Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 15-3517 DATE: 2018/12/03 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Crown J. Levy, on behalf of the Crown Attorney

- and -

ADEEL SAFDAR Accused D. Paquette and L. Wilhelm, for Adeel Safdar

- and –

SHAHEEN SAFDAR Accused N. Hasan, for Shaheen Safdar

-and-

AATIF SAFDAR Accused

HEARD : September 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, October 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 2017, January 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, March 26, 27, 28, 29, June 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, July 30, 31, August 1, 2, 3, 7, October 9, and 25, 2018

A.J. Goodman J.:

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION:

[1] This is a most bizarre, sad, convoluted and factually perplexing case.

[2] There are two completely distinct and differing versions leading up to the series of disturbing events as detailed by the evidence presented in this lengthy trial by both the Crown attorney and the defence respectively.

[3] On November 5, 2014, Sara Salim (“Sara”) disclosed a history of prolonged, abusive and horrific domestic violence perpetrated on her by the three accused; her husband, Adeel Safdar (“Adeel”), her mother-in-law, Shaheen Safdar (“Shaheen”), and her brother-in-law Aatif Safdar, (“Aatif”). [1]

[4] After a police investigation, the three accused were charged with assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, assault simplictor, and utter threats to cause death or bodily harm, contrary to their respective provisions in the Criminal Code. Adeel and Shaheen also face an additional count, namely, aggravated assault, contrary to s. 268 of the Code.

[5] These charges relate to incidents that were alleged to have occurred between January 4, 2014 and September 30, 2014, at the City of Hamilton. All three accused pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. While Aatif chose to represent himself at trial, he confirmed that he relied on counsel for his co-accused. In effect, all three accused were presenting a joint defence.

[6] The evidence adduced at trial and submissions presented by the parties consumed 45 hearing days. For a variety of reasons, the trial stretched over the course of more than a year.

[7] Towards the conclusion of trial, defence counsel raised the issue of delay pursuant to s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A further hearing date was scheduled for October 9 and continued on October 25, 2018.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES:

Crown Attorney’s Position :

[8] Mr. Levy, for the Crown, poses several key questions. Were the injuries suffered by Sara while living in the Safdar home (over 200 scars, by her count; including iron burns, cuttings, bruises, burns, deformations, and a jaw broken in two places) sustained at the hands of the three accused? Or was she so seriously mentally ill that in a period of nine months living with the Safdars, she inflicted all of those injuries upon herself?

[9] Was Sara a victim of terrible domestic abuse and violence by the three accused who kept her captive in their home, cut off from her parents, family and friends and forced to clean and cook for the family? Or, was she a woman who not only self-harmed but also tormented and assaulted members of the Safdar household?

[10] Mr. Levy submits that the complainant’s evidence ought to be accepted. The Crown concedes that Sara did provide differing versions of the events to various doctors, health care professionals, police and others. However, Mr. Levy submits that Sara was neither dishonest, nor did she fabricate her evidence. She provided her best recollection of the numerous incidents. The Crown says that a careful analysis of her testimony is required in light of the other evidence to determine which parts of her evidence should be accepted.

[11] While it is true Sara initially maintained throughout the incidents and hospitalizations that she purposely caused all the injuries “to punish herself”, or for other reasons; the Crown says that she was subjected to extreme domestic violence and was either threatened, coerced or intimidated. The truth only came out once she believed she was safe from harm.

[12] The Crown submits Sara’s original version that she inflicted the injuries to herself makes no sense. As Sara is a comparatively well-off, highly-educated doctor, should she be expected to respond to serious domestic violence in a manner different from less affluent or poorly educated victims? Moreover, there has been no legitimate diagnosis of any mental illness. The mental health reports from the hospitals she visited were based on Sara’s own words and actions when she was admittedly lying about having caused all the injuries to herself. Neither hospital conducted any objective psychological tests to confirm their diagnoses.

[13] Except for the 21 months she was married to Adeel, and specifically the nine months that she spent living at the Safdar home, Sara’s life has been and continues to be completely “normal” in every way. The suggestion that she did all of this to herself, caused all these injuries through self-harm because she was mentally ill, is patently ridiculous. She did not suffer from any mental illness prior to or after her involvement with the Safdars.

[14] The Crown submits that Sara’s testimony concerning this abuse is supported by the credible and reliable evidence of other witnesses. An assessment of the complainant’s evidence reveals a number of things that had the “ring of truth”. Why would Sara make up this entire elaborate story in order to gain custody of her child? She could have just claimed that Adeel broke her jaw. The Crown says that Sara’s testimony is amazingly detailed and supported by the objective physical evidence of her injuries.

[15] Although the Crown does not have to prove motive, Mr. Levy submits that the initial motivation for the abusive treatment and control of Sara was because of her alleged disclosure of bisexuality. A reasonable inference is also available to the effect that Adeel and the Safdar family wanted Ayat for their own without Sara.

[16] The Crown submits that the Safdars had some design or plan to create a situation where they could abuse Sara and ensure that it would be classified as self-harm. Realizing Sara has to stay in Canada, they physically, verbally, mentally and emotionally abused her. The Safdars implemented a plan so that in the event Sara did leave the house, she would not gain custody of Ayat. That is exactly what has happened with the Safdars’ claim that Sara had no interest in bonding with Ayat and that she was careless with the baby. The Crown says that this was all part of the grand scheme to make Sara look mentally ill so that no one would believe her claims of abuse.

[17] The Crown submits that it is almost impossible to believe that someone could cause all of those injuries to herself, in particular, the broken jaw.

[18] The Crown says that many segments of Adeel’s and Shaheen’s testimony, along with other defence witnesses, are not believable and their evidence ought to be rejected. Their testimony suffered from significant internal inconsistencies and was often contrived or scripted. Mr. Levy submits that the Crown witnesses provided truthful testimony. On the entirety of the evidence, all charges have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defence Position:

[19] Mr. Paquette, on behalf of Adeel, rejects the Crown’s position that the three accused are responsible for any or all of Sara’s injuries and have concocted a story of self-harm and mental health issues.

[20] According to the Crown, the Safdar family began fabricating their story right from the beginning and kept it ongoing until October 2014 when Sara finally left for Rochester, New York. The alleged false narrative theory is illogical, both in practical terms and as it relates to the evidence of any motive, if such existed. If in fact the Safdars were so enraged by Sara’s bisexuality so as to abuse her in the fashion she now claims, it makes little sense that they would keep her in the family. A much simpler solution would have been to end the marriage and let her leave. That opportunity clearly presented itself when she ran away in April 2014, which was not seized upon.

[21] Another major flaw in the Crown’s theory is the culminating event of Sara’s broken jaw. It was at this point that Adeel, fed up with Sara’s behaviour and unable to cope, called her parents to come and take her home. He did so knowing full well that they had been repeatedly accusing him and his family of abusing Sara since December 2013. This event would only fuel their accusations. After she returned home with her parents – on October 8 – he told her that the marriage was over, once again knowing that by doing so, he would give further fuel to her parents’ accusations. This is not behaviour consistent with someone who has a diabolical and organized plan to get away with abusing his wife in the fashion the Crown claims.

[22] Mr. Paquette submits that Sara experienced extremely serious mental health issues and that all of her injuries were self-inflicted. Her parents began alleging domestic violence in December of 2013. When Sara disclosed abuse in November of 2014, she adopted the story that her parents had been repeating for months to anyone who would listen, including: Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, Hamilton Police officers, Children’s Aid Workers, hospital staff, medical practitioners, relatives and others.

[23] The defence submits that Sara was neither credible nor reliable. For example, Sara testified that many times Shaheen told her that she was not allowed to leave the house, even apparently threatening that there were people who would kill her if she tried to leave. The defence submits that the notion that Shaheen would make the threat and an intelligent, highly-educated Sara would believe it, is ridiculous.

[24] Sara was an evasive and often non-responsive witness. She had a script and was intent on following it. She presented her testimony with a flat, emotionless demeanour. Most of the narrative she described is a wholly illogical version of events. She is an intelligent woman with a medical degree, whose evidence, if believed, would suggest she had no awareness of her options to leave this violent environment or her own capacity to avoid it. Her evidence suggests she willingly permitted her husband and a feeble, older woman to violently assault her without any resistance whatsoever. This includes complying with the direction to cut horrific words into her leg and submitting to being burned with a hot iron. This evidence simply defies logic.

[25] Notwithstanding her own background as a medical doctor, Sara was more than willing to take issue with the record keeping of the various medical professionals when those records undermined her new narrative. During her testimony, Sara made comments that effectively undermined the foundations of medical note taking. Often, she would fall back on a claim that she “might” have said what was recorded in the notes but “did not remember”. This was a theme in her evidence when she was confronted with unhelpful, yet objectively discernable facts.

[26] By contrast, Sara’s new narrative at trial is simply illogical in both form and substance. It is unsupported by any reliable, corroborative evidence. Moreover, her new account only emerged after returning to the care and influence of her parents, and even then it took over a month of exposure to their influence before she adopted it. The full narrative she told to police only came forward after three months of being developed with the assistance of a lawyer, apparent attempts to obtain psychiatric support, and accessing hospital records to shore up her story.

[27] Mr. Paquette submits that Sara’s mother had a clear and unwavering agenda of claiming domestic violence without any foundation. That version was incongruent with her own testimony, the testimony of other witnesses and the objective evidence of causation adduced at trial.

[28] Mr. Paquette says that this took place against the backdrop of Sara wanting to reinstate her medical licence and gain custody of Ayat. Indeed, her first mode of complaint was to the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”). She only complained to police after those efforts failed and CAS advised that they would be closing her file.

[29] Both Adeel and Shaheen testified and denied their guilt. Other defence witnesses provided evidence in support of the Safdars’ denials, which positively establishes reasonable doubt for all three accused. There is nothing that goes to the core of their denials that would permit this court to reject their testimony as being unworthy of belief.

[30] Mr. Paquette submits that even if this court does not find Adeel credible, the Crown has failed to establish the guilt of his client. It is submitted that the evidence of the principal prosecution witness was vague, with a motive to fabricate. Sara’s 180 degree flip as to what actually occurred is problematic.

[31] In sum, Mr. Paquette submits that the court has before it two starkly distinct narratives, both of which at one point came from the mouth of Sara. The court need not decide between the two. However, the version of events, once supported by Sara, and now put forward by the defence, is reinforced by objective and contemporaneous evidence from third parties, most notably medical professionals and police. Sara’s evidence suffered from significant internal and external inconsistencies.

[32] Mr. Hasan, on behalf of Shaheen, shares Mr. Paquette’s position and submits that his client ought to be acquitted. Mr. Hasan agrees that Sara’s injuries are admittedly disturbing and extreme. No doubt this case is bizarre and distressing. That being said, the nature and extent of the injuries alone cannot support criminal convictions. The court must be able to find as a fact, based on Sara’s testimony (in part or as a whole), how those injuries were sustained and that they were caused by the accused.

[33] Sara’s allegations of abuse at the hands of the Safdars were made long after the alleged assaults took place. For months, Sara insisted to police, medical doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, counsellors, social workers and just about anyone who she came in contact with that she, and she alone, caused her injuries and that the Safdars had done her no harm. Her allegations of abuse were made in a situation where she was highly susceptible to the will of her parents, who had been making such allegations, without any basis since December 2013. Her allegations of abuse were made at a time when resuming her career and regaining access to her daughter created powerful motives to blame the Safdars for the damage she had done to herself; damage that she could not hide from and that would have created a significant roadblock to her professional and personal goals if she acknowledged they were self-inflicted.

