COURT FILE NO.: CR-17-0019-00

DATE: 2018-01-30

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

T. Boisvert, for the Crown

• and -

R.R.

T. Woods, for the Accused

Accused

HEARD: January 3, 4 and 5, 2018,

at Thunder Bay, Ontario

Mr. Justice D. C. Shaw

WARNING:

AN ORDER RESTRICTING PUBLICATION OF ANY INFORMATION THAT COULD “IDENTIFY” THE COMPLAINANT OR WITNESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 486.4 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

Reasons For Judgment

[1] The accused, R.R., is charged with two counts of sexual assault, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code; one count of touching a person under the age of 16 for a sexual purpose, contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code; and one count of incest, contrary to s. 155(1) of the Criminal Code.

[2] The complainant in each of the four charges, B.W., is the daughter of Mr. R. She was born […], 1996. She is presently 21 years of age.

[3] The charges relate to two separate alleged incidents. The first alleged incident was when Ms. W. was 14 years of age. The second alleged incident was when Ms. W. was 18 years of age.

[4] Four witnesses testified at trial for the Crown: Ms. W.; M. B., who is Ms. W.’s cousin; K. O., who is Ms. W.’s aunt and godmother; and D. H., who is the owner of a property on which the second alleged incident is said to have occurred.

[5] The defence called no evidence.

The Evidence

A. Admissions

[6] The Crown and defence agreed to the following:

• The identity of the accused;
• Jurisdiction;
• Ms. W.’s birth date of […], 1996;
• Mr. R. is the biological father of Ms. W.;
• Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) documents confirm that Mr. R. resided at O[…] Road, Thunder Bay, from April 1, 2011 to April 26, 2012;
• MTO documents confirm that Mr. R. had a red Pontiac Grand Prix, registered in his name from September 9, 2011 to June 2015;
• MTO documents confirm that Mr. R. has a green Dodge Ram Truck, registered in his name on August 16, 2006;
• Lakehead Public School Board records confirm that Ms. W. attended Ecole G[…] and A[…] schools during the 2010/2011 school year.

B. Evidence of Ms. W.

1. Examination In-Chief

[7] Ms. W. testified with a support person and, shortly after her evidence began, from behind a screen. Orders in that regard were made on consent.

[8] Ms. W. testified to the following:

(a) The First Alleged Incident

[9] Ms. W. was raised by her mother until her mother passed away in 2007 when Ms. W. was 11 years of age. She then lived with her grandmother until she was 14 years of age, when she went to live with her father, Mr. R. At the time, she was in grade 8, enrolled in Ecole G[…].

[10] Mr. R. resided on O[…] Road. Also residing in the home was Ms. W.’s sister, R., her sister’s boyfriend and Mr. R.’s girlfriend. Ms. W.’s brother, B., and her nephew, T., came to the home on weekends.

[11] One evening, at the end of her grade 8 year, she was with her friend, A., walking around and hanging out at a baseball field. A.’s older brother and his friends came to see them. The boys had alcohol that they passed around. Ms. W. had not had alcohol before but she drank it that evening because she wanted to fit in. The alcohol was Old English malt liquor. She became very intoxicated.

[12] After drinking she went back to her father’s home. Her older brother gave her a sip of what she now believes was vodka. She was blacking in and out during the night.

[13] Her father said, “Let’s go for a ride to sober you up.” Before they went for a drive, her father came back with pink bottles of Vex, a cooler. Ms. W. had a slushy cup that Mr. R. filled to the top with Vex.

[14] She and her father got in his green Dodge truck. Her father drove. She was in the passenger seat. No one else was in the truck.

[15] They drove around the City. They went to a Robin’s Donuts drive-through, near Hodder Avenue. Her father picked up a coffee. Ms. W. was going in and out of blackouts. She remembered going up the hill towards the highway. She awoke from her blackout in the passenger seat with her father’s right hand down her pants, in her vagina. Her father was in the driver’s seat. She could not recall if the vehicle was still moving. She realized what was happening and immediately grabbed her father’s hand with her left hand and pulled out her father’s hand. She cannot remember if she said anything to him. She was in and out of her blackout. Apparently she threw up. She remembers that they were pulled over and her father was cleaning her up in the area of her chest. She tried to run away. Her father pulled her toward the vehicle, put her in, slammed the door and they drove back home. She does not remember getting home. Her next memory is waking up in her bed, dressed in her pajamas.

