of the trip to Ghana was to participate in a spiritual event. Her presence, at the behest of her spiritual mother, Carmela Falisci, demonstrated her deeply held views of the faith.

[228] The depth of her belief became known to Mr. Jones in Ghana. B, beset by problems in her personal life, was subjected to a prophecy by a local priest who performed a ritual purporting to cast out demons. B reacted and screamed for several minutes, a reaction witnessed by Mr. Jones. After the event, he found out about B’s relationship with her boyfriend, a drug trafficker who had recently been incarcerated.

[229] B was in dire straits. She had given $250,000, the proceeds of her boyfriend’s drug dealing, to Ms. Falisci, to avoid the money being found at her residence. Ms. Falisci had betrayed B by stealing it. B was desperate to get it back.

[230] Enter Mr. Jones. Aware of B’s plight and, believing that there was even more money in her possession, Mr. Jones, Claire Beckford and Debbie Jones devised a plan to relieve B of any remaining funds. Playing the role of a medium, Mr. Jones began his manipulation of B by telling her of a curse placed on her by Ms. Falisci. The only way to reverse this curse, said the medium, was to follow his instructions to the letter. Ms. Beckford and Debbie Jones also play acted their roles lending credibility to the existence and power of the medium.

[231] B, vulnerable, desperate, and gullible enough to pursue any avenue that would lead to the return of her stolen money, and end her woes, swallowed the bait. She blamed Ms. Falisci for stealing her money and placing her in such a precarious position with her boyfriend. She bought the tale of the curse spun by Mr. Jones.

[232] Such was the extent of B’s belief and her desire to break from Ms. Falisci, B asked Mr. Jones to re-baptise her in August 2011. He did so, signing her baptism certificate. This was not a rewashing, as Mr. Jones sought to advance, but a cutting of ties with her old spiritual mother and the acknowledgement of a new spiritual figure in her life, one that she trusted implicitly.

[233] During the initial stages, Ms. Beckford, Mr. Jones co-conspirator, acted out the role of a concerned friend, advising B of the medium’s authenticity and the protocol to be followed in his presence. Mr. Jones soon found the perfect engine to control B through her fears, troubles and faith. Soon the Gorgan was born.

[234] During the first series of meetings, Mr. Jones, in his role as the Gorgan, ordered B to bring him $20,000 and jewellery from B. Later on she would be instructed to hand over her boyfriend’s valuable jewellery. The money and possessions, however, were only the starting point. Mr. Jones’ interest soon turned to sex. Mr. Jones as the Gorgan began to meet with B privately. Ms. Beckford and Debbie Jones would no longer be needed to record the sessions because Mr. Jones would tell B to do it herself.

[235] Directing B to keep notes, however, was Mr. Jones’ first mistake. Those journals became a record providing a rebuttal of his defence that B had concocted the allegations before going to the police. Mr. Jones compounded his error by writing in the journals, thereby providing evidence that he was acting out the role of the Gorgan at the time the journals were made.

[236] During these sessions, Mr. Jones violently assaulted B, biting her, marking her and cutting parts of her body. These assaults were all conducted in the name of the medium supposedly inhabiting Mr. Jones’ body. After the formal question and answer sessions were over, Mr. Jones would demand sex with B reminding her that this was the price to be paid if Ms. Falisci’s curse was to be lifted. B, believing in the Gorgan, complied.

[237] Although I accept B ostensibly consented, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she was induced to do so by Mr. Jones abusing his position of trust, power or authority. Accordingly, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that no legal consent was obtained by virtue of s. 273.1(2) (c) of the Criminal Code.

[238] B followed the Gorgan’s instructions as best she could. Her trip to Trinidad was not a surprise to Mr. Jones but a journey made as part of his instructions that B “cross waters” and have sex with someone to reverse the curse lingering over her. I find that Mr. Jones ordered the trip knowing that he was going to be there.

[239] B fulfilled other commands issued by the Gorgan. Some involved rituals such as releasing chickens into the lake whilst others were more humiliating: B slept with another man as part of her efforts to counter the curse when told by Mr. Jones that she had to mimic Ms. Falisci’s supposed actions. B’s subservience to the Gorgan meant that even when she did not follow his orders she was willing to pay a financial penalty, as evidenced by her payment after having sex with her boyfriend on a conjugal visit.

[240] Mr. Jones’ manipulation of B did not end there. Playing on her fears, the Gorgan informed B that her car had been flagged by the police and might lead to her being implicated in her boyfriend’s criminal dealings. Mr. Jones, in an act of feigned assistance, offered to keep her car on his driveway. B, completely trusting Mr. Jones, took him up on his offer. Mr. Jones, however, had other plans for the car, selling it and keeping the proceeds, whilst, at the same time, continuing to assure B that the car was safe.

[241] B came to realise that the promises made by the Gorgan were false and that Mr. Jones had been playing a game. She had not received any of the money taken by Ms. Falisci; the money and jewellery given to Mr. Jones and Ms. Beckford was not returned; and the car that she had left with Mr. Jones with had been sold. Any attempts to resolve these matters were either denied or ignored. B sought the help of another pastor to broker a resolution but this failed.

[242] When Mr. Jones and Ms. Beckford refused her final pleas, she went to the police.

[243] For these reasons, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jones committed the offences with which he had been charged in counts 12 to 16 and I find him guilty.