[34] Mr. Hasan submits that although the Crown attempted to refute some evidence of a motive for Sara’s parents to promote or perpetuate the domestic violence version of events, the objective evidence clearly does not support this contention. There is a motive to fabricate based on Sara’s mother’s continual agenda and behaviours throughout the end of 2013 and 2014 to force the abuse story onto Sara. The agenda is to secure custody of the daughter Ayat and to promote her medical profession.

[35] The records from the various hospitals and CAS provide a real time objective snapshot of Sara’s assertions and behaviours consistent with her initial narrative of self-harm and mental illness.

[36] Shaheen testified about her deteriorating, poor health issues. That evidence was corroborated by the testimony of Adeel, a medical doctor and by other defence witnesses. Each of those witnesses described Shaheen’s health issues dating back to early 2000. They all maintained that position throughout cross-examination and no further evidence was presented to contradict them.

[37] Mr. Hasan disputes the Crown’s theory that this was a concocted story that began in December of 2013 and evolved over months, and now years. He argues that the evidence of Shaheen’s health and physical capabilities is itself sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.

[38] Moreover, Shaheen has a limited grade 10 level of education and it was evident from her testimony that she is not a particularly sophisticated person. It would have been a near impossible task for Shaheen to keep up with this story without unravelling in cross-examination. Shaheen was able to answer questions and explain the various events clearly throughout her testimony and was never shaken when questioned by the Crown.

[39] Mr. Hasan submits that the objective evidence belies the prosecution’s theory of the case. It is submitted that the record in its totality, which of course includes all of the defence evidence, must leave the court in a state of reasonable doubt. In sum, what really transpired, or more importantly, how the injuries occurred during the relevant time may never be fully understood or ascertained on the evidence presented. Mr. Hasan submits that his client must be acquitted of all charges.

[40] While it is conceded by both defence counsel that there were no perfect witnesses in this trial, including those called by the defence, at the end of the day the evidence called by the defence - warts and all - only adds to the doubt percolating throughout the Crown’s case. The Crown’s evidence is incapable of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[41] Aatif Safdar, self-represented, who chose not to testify, submits that his legal rights throughout this trial have been fully engaged and protected by counsel for his co-accused. He adopts defence counsel’s submissions in their entirety as it applies to the evidence leveled against him.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES:

[42] It is against this background that I now turn to the specific evidence and the analytical principles that I am required to apply in determining whether one or all accused are guilty or not guilty of the charges they face.

[43] All of the evidence must be considered in determining whether the Crown has made out the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. An accused is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence and is not required to give any evidence. The defence was not required to disprove the offences occurred as alleged by the Crown and in the manner proposed by the prosecution. The defence was not required to substantiate their theory of the case. The most fundamental rule is that the burden of proving guilt of the accused lies upon the prosecution throughout the case. Before an accused can be found guilty, a court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence establishes all of the essential elements of one or more of the offences charged against him, her or them.

[44] Here, there are two diametrically opposed versions of how Sara’s injuries were sustained and the surrounding events that are alleged to have occurred. Those are, on the one hand, Sara’s story of what the three accused did to her, how others became aware of the events, and the circumstances of her disclosure about the injuries. On the other hand, the defence denial that any acts of mistreatment, assaults or abuse were perpetrated against Sara, that Sara suffered from a mental illness or a major depressive episode, and the injuries were all self-inflicted.

[45] Although there was other evidence presented by various witnesses, some of whom were peripheral to the matters before, during or after the offences were alleged to have occurred or through their relationships with the principal actors; the only direct evidence of the abuse was Sara’s evidence that the assaults did or did not occur as she described them to various individuals at differing times, and Adeel’s and Shaheen’s evidence that no assault or abuse of Sara ever occurred. In this case, all counsel placed significant emphasis on the medical and hospital records and the witnesses who were in contact with the relevant parties during the timeframe in question. I am mindful that I must consider all of the evidence fully and fairly and not assess the defence evidence with any greater scrutiny than the witnesses presented by the Crown, or arbitrarily place less weight on the testimony of the defence witnesses, in particular, Adeel or Shaheen.

Reasonable Doubt:

[46] The Supreme Court of Canada has commented on the principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in several cases. In R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320, at para. 14, the Supreme Court explains that the meaning of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is "[a] standard of proof [that] is higher than… a balance of probabilities, yet less than proof to an absolute certainty."

[47] The law provides for no burden of proof on the defendant at any stage in the proceedings. The standard of proof in a criminal matter is the higher standard of proof; namely, beyond a reasonable doubt. Absolute certainty is not required, for that would be an impossibly high standard for the prosecution to achieve. However, it does demand considerably more than probable guilt. A conclusion of probable or likely guilt requires that an acquittal be entered: R. v. Starr, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144.

[48] Further, reasonable doubt cannot be based on sympathy or prejudice, but must be founded in reason and common sense and be logically connected to the evidence or the absence of evidence.

[49] The reasonable doubt standard falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities in trials where the evidence pits the word of the complainant against the denial of the accused and the result turns on the trial judge's credibility assessments. It is clear that I must apply the same standards in assessing the evidence of the accused, the evidence of the complainant and the evidence of any and all other witnesses who testified at the trial.

Assessing Credibility:

[50] Both the Crown and the defence focused on this as a case concerned principally with credibility and the internal and external consistency, reliability and rationality of the evidence advanced by the witnesses, focusing in particular on Sara, Rashda, Adeel and Shaheen. It is certainly true that the credibility and reliability of their evidence is central to the case.

[51] In a trial such as this, the framework for evaluation of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses is the three-step method of analysis described by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. This seminal test is straightforward. First, if the trier of fact believes the evidence of the accused, then the accused must be acquitted. However, even if I do not believe the accused’s testimony, or the evidence adduced by the defence, I would be obliged to dismiss the charge(s) if it leaves me in a position of reasonable doubt. Finally, even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of the defence, I am required to ask myself, having regard to the whole of the evidence presented at trial and on the basis of the evidence that I do accept, whether I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of one or more accused.

[52] In assessing the evidence, there are many well-established principles to be kept in mind. A criminal trial is not a credibility contest between witnesses. Time and time again the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal have made it clear that the court's verdict should not be based on a choice between the accused’s evidence and the Crown’s evidence, but on whether, based on the whole of the evidence, the court is left with a reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt: R. v. Challice (1979), 45 C.C.C. (2d) 546 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345.

[53] Indeed, it is not an “either/or” choice between two sides. I feel it is important to reiterate this fundamental principle because I must not permit the burden of proof to be inadvertently shifted to the accused by requiring him or her to convince the court that the defence evidence might reasonably be true.

[54] The assessment of credibility is often the primary and the most daunting task that the trier of fact faces in a criminal trial, involving determinations of the truthfulness of witnesses and an assessment of their reliability. It requires a determination of whether their recollections are accurate regardless of the sincerity of their beliefs.

[55] It is trite law that a trier of fact may believe all, none, or some of a witness’ evidence. A judge is entitled to accept parts of a witness’ evidence and reject other parts, and similarly the trier can accord different weight to different segments of the evidence that is accepted.

[56] Ultimately, there are no fixed rules to which the court can look to guide it in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses in this case, but a number of elements may be considered. These include the perceptions of the witnesses, their memory, how reliably and accurately they recall the events, the manner in which the witnesses’ perceptions have been communicated to the court, and whether the information has been presented in a sincere, complete and truthful manner. The court will look to the witnesses and assess whether they are being sincere and frank, or biased, dishonest or careless with the truth, or perhaps reticent or evasive in the evidence that they have provided.

[57] Inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses on relatively minor matters or matters of detail are, of course, normal. They are to be expected. In this case, I am mindful that I must assess whether there is a set pattern or rehearsed version of events advanced by the witnesses called by all parties. Indeed, this may be of even greater concern, for it may suggest collusion between witnesses in their evidence, fabrication, or excessive rehearsal and regurgitation of a set story.

[58] However, where an inconsistency of a witness involves a material matter central to the elements of the alleged offences and about which common sense dictates that an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken, the inconsistency can demonstrate carelessness with the truth that may undermine the whole of a witness’ evidence.

[59] In this case, all counsel concede that we have significant inconsistencies offered by most of the principal witnesses, along with several differing accounts of how the injuries occurred along with the various explanations offered. Suffice it to say that at the end of the day, the best approach to the assessment of credibility is for me to ask myself as trier the same questions that we admonish juries to consider when we ask them to assess the credibility and reliability of witnesses, and to determine the truth.

THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL:

[60] This was a very long and hard-fought trial. Extensive details about the principal parties and the surrounding events were presented by both the Crown and defence, and concomitantly challenged by the parties, hence requiring a review of the evidence. [2] I have also integrated some references to the parties’ positions on specific points of evidence.

[61] Sara was born in Pakistan and came to the United States around the age of 3 years old. She is an American citizen. Sara is the middle child of three sisters and all siblings are medical doctors. Her parents are retired professionals, who work at the University in Rochester, New York. (“Mohammad” and “Rashda”). Sara was well-supported by her parents who paid for her undergraduate education, and her medical training was supported through student loans. Sara’s parents put a heavy emphasis on the importance of education.

[62] Sara’s first language is English. She also speaks and understands Urdu. She became a medical doctor with a specialty in pain management. She currently continues to work as a clinician and assistant professor at the Strong Memorial Hospital and the University of Rochester.

[63] There was no evidence of a verified medical diagnosis of any mental health issues or self-harm behaviours while Sara was growing up.

[64] Adeel was born in Saudi Arabia and came to Canada as a teenager. His first language is Urdu and English is his second language. His undergraduate studies included bio-chemistry and molecular biology. Adeel received a Ph.D. from McMaster University and worked as a post-doctoral fellow at both Harvard University and McMaster University.

[65] Adeel’s mother is Shaheen and she speaks Urdu and very little English. Aatif is Adeel’s brother and is married to Sehrish Hassan. During the relevant timeframe of these charges, the parties resided at 4 Kaufman Drive in Binbrook, (Hamilton).

Arranged Marriage:

[66] Both Sara and Adeel as 30-something professionals asked their respective families to help them find a mate. Following some contact over the internet and by telephone, a first meeting of the families was arranged at the Salim home in Rochester. Two contentious issues that arose were the size of the wedding and the amount of the Mahr. Adeel and his uncle, Arshad Alfridi (“Arshad”) - Shaheen’s brother who lives in New Jersey - testified that he thought it was unusual that these issues would be raised at the very first meeting. Notwithstanding the apparent disagreements on these issues, both families and Sara and Adeel decided to move forward.

[67] The second meeting took place towards the end of June 2012 at the Safdar home in Brampton. Again the issues of the wedding and the Mahr were discussed and there was no agreement on either issue at that time.

[68] The third meeting took place in Rochester at the Salim home. Neither Adeel nor Sara was present. The size of the wedding was basically settled. The amount of the Mahr was not. The Salims’ wanted it set at $25,000 and the Safdars had offered $4,000. The Salims suggested that amount because both Sara and her mother felt it would demonstrate Sara’s value to the community. Ultimately, Adeel agreed to the amount of $25,000 for the Mahr.

[69] During the third meeting, it was alleged that Aatif insulted Sara's medical school training. Arshad testified that Aatif was neither rude nor did he denigrate Sara’s education. The Salims’ claimed to like Adeel and his father but did not have the same feelings towards Shaheen and Aatif. Sara’s parents referred to them as "worst people they ever met", and they considered them extremely disrespectful.