[16] She cannot recall what she or her father were wearing that evening.

[17] When asked how she remembers the incident given that she was intoxicated, she said that still to this day she gets really bad flash-backs. She questions what she could have done to prevent the incident.

[18] When she woke the next morning, she was ashamed and feeling very “gross”. She asked her father, “What did you do to me?” Her father looked guilty. He said, “What do you mean, what did I do?” She replied “You know what I’m talking about, you did something to me,” to which he answered, “No, no, I didn’t do anything.”

[19] She did not report the incident to the police because she was scared and did not think anyone would believe her. When she was a little girl something similar happened to her at the hands of her mother’s boyfriend. However, she was told that when that assault was reported to the police, after she and her mother had moved to Edmonton, the police said it was too far away to do anything. She felt that if she were to say something to the police about the incident with her father, nothing would happen.

[20] However, she told her grandmother, her cousin M. B. and her aunt, K. O., about the incident. Her grandmother passed away last year.

[21] Her father’s behaviour changed after the incident. He would give her clothes, make-up and marijuana. He would say to her, “You look like your mother.” “You look yummy.” “I like you in those tight leggings.”

[22] Ms. W. continued to live with her father until grade 9 when she moved in with Ms. B. and Ms. O. on L[…] Street in Thunder Bay. They moved to Oshawa shortly thereafter. Ms. W. then moved back to Thunder Bay a couple of times and lived with her grandmother.

(b) The Second Alleged Incident

[23] Ms. W. was 18 years of age. She was staying with her brother, D., in his apartment on K[…]Avenue in Thunder Bay.

[24] She was partying with her friends and her brother’s friends at her brother’s apartment. She said that on a scale of 1 to 10 of intoxication, she was a 4.

[25] Her father came over to the apartment. She ended up going for a ride with her father in a red Pontiac car. The word “Pontiac” was on the rear window. Her father was driving. She was in the passenger seat.

[26] Her father brought large bottles of an alcoholic drink, perhaps Max Ice beer. Ms. W. drank one of the bottles. Mr. R. parked the car at C[...]. C[...] was on a property behind the Greyhound Bus station. At trial, Ms. W. drew a diagram of the property, marked as Exhibit 3 at trial, showing three buildings and multiple vehicles parked between the buildings. Her father parked the car behind one of the buildings, next to several other vehicles.

[27] Mr. R. had cocaine in a pouch. Both he and Ms. W. had some of the cocaine. It was the first time she had tried cocaine. It made her feel “really high and really drunk and really, like messed up.” At this point, on a scale of 1 to 10 of intoxication, she was a 9.

[28] Ms. W. had to urinate. She went outside. She did not remember how she got into the vehicle. She was in the back seat. Her father pulled his pants down and pulled her pants down. She was drunk. She just wanted him to get off. She remembered looking up, seeing her father on top of her, sweating. His penis and her vagina were touching. She said his penis was inside her vagina, but she did not see his penis and was assuming it was his penis. She could not see his hands or his arms while this was happening. She did not know how the incident stopped. She was in and out of a blackout. Although she was intoxicated, the memory of the incident keeps playing in her head, even to this day, with her father on top of her and she being scared.

[29] The next thing she remembers of the incident is “freaking out”. She was walking. Her father pulled over to the side of the road, yelling at her to get in. She got in the vehicle and was dropped off at her brother’s apartment on K[…] Avenue. She remembers getting into the apartment, then passing out on the floor and waking the next day.

[30] She said the incident made her feel suicidal and depressed. After the incident, she overdosed on pills multiple times and tried on one occasion to hang herself.

[31] She did not report the incident to the police at the time. She felt that people would judge her, that no one would believe her and that her family might hate her.

[32] When she was 15 or 16 years old she had told her brother, D., of the first incident that happened when she was 14. Her brother got angry, said she was lying and that their father would never do that. This was where one of her fears of reporting the second incident came from.

[33] Ms. W. became involved with a man she met online who lived in Lac La Croix. After a month the man assaulted her. It was not until she became involved with the police on April 26, 2016, as a result of this physical abuse, that she disclosed to the police the sexual assaults by her father.

2. Cross-Examination

[34] Ms. W. is an Indigenous woman whose parents are from Gull Bay.