IV. COUNTS 1 TO 7: THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY X AND Y

The Counts

[244] With respect to X, Mr. Jones is charged with the following counts:

1. Sexual assault committed between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 1993, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

2. Administering a noxious substance with intent to cause bodily harm between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 1995, contrary to s. 245 of the Criminal Code

3. Theft under $1000 committed between 1 January 1988 and 31 December 1995, contrary to s. 334(b) of the Criminal Code.

[245] With respect to Y, Mr. Jones is charged with the following counts:

1. Sexual assault committed between 1 January 1988 and 31 December 1995, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

2. Administering a noxious substance with intent to cause bodily harm between 1 January 1988 and 31 December 1993, contrary to s. 245 of the Criminal Code

3. Theft over $1000 committed between 1 January 1988 and 31 December 1995, contrary to s. 334(a) of the Criminal Code.

4. Theft under $5000 committed between 15 February 1995 and 31 December 1995, contrary to s. 334(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Allegations by X

[246] X came to Canada, from Trinidad, in 1973 with her husband and daughter, S. Soon after settling, she had gave birth to a second child before separating from her husband.

[247] Although raised as a Spiritual Baptist in Trinidad, she did not practise the faith. However, in Canada, she decided to join a church and became a member of the Mount Ararat church after it was recommended to her by a friend.

[248] She had previously met Mr. Jones when her mother had become unwell. Mr. Jones visited her mother’s home on Danforth Avenue to provide help with the illness. Although Mr. Jones professed an ability to help cure her mother’s ills, X was skeptical.

[249] Mr. Jones remarked that X was not a believer but he would make her one.

[250] X did believe that a pastor could help people by finding them employment or healing them. She also believed that the practice of certain rituals conducted by a pastor would provide succour to the soul. For example, X believed that a Spiritual Bath, taken with herbs and incense, would help the spirit.

[251] When X met Mr. Jones she was working but not making much money. She testified that she lived in a one bedroom apartment above a store with her two daughters and a friend. X believed that Mr. Jones became aware of her precarious financial situation through her friend’s cousin.

[252] Mr. Jones visited her home to give her a Spiritual Bath telling her that it would help her situation. She agreed to do it even though she had no knowledge of the procedure. Mr. Jones mixed oils and liquids into a bath and sent her to bathe. After taking the bath, he began to “smoke” her. X testified that she was topless and crossed her arms over her chest whilst Mr. Jones “smoked” her with herbs and incense as she turned around. X told the court that Mr. Jones told her that she should wear only her underwear. X admitted she knew little about Mr. Jones but had been told by her friend’s cousin that he was a good man.

[253] X later moved to an apartment on Queen’s Quay in the early 1990s. She and her daughters were joined there by her sister, Y, who was friendly with Mr. Jones’s wife, Debbie.

[254] Y learnt that Mr. Jones performed a ritual known as the Throne of Grace where the subject would fast for a week and lay on a floor to travel to a spiritual world before being “released”. Y agreed to undertake a Throne of Grace with Mr. Jones.

[255] X and Y began to attend Mount Ararat on a regular basis, going to the services every Sunday where they would see Mr. Jones preach. After being a member of the church for two years, X performed her own Throne of Grace and upon completion became known as “Mother”. Shortly afterwards, X was ordained as a Deaconess of even though she felt that she was not yet ready.

[256] When the church moved from its location at Danforth and Warden to Keele and Rogers Road, Mr. Jones approached X for a monetary loan on two separate occasions. X testified that she gave him $1000 expecting repayment. However, the money was never returned even though X needed it to pay bills. Despite asking for the money back on three or four occasions, X was never reimbursed.

[257] While Y was living with X at Queens Quay, she ended up getting a job at Van Rob Stamping with Mr. Jones. Shortly afterwards Mr. Jones invited Y to move into the apartment he shared with his wife. Afterwards, the two sisters drifted apart.

[258] After Y had left, Mr. Jones informed X that he would be visiting her apartment to erect an altar in her bedroom. After he arrived, Mr. Jones placed the altar in the front corner of her bed after placing flowers there. He returned to the apartment to mark her bed with seals which he told here were symbols of protection. He told X that having performed this ritual no other man could lay on her bed. Ordering her to lie on the bed Mr. Jones climbed on top of her and told her that he had to “cover her” so that his ritual would work.

[259] Mr. Jones began to undress her and then took off his clothes. X testified that she was frozen and began to cry asking him why he was doing this to her. Mr. Jones told her that everything would be okay and then penetrated her with his penis. X testified that she did not consent to sex and was disgusted. After he had finished, Mr. Jones went to the washroom and then left the apartment.

[260] Subsequently, Mr. Jones demanded that X give him a key to her apartment. Failure to do so, he said, would result in adverse consequences for X and her daughters. X testified Mr. Jones threatened to destroy her daughters and make her “walk the streets” if she did not comply. Fearing for her family, X obeyed.

[261] Mr. Jones began to visit X, unannounced, forcing sex upon her. X testified that she felt compelled to acquiesce in order to protect her family in the face of Mr. Jones’ threats. X felt there was no point in telling anyone because no one would believe her due to Mr. Jones standing in the church. X also testified to her spiritual belief: she was scared of what she called the “spiritual assassin”. She believed Mr. Jones to possess powers that could make her crazy.

[262] Mr. Jones also had X perform other rituals. Suspicious of other potential male visitors, he told X to get a red snapper and place coins inside before leaving it next to her bed. This practice would make sure that any man that tried to get close to her would disappear. Shortly afterwards, a man that she appeared to be getting close with called to say that he was no longer interested in her.

[263] X also testified that Mr. Jones performed a spiritual bath on her 17 year old daughter, S. This bath took place with Mr. Jones present, and again, S was instructed to wear only underwear.

[264] X told the court about pilgrimages undertaken with Mr. Jones where they visited the United States and Trinidad together.