[70] The wedding occurred on December 23, 2012 in Rochester. There is some evidence as to whether Adeel lost his temper with Sara's cousins. Arshad testified that he never saw that occur.

After the wedding:

[71] Adeel returned to his job in Boston and Sara resumed her medical residency in New Jersey. They remained living apart until late September or early October 2013. In the meantime, most of their communication was by email, text, Skype and telephone, although there were some visits back and forth.

[72] Adeel suggests that very early on in the marriage Sara was behaving oddly and that she was uncomfortable opening up to him. He testified that he chalked it up to the fact that the wedding was arranged.

[73] Adeel claimed that he would travel to New Jersey two to three times per week and buy groceries for Sara and cook for Sara, and then he would return to Boston the same evening. This drive was at least four hours each way.

[74] At some point, Sara disclosed to Adeel that she was bisexual and had feelings for members of both sexes although she said she had never acted upon it. Adeel claimed that Sara had told him she was pushed by her parents to marry him. Sara testified that she always anticipated that she would have an arranged marriage. Adeel testified that there was a lack of intimacy and that Sara told him she had an intimate relationship with Joanna Stephens for several years and right up until the wedding. Sara denied this assertion.

[75] Adeel testified that bisexuality and homosexuality are frowned upon in his, the Muslim religion. He acknowledged that he felt betrayed when this was revealed and by the fact that she had not disclosed it prior to the wedding. He would not have married her if he had known about it. Shaheen testified that Adeel never told her about Sara’s sexual preferences, despite her testimony that Adeel told her everything. (The Crown submits that Sara’s bisexuality was the initial motive for the subsequent abusive treatment of Sara as the embarrassing bisexuality issue was considered a betrayal.)

[76] Adeel acknowledged being upset when Sara left her phone at his parents’ home after a visit in May 2013. During this timeframe, Adeel testified that Sara disclosed a history of depression, self-cutting and mental abuse by her parents. Sara was also absent-minded. Sara, her parents and friends denied this claim.

[77] Sara testified that early on in the relationship, Adeel exhibited controlling behaviour. Reference was made to an email of May 18, 2013, wherein Adeel wrote “Take a week off. I expect you here tomorrow and stay.” And then, “Just get here- no discussion or arguments”, signed “AdeelS”. When cross-examined, Adeel claimed he was just upset. Adeel also confirmed that he "never loses or has ever lost his temper in his life".

Sara moves to Boston:

[78] The couple continued to live separate and apart when Sara continued her fellowship in New Jersey. Sara became pregnant. She left the fellowship at the end of August because of her concern about the possible exposure to X-Rays during her fellowship, which she felt might harm her baby. She moved to Boston at the end of September or early October 2013.

[79] Adeel portrayed Sara as incompetent. She had to be reminded of doctor’s appointments, to eat, stay hydrated and take her vitamins. He looked after her as much as he could while she was pregnant. He alleged that she missed a very important doctor’s appointment for genetic testing of the fetus, which upset him. Adeel testified about Sara forgetting her phone in Binbrook and he demanded that she get another phone.

[80] Adeel claimed that after Sara moved to Boston he discovered that she was a frivolous spender. She disclosed to him that she was the owner of 10 to 15 credit cards, the majority of which were ‘maxed out’. Sara was not working and she also had approximately $200,000 in outstanding student loans. Adeel started making payments on both the credit cards and the car. However, when questioned about whether he knew that her father had taken over the car payments because they had not been made, Adeel said that Sara had access to the bank accounts. He then clarified that he was earning the money but Sara was actually physically making the payments.

Shaheen arrives in Boston:

[81] Shaheen came to Boston in early December 2013. At one point, Adeel testified that the primary reason his mother came to Boston was to help out with Sara and the cooking and cleaning. However, later he said that Shaheen did not help with cooking and cleaning as she was physically unable to do so. He did most, if not all of the chores and cooking. (The Crown questions why Shaheen was in Boston if she was not going to help with Sara, the housework or cooking.)

[82] Adeel claimed that cleaning was not necessary because he retained a cleaning service and he provided a document to corroborate his evidence. In examination-in-chief, Adeel testified that Sara never cooked or cleaned and his mother was apparently unable to cook or clean as well. Adeel said that he helped out with cooking whenever he could. He claimed that he did all the cleaning over and above the cleaning service while also working full time. Sara testified that both Adeel and Shaheen routinely complained about her dire cooking and cleaning abilities.

[83] There was much evidence about the sleeping arrangements when Shaheen arrived in Boston. Adeel testified that Sara made all the decisions as she was the “queen of the house” and she decided Shaheen would sleep on the beanbag in her room. Regardless of who made the decision, it is agreed by all that Shaheen did, indeed, sleep on the beanbag chair. Apparently, Shaheen, was able to sleep on a beanbag which is lower than the bed in the apartment and sit on a stool that was somewhere between 12 inches and 18 inches off the ground.

December 17, 2013:

[84] On December 17, Sara was at home with Shaheen. Adeel came home and suddenly said “why have you been telling mom all my secrets, I don’t tell her your secrets”. According to Sara, Adeel brought his fist under her shirt, grabbed her, put his face close and seemed extremely angry. When he grabbed her shirt, Sara testified that she was shocked. Adeel pulled her toward the other room by her arm. Adeel and his mother were both sitting down and he told Sara to keep standing. Sara said that Adeel asked her what she would do if he would torture her family. At one point, Adeel put his fist under her chin. Shaheen was also very angry at Sara.

[85] Adeel went to the bathroom and Sara wanted to leave the apartment as she was frightened and wanted to get away. She made a dash for the door and grabbed the car keys. She did not get a chance to grab her shoes. As soon as the door opened, Adeel grabbed the back of Sara’s shirt and shut the door. Sara called out for help and Shaheen put her hands over Sara’s mouth and they all fell to the floor. Sara could not call for help after the door was shut. Sara did not disclose this incident to her parents when they visited a few days later. Both Adeel and Shaheen deny that this ever occurred. Adeel testified that for some unexplained reason, Sara went outside in the cold winter evening without adequate clothing.

Forgiveness of the Mahr:

[86] According to Sara, right after the December 17th incident, Shaheen made an ultimatum and told her to forgive the Mahr. Shaheen directed Sara to write: “I, Sara Z Salim, forgive all MAHR from the marriage of Adeel Safdar and am prepared to listen to and carry out anything that Adeel Safdar requests because I know that he will do what is right”. The note doesn't just forgive the Mahr, it also refers to Sara having to obey Adeel.

[87] Adeel and Shaheen both claimed that they did not tell Sara to write this note. Adeel testified that a Mahr can never be forgiven and the obligation remains outstanding. (The Crown says that if the Mahr was so important to Sara, - which Adeel acknowledges - Sara would not have voluntarily forgiven the Mahr without some duress from Shaheen or Adeel.)

Sara’s parents visit her in Boston:

[88] On the morning of December 18, Adeel called Sara’s father, Mohammad, and asked him and his wife Rashda to come visit. His phone records reflect an initial 36 second call. Two minutes later, he called Rashda. The records show a 42 minute phone call. Adeel said he spoke to Rashda for 10 minutes and was updating her about what was going on. He then passed the phone to Sara and she spoke to her mother for 20-25 minutes. The Salims’ dispute the nature and length of this call; however, the phone records speak for themselves. Later that same day at 5:50 p.m., Mohammad called Adeel. The call lasted over an hour. Adeel’s evidence was that Sara spoke to her father for the majority of the call. Adeel testified that he asked if they could come to Boston to see Sara as he felt that their presence might assist with her emotional distress.

[89] The baby’s due date had passed and the Salims’ decided they should come to Boston. Mohammad said that he was worried about Sara and was thinking of driving to Boston the next day. He testified that Adeel said, “Uncle, I advise you not to come”. (The defence says that there is no logic in the suggestion that Adeel would not want the Salims to come to Boston.)

[90] On the morning of December 19, Sara sent Adeel a text message from the doctor’s office. (The defence says that this message shows that Sara was outside the home without Adeel or Shaheen and in possession of a cell phone at a time that is being suggested she is being held incommunicado. If she could phone home, she could phone Rochester. It contradicts the suggestion that she was prevented from leaving the home on December 17.)

[91] Adeel was challenged by the Crown about the “questionable” phone records produced by the defence. These records were generated by Adeel from his computer. Adeel testified that he did not know how to manipulate these records. (The Crown says that Adeel certainly would have had the opportunity to try to substantiate the reports by obtaining official records from Google before returning to court in January, yet made no such attempts.) [3]

[92] In any event, Rashda and Mohammad say Adeel called to complain about Sara’s cooking and cleaning. They testified that Adeel told them not to come. Adeel claimed he asked Sara’s parents to come to Boston because of Sara’s behaviour, even though he admitted that he was “somewhat afraid of Rashda”. He did not know if they were actually going to come to Boston. Adeel and Shaheen allege that Sara was crying, having tantrums, locking herself in the bathroom, saying she did not want the baby.

[93] On December 19, Sara’s parents made the long drive from Rochester to Boston. Much time and testimony was spent on this entire series of events about how the Salim’s entered the apartment building.

[94] Rashda and Mohammad testified that when they got to the Boston apartment, they could not gain entry. They followed another tenant in through the front door and were standing outside the apartment. In cross-examination, Rashda was asked about her evidence at the preliminary inquiry where she stated she saw the colour of the cloth of Shaheen’s outfit from the bottom of the apartment door. A photo of the apartment entry area in Boston clearly shows a door that goes all the way to the floor and would make it essentially impossible to see anything under it.

[95] Adeel testified that he arrived at virtually the same time as Rashda and Mohammad, that he entered the building with them and reminded them that the building had an intercom outside which required visitors to have a code to gain access to the building. Sara’s parents testified that Adeel was upset they were there, having told them not to come and he threatened to call the police. Adeel responded that he was very happy to see Sara’s parents.

[96] Adeel testified that he knocked on the door of his own apartment and that he did so to surprise Sara that her parents were there. He was asked, how does knocking on the door make it a surprise? He replied that there was no thought involved as he felt like knocking, so he knocked.

[97] The parties congregated in the bedroom. Shaheen was sitting on the low stool. According to Adeel, Rashda almost immediately started making allegations against Shaheen and Adeel. Rashda claimed Adeel was ruining Sara’s career and she was going to get him arrested. Rashda was shouting that this was domestic violence.

[98] Rashda testified that during these visits Shaheen made comments about it being alright to hit her daughter-in-law and about how she had burnt Adeel with an iron when he was a young child. Adeel and Shaheen both denied those comments being made as well as the actual iron burning ever occurring. There is no evidence of any burn marks on Adeel.

[99] Adeel claimed Sara was upset with her parents during this visit. Adeel claimed Rashda immediately asked Sara why she was stressed out, why she did not want the baby and she asked if Shaheen was making her cook and clean. Sara and her parents testified that Shaheen said Sara had tried to leave and they had stopped her and that it is proper for a mother-in-law to physically deal with a daughter-in-law. Rashda was horrified and informed Shaheen that “you go to jail in this country for doing that”. Sara and Rashda testified that Adeel would not let Sara be alone with her parents, to which Adeel denied. At one point, Adeel told the Salims to leave. Adeel disputed this version and testified that Sara told him she texted her father to ask them to leave. All agree that when the visit ended, things were very tense.

[100] Also, during the visit, there was a discussion regarding the money that Sara had loaned to her sister. Sara testified that Adeel brought up the subject and that he demanded that her father repay the money to Sara but that the cheques be made out to him. Adeel denied that he wanted or needed the money. From the evidence of their financial situation, it appears they could have used the money.