[35] She did not remember if in her first video statement to police that, in describing the first incident, she said she woke up vomiting or that her father, while driving, had one hand on the wheel and one hand down her pants.

[36] Her memory is not as strong as when she gave the video statement at age 19.

[37] She did alcohol and drugs to try to forget what her father did to her. It did not work because when she woke up in the morning she would think about what he did. To this day she thinks about it.

[38] Her memory was fresher and more authentic when she gave her statement to police. She had now gone through a year of sobriety, wanting to change her life and wanting not to forget the memories but to try to overcome them and deal with them.

[39] She did not remember in her second video statement to police saying that as soon as the first incident happened she took off her seatbelt and ran away. (I note that the video statements were not played at trial, nor were transcripts of the video statements filed at trial).

[40] Ms. W. agreed that her memory of the events that happened is “really flawed” and that her memory “was like a blur”.

[41] With respect to the first incident she did not know whether or not the truck was moving when her father was fondling her.

[42] She remembered at the preliminary hearing, in reference to the first incident, saying that she did not know if her father stopped fondling her, that she just blacked out and woke up in bed. She could not remember if her father proceeded after she took his hand out of her pants. She did not know if they were stopped or driving.

[43] With respect to the second incident, she was asked if it was true that before she left with her father to drive to the auto parts business that she had 10 to 15 shots of vodka. She said she did not remember. She said that memories were going away, but that she remembered clearly what her father did.

[44] With respect to the second incident, she said that if her father did not insert his penis into her, it might have been his hand or something else. She remembered saying at the preliminary hearing that “I don’t even remember it happening, but it happened.” She agreed that she was blacking in and out and did not remember much. She said that her memories are based on flashbacks, traumatic memories.

[45] She denied that she was involved in these proceedings to get back at her father as a result of discovering what her father had done to her mother. She said, “He did all these really bad things to me and I just can’t stop thinking about it.”

3. Re-examination

[46] Ms. W. said that during the second incident, her father’s body part felt different than during the first incident when he put his hand down her pants. She said, “It felt more like a sexual act with your partner when somebody’s on top of you.”

C. M. B.

[47] The Crown advised that it was calling Ms. B. to testify as to what she was told by Ms. W., not for the truth of what was said but for the sole purpose of rebutting the suggestion of recent fabrication. The defence did not object to the evidence.

[48] Ms. B. is Ms. W.’s cousin. She is 13 years older than Ms. W.. She is also Mr. R.’s cousin. Ms. W. resided with Ms. B. from time to time.

[49] In the late fall or early winter of 2011, during a walk, Ms. W. told Ms. B. that a few months before she had been drinking with her friend at her friend’s house. Her father picked her up, took her back to his place and then asked her if she wanted to go for a drive. He grabbed a couple of Vex, poured them in a cup and gave them to her. She said she must have passed out because when she came to, his one hand was down her pants, touching her vagina. When she woke, he took his hand out of her pants and acted like nothing happened.

[50] Ms. B. did not report the incident to the police because the Thunder Bay Police did not have a great track record with Aboriginal people and because Ms. W. did not want to be known as the girl who was raped by her father.

[51] Ms. B. said she told her mother and her grandmother about the incident.

D. K. O.

[52] Ms. O. was called by the Crown to rebut the suggestion of recent fabrication. The defence did not object to the evidence.

[53] Ms. O. is Ms. W.’s aunt and godmother. Ms. W. has resided with Ms. O. for the past several months. Ms. W. also resided with Ms. O. for a period of time after Ms. O. moved from Thunder Bay to Oshawa in April 2012.

[54] In the fall or winter before the move to Oshawa in 2012, Ms. B. came to Ms. O. to tell her what she had been told by Ms. W.. Ms. O. then immediately talked to Ms. W.. Ms. O. said that Ms. W. told her that she and her father had been driving around, that she had been drinking and doing drugs, and that she passed out and when she came to, her father’s hand was, Ms. O. said, “I don’t know if it was in her crotch or near her crotch. And when she came to, she just kind of pushed him away and said ‘Hey, what are you doing?’ Like she was, she was, I don’t know, inebriated or stoned, I don’t know.”