[265] Mr. Jones sought complete control over X. On one occasion when X had asked Mr. Jones to end the sexual assaults, he told her that he wanted her to have his baby. When she reacted in an incredulous fashion, reminding him that he was her pastor, he gave her a backhanded slap.

[266] Another time, Mr. Jones told X that he wanted her blood and cut her breast with a razor blade before moving down her body to cut a piece of her pubic hair.

[267] X also believed that Mr. Jones possessed spiritual powers and one of the causes of her inability to resist his actions was because he performed voodoo or smothered himself in scents to ensure her cooperation. In re-examination she was more specific: she believed that he used oils or a potion that could draw people to him.

[268] One night, Mr. Jones turned up at X’s apartment and when they went into her bedroom he offered her a drink. She did not know what it contained but he continued to pour it down her throat, forcing her to drink it. She testified that the room began to spin and her limbs froze. She began to vomit and Mr. Jones called S telling her that her mother was sick after which he left. X told her daughter to clean up the mess.

[269] This was the final straw for X who changed the locks to her apartment. When Mr. Jones found that the keys no longer worked, he called X to enquire who told him that she wanted everything to stop.

[270] X left Mr. Jones’s church in October 1992 to join another. She testified that she buried the incidents because she felt no one would believe her.

[271] In February 2015, X saw a police news release and became aware of Mr. Jones’ arrest with respect to the charges concerning B. Upon seeing the report, X decided to go to the police to report her allegations.

[272] X and Y did not speak for years after the events and had not discussed the incidents. The first time she heard of Y’s allegations was after the preliminary inquiry for these charges.

The Allegations Made by Y

[273] Y was X’s older sister who arrived in Canada in 1987 on a visitor’s visa.

[274] Y met Mr. Jones through X at the church, not long after she arrived in the country. At that time, Mr. Jones was the pastor at the Mount Ararat church in Scarborough. Through her attendance at the church, Y got to know Debbie Jones, the Mother of the church, and Claire Beckford, the Captress.

[275] Mr. Jones helped Y get a job at V[…], located at Kennedy Road and Ellesmere Road. Knowing that she had visa issues, Mr. Jones handed Y a Social Insurance Card in the name of Joyce Grant to ensure her employment.

[276] When Y started work at Van Rob Stamping she was living with X on the Danforth but after X moved to Queens Quay, her commute to work became more difficult. Mr. Jones invited Y and her two sons to move in with his family and she agreed. At that time, Mr. Jones lived in a two bedroom apartment with his wife and their two children. There were also two other men staying at the apartment. Their names were Harold and Roy and both were immigrants into the country. Since space was limited, Y and her children slept in the apartment’s storage room.

[277] Mr. Jones would drive to work with Y. Mr. Jones also offered to help Y complete her tax return. However, Y never saw any tax refunds even though Mr. Jones told her that he had sent in her completed form. When she enquired further, Mr. Jones explained that the return must have got lost in the mail.

[278] Y was also haunted by immigration issues. Although she had originally had a work permit, it had not been renewed. However, she continued to work. Mr. Jones suggested she become a Deaconess of the church because it would assist in her immigration application. Even though she had no training, she was ordained.

[279] One evening, Mr. Jones asked Y to meet him at the church on Warden Avenue. When she arrived, Mr. Jones told her to take off her clothes and lit a candle. She did so believing that he was going to prepare a spiritual bath. After she had removed her clothing he covered her eyes with a band and told her to lie down. Shortly afterwards, as she lay naked, he got on top of her and tried to force his penis into her vagina. Trying to resist, Y found Mr. Jones holding her by the wrists. She managed to remove the band and saw that Mr. Jones was naked and had an erection. He told her to stop resisting “because the spirits wanted her to have sex”. Despite his efforts, he was unable to penetrate her. Y put on her clothes and asked him to take her home which he did. They did not talk about the incident. Later, when Y saw him at work, she continued to remain silent.

[280] Y testified that, at one point, Mr. Jones left a note for her at work in which he wrote her that he loved her. Mr. Jones later demanded the return of the note but she told him that she had already disposed of it.

[281] Y felt no one would believe her if she reported the incident because of Mr. Jones’s position as pastor of the church. Y recounted, as X did, the account of another woman who accused Mr. Jones of giving her an intoxicating substance and having sex with her against her will. No one believed the woman because Mr. Jones was the pastor and when he denied the allegations everyone accepted his word.

[282] Y moved out of Mr. Jones home after he returned from work one day to tell her that there had been complaints about the number of immigrants staying there. She moved to a new residence on P[…] Street and once there, Mr. Jones demanded a key to her home. She testified that she felt obliged to provide because he was her pastor and she was concerned that he might hinder her immigration application if she refused. Mr. Jones would visit her regularly, staying for a period of time before leaving.

[283] Mr. Jones would also perform spiritual rituals. On one occasion, he ordered Y to obtain some dirt from a grave. On another occasion, at Thanksgiving, she saw him kill a mouse with a machete.

[284] Y recounted a second incident where Mr. Jones summoned her to his house to tell her of a revelation concerning her immigration case. When she arrived, they went to the basement where Mr. Jones offered her a drink which she thought was Kool-Aid. After drinking it, she started to feel bad and asked him what he had put in the drink. Mr. Jones placed his hand on her mouth and she blacked out. The next thing she remembered was someone waking her to tell her that it was 7 a.m. and that she should go home. Y realised she was naked and dressed herself. She noticed Mr. Jones sitting on a chair in the room. Y left with no understanding or recollection of what had happened.

[285] Shortly after this incident, Y left the church. She testified that X left at the same time but she was not aware of the reasons.