[101] Adeel testified that Mohammad looked embarrassed or uncomfortable and that he explained that the reason he asked Sara to loan money to Sara’s sister is because all his money was tied up. (The Crown says it does not make sense that a successful academic professional asks his heavily indebted daughter to loan money to a sibling because his money is tied up.)

[102] At some point in the visit, Sara sent Adeel a text message, referring to her dad. This appears to suggest that Sara still had a phone and that she was upset with her parents’ behaviour. After the meeting and the Salims’ departure, Sara testified that Adeel started saying things like “I can’t believe your parents were saying things in your defence” or “if it was my daughter saying all this, I would beat the shit out of her”. During the first visit, Rashda and Mohammad wanted to talk to Sara alone but Adeel would not permit it. Adeel denied these assertions.

[103] Shaheen had invited the Salims’ to stay for dinner but they declined. Once they left, Shaheen suggested they bring them some home cooked food, so Adeel brought the food to their hotel and gave it to Mohammad. (The defence says that this was a courtesy and runs contrary to the behaviours the Salims’ allege.)

[104] On December 20, the Salims returned to Adeel’s apartment. Immediately upon entering the apartment, Adeel testified that Rashda started yelling and again making accusations towards himself and Shaheen. He claimed that Rashda accused him of domestic violence, and said she was going to have him arrested so that he would get thrown out of the U.S., Canada and Pakistan.

[105] Adeel also testified that during the visit, Mohammad became physical and pushed him. Mohammad is a diminutive individual while Adeel is much larger in size.

[106] Adeel testified that Sara told her parents that she did not want them to go to the hospital for the birth of her daughter. Sara and her parents said that it was Adeel who told them not to come to the baby’s birth. Adeel promised Mohammad that he would let him know when Sara was going into labour. Rashda did not remember this promise. Sara testified that she repeatedly wanted to talk to her parents alone but that Adeel would not permit it.

[107] Sara said the second visit ended when Adeel said her parents had to leave because he was going to work. Adeel claims that Sara shouted at her parents to get out, which she and her parents denied. At some point during this visit, Mohammad handed a cell phone to Sara when no one was watching. After her parents left, Sara gave the phone to Adeel because she feared him. Adeel said that as Sara had an extra phone, there was no reason for her to keep it. (The Crown asks why would Adeel have accepted the phone that Sara’s father just gave her, rather than Sara just keeping it?)

Ayat's Birth:

[108] Ayat was born on December 23, 2013. The Salims were not present for the baby’s birth. Adeel testified that he sent a message to Sara’s father advising that Sara was going into labour. Mohammad denied receiving any message.

[109] Sara’s parents claimed that they only learned of Ayat’s birth from Adeel’s father, and not from Adeel. Rashda spoke to Sara on the telephone as she was concerned about her daughter after their two visits and after Adeel apparently threatened to call the police on them. There is no evidence that Rashda spoke about any alleged abuse with Sara. According to Sara, Adeel and Shaheen were not happy that she had spoken with her mother. Rashda also called the birth hospital and acknowledged she was alleging domestic violence. Sara and baby Ayat were discharged on December 25.

Adeel’s Job at McMaster University:

[110] There has been much evidence regarding Adeel leaving Harvard and coming to Hamilton to work at McMaster University. Issues arose as to when he got the job, when he signed the contract, who he informed, when he made the decision to move from Boston to Hamilton and, most importantly, what he told Sara about moving to Hamilton and when.

[111] Sara testified that she heard some discussion of moving to Hamilton after Shaheen arrived in Boston in December, yet it was not confirmed until after Ayat was born. She did not know they would be moving on January 4 until they started to pack a few days earlier. Adeel testified that Sara knew in September because he had discussed it with her, albeit he had not yet made the decision. Adeel gave several versions as to what he was intending to do. Either, he was not going to leave early and was going to work in Boston until the end of his fellowship in April, or he was going to leave in January, February or March.

[112] Sara testified that Adeel knew her preference was to stay in the United States to work and that Adeel had agreed. Adeel said there was no such agreement and he always intended to move back to Canada. He admitted that he told Sara he would look in the United States but he never even applied for a job in the U.S. According to Sara, it was important for her to remain in her country to avoid going through another year of training to be licensed in Canada.

[113] There were questions as to whether the job at McMaster was part-time or full-time. Apparently it started out part-time and then was changed to full-time just before Adeel returned permanently to Hamilton.

[114] On March 2, Adeel posted on Facebook that he was happy to be returning to the ‘Hammer’ (Hamilton) and that he was looking for a job. This is after he said he confirmed the McMaster job and knew it would be full-time, and after he knew that he would have a second job at the start-up. Adeel maintained that this meant he would be looking for a tenure track position because the fellowship would come to an end at the end of September. Nowhere in the Facebook posting does it say that Adeel was looking for a tenure track position. (The Crown submits that this makes Adeel’s evidence regarding the McMaster job very suspect and brings into question what and when Adeel told Sara. Sara repeatedly expressed a desire to remain in the U.S.A.)

[115] However, juxtaposed with various assertions are the letters from McMaster University. Adeel received two offers, one at a start-up biotech company and another doing research. He had two contracts from McMaster in the fall of 2013, which provide some evidence of his plan to return to Canada. There was a letter from McMaster dated September 26, 2013 for a postdoctoral fellowship appointment. Adeel signed the contract on October 1, 2013. There was another letter regarding his revised fellowship appointment with a $72,000 salary. Adeel signed that contract on March 4, 2014.

[116] Adeel told Sara that her parents wrote a derogatory letter to his boss and, as a result, he got fired from his position at Harvard. Sara did not believe that her parents would do that. Mohammad testified that he never did write a letter and did not even know who Adeel’s boss was. (The Crown say that Adeel told this to Sara to drive a wedge between her and her parents and to get Sara to sympathize with him and to justify a move to Canada.)

Adeel and Sara Move to Hamilton, Canada (Binbrook):

[117] On January 4, 2014, Adeel brought Sara, Ayat and his mother from Boston to the Kaufman Drive house in Binbrook. Adeel claims it was to get away from Sara's interfering parents as Sara was also getting stressed out.

[118] The Salims were not told of their daughter’s move to Canada. They only found out when Rashda called the Binbrook house a number of times and it was finally confirmed that Sara was there. Rashda had a very short conversation with Sara. There was only one further conversation between Rashda and Sara before all contact was terminated. During that call, Rashda testified that it sounded to her like Sara had been crying. It was also during this call that Shaheen told Rashda not to call the house any more.

[119] (The Crown says that even though Adeel had apparently planned to move back to Canada all along, it is somewhat astounding that he would have no plan to obtain residency status for Sara. The claim that he could not complete the application for residency status for Sara because her parents would not give him a copy of the marriage certificate simply does not have the ring of truth. There were other ways he could have obtained an official document such as a marriage certificate. However, he did not even look into it. Neither Rashda nor Mohammad were ever asked about this issue.)

January 2014:

[120] On January 10 or 11, a late night phone call came to the Salims. Rashda testified that she picked up the phone, thinking that it was her daughter, but it was Aatif. Aatif told Rashda that she had been causing disturbances for his mother and she should stop calling. Rashda told him that it was not wrong to call her daughter. She was concerned because Sara had given birth to a baby and then was “gone from her sight” to a place where she apparently could not make a phone call or visit. Aatif started to threaten Rashda, saying she would pay the consequences. She hung up on him.

[121] Only a few minutes passed and the phone rang again. This time, Mohammad answered and the call was put on speaker phone. Aatif was calling again and he told Mohammad that he would come to Rochester to make him pay if he did not stop Rashda from calling the Safdar house. When asked “to pay how”, Rashda testified that Aatif said to pay with his (Mohammad’s) life if they did not stop trying to reach the Safdar house. Rashda testified that Aatif said some disrespectful words in Urdu during this call and that she could hear Shaheen’s voice in the background.

[122] A couple of hours after receiving this call, Rashda contacted the Hamilton CAS and informed them she believed there was domestic abuse going on in the Safdar house with her daughter. Subsequently, she received a call from a Hamilton police officer.

Police attendance on January 12, 2014:

[123] Police constable Sorbara (“Sorbara”) attended at the Safdar residence as a result of Rashda’s call to check on Sara and Ayat. Before Sorbara went to the house, he spoke with Rashda over the phone. Rashda advised him of certain concerns and her opinion as to what was happening with Sara.

[124] Sorbara testified that he spoke to Sara privately at the Safdar home. Sorbara advised Sara of what her mother had informed him. He was just looking to ensure that “everyone was ok”. Sara’s response was that her main focus was on starting a new family. She felt her parents were trying to force her to have an unwanted relationship with them and threatening police action if she did not leave the Safdars.

[125] Sorbara asked Sara more than once if she was being forced to live in Canada. Sara clarified that it was her choice to be in Hamilton, she wished to stay and she was there of her own free will and was not being forced by anyone. Sara made no allegations of abuse or criminal wrongdoing. After Sobara departed, Sara was crying and said Rashda sent the police and alleged that she and Ayat were in danger.

[126] Arshad learned from Adeel’s father that the police had come to the house on January 12. Arshad called and spoke with Sara who confirmed that everything was fine. Around that same period, Rashda called Arshad several times and expressed concerns that Sara was being kept in Canada against her will. Arshad told Rashda that he spoke to Sara and there were no concerns. Rashda insisted Arshad call Sara again. Arshad called Sara, who replied, “I am really disturbed by what they did in Boston”. Sara said she did not want to speak to her parents. Arshad relayed that message to Rashda.

[127] Sara testified that Shaheen told her to advise her parents that she was there of her own free will. She testified that she obeyed this instruction as she was afraid of going against Shaheen. While Sara had not yet been physically assaulted, she was concerned that talking to police or others would end her marriage. Sara felt more stress as things were not getting any better. She found it demoralizing and upsetting. She testified that Adeel and Shaheen were happy that she abided by what they had demanded.

February and March 2014:

[128] After the move to Binbrook, Adeel went back to Boston to finish up some work at Harvard. He moved back to Hamilton permanently in February.

[129] The alleged physical abuse commenced in February. According to Sara, Shaheen slapped her, made her hold what has been described as the “chair position” for minutes or hours on end. Shaheen beat her with a broomstick and a wire hanger. Shaheen got angry at Sara for wrongly preparing Adeel’s lunch and asked if she wanted to leave or get a divorce. When she said yes, Shaheen said “I told you I would kill you if you try to leave and I’m going to tell Adeel everything you just said”. Adeel said that if she ran away he would “torture” her.

[130] During these months, Sara claimed that Adeel pinched her arm causing bruising. Shaheen also punched Sara in the face several times and hit her head against the banister. This occurred when Shaheen accused Sara of bragging about getting a good job with a good salary. Adeel grabbed her hair. Shaheen pulled out a one centimetre patch of Sara’s hair, saying she would do this every time Sara misbehaved.

[131] According to Sara, Adeel told her that he would forgive Sara for her “mistakes” if she killed herself and that she could do it by taking a whole bottle of pills or drinking bleach. When Sara moved a pan burning on the stove, Shaheen said that next time she would throw hot oil on Sara. (The defence suggests that Sara was so spaced out she did not realize there was a fire burning on the stove.)

[132] At some point in time, Shaheen hit Sara on the toes, fingernails, legs and back with a hammer causing bruises and hematomas to toes on both feet.

[133] Adeel testified that he was unaware of virtually all of Sara’s injuries. He stated that once they were no longer sleeping in the same room, he never saw her unclothed. Sara’s uncontradicted evidence is that the family would not wear shoes in the house, therefore her injuries were readily apparent.