E. D. H.

[55] Mr. H. has been the owner and general manager of C[...]. From 2003 to 2016, C[...] was located at the corner of M[…] Avenue and F[…] Road in Thunder Bay.

[56] Mr. H. was shown the diagram prepared at trial by Ms. W., which she testified depicted the property of C[...], including three buildings and multiple vehicles, behind the Greyhound Bus station. Mr. H. identified the property as shown on the diagram as C[...]. He added the street names of M[...] Avenue and F[...] Road to the diagram, plus a fourth building. He printed the municipal addresses for the buildings on the diagram.

[57] He said that cars were left on the lot. He had known Mr. R. since 2003. Over the years, Mr. R. had stored a green Dodge pick-up, a silver Dodge Caravan, a burgundy Pontiac Grand Prix, a green Camaro and a blue Camaro on the lot.

[58] Mr. H. had seen Mr. R. with Ms. W. on approximately 20 occasions. When asked if he noticed anything unusual about their relationship, he said they were very close and affectionate, touching hands or legs or hair, which was kind of unusual at first.

[59] He said that at nighttime the location was dark, with little traffic, on a quiet street.

[60] In cross-examination, Mr. H. said that he had no concerns about the nature of the relationship that Mr. R. had with his daughter.

Submissions

Position of the Crown

[61] The Crown submits that Ms. W.’s evidence as to what occurred during the two alleged incidents is the only version before the court and that the Crown’s case stands or falls on the credibility of Ms. W.. The Crown submits that although Ms. W. acknowledged that her memory had faded as to the minutiae of the events, such as, with regard to the first alleged incident, whether the vehicle was moving or not moving, the speed of the vehicle and what clothing she and her father were wearing, she was unshaken in cross-examination with respect to the nature of the assaults themselves. The Crown further submits that details which Ms. W. did provide are corroborated by third party records and the evidence of Mr. H..

[62] The Crown submits that Ms. W. was candid about her personal challenges and was quick to admit when she was uncertain about details.

[63] The Crown submits that the evidence of Ms. B. and Ms. O. rebuts the suggestion that Ms. W. fabricated her evidence.

Position of the Defence

[64] The defence focuses on the credibility and reliability of Ms. W.. The defence submits that Ms. W.’s credibility and reliability have to be assessed in the context of her admitted intoxication at the times of the alleged incidents, her acknowledgment of a blurred memory, variations in her stories, flashbacks and lack of specificity as to details surrounding the alleged incidents. The defence submits that there is enough uncertainty in Ms. W.’s evidence to create a reasonable doubt as to Mr. R.’s guilt. The defence submits that Ms. W.’s evidence is not trustworthy and that it would be unsafe to base a conviction on her evidence.

Discussion

[65] As the defence correctly emphasized in its submissions, Mr. R. entered the trial with the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence remains throughout the case until such time as the Crown has proved Mr. R.’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[66] The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with the presumption of innocence. See R. v. Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320, para. 34.

[67] The Crown is only partially correct in its submission that its case stands or falls on the credibility of Ms. W.. Both the credibility and the reliability of Ms. W.’s evidence are in issue.

[68] The distinction between “credibility” and “reliability” is described in Paciocco and Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, rev. 5th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2010), at para. 29:

“Credibility” is often used to describe the honesty of a witness. “Reliability” is frequently used to describe the other factors that can influence the accuracy of testimony, such as the ability of the witness to make the relevant observation, to recall what was observed, and to communicate those observations accurately.

[69] On the issue of credibility, I will deal fist with the issue of recent fabrication. Ms. B. and Ms. O. were called to rebut the suggestion that Ms. W. fabricated her account of what happened during the first alleged incident.

[70] In R. v. K.T., 2013 ONCA 257, at paras. 36-38, Watt J.A. discussed recent fabrication (citations omitted):

[36] A recent fabrication is one made up after the event about which the witness testifies. The fabrication need not be “recent”, in the sense of proximity to the witness’ testimony, but it must post-date the event that is the subject matter of the witness’ testimony.

[37] An allegation of recent fabrication need not be made expressly. It is enough that, in light of the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the trial, the apparent position of the opposing party is that there has been a prior contrivance. That said, it is not sufficient that contradictions appear or are exposed in the testimony of the witness in order for the recent fabrication exception to be engaged.