[286] At work, Y began to become more aggressive in asking Mr. Jones about her immigration status, something that Mr. Jones had promised to assist with. Mr. Jones did not like her attitude and told her “that’s why I fuck you and can’t do nothing about it”. Y took that to mean that he had had sex with her when she was lying unconscious.

[287] There is no doubt that immigration was one of Y’s biggest worries. Her fears were realised when the authorities detained her overnight in immigration custody. After she was released, on a $2000 bond signed by her sister, she returned to the church where she was given an envelope by Mr. Jones. Inside was a letter purporting to be from X telling Y that she was going to withdraw her name from the release bond.

[288] After her arrest and detention, Y did not return to the church because she felt that Mr. Jones had called the immigration authorities.

[289] Mr. Jones had also asked Y for money. First, she gave him $400 and then a second sum in the same amount. In total, she lent him $1200 and even though he told her he would pay it back, he never did.

[290] Y did not discuss the events with X and did not report them to the police.

[291] In the summer of 2015, X’s daughter, S, contacted Y to notify her that the police wanted to speak to her. Y had seen the police news release about Mr. Jones’ arrest on television but had not contacted anyone. When S called, she did not tell Y of her mother’s allegations.

[292] Y gave a statement to the police on 14 August 2015 and told them only about the assault that had happened at Mr. Jones’ house. On 4 January 2016, Y gave a second statement disclosing the incident that had happened in the church.

[293] Y testified that she was unaware of X’s allegations until after the preliminary inquiry of this matter when they spoke to each other about what had happened. Both X and Y blamed Mr. Jones for the breakdown in their relationship. In their view, he was continually sowing discord between the two by telling them bad things about the other.

Mr. Jones Account of the Relationship with X and Y

[294] Mr. Jones denied both sets of allegations but claimed that he had had clandestine affairs with both women whilst still married to Debbie Jones. These relationships, he said, ultimately led to his separation and divorce.

[295] Mr. Jones met Y through her membership of the church and helped her get a job at V[…].

[296] Although she was living with X in Queens Quay, they were not getting along and Y asked Debbie Jones if she and her two children, aged 9 and 11, could stay at the Jones’ home. Mr. Jones and his wife agreed that they could. The Jones’ residence had two bedrooms and a storage room. Mr. Jones’ two sons shared a bedroom and when he had friends over they slept in the living room. Y and her family moved into the storage room.

[297] Mr. Jones and Y began to spend a lot of time together. He would drive her into work as well as see her at the church. Mr. Jones told the court that Y was separated from her husband and was suffering from low self-esteem. Their conversations became intense and they began kissing which led to more intimate relations.

[298] Mr. Jones told the court that, at this time, he was already involved in a sexual relationship with X.

[299] One night when Mr. Jones and Y were having sex on his bedroom floor, his wife walked in on them. Having discovered their affair, Debbie Jones demanded that Y leave their home. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Jones and his wife separated.

[300] According to Mr. Jones, Y initially moved into a shared rooming house but wanted her own place. He helped her find an apartment at L[…] Avenue, and Y gave him a key so that he could have access.

[301] According to Mr. Jones, his romance with Y was genuine and they were in love. In the process, he rebuilt Y’s flagging self-esteem. Their relationship endured for a year and a half and began to deteriorate when Debbie Jones began to revisit the church on Rogers Road.

[302] After Debbie Jones had left, she had gone to Florida but returned to Toronto to seek a reconciliation with Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones found out that Debbie Jones also had a boyfriend by the name of Curtis Sheppard. When Ms. Jones returned to the church it caused friction.

[303] Mr. Jones told the court that he attempted to mend fences with his wife and moved into a house at Coronia Square. However, he continued the affair with Y because they were seeing each other on a daily basis at work. When the affair ended, Y left the church because of Mr. Jones’ choice to stay with his wife. X left at the same time because she too was also unhappy at Ms. Jones’s return.

[304] Mr. Jones’ relationship with X was more straightforward. He was not in love but saw X as his “get away haven”. X was a more outgoing person compared to Y who was more reserved and conservative. He had met X when she was joined the church and travelled on trips with her to Trinidad and New York, where X would act as driver.

[305] His affair with X pre-dated his relationship with Y but continued even after he had started his relationship with Y. When Mr. Jones announced that he was going to Trinidad to fast, X indicated that she wanted to go with him and they spent the night at a hotel where they had sex.

[306] Mr. Jones confirmed that both X and Y were Deaconesses. He felt that they deserved that status as they were founding members of the church and worked hard for its success.

[307] Mr. Jones denied the sexual assault allegations made against him. He also denied being present for any spiritual baths. Mr. Jones told the court that it was impermissible for a male to be present when that occurred. He also believed that the allegations made by X and Y were a result of a personal vendetta based on the fact that he married Claire Beckford.

Did Mr. Jones Have an Affair with X and/or Y?

[308] Mr. Barrs advances the position that these allegations are a result of the choices made by Mr. Jones with respect to the women that he chose. He claims that X and Y were incensed that they were spurned in favour of Debbie Jones, and later Claire Beckford.

[309] Determining whether Mr. Jones had consensual affairs with X and/or Y forms an integral part of deciding the truth of the allegations.

[310] X and Y repeatedly denied any consensual relationship with Mr. Jones. Any finding to the contrary would fatally damage their credibility.

[311] Moreover, Mr. Barrs submits that the affairs are the reason for the accusations made by both complainants. He claims that X found out about Mr. Jones’ affair with Y and wanted revenge. In Y’s case, Mr. Barrs argues that she resented Mr. Jones for marrying Ms. Beckford and, in addition, blamed him for her immigration issues.