[134] Adeel testified that Sara was so incompetent she could not properly change a diaper or bathe Ayat. When Adeel was home, he was doing the majority of the care for Ayat. Adeel claimed that he would try to involve Sara in Ayat’s care, for example by having her change a diaper.

[135] Adeel testified that throughout March, Sara’s behaviour progressively worsened. She was more spaced out and at times she would cry or would laugh for no reason. She was becoming more distant and careless.

[136] During March, Sara testified that Aatif threatened to hit her and drag her outside the house for being a bad wife. Adeel also said “Don’t you know that I could kill you and put your body behind the house and no one would ever know?” Shaheen encouraged Sara to commit suicide.

The Leg Carving incident:

[137] In March 2014, there is no dispute that Sara was the one who actually carved into her own leg with a knife. Sara testified that she carved the words “I want to kill Adeel and Ayat” because Shaheen threatened to beat her with a hammer. She had previously been hit with the hammer and it was very painful. In learning about the leg carving, Adeel slapped Sara in the face. (The defence says that Sara, on her own, carved the words into her leg as she was showing clear signs of mental illness.)

[138] After the leg carving, Sara testified that Adeel ordered that she refrain from being alone with Ayat. Adeel also took a photograph of the leg carving. Around this time, Adeel stopped sleeping in the same bed with her.

April 2014:

[139] In April, the alleged physical abuse continued to escalate. Sara described numerous other incidents. Shaheen punched her in the face causing a bloody nose, several times in front of the baby. Again, Sara was made to do the chair position. Aatif yelled at Sara and pushed her down towards the stairs. On another occasion, Aatif pushed Sara down towards the stairs and Adeel twisted Sara’s arm in response to a pacifier incident.

[140] Adeel pushed Sara’s head into the counter for not cleaning well enough. Aatif threatened to beat Sara up if she did not do what Shaheen demanded. During this period, Aatif became even more abusive than before. Both Shaheen and Aatif struck Sara with the wire hanger. There were also two major events that occurred in April, namely the iron burns and Sara’s shaving of her head under threat of being beaten.

[141] Sara was expected to clean every day and do much of the cooking. Her hands became dry and cracked due to not being permitted to wear rubber gloves and being exposed to bleach and various cleaning products.

[142] Shaheen started having Sara write notes portraying herself in a negative light, blaming herself for all ills in the family and praising the Safdars. These were ultimately shown to the police after Sara left the home.

Iron Burns incident:

[143] Sara sustained iron burns to her thighs and right forearm. Sara testified that Shaheen burned her because she did not clean the house on time. Shaheen and Adeel deny any knowledge of the iron burns or that they were involved.

Shaved Head:

[144] Sara had undergone a hair transplant several years earlier and her hair was very important to her. She had previously been told by Adeel to shave her head, but had not done so. Sara testified that she was told to shave her head by Shaheen under threat of being hit if she refused. (The Crown asks whether it makes any sense that Sara would voluntarily shave her head? Adeel’s suggestion that Sara treated it very cavalierly and said it would grow back is not believable.)

[145] As Sara's “odd and bizarre" behaviours were alleged to have escalated, Adeel claimed that he did not recognize that there was a mental health issue, even acknowledging the horrendous words cut into Sara’s leg. Adeel testified that he tried to get her to go to the doctor, yet Sara adamantly refused. Sara said “I am an MD, you're a PhD, I know better". In cross-examination, Adeel said he wished he had recognized the mental illness and repeated that he wished he had done more. When he was asked what more he would have done, he replied “more talking”.

[146] Adeel was asked several times why he did not just take her to the doctor and he said he could not physically force her to go. He was asked why he did not call an ambulance or 911. In cross-examination, Adeel says that he insisted on her seeing a doctor at every opportunity.

Sara’s Restrictions:

[147] Sara testified that among other things she was not allowed to use the phone except to contact Adeel. She was not allowed to speak to her parents. If friends called she was to say she was busy. She was not permitted to use a computer. Sara testified that she was not allowed out of the house alone.

[148] When Sara moved with Adeel to Binbrook, she had turned over two “American” cell phones to Adeel, her regular cell phone and the one her father gave her. Police noted that neither were used after January 2014. When asked why Sara was not provided a cell phone, Adeel gave a number of answers: first, he said she didn't need a phone because she was not working and those who had phones in the family were all working. Next, he said if she had wanted a phone he would have obtained one for her. Then he said that Sara told him she didn't want one because she was not working and would get one when she started to be employed.

[149] Adeel testified about the availability of a "floater phone", which had never been mentioned during Sara’s cross-examination. The floater phone was used by Sara’s father-in-law when he went to work. Adeel said Sara could and did use this phone when she went out, unless his father was at work. In cross-examination, Adeel also said that Sara often used his own cell phone.

[150] Adeel denied any and all alleged restrictions and said Sara could come and go as she pleased. Sara frequented several nearby places such as Shoppers Drug Mart and Tim Horton's. In cross-examination, Adeel testified that not only could Sara come and go as she pleased but she also went out by herself at various times of day and night. Prior to the leg carving incident, Adeel spoke about times when Sara took Ayat out but would forget Ayat's diaper bag. He would have to call her to give her the bag, presumably when she had the house "floater phone".

April 26, 2014: Sara’s Abrupt Departure from the Safdar House:

[151] On Saturday April 26, Sara left the Safdar home. She testified that she had been planning to escape from the house for a month or so at that point.

[152] Early that same day, the entire family including Sara, had been at Lime Ridge Mall to get Ayat’s ears pierced. Shaheen testified that following the ear piercing, the women went shopping. The men went elsewhere, leaving Sara alone with Shaheen and Sehrish. (The defence says that this trip to the mall would have provided the perfect opportunity for Sara to make her planned escape with Ayat. Yet, despite this obvious and simple opportunity, Sara chose not to do so).

[153] Sara returned home with the Safdars and waited until about 9:00 or 9:30 p.m. when everyone had gone upstairs. She left out a living room window, barefoot, without her shoes, money, credit card, cell phone, and most importantly, without Ayat. Sara testified that she had planned to leave because of the abuse. It was only a matter of time and the right opportunity. Everyone was upstairs and this was her chance. When she was downstairs, she opened the window in the den and removed the screen as she had done once before. She left the house through the window, got into her car and started driving away. Sara testified that if she had gone out the front door, the alarm would have alerted the family and she might have been caught.

[154] In any event, Sara started driving away from the Safdar residence. Since she did not know her way around, she set the GPS for Toronto. She wanted to go someplace that she believed the Safdars would not be able to find her. She thought the best thing at that time was to contact a friend. Sara remembered parking at a hotel which she believed was in Toronto. She stopped at a hotel and used the computer to email her friend.

[155] Sara testified that she had no plan and did not seek help from her parents, who had been pushing an agenda of domestic violence. Sara added that she was not prepared to go to the police who had been involved because of her parents’ allegations.

[156] Sara testified that when she tried to send an email to her friend, the account password had been changed. She testified that Adeel knew her passwords and believed he must have changed it, which he denied. In any event, Sara contacted her friend Jackie Tran (“Jackie”) by email. On April 26, 2014 at 11:33 p.m. Sara writes, “Hi Tran, how’s it going? Your buddy, Salim”. Sara claimed she had not been able to communicate with any of her friends and family since moving into the Safdar house. (The defence says that Sara is now on the run and stops at a hotel to reach out to two friends and this is what she writes. There is no hint of panic, urgency or distress in that email. She conveys nothing of being abused at the hands of the Safdars.)

[157] At 11:46 p.m., Jackie replies, “so YOU ARE alive!!!! Howz the kid?” and then a minute later sends another message. Sara replied the next morning at 7:23 a.m. by writing, “Can I have your phone #? I’m in a bind and need your help if you can :(”. Jackie was in Washington, D.C. and Sara had had no contact with her for some time. The next day Jackie sends Sara her phone number at 12:17 p.m. and states, “o boy, u ok?”. At 8:14 p.m. Sara writes “Nevermind false alarm. All is well :) Yes I’m alive and kid is well and keeping me running around :) :) :) How are you doing?” Jackie responds to Sara at 9:22 p.m.

[158] According to Adeel, the incident started when he had asked Sara to bring something upstairs for Ayat. When she did not return, he called out for her. He went downstairs and Sara was not there. He called the floater phone and his father picked up. He and Aatif left the home and drove around to nearby locations where they thought Sara might be. When Adeel could not locate Sara, he called police and reported her as a missing person. (The Crown asks why Adeel called the police within 30 to 60 minutes of discovering that she was gone, if Sara could come and go as she pleased?) Adeel returned back to the home and observed the window screen on the living room floor and realized Sara must have gone out via the window. Adeel said he was then starting to panic. In cross-examination, when asked why he started to panic if Sara was allowed to go out any time she wanted, Adeel explained that he equated “panicking” with “being concerned”.

[159] Sara spent the night in her car at a hotel and then started driving again. She doesn’t know where she went. Adeel emailed Sara “We are all extremely worried” and then “Please come home immediately, Sweetie”. Sara testified that she saw Adeel’s email not long before 3:11 p.m., upon which she replied she was coming back. She wrote: “ok I’m on my way back and will be home by tonight please please don’t divorce me. I will be strong for you and Ayat :’( :’( :’(.” She made her way back to the Safdar home without hesitation or reservation. (The defence says the idea that Sara bided her time for a month to make this escape from the increasingly violent abuse at the hands of the Safdars, yet what brings her back to the Safdar home is a short email from Adeel on April 27 at 10:52 a.m. asking her to come back home, does not make sense.)

Sara returns to the Safdar Home:

[160] A crucial aspect of this entire event is Sara’s return back to the Safdar home, sometime after midnight on April 28. The emails filed represent the entire line of communication between Sara and Adeel. There is no other communication between Sara and the Safdar family members, either directly or indirectly before she is intercepted by police at 4 Kaufman Drive.

[161] Prior to Sara’s return, Constable Callendar (“Callendar”) met with Adeel who advised him that he had just received an email from Sara indicating that she was sorry and was returning home. Adeel informed Callendar that Sara had disclosed to him that she suffered from depression in her teenage years and cut herself as a means of feeling pain. He further advised that Sara had become more reclusive since the birth of Ayat and was unable to care for the child. Adeel stated that Sara had not seen a doctor since after Ayat’s birth and that her behaviours, including her self-harm of cutting into her leg, had not been disclosed to any doctors. He explained that there had been an ongoing dispute or conflict with Sara’s parents due to Sara and Adeel’s return to Canada. Adeel advised Callendar that Sara’s family had been continuingly calling members of his family even after being asked not to do so. Sara had decided to cut off all contact with her family.

[162] Upon interception, Sara was taken to the police station and interviewed by Callendar and Detective Currie (“Currie”). Sara told them that she left the house to clear her head. She slept in her car in the parking lot of the Toronto Hilton Garden Inn. After seeing emails from Adeel she thought to herself, “what did I do?” and decided to return home. When asked why she left through the window, she stated she didn’t want anyone to question why she was leaving. She informed Callendar that she had been having a hard time with the lifestyle changes, the move to Canada and having to care for Ayat.

[163] Sara informed the police that she was very positive about her marriage and specifically denied any domestic violence. She appeared overwhelmed that the extended family was in the home with her. She said that her husband was the “nicest person” and that his family was “very supportive”. Sara told Callendar that she impulsively cut her hair because she needed a change and that she knew it would grow back.