[38] An allegation of recent fabrication allows the party who called the witness to introduce evidence that the witness made a statement or statements consistent with his or her testimony, prior to the existence of a motive or of circumstances that led to the fabrication. In some instances, evidence of these prior statements may be admitted in reply.

[71] In cross-examination, counsel for Mr. R. suggested that Ms. W. was angry at her father after she learned how he treated her mother. The question implied that she had fabricated the allegations against her father because of her father’s treatment of her mother. Ms. W. denied the suggestion.

[72] In my view, the evidence of Ms. B. and Ms. O. rebuts the defence suggestion that Ms. W. fabricated her evidence regarding the first incident to get back at her father for his treatment of her mother.

[73] The evidence of Ms. B. and of Ms. O. was specific as to time and place. It was clear and unshaken in cross-examination. Ms. W. told each of Ms. B. and Ms. O. in the late fall of or early winter of 2011 of the basic facts of the first alleged incident that she has testified to at trial.

[74] The evidence of Ms. B. and Ms. O. is admissible only for the limited purpose to rebut the suggestion that Ms. W. had recently fabricated her evidence. It is impermissible to infer that Ms. W.’s evidence at trial is more credible because she repeated the same story or to treat her statements to Ms. B. and Ms. O. as corroboration of her testimony in court. The evidence of Ms. B. and Ms. O. cannot be assessed for the truth of its contents. See R. v. K.T., supra, at paras. 47-49.

[75] I turn now to the evidence of Ms. W. herself. There was nothing in the manner in which Ms. W. gave her evidence, both in-chief and in cross-examination, that raised any concern that she was not being truthful. She freely admitted that at the time of both alleged incidents that she had been intoxicated to the extent that she blacked out. She also freely admitted that she was having difficulties with her memory as to details surrounding the alleged incidents such as speed of a vehicle, the clothing that she and her father were wearing, and how many drinks she had. She was forthright in acknowledging that during the second alleged incident she could not say for a fact that it was her father’s penis that penetrated her as he lay on top of her and that it could have been his hand, although it felt different than when he had placed his hand on her vagina in the first alleged incident and felt more like a sexual act with a partner on top.

[76] She conceded that her memory was flawed.

[77] Although cross-examination effectively showed that there were inconsistencies and memory lapses with respect to peripheral matters, Ms. W.’s recollection of the essential facts of the events of both incidents remained clear.

[78] Her credibility as to the two alleged incidents was corroborated by the MTO records which showed that on the dates in question Mr. R. had the specific vehicles which Ms. W. testified were where the sexual assaults occurred. Her credibility with respect to the second alleged incident is corroborated by the evidence of Mr. H. who confirmed the accuracy of her drawing of where the alleged incident occurred. He testified as to how dark and secluded the property would be at night.

[79] It was apparent that Ms. W. found it difficult emotionally to relate her evidence in the presence of Mr. R., even with a support person and testifying behind a screen. Ms. W. required several breaks during her testimony to compose herself. In her testimony she referred to suicide attempts as a result of the emotional turmoil that these alleged incidents caused her. She also spoke of her addictions and counselling to deal with her issues arising from the alleged assaults. She testified that as of the date of trial she had been sober for a year and two days. I found that she gave her evidence sincerely. She was not evasive. I appreciate that demeanour should not be unduly relied on. Whether a person appears to be sincere in the witness box is only one of many considerations. Her demeanour was consistent with my other findings supporting her credibility. I find there was nothing in the manner in which Ms. W. gave her evidence that raised concerns.

[80] I find Ms. W.’s evidence to be credible.

[81] Even if a complainant appears to be sincere and truthful, and even if the complainant believes what she is saying, it does not necessarily follow that her evidence is reliable. R. v. H.P.S., 2012 ONCA 117, [2012] O.J. No. 748 (C.A.), at para. 34. Where allegations concern the distant past, there is a greater risk a witness will have difficulty recollecting events. In this case, the first alleged incident is said to have occurred more than six years ago. Ms. W. acknowledged that her memory of details had diminished over time. There were inconsistencies brought out in cross-examination about what Ms. W. may have said to the police in statements given in 2016 and at the preliminary hearing. Ms. W. made reference to flashbacks of the alleged incidents. Her extreme intoxication at the time of the alleged incidents, when she was going in and out of blackouts, mandate a careful scrutiny of her evidence as to what happened on each of the two occasions in question.