[312] For the following reasons, however, I disbelieve Mr. Jones.

[313] First, according to Mr. Jones, his affair with X pre-dated any relationship with Y. However, by his account, he was having sex with X at her home at the same time Y was residing there. The apartment had two bedrooms and was occupied not only by X and Y but their children. Mr. Jones testified that he took no steps to hide the sexual activity because he had no reason to do so. Against this backdrop, it would be inconceivable that Y did not know Mr. Jones was having a sexual relationship with her sister. However, Mr. Jones testified that he did not know whether Y was aware. If Y had been in love with Mr. Jones, and their relationship was as close as he testified to, there would be no doubt that she would have raised the topic with him. The fact that Mr. Jones has no idea of her knowledge shows that she did not and speaks volumes about whether Mr. Jones is telling the truth about an affair with X or Y.

[314] Second, Mr. Jones asks this court to believe that Y asked to move in with his family. As I have already noted, if Mr. Jones was truly having an affair with X, Y must have been aware of it. Y was a deaconness in the church, and, in my view, a deeply religious woman. It would be very unlikely that she would have asked to move in with the pastor who was having an adulterous affair with her sister.

[315] Third, it is incredible that Mr. Jones would invite Y to live with him knowing that there was a risk that she might reveal to his wife that he and X were sexually involved.

[316] Fourth, Mr. Jones avowed belief he could hide his affair with Y from his wife and family lacks the ring of truth. In his words, he felt that because “we were always together I felt that it would not be that noticeable, I felt that I could have concealed it”. Mr. Jones was living with his wife and two children in a two bedroomed apartment. The apartment was so small that Y and her two children had to sleep in the storage room. In such a confined space, it would be impossible to conceal an affair with Y. Mr. Jones’ testimony becomes even more fanciful when one considers that Mr. Jones was caught because he and Y decided to have sex whilst one of his children was in the apartment. This hardly sounds like the actions of a man trying to conceal an affair. I find that it did not happen.

[317] Fifth, there was very little detail given by Mr. Jones of his supposed close and intimate relationship with Y. When asked how they became lovers, Mr. Jones could not recount any specific events other than to say that there was some “necky necky” between the two which led to sex. When asked in cross-examination how many times he and Y had had sex in his apartment he said “I distinctly remember once, yes, the time we got caught”. When asked if there were other occasions, he said “I don’t recall. I really don’t recall.” On Mr. Jones account of events, the occasion upon which he and Y were caught by Debbie Jones was the last time they had sex. It is scarcely credible that he would not be able to remember any other occasion when he had sex in the apartment with the woman he was supposedly in love with.

[318] Moreover, when asked how long the relationship endured after Y left the apartment, Mr. Jones said that he could not recall. Finally, when asked about the love note Y testified to in her evidence, Mr. Jones indicated that he had “possibly” given her such a note. This lack of recollection and detail does not tally with the relationship that Mr. Jones was trying to portray to the court.

[319] Sixth, Mr. Jones tried to paint an extremely close relationship with Y in which they exchanged intimate details. For example, he told the court that he did not use any form of protection when having sex with Y because she had told him that she could not get pregnant. In his words “Y and I was (sic) intimate, we were talking. I knew she couldn’t get pregnant”. Yet, despite this closeness and intimacy, he claimed to have no knowledge of Y’s immigration problems and testified that Y had not expressed any concerns about the subject. Once again, I find this evidence to be unworthy of belief: the thing that appeared to be uppermost in Y’s thoughts was her immigration status.

[320] Seventh, Mr. Jones testified that Debbie Jones left him after discovering him with Y in their bedroom. If there truly was an affair, and he loved Y, Mr. Jones was now free to pursue the relationship. Yet, according to Mr. Jones, he tried to reconcile with his wife and continued seeing Y in secret.

[321] For these reasons, I reject Mr. Jones evidence that he had affairs with X and Y.

[322] For the same reasons, I find Debbie Jones’ account of finding her husband having sex with Y in her bedroom to be a fiction created for the purpose of helping Mr. Jones, the pastor of the church to which she belongs and where she holds a high position. I take the same view of her evidence that she found Mr. Jones at X’s apartment.

[323] There is no doubt that the Jones’ marriage was broken by the early 1990s: both were having affairs with others. However, if there was a woman who caused the marriage to dissolve, it was not Y but Claire Beckford.

[324] I disbelieve the defence evidence and it fails to raise a reasonable doubt.

False Memories

[325] As an alternative to outright lies, Mr. Barrs argues that the allegations made by X and Y are the product of false memories created when both of them saw the reports that Mr. Jones had been arrested and charged with the sexual assault on B.

[326] As I have already stated, I accept for the purposes of this trial that false memories can, in some circumstances, be created through the use of external events years later. However, having seen and heard both X and Y testify I reject the notion that their allegations are the product of false memories.

[327] There is no correlation between what was reported in the media and what X and Y reported to the police. Indeed X and Y testified that they did not know the specifics of the allegations made by B and Y only called the police because S indicated that they wished to speak to her. Both complainants testified that they had not read any of the more sensational articles in the Toronto Sun describing Mr. Jones as a “sexorcist”. I accept their evidence.

The Statements

[328] Having rejected Mr. Jones’ evidence, I turn to Mr. Barrs’ arguments regarding the credibility of both X and Y and the issue of inconsistencies in their prior statements.

[329] Mr. Barrs asks this court to consider the timing of Y’s report of the allegations to the police. When Y attended gave her first statement to the police on 14 August 2015, she referenced only the incident which occurred at Mr. Jones’ house where she blacked out. The sexual assault at the church, an event that Mr. Barrs says was far more serious, was disclosed three months later when Y re-attended the station in January 2016.