[164] Sara was advised by police that her parents were in Hamilton and were worried and wanted to see her. Sara informed Callendar she didn’t want to see or speak with her parents. Rather, she asked him to inform her parents that she was ok, that she came home on her own and that she was happy with her husband in Canada. Callendar’s observations reflect Sara’s emotions unadorned by any other influence.

[165] Sara was informed by Callendar that she was going to be apprehended under the Mental Health Act. Sara was concerned about being labeled as having mental health issues, what people might think, and what it might mean to her career as a doctor. (The defence says that her spontaneous reaction at this time is important because it provides evidence of motive for the later reversal of her position).

[166] At the hospital, Currie and Callendar met with Sara in private. Rashda had made clear her views that Sara was being abused and held against her will. Domestic violence was clearly on the radar and police shared some of Rashda’s concerns and questioned Sara about it. Callendar asked Sara specific follow up questions such as, is there any violence at home? What was the reason for leaving? Are you scared to be there? Sara offered no evidence to suggest she was being held against her will, controlled or abused. Instead, she doubled down on her claims of being depressed and overwhelmed. When Callendar confronted her about the carving on her leg, Sara claimed that she did it on impulse. She expressed some uncertainty about what to do about her parents moving forward, but was clear that she did not wish to see them.

[167] Callendar testified that he had some lingering concerns but ultimately closed the criminal aspect of the police investigation at that time. He did so because Sara appeared to be providing information of her own free will and was adamant that no domestic violence had occurred.

[168] At the hospital, Sara was reunited with Adeel before she saw any medical health professionals. Adeel had Sara’s cell phone with him at the hospital. Sara was surprised to see it because she thought it was gone forever as Shaheen had told her it was discarded in the pond behind the house.

[169] Sara testified that Adeel kept reassuring her. He encouraged her to follow his instructions and that everything would work out. She testified that she was afraid they would take what was on her leg the wrong way meaning she actually wanted to kill someone or they would think she was psychotic or harmful. According to Sara, Adeel said “tell them that you’re depressed—after all you are, right?”

[170] Sara realized that maybe she had been feeling depressed. She claimed that Adeel said that if she said she cut herself in prior years and was depressed, then they will think that this will explain the leg carving. She testified that she thought this was her way to make Adeel happy, to keep the Safdars’ out of legal trouble and to ensure the shortest hospital admission possible. Sara was also worried that if they thought her leg carving meant she wanted to cause harm to anyone, her daughter would be taken away from her. She explained that at that particular moment, she trusted Adeel because she thought he sounded so reassuring.

[171] Sara testified that she did not know if she was going to be admitted or just evaluated. Sara testified that she had never been diagnosed or investigated for any psychiatric illness. She never believed that she needed assistance and was upset that she was having to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

Sara’s admission to St. Joseph's Hospital – April/May 2014:

[172] With some limited exceptions, Sara continued to assert the narrative of self- harm and mental health issues over the next 11 days while she was an involuntary patient in the psychiatric unit of St. Joseph’s Hospital.

[173] Extensive hospital records from St. Joseph’s Medical Centre have been filed. These records tend to establish Sara’s persistent original narrative of self-harm which was reported to and observed by multiple medical or mental health professionals. As will be discussed later in greater detail, they provide some objective evidence that Sara was either conflicted or indeed mentally unwell during the relevant time frame.

[174] A Psychiatric Emergency Service triage note dated April 28, 2014 refers to Sara disclosing she had no history of mental health except “cutting as a teenager”. She explained her recent “odd behaviour” was in response to her mother-in-law accusing her of not caring for her baby and husband and telling her to cut herself and shave her head out of anger. The note makes no mention of Sara disclosing anything with respect to the burning, which was unknown to both the Safdars and the hospital at the time.

[175] On the second day Sara was in the hospital, a full physical examination was conducted. During this examination, the hospital staff observed her burned legs and forearm. Dr. Christina Adam, a psychiatrist at St. Joseph’s Hospital, asked her about the burns. Regarding the leg carving, Sara revealed to Dr. Adam that her mother-in-law threatened to hit her if she did not carve the words into her leg. Sara then remained quiet.

[176] Adeel and his mother visited Sara and saw the bandages on her right forearm due to the burns. The bandages on the legs could not be seen. Adeel asked about the burns and Sara got the impression that he did not know about them because he acted surprised. Shaheen asked her what she told the doctors about the burns. She told them that she said her mother-in-law did it.

[177] According to Sara, both Adeel and Shaheen appeared shocked, agitated and worried. Shaheen said “Sara I thought I could trust you”. Adeel said something like “Why would you do that?” At that point, Shaheen said something like “I did the arm not the legs, or the legs not the arms”. Adeel said “I don’t know why you would do that; you have to tell them you did it yourself”.

[178] Sara testified that she also revealed that Shaheen told her to cut her leg. Adeel said they would never believe her and would think she is crazy. He asked, “You want to come back and see family and daughter right?” He said that Sara had to tell them that she did all of this cutting and burning to herself and it’s the fastest way she could come home. Sara testified that she thought maybe Adeel was right and she would get to go home sooner if they didn’t think she was psychotic. Also, Ayat would not be taken away from her. The next day, Sara advised Dr. Adam that she did the burns and the carving in the leg to herself. Dr. Adam replied “I thought so”.

[179] On April 29, Sara reported to hospital staff that her mother-in-law did not burn her and it was all self-harming. In the same nursing note, it is reported that Sara started laughing after telling the nurse she would change “kill” on her leg to “kiss”. Sara also reported Adeel and Shaheen as being very supportive. (The defence says that this observation evokes a real sense of someone who is grappling with mental illness. The organic comment about changing “kill” to “kiss” validates Sara’s laissez-faire attitude toward harming herself, and demonstrates a disturbing level of comfort with the content and existence of the carving itself.)

[180] On May 5, Sara’s parents and one of her sisters came to the hospital in Hamilton and tried to see Sara. They were on her floor and were yelling to her through a glass wall, while Sara stood nearby at the nursing station. A nurse asked Sara if she wanted her to call security. Sara declined the offer and did not want to see her parents at that time.

[181] During her hospital stay, a social worker advised Sara of a phone call with Rashda wherein her mother made allegations of abuse. Sara again denied any such abuse and she did not want contact with her family due to problems they caused with her husband.

[182] Dr. Adam authored a segment of the discharge summary. In regards to the leg carving, she wrote: “Sara stated that her mother-in-law told her to do this which was not believable to me.” Dr. Adam also wrote that it seemed Sara had some nihilistic thoughts about being worthless as a wife and mother and therefore put her on Zoloft and a low dose of Risperidone. The discharge summary also includes the following comments: “Her mother-in-law, according to Sara, was accusing her of not caring for her baby and Sara says her husband told her to cut herself and shave her head when he was angry at her and therefore she did.…”

[183] The discharge summary notes that Sara described the burns as self-inflicted. The discharge report confirms other aspects of Sara’s mental health issues and history that are discussed later in these Reasons. Sara was discharged on May 8, 2014, and went back to live with the Safdars.

Facebook/Gmail Messages:

[184] Two days after Sara was released from the hospital, an email was sent from Sara’s Gmail account and a post was sent from her Facebook account. Adeel testified that Sara asked him to help write the note and that they worked on it together. These were Sara’s thoughts, although he participated in their creation.

[185] Adeel testified that when Sara came home from the hospital, she came up with the idea to reach out to family and friends to appeal to them to talk to her parents. This was done in order to prevent them from concocting lies and interfering in their lives. Adeel cautioned Sara, believing that the messages were a little aggressive. He testified that Sara asked him to help her format it into paragraphs.

[186] Nevertheless, these messages created a lot of attention. Many individuals were given an opportunity to learn about the personal problems between the Salims, Sara and the Safdars. The messages contain alleged wrongdoings and “false allegations” that Sara’s parents had pursued. In examination-in-chief, Adeel testified that he believed all of them to be true. Those points include Sara’s parents calling the hospital in Boston, the police, meeting with CAS, all the while alleging abuse and spreading the word in their community that Sara had been kidnapped and was being abused.

[187] Both of Sara’s friends, Amina Mohammed (“Amina”) and Hillary Overburg (“Hillary”) said they did not believe these postings or messages were written by Sara, certainly not the Sara they knew.

[188] Sara testified that she had no access to a computer and that the messages were all Adeel's idea. Adeel wrote them on her account for which he knew all the passwords. She testified she was told that if someone called the house she was simply to say the content of the messages were all true. (The Crown says that the writing was more in Adeel's style including capitalization of some words. There were some minor grammatical errors, perhaps more in line with Adeel's composition of English, being his second language.) Later, a nude photo of Sara was posted on Facebook and sent to her friend.

Journal Writings:

[189] After Sara returned home from the hospital in May, Shaheen told her that the only way she could gain her trust back is if she would write certain things in her journal provided by the hospital. She also told her to backdate some of these writings. According to Sara, Shaheen and later Adeel, would tell her exactly what to write down in the journal. Shaheen barely speaks and reads English. (The defence asks if it is entirely self-serving for the Safdars to force Sara to make these numerous journal entries to sustain their “scheme”. Shaheen could not comprehend what was drafted.) Sara explained that Shaheen would have Sehrish read it to her and translate it.

[190] Sara wrote in her journal up to September 2014, including a listing of all the injuries she apparently caused to herself. She testified that she did not write anything in the journal of her own free will. When asked about the journal and Sara’s claim that she was told what to write, Adeel responded that he never told her what to write in it, never dictated anything, and had no knowledge of what she was composing.

[191] Sara signed each and every note in the journal with her signature and the date, although the date was not always accurate. (The Crown says if she was writing in this journal for herself, why sign each note? She was told to sign the notes so if it became necessary for the Safdars to use them against her, they could prove it was Sara who wrote it. This is similar to the three pages of notes signed by Sara which were shown to police after she left the home in April. Adeel also showed the police an old ID card with Sara’s signature on it and compared it to the signatures on the notes.)

May 2014:

[192] Things were generally better when Sara came home from hospital as she was not physically abused. However, according to Sara, it was during May that Shaheen advised Sara about her brother in the military who would kill Sara if requested and that everyone would think it was an accident.

June and July, 2014:

[193] According to Sara, the abuse started again and there were some physical punishments. Shaheen beat Sara with a wooden spoon and said she was “beating the devil out of” her. Both Aatif and Shaheen punched Sara in the stomach and pushed and hit her several times. Apparently, this was because the Safdars were not happy about Hillary visiting Sara at home.

Hillary/Amina:

[194] Hillary is a long-time friend of Sara’s, having met in grade seven. After college, Hillary moved to California. They kept in touch by speaking on the phone. Prior to 2014, it wasn’t unusual for Hillary and Sara to speak every two to three months. Hillary only spoke to Sara a couple of times in 2013.

[195] Hillary had no frame of reference for what was going on in Sara’s life at that time. Prior to her testimony, she and Sara had a number of discussions where Sara shared some of what had transpired in the Safdar home. Hillary admitted that she was aware of the family court proceedings.

[196] Hillary’s previous phone conversations with Sara would usually last about an hour. When Hillary called Sara to visit, the phone call lasted five minutes. Sara was very brief, pausing in between questions and then saying something dismissive.

[197] Hillary termed her one visit to the Safdar home as “strange”. Initially, Adeel attempted to have Hillary not visit, claiming Sara had shopping to do. Sara testified that Hillary was only allowed into the house because the father-in-law thought she was a CAS worker. Hillary testified during the visit, it was almost as if Sara was speaking in code. The entire visit lasted 10 to 15 minutes, which was very abrupt considering how far Hillary had travelled.

[198] In describing Sara, Hillary said she looked like she could not have been 100 pounds. She noticed her hands were “peeling and scaly". Sara testified that while Hillary was there, Shaheen called her out of the room to take a phone call. Sara said it was Adeel telling her to get rid of her friend. Hillary confirmed being asked to leave at that point.

[199] On cross-examination, Hillary admitted that her impression of what was going on was, in part, informed by Rashda, with whom she spoke after receiving the email and before visiting Sara. She admitted that when she visited the Safdar home, Rashda did not tell her about the 11 day hospital stay, the April incident, or the fact that Sara was on medications.

[200] Amina is another long-standing friend of Sara’s. Like Hillary, she had spoken to Sara on a couple of occasions about what had gone on in Canada prior to testifying and had some awareness of the child custody issues. Similarly, she is close with Sara’s family. Amina testified that she never saw any marks or cuttings on Sara while growing up.

[201] After receiving the email, Amina called and Adeel answered the phone. She then spoke with Sara and confirmed that Adeel was there as well. When she spoke to Sara, Amina heard a whisper as if someone was directing Sara to say certain things or how to answer. Amina asked if she could visit. Suddenly, she heard, “No, No, No”, from a man and then there was a long pause. Sara informed Amina it would not be a good idea to visit. Prior to contacting Sara, they had not had any communication for five or six months.

[202] Amina gave conflicting accounts as to whether she spoke first to Sara’s parents or Sara following the Facebook post, which prompted her contact after the extended hiatus. Like Hillary, Amina did not know that Sara had been hospitalized. She was informed by Sara’s sister that Sara was in a hostile situation and by Rashda that there was abuse in the relationship.

[203] Both Hillary and Amina gave evidence as to their impressions of the email/Facebook postings and their interactions with Sara, both concluding to varying degrees that something was awry. Hillary thought the Facebook post was a joke or a scam. It appeared to them that at all times, Sara was not able to talk freely, although neither did anything about it.

[204] According to Sara, sometime after Hillary’s visit, Adeel said to her “I want you to call the police and I want you to tell them you want to kill your daughter”. Sara declined. Adeel and Shaheen then started arguing. They decided that Sara should instead just cut up all her credit cards and identification, including her driver’s licence and tear up her U.S. naturalization certificate. While she did not want to comply, Sara felt that if she refused they would start hitting her again. None of these cut-up cards were thrown out and they were kept in Shaheen’s room in the bottom drawer of her night table beside her bed. Adeel testified that he observed Sara cut up her credit cards and other documents without prompting. (The defence says that because some of Adeel’s cards were apparently in the bag of cut-up cards, this demonstrates that Sara did it all on her own.)

[205] The journal and the note with the Mahr waiver was also kept in the same drawer. On cross-examination, Shaheen testified that she did not know the bag of cards and the notebook were in the night table in her bedroom. She claimed she never used that night table and cannot even open the drawers.

August/September 2014:

[206] It appears from Sara’s testimony that things became much worse in August and into September. Sara testified that the physical abuse escalated substantially resulting in many of the wounds, deformities and scars seen in the numerous photographs of Sara entered at trial. There is no dispute that the photographs depict very serious injuries and this seems to be the one fact that all witnesses agree upon, although all of the witnesses give differing versions of the events as to the cause or the manner of infliction.

[207] Adeel testified about Sara’s increasing bizarre behaviour, irritability and mood swings. Sara would talk to herself, become argumentative or start laughing for no reason. He testified that he spoke about obtaining a divorce.

[208] Sara testified that Shaheen pushed her into the shower with her clothes on and told her to keep standing there while a fan was left on. Sara was often sleep deprived. Shaheen told Sara that she could only leave the house if accompanied because of people whom she communicated with and who would kill her if she left on her own. (The Crown is not suggesting that there were actually people who would kill Sara or that Shaheen had actually arranged such a scheme. All that was required was the threat and an intention and desire to control Sara. The defence says that this is simply not believable because Shaheen is uneducated and unsophisticated.)

[209] According to Sara, in August or September Adeel struck and whipped her with a belt to her ear. Sara testified that this injury was caused by both Adeel and Shaheen. Eventually this assault resulted in what has been described as a “cauliflower ear”. Adeel and Shaheen both denied the assaults and claimed they never saw her ear because Sara always wore a bandana, even while in the house. Sara testified that she was told to remove the bandana in the house. Photographs filed at trial show that at least part of the ear could be seen under the bandana. Adeel says that the ear deformity was caused by a bug bite and Sara scratching or picking at it. (The Crown says that the suggestion of a bug bite and scratching is made up to match the evidence of Dr. Fernandes from disclosure.) [4]

[210] In these months, Sara testified that Shaheen also whipped her with the cord of a hair appliance. Shaheen threatened Sara that she would be killed if she ran away. Aatif also assaulted her, all the while blaming her for Shaheen being angry at him.

[211] Adeel and Shaheen also twisted and hit her arm because Sara was cleaning too slowly. Shaheen would hit Sara with many household objects, including the wire hanger, a belt, the metal trophy and the knife sharpener. Shaheen also hit the front of Sara’s knees with a hammer resulting in marks. Shaheen scratched Sara with a knife and twisted her skin on her chest with pliers. Aatif slapped Sara in the face and Shaheen pushed her down the stairs and punched her in the face a number of times. Adeel and Aatif both kicked and hit Sara. Adeel also hit her with a wooden spoon. When Aatif pushed her in the laundry room, Sara fell and her right elbow hit the wall breaking through the drywall.

Doctor’s visits:

[212] The first time Sara was ever taken to a doctor’s office since coming to Canada was on September 22. Adeel said he had tried to persuade Sara to see a doctor on an almost daily basis.

[213] Adeel testified that on September 22, he received a phone call from his father saying that Sara locked herself in the washroom. Adeel came home and got Sara to open the door. She had a hammer in her hand and was hitting herself. Adeel had Ayat in his arms. Sara came towards him with the hammer and he turned so she would not strike Ayat. She hit Adeel in the head. At that point, Adeel told Sara he was either calling 911 or taking her to a doctor. Adeel and Shaheen then took Sara to see Dr. Subramanian.

[214] According to Sara, she was told by the Safdars not to act “normal” in the doctor’s office. She complied by hitting herself while there. Dr. Subramanian saw Sara in one of her examination rooms with Adeel and Shaheen both present. Dr. Subramanian completed a questionnaire with Sara and screened her as possibly being bipolar. [5] She prescribed medication for Sara and it was important for Sara to start taking the medications as soon as possible. Sara was also to have blood tests done to establish a base line for comparison. Doctor Subramanian also asked that they return in one week.

[215] Adeel maintained that the prescriptions were given to Sara but Dr. Subramanian testified that she gave them to Adeel. Adeel testified that he wanted to go to the drug store but that Sara only wanted to go home. Adeel did not fill the prescription until four days later, even after being told it was important that they be started as soon as possible. On September 26, Adeel took the scripts to McMaster. They were not filled at that time because the pharmacist could not read the doctor’s handwriting. Adeel picked up the prescription on September 30, prior to the second attendance at Dr. Subramanian’s office.

[216] There was a lingering concern about Sara not having OHIP as there was a large bill for the April/May hospital stay. Sara also went for an intake appointment at Urban Core Health Centre but never returned. Adeel never took her back because, as he always maintained, Sara did not want to go. Adeel repeatedly claimed that he could not force Sara to go to the doctor and would not physically pick her up to take her. On September 22, when Adeel threatened to call 911, it appears that Sara went willingly.

The Broken Jaw:

[217] Briefly, Sara testified that the jaw break occurred on September 28 when Adeel punched her several times on both sides of her face. She was taken to the doctor two days later.

[218] Adeel testified that on September 29, he had been grocery shopping. When Adeel came home with Ayat and Shaheen, he went upstairs to change. He heard a thumping noise in the washroom. Sara said she just slipped in the bathroom. The next day, September 30, Sehrish called Adeel and told him to come home. Sehrish informed Adeel that Sara was hitting herself. There is some evidence that when Adeel returned home, he observed Sara hitting herself. In his testimony, he denied seeing Sara hitting herself. He observed that Sara had a few bruises on her face and it appeared a little swollen. He told her she either needed to go see a doctor or he would call 911.

[219] Adeel immediately took Sara to see Dr. Subramanian. Dr. Subramanian testified that in the course of her examination, Sara demonstrated that she had injured herself by making a motion of striking herself in the face. Dr. Subramanian examined Sara and told Adeel to take her immediately to St. Joseph’s Hospital. Adeel drove Sara to the hospital. Adeel testified that he did not know how the jaw injury occurred. He did not find out that Sara’s jaw was broken until they got to St. Joseph’s Hospital and only after X-rays were taken. Dr. Subramanian testified that she informed Adeel and Shaheen about the broken jaw while they were at her office.

[220] Sara was hospitalized and a temporary intervention was rendered for her broken jaw. Adeel brought Sara’s passport and official documents over to the hospital to provide to Sara’s parents. Several days later, Sara left St. Joseph’s Hospital and returned back to Rochester. She was admitted into Rochester General Hospital for surgical treatment for the mandible fractures. She was also admitted to assess mental health issues. Sara remained a patient at Rochester General for several weeks and eventually was released from care and went to reside with her parents. At the same time, she became an out-patient at Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester.

[221] Sara attempted to contact Adeel, who refused to communicate with her. On either October 8 or 18, there was some confirmation that Adeel wanted a divorce. There was no further direct communication between them.

[222] Extensive medical evidence from various hospitals was tendered at trial. More on this entire subject and the series of events arising pre-and-post the September 2014 incident will be discussed later in these Reasons.

ANALYSIS:

[223] I have taken into account the whole of the evidence when making these assessments. Although I have not recounted all of the evidence in the course of undertaking the analysis in these reasons – I have instead drawn attention to that evidence and to those particular instances that form the central foundations for my findings.

[224] Essentially, the case boils down to a determination of the credibility of witnesses and findings of fact. Is Sara a victim of very serious and horrific domestic violence at the hands of one or more of the three accused members of the Safdar family? Or is she a woman afflicted with serious mental illnesses who has made all of this up to get back custody of her daughter or for other reasons?

[225] As mentioned, there is no doubt that this is a very arduous case. The challenges stem from the undisputed evidence that Sara sustained serious and disturbing injuries during the relevant time she was living with her husband and his family in the Safdar residence. On the other hand, there were a series of different versions offered by the complainant throughout the relevant time period about those injuries with various explanations provided for her shifting renditions in her latest versions of events. This is accompanied with evidence from health care professionals and various authorities related to the events that unfolded during the relevant time.

[226] As I opined in the case of R. v. Anderson and Rick, 2015 ONSC 5631, at para. 41, aff’d 2018 ONCA 615, (a case with disconcertingly similar underlying issues), it would be a relatively simple and straightforward task to review the medical evidence along with the photographs of Sara’s gruesome injuries, including the broken jaw, burns, bruises, cuttings, cauliflower ear, and the unchallenged evidence of the extreme degree of pain that would be associated with these repetitive type of injuries and conclude that no one would or could do this to themselves.

[227] Even with the permutations in the victim’s renderings, from the real and objective evidence adduced in this trial, one could readily conclude that Adeel, Shaheen and/or Aatif must have perpetrated these acts. Along with the visible injuries, there is evidence of confinement, alienation and activities that are described as “torture”.

[228] However, that is clearly not the test in criminal law and would improperly reverse the legal and persuasive burden of proof onto the defence.

[229] Undoubtedly, this case does not really involve whether the injuries occurred. The extensive nature of the wounds speak for themselves. While it is true that there is a dispute about whether the assaults and domestic abuse actually occurred; the live issue in this case is whether some or all of the injuries resulted from acts of the accused as principals or parties to the offence or whether they were caused by the complainant.

[230] Overall, I accept the police officers’ and peripheral civilian witnesses’ testimony regarding their observations or their actions taken. Indeed, defence counsel did not seriously dispute the underlying facts provided by these other witnesses, but suggested, for example, that some of Sara’s friends did not have the complete picture at the relevant time or had been influenced by information received from other sources.

[231] All the parties concede that there are no perfect witnesses in this case. I agree. Most of the key witnesses in this trial each had some significant credibility and reliability issues. Before I turn to the principal witnesses’ testimony, in no particular order, I will discuss my assessment of some of the other witnesses who testified at trial.

Mohammad Salim:

[232] I am persuaded that Mohammad, Sara’s father, is an honourable, smart, well-respected professional who presented as a concerned and thoughtful parent. He was the person with whom Sara eventually opened up and disclosed the abuse.

[233] While the witness offered differing versions of what occurred in Boston, overall I find only certain parts of his evidence to be credible. Despite his honesty and candour, at times, his testimony is not entirely reliable, especially when contrasted to objective evidence such as the phone records and the reports of the various health care professionals. There was also some minimization of events and external inconsistencies surrounding his and Rashda’s visit to St. Joseph’s Hospital in late April 2014.

[234] Both of Sara’s parents picked Sara up in Hamilton and brought her back to Rochester following the jaw injury. He denied having questioned Sara about the genesis of her broken jaw or other abuse. I am persuaded that this defies logic, particularly in the light of all of his or their suspicions and the allegations they had made continually to that point in time. I cannot accept Mohammad’s testimony that there was in effect “radio silence” at that time or in the days that followed on what had caused Sara’s most serious injury.

[235] That being said, I do not accept the defence theory that Mohammad convinced Sara to make up a story about abuse as there is no credible foundation for this assertion.

Rashda Salim:

[236] From very early on in the relationship, Rashda claimed Sara was being subjected to domestic violence. Over time, this assertion became nascent and all-encompassing.

[237] The Crown concedes that while Rashda was aggressive on the witness stand, her demeanour was consistent with how one would expect a mother to react whose child has been repeatedly beaten and tortured.

[238] No doubt, Rashda is a loving and caring mother, and she had what she believes are genuine concerns for her daughter.

[239] However, I am persuaded that many of Rashda’s assertions of domestic violence raised by her at various times were without adequate foundation. Indeed, she is far from a disinterested party to this proceeding.

[240] On April 27, Rashda called CAS and stated she was worried about the safety of both Sara and Ayat. Rashda claimed that Sara was a prisoner in the Safdar home and there was domestic violence. She said the Safdar family took away her computer and cell phone. She claimed police questioned Sara in front of the paternal grandparents so she was too afraid to tell police the truth at the time. Rashda called CAS back on April 28. She advised that she did not want the Safdars to know that she had called. She stated that Adeel and Shaheen were “dictators” and that they do not let Sara care for the baby. Sara is not allowed to leave with Ayat. Friends who had visited the Safdar home informed her of these details. Rashda reiterated that Shaheen told her that she would put a hot iron on her children’s arms when they misbehaved.

[241] Rashda described Sara “in perfect health, physical and mental”. She stated that Adeel didn’t work for McMaster, and that the Safdars want Sara to stay with them because she will eventually make a lot of money. Rashda further claimed to have seen Sara wearing a hijab at the Safdar family home despite never wearing one before in her life.

[242] Rashda testified that she did not know why Sara was in the hospital in April. She requested that Sara not be released to Adeel upon discharge. On May 1, 2014, a CAS worker spoke to Rashda advising her that they could not disclose information to her. Rashda called CAS on May 2 and claimed that Beth Israel Hospital had records that would show Adeel refused to let Sara parent Ayat with additional proof of domestic violence. On May 5, staff from St. Joseph’s Hospital contacted CAS to inform them that Rashda called and provided phone numbers for a hospital in Boston, which in turn could provide information about Adeel threatening Sara. On May 6, Lisa Hartwick, a social worker at the Beth Israel Hospital called CAS and advised that she had no such information or direct contact with the family. She was not sure why Rashda had called her.

[243] On May 8, Rashda met with a CAS worker and repeated her previous allegations. She also explained that she believed Adeel was preventing Sara from speaking with her and that Sara was being brainwashed. Rashda further claimed that there was strong evidence that Shaheen was trying to cause a divorce. CAS terminated the interview after 30 minutes because Rashda would not stop asking for Sara’s personal information. Rashda also inquired if she could have Ayat, rather than being placed into foster care.

[244] On May 9, Rashda provided a three page document to CAS setting out the allegations against the Safdars. In that document, she claimed that a mutual family friend attended at the Safdar residence and Shaheen “proudly” told her that she does not allow the baby to sleep with Sara. This (unidentified) person also told Rashda that he or she apparently saw Sara as someone “very suppressed and under the thumb” of the members of the household.

[245] The nursing notes from May 5, 2014 indicate that Rashda came to visit at approximately 3:30 p.m. Sara was standing in the doorway of the nurse’s station. Rashda saw Sara through the glass and was calling out to speak to her. The nurse asked Sara if she wanted her to contact security. Sara declined to contact security, and spoke to her mother through the glass, saying “just let me live my life”. Her family initially refused to leave and then departed from the area.

[246] The hospital records stand in stark contrast to the testimony of the Salims’ regarding this incident. They portray a clear demonstration by Sara of her rejection of any form of contact with her parents.

[247] Rashda called the hospital on May 7 and left a message for social worker Jen Veenendaal. Ms. Veenendaal notes that Rashda felt Adeel was “imprisoning” Sara and holding her “captive”. Sara does not answer calls or emails from her parents. Yet, Rashda stated that Sara was in “the best state of mind” until she moved to Canada. Sara did not want the worker to call her mother back or to have any contact with her parents.

[248] Rashda believed Sara must have been in dire need of help and “was running for her life” if she escaped the Safdar home through the window. Rashda claims that when Sara was found, Adeel told police he would not let her parents contact her. Yet, at least at the time, the evidence is clear that it was Sara who told police she did not want contact with her parents.

[249] On October 1, 2014, Rashda called St. Joseph’s Hospital after Sara had been admitted a second time. Rashda said she was suspicious of domestic abuse on the part of Adeel and that Sara was protecting him in order to be able to stay with her baby. She believes Sara had a head wound and had hair ripped out.

[250] On October 2, 2014, a Progress Record notes that staff spoke briefly with Sara’s mother, father and sister. On November 10, 2014, CAS had another telephone conversation with Rashda. She asked the worker if she had seen the baby recently and asked her to check that the family hadn’t fled to Pakistan with the baby. Rashda made disclosures to the worker about the alleged violence Sara faced in the Safdar home. The note states that Rashda said one person had been kind to Sara and that he, the paternal grandfather, had been tortured as well.

[251] On November 14, Rashda contacted CAS and reiterated her concerns and allegations. She repeated how important it was for none of the claims to be relayed to Adeel or the rest of the family on the basis that they may flee the country with the baby. Rashda stated the Safdars were trying to portray Sara as “crazy” so she would be denied custody of Ayat.

[252] On November 17, Rashda called and advised CAS that Adeel put a picture and post on Facebook of him and the baby in Pakistan. Rashda told the worker that if the baby never comes back it will be because “CAS did not do a perfect job”. Rashda calls back again and says that Adeel is in Hamilton. She said the baby was in a picture where she was sitting on a bed (without protection), and that bed is only available in Pakistan. At one point, the CAS worker asked how Rashda knew what happened to Sara before Sara disclosed it to her or Mohammad.

[253] In regards to the veracity of this witness’ testimony, I tend to agree with the defence. Some of the intricate or intimate details provided by Rashda to the authorities at the relevant time suggest that it was next to impossible for Rashda to know these specific details as there was no contact with Sara. Nonetheless, Rashda was not shy in conveying pure conjecture to the authorities or medical professionals as fact.

[254] It may be that Rashda could not conceive of the actuality that her daughter may have been mentally ill or that she may not have wanted to have her parents in her life. Her casual levelling of serious unfounded allegations at every turn demonstrates her desire to control the situation and to take whatever means she deemed necessary to achieve her desired outcome.

[255] When Sara ran away in April, Callendar spoke with Rashda. Rashda repeatedly asked questions about the investigation and he had to repeatedly tell her that police could not provide her any information about it. Callendar also stated that Rashda was making assumptions about things he was saying. For example, she claimed that Callendar knew that police drove Sara home. Yet, Callendar understood that police had not done so. Callendar advised Rashda that on numerous occasions he had given Sara the opportunity to disclose to him that she was a victim of abuse or violence.

[256] Underlying the testimony of Rashda Salim is what appears to be a disparagement of the Safdars’ worth. She held the belief that Adeel was not worthy of their daughter and evinced a sense of entitlement and elevated sense of their daughter’s worth, as demonstrated in the course of the wedding negotiations and the non-negotiable demand for a $25,000 Mahr.

[257] The defence argues that the fact of Sara’s 180 degree reversal of the narrative came at a time when she was under Rashda’s influence. While I make no specific finding in that regard, I accept that Rashda made incessant attempts to interfere with Sara, Adeel and the Safdars in late 2013 into 2014.

[258] Indeed, Rashda was the leading force in making allegations against the Safdars and alleging that Sara was abused. She engaged in a campaign of accusing the Safdars of abusing Sara at an early stage that persisted right up until the time Sara made her disclosures.

[259] During cross-examination, Rashda was non-responsive and exceedingly evasive and hostile to many questions posed by defence counsel.

[260] I am persuaded that Rashda’s many assertions were made without any foundation or evidential basis, demonstrating her willingness to exaggerate or manipulate certain facts to achieve her ends. Overall, I do not accept the majority of this witness’ testimony as it is premised on conjecture. Rashda exhibited a demonstrable level of bias against Shaheen and the majority of the Safdar family members.

Hillary and Amina :

[261] Both Hillary and Amina were credible and honest witnesses. However, without impugning their bona fides, the reliability of some of their evidence and the conclusions they drew is, to an extent, coloured by the information they had obtained from Rashda, and the facts unknown to them.

[262] I accept Hillary’s observations of Sara during her visit at the Safdar home. Despite the distances traveled, the visit was unusually brief and abrupt. Her testimony provides some troubling aspects of perceived domination over Sara and also raises concerns about the Safdars’ treatment of Sara at that time. However, I must balance that testimony with the fact that neither Hillary nor Amina had any point of reference by which to judge Sara’s overall situation at the relevant time. They both didn’t know about the extent of Sara’s departure from the Safdar home, Sara’s possible mental health difficulties, including her stay at St. Joseph’s Hospital in April 2014. While I have accepted their testimony, it must be placed into proper context.

Dr. Peter Jaffe:

[263] Dr. Jaffe was qualified as an expert in domestic violence. He was entitled to provide an expert opinion on several subject areas but was not permitted to do so in others. He was successfully challenged by the defence as to the scope of his opinion.

[264] Dr. Jaffe testified that the type of abuse reported by Sara is consistent with Adeel being a batterer in the context of intimate terrorism. This includes total domination over the partner by physical acts, isolation, and dependency. There could be numerous behaviours involved in maintaining control. Part of maintaining control is not only physical dominance but also psychological dominance. Dr. Jaffe said, "Victims go across all social classes, all backgrounds, all genders. Victims can be rich - it could happen to anyone. Victims can be employed or unemployed.”

[265] Domestic