[82] Having said that, I am satisfied on the issue of reliability.

[83] Although Ms. W.’s memory of the details surrounding each of the alleged incidents was seriously compromised by the degree of her intoxication and her blackouts during the incidents, and although her memory of the surrounding details has further diminished over time, her evidence of the essential core of what her father did to her sexually on each of the two occasions was clear and compelling.

[84] A blackout is evidence of the fact that a witness cannot testify as to what happened at particular period of time during a drinking episode. However, this is not a case of Ms. W. having no memory of the relevant criminal act. While she had no memory in the moments leading up to the criminal acts and a compromised memory of what happened afterward, she had a vivid memory of the two sexual assaults themselves.

[85] She was awakened from the blackouts while she was being sexually assaulted.

[86] Ms. W. was able to describe in court each of the sexual assaults.

[87] This is not a case of Ms. W. piecing together circumstantiated evidence and coming to the conclusion that she had been sexually assaulted. She was awakened from her blackout to see and feel her father’s hand inside her pants, on her vagina. She was able to see and feel that her father had pulled down her pants and his pants and was on top of her body. With respect to the latter incident, the only relevant fact that she could not say with clarity and certainty was that her father’s penis was inside her vagina. She could only assume it was.

[88] The confirmatory third party evidence overlaps the issues of credibility and reliability. Ms. W. described the first incident taking place in her father’s green Dodge truck. She described the second incident taking place in her father’s red Pontiac. The MTO records and Mr. H.’s evidence confirms that Mr. R. owned those particular vehicles at the particular times in question.

[89] Ms. W.’s school records are consistent with where she said she was going to school at the time of the first incident, the year of the incident and her age at the time.

[90] The accuracy of the diagram which Ms. W. drew of the scene, where she testified she was sexually assaulted during the second incident, was confirmed by Mr. H.. Mr. H. spoke to the isolation and darkness of the location at night.

[91] Ms. W. testified in the context of a year of sobriety, not as someone whose powers of recollection and communication are presently impaired by alcohol and drugs.

[92] I consider those details surrounding the two incidents which Ms. W. was unable to recall to be peripheral to what is required to found convictions. She was, however, able to recall many details. With respect to the first incident, Ms. W. was able to recall what she did leading up to getting into the truck with her father, the make and colour of the truck, what she was drinking, what her father poured into her cup, that they went to a Robin’s Donuts drive-through where Mr. R. picked up a coffee near Hodder Avenue. She recalled driving up a hill toward the highway, before she was awakened from her blackout by her father’s hand down her pants. She remembered where she was sitting and where her father was sitting. She remembered her father cleaning vomit off her. She remembered running from the truck, being pulled back into the truck by her father and the truck door slamming.

[93] With respect to the second incident, Ms. W. identified the colour and make of her father’s red Pontiac, described the alcohol her father gave her, described how her father gave her cocaine from a pouch, remembered in detail the C[...] property and where her father parked the car, remembered urinating outside the car and remembered her father pulling down her pants and his pants. She recalled her father was sweating, she remembered “freaking out”, walking at the side of the road, getting back into the vehicle because her father was yelling at her and being dropped off at her brother’s apartment on K[…] Avenue.

[94] While there are details missing from Ms. W.’s recollection of each incident, there are sufficient, rich details that she did recollect that give her descriptions of the sexual assaults meaningful and reliable context.

Conclusion

[95] In coming to my decision, I have considered each of the two incidents separately. I have determined that the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. R. is (a) guilty of count number one, sexually assaulting Ms. W. contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code; (b) guilty of count number two, touching Ms. W. for a sexual purpose contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code; and (c) guilty of count number three, sexually assaulting Ms. W. contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

[96] I find that the Crown has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. R. had sexual intercourse with Ms. W. during the second incident. Mr. R. is found not guilty of count number four.

__“original signed by”

The Honourable Justice D. C. Shaw

Released: January 30, 2018

COURT FILE NO.: CR-17-0019-00

DATE: 2018-01-30

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

• and -

R.R.

Accused

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Shaw J.

WARNING:

AN ORDER RESTRICTING PUBLICATION OF ANY INFORMATION THAT COULD “IDENTIFY” THE COMPLAINANT OR WITNESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 486.4 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

Released: January 30, 2018

/sab