[330] Mr. Barrs argues that it makes no sense that Y would omit details of the more serious assault when she first went to the police.

[331] I agree with Mr. Barrs that, at first blush, Y’s recounting of events in the order that she did, appears illogical. However, when the entire evidence is considered, it is plain that Y considered the assault in the basement of Mr. Jones’ home to be the more serious assault. Because she lost consciousness, she was initially unable to determine what had happened to her at Mr. Jones house. However, shortly afterwards, when she confronted Mr. Jones about his lack of assistance with immigration, she took his reply - “that’s why I fuck you and you can’t do nothing about it” - to be an admission that he had sexual intercourse with her whilst she lay unconscious. In other words, when Y went to the police on 14 August 2015, she thought she was describing the more serious offence: a rape that had occurred after Mr. Jones had drugged her. The second statement given in January was, to her, the lesser offence because Mr. Jones failed to successfully achieve penetration.

[332] Although Y insisted, when testifying, that she had told the police about the assault in the churhc before the assault that took place in Mr. Jones’ home, I accept that this was simply confusion on her part.

The Keys

[333] One of the most contentious issues in this case was Mr. Jones’ possession of house keys that allowed him to enter X and Y’s home. There is no dispute that the keys were given to Mr. Jones by both complainants. Mr. Barrs submits that this is critical evidence demonstrating their consent, or at the least raising a reasonable doubt about the offences. He asks the court to consider why X and Y would give Mr. Jones a way of entering their homes unhindered if he had sexually assaulted them on a prior occasion. The keys, according to Mr. Barrs, are the key to this case.

[334] As described previously, X testified that she was forced to hand over the keys after Mr. Jones threatened both herself and her children. Y testified that she was fearful that Mr. Jones would report her to the immigration authorities if she did not comply.

[335] In my view the real key to this case is the belief held by both of the complainants. Both were religious women who had been made deaconesses with the assistance of Mr. Jones, the pastor and leading figure of the church. The consistent strand that runs through their evidence is their belief in his power and authority.

[336] Both X and Y believed that, as pastor, Mr. Jones could ruin them. Both recognised his stature in the religious community and his dominance in the church. In their eyes, he had elevated them to the position of the deaconess even though one of them, X was not ready to assume that role. Both believed that, as pastor of the church, his wishes had to be fulfilled.

[337] Their belief in his powers of retribution, however, took different forms.

[338] Y feared for her immigration status. She felt Mr. Jones had been instrumental in getting her the position at V[…]. She believed he could resolve her problems with immigration so that she could stay in Canada. She also believed that failing to follow his demands could result in his ending her stay in Canada. I accept her reasons for giving Mr. Jones the keys to her home.

[339] I also find that there was very little reason for Y to go to the police with her allegations. The events had occurred two decades earlier and all of the fears she held had long since evaporated. She had left Mr. Jones’ church and her immigration status had long since been settled. Making false accusations about Mr. Jones would not provide any benefits. There would be no reason to implicate Mr. Jones in the manner that she did.

[340] I accept that motive is only one factor amongst many to consider when determining credibility and that an apparent absence of motive is not the same as a proven absence of motive: R. v. L.L., 2009 ONCA 413. However, in the circumstances of this case, it is a factor that lends some weight in the rejection of the assertion that she made up the allegations.

Conclusion on Y’s Testimony

[341] I accept Y’s evidence that she was sexually assaulted and drugged by Mr. Jones in the manner that she testified to. I found Y to be a credible witness with no motive to fabricate. My finding that there was no affair is an implicit rejection of Mr. Jones’ argument that her testimony is the product of a “scorned woman” whose jealousy of Debbie Jones and Claire Beckford would cause her to concoct a story to incriminate Mr. Jones two decades later.

[342] Y was a deeply religious woman who was committed to her church and the pastor that led it. She was both loyal to and fearful of Mr. Jones. Her fears about her immigration status drove her silence on the assaults that she suffered at his hands.

Analysis of X’s and S’s Testimony

[343] X’s motives were spiritual. She was in awe of Mr. Jones as pastor. Her religious beliefs encompassed not only the spiritual baths and the Throne of Grace but other rituals performed by Mr. Jones such as the placing of seals around her bed, and the snapper on her table. A reflection of those beliefs can be found in her evidence of Mr. Jones using scents and oils to make himself attractive. This evidence was derided Mr. Barrs as “Love Potion No. 9”. However strange and bizarre those beliefs might sound, I find that X held them.

[344] One piece of evidence stands out as an exemplification of X’s state of mind. The Crown called S, X’s daughter to testify about a spiritual bath Mr. Jones gave her when she was a teenager. She testified that she was looking for a job and Mr. Jones told her that he wanted to help. She wore only her underwear and crossed her arms to conceal her breasts. She recalled Mr. Jones throwing water over her and speaking in tongues.

[345] S also recalled Mr. Jones marking her mother’s bed and bedroom walls with chalk and the incident in which her mother vomited after he had been in her room. Mr. Jones emerged from the bedroom telling her that her mother was sick and to take care of her.

[346] As I have already noted, Mr. Jones denied this incident calling S’s testimony a “joke”.

[347] I found nothing funny or incredulous about S’s testimony. On the contrary, I found her to be a compelling and convincing witness with no apparent axe to grind against Mr. Jones. In recounting the evidence of the spiritual bath, her anger was directed not to Mr. Jones but towards her mother for making her undergo what must have been an embarrassing if not humiliating experience. I find as a fact that her account of the spiritual bath is true.

[348] S’s evidence was significant in a number of respects.

[349] First, it refutes Mr. Jones assertions that he did not conduct spiritual baths with female members of the church and explicitly shows that he was lying when he testified about the issue.

[350] Second, it demonstrates that there was no romantic relationship between X and Mr. Jones. If X was having an affair with Mr. Jones it is hardly likely that she would permit him to see her daughter semi-naked in a spiritual bath that, on his own evidence, Mr. Jones was not permitted to perform. X allowed this to happen because she believed in the church, religion, rituals and the power of its pastor, Mr. Jones. Her confidence and trust in him resulted in her comfort at allowing him to give her daughter the bath.

[351] Although she was not a believer at first, it was Mr. Jones who became the engine of her belief transforming the initial skeptic into a deaconess of the church. Even though the rituals involving altars, seals and snappers might appear outlandish to those outside the Spiritual Baptist church, they were not to X, a woman who had become deeply entrenched into the religion. These rituals were used by Mr. Jones to facilitate his entry into X’s home and her emotions.

[352] I find that Mr. Jones used that belief to manipulate her for his own ends. When Mr. Jones told X failure to obey his demands would result in harm to her family, she believed him. When he demanded keys, she provided them. When he commanded sex, she acquiesced. That was the extent of his power over her.

[353] That power ended when he attempted to ply her with an intoxicating substance, in the same manner that he had done with Y. At that point X made the decision that she had to act to resist Mr. Jones before he inflicted further harm on her and she changed the locks to bar him from her home.

[354] As with Y, X has no motive to falsify allegations against Mr. Jones two decades after they occurred. My finding that there was no romantic involvement between X and Mr. Jones pours cold water on the notion that she reported the allegations because of any rivalry with Y or jealousy towards Claire Beckford.

[355] I believe X’s evidence that she did not consent to sex with Mr. Jones. He sexually assaulted her and forced an intoxicating substance into her throat to incapacitate her for sexual purposes. Having found Y’s evidence that he had rendered her unconscious by offering her a noxious substance to be true, I find that he tried to do the same thing to X. The effect was not, however, what he expected. X vomited and Mr. Jones, realising his plan had been frustrated, left leaving S to assist her mother. I note that S also recalled this event.

[356] With respect to the similar fact evidence I find that its probative value is extremely high when dealing with the allegations made by X and Y. As described, B, X and Y all testified to the manner in which Mr. Jones instigated the assaults. Each time, there was an offer of spiritual assistance as the pre-cursor to the sexual assault. With Y, he told her not to resist because “the spirits” wanted him to have sex with her. With X, he told her, before the initial assault that he had to cover her so that his protective rituals would work. With B, the sex was part of the bargain that would permit the Gorgan to reverse Carmela Falisci’s curse.

[357] With respect to X’s and B’s evidence, I also find the fact that Mr. Jones wished to cut both women’s breast with a razor blade to highly peculiar. The fact that both complainants, who had never met each other, testified to this fact takes it beyond coincidence.

[358] The evidence from X, Y and B, all showed Mr. Jones initiating his sexual advances under the pretext that sex was required for a spiritual purpose that would in some way assist each complainant. The similarities in the evidence are probative of the Crown’s position that Mr. Jones was using his position as the pastor to convince the complainants, members of his church who believed in him, that sexual intercourse with him was part of a larger spiritual plan.

Conclusion

[359] For the above reasons, I find that Mr. Jones’ assertions that he was having an affair with both X and Y to be false.

[360] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jones sexually assaulted X and administered a noxious substance to X. Accordingly, I find Mr. Jones guilty of counts 1 and 2 on the indictment.

[361] I am also satisfied that Mr. Jones sexually assaulted and administered a noxious substance with intent to cause bodily harm to Y. I find Mr. Jones guilty of counts 4 and 5 on the indictment.

[362] With respect to counts 3, 6 and 7 on the indictment, the theft of monies from X and Y, although I accept their evidence that the money was given to Mr. Jones, I agree with Mr. Barrs that the details relating to the terms of their provision to Mr. Jones is insufficiently clear to make a finding of guilt on those counts. Accordingly, counts 3 and 7 are dismissed.

V. COUNT 8: THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY Z

The Counts

[363] Mr. Jones is charged with one count of sexually assaulting Z.

Z’s Testimony

[364] Z was born in Barbados and came to Canada in 1986, staying for two and a half years before returning in 1989 to live in Canada permanently.

[365] She first met Mr. Jones sometime between 1993 and 1995 when she attended Mount Ararat when it was located on Rogers Road. She would attend church every Sunday where she would greet Mr. Jones as pastor.

[366] When she went to the church it had approximately 20 members. Although her initial relationship with Mr. Jones was little more than as an acquaintance, that soon changed.

[367] Z testified that Mr. Jones asked to borrow money from her on three occasions and she gave him a sum which totalled in excess of $500 which he promised to pay back. However, he failed to do so.

[368] Mr. Jones also began to visit Z at her home. When he did, Z testified that he would use her phone to make calls to Trinidad. Z remembered him visiting on four separate occasions.

[369] On the last occasion, he visited her at night, calling her beforehand to tell her that he was coming over. When he arrived, she was wearing night clothes. Mr. Jones told her he knew that something bad had happened to her in Barbados and that Z had been hurt by the experience. Lighting a pink candle that he had brought with him, he moved it around her navel in a circular motion. Z testified that her body felt “weird” and that she believed Mr. Jones’ diagnosis that there was something amiss spiritually.

[370] Telling her that he was tired and wanted to lie down, he did so next to her on her bed. He started to fondle her and kiss her. At one point she lay on her side and she felt his penis touching her behind. He told her that the only way he could help her spiritually was to have sex with her and if she agreed, it would cure what had happened in Barbados. Z believed Mr. Jones but testified that she did not want to have sex with him. However, she was tired and Mr. Jones entered her from behind without asking. Because of her weariness, she said nothing to him.

[371] Two or three days later, Z called a friend telling her that she had had sex with Mr. Jones and remarking on the size of his penis. After that, Z tried to forget the incident and stopped going to church.

[372] Z testified that she did not want to have sex with Mr. Jones.

[373] Z, did however, seek to recover her money. When Mr. Jones failed to repay her, she filed a claim in the Small Claims Court. She was successful and obtained a court order garnishing his wages. Z testified that she was owed approximately $1000 plus money owing from her phone bill.

[374] Although she spoke to Debbie Jones about repayment of the money before she went to court, she did not tell her about the sexual activity that had occurred.

[375] These incidents came to light when she saw the police release on television and decided to go to the police to report what had happened to her.

Mr. Jones’ Testimony

[376] Mr. Jones testified that Z was not a member of the church but an occasional visitor who would attend on Tuesday nights for bible studies. She never came to any social events or performed any religious practices such as the Throne of Grace or Spiritual Baths.

[377] Mr. Jones said that Z contacted him and asked him to come to her home because she had difficulties in her personal life. She told him that she had problems with romantic relationships and trouble keeping boyfriends.

[378] As Z lived in a rooming house, the only place of privacy was her bedroom. When he arrived she was wearing nightclothes and they conversed for approximately half an hour. At some point she lay down on the bed. Z told Mr. Jones that she had feelings for him and asked him to lie down with her. Mr. Jones testified that it was not unusual for women to show an interest in him.

[379] Z kissed him and he responded and their interactions led to sex. After they had finished she told him that she wanted him to come back and he gave an equivocal response even though he had no intention of returning. They never had sex again.

[380] Mr. Jones testified that Z had loaned money to the church and not to him personally. He agreed that there was a court action which ordered the repayment of the funds to Z.

[381] Mr. Jones denied telling Z that having sex with him would benefit her spiritually or cure any past ills and insisted that any sex that took place was consensual.

Analysis

[382] The Crown advances two alternative routes to conviction with respect to these allegations. First, they submit that Z did not consent to the sexual activity that took place. However, Ms. Beauchamp submits that if I believe that Z did consent or have a reasonable doubt about the issue, any consent was vitiated as it was obtained by Mr. Jones abusing his position of “trust, power or authority” as pastor of the church, as defined by s. 273.1(2) of the Code.

[383] The principles relating to s. 273.1(2)(c) have already been set out in these reasons. In this case, the Crown relies upon Mr. Jones’ comments that having sex with him would help Z spiritually and heal the harm caused in Barbados as being the comments that constitute an abuse of trust, power or authority.

[384] I agree that these comments, if made, would vitiate consent under s. 273.1(2)(c) of the Code. However, the difficulty with the Crown’s position is that Z’s evidence is littered with inconsistencies and internal conflicts. For example, when she went to the police to report the allegations, she indicated that she was not even sure that sex had taken place. When asked by the officers if she had wanted a sexual relationship with Mr. Jones, she said that she did not know. When asked who had initiated the sexual activity she replied:

I don’t I don’t…cuz it’s hard to say I…we were in bed but it’s hard to say like who and knowing me prop knowing I probably won’t but I don’t know. I couldah done but I can’t say yes that I…

[385] Moreover, when she contacted her friend Joy Green after seeing the police news release, she testified that Ms. Green had refreshed her memory about the conversation they had after the incident. Ms. Green reminded Z that she had told her that she had had sex with the bishop and described the size of his penis. There was no suggestion of any non-consensual activity or any reference to Mr. Jones insinuation that sex would be spiritually beneficial. When challenged in cross-examination as to why these details were omitted from the account told to her one of her closest friends, Z was unable to explain.

[386] In her written statement to police, Z indicated that “I really do not know what happened during the process when the pastor had sex with me”. Later on in the statement Z wrote that “it was only once we had sex because after that instance I feel something wrong then I realised he used me to get money” suggesting that the sex may have been consensual. She added that after the event that “my body was craving for him and would say that he would come over and help me out.”

[387] These inconsistencies significantly impact Z’s credibility. I find that there must be reasonable doubt on both the issue of consent and whether Mr. Jones made any comments stating that sex would help Z – the basis on which the Crown relies to prove consent was vitiated.

[388] Even though Ms. Beauchamp argues that the inconsistencies can be explained by the fact that Z is a simple person who was nervous when first going to the police, I find her evidence to be too unreliable to form the basis for a conviction.

[389] Count 8 is therefore dismissed.

VI. CONCLUSION ON ALL COUNTS

[390] For the reasons above, I find Mr. Jones guilty of the following counts:

• Count 1: Sexual Assault on X

• Count 2: Administering a Noxious Substance to X

• Count 4: Sexual Assault on Y

• Count 5: Administering a Noxious Substance to Y

• Count 12: Sexual Assault on B

• Count 13: Aggravated Assault on B

• Count 14: Theft of $20,000 from B

• Count 15: Theft of jewellery from B

• Count 16: Fraudulent sale of B’s boyfriend’s car

[391] Mr. Jones is acquitted of the following counts:

• Count 3: Theft of monies from X

• Count 6: Theft of monies from Y

• Count 7: Theft of moneies from Y

• Count 8: Sexual Assault on Z

S.A.Q. Akhtar J.

Released: 14 December 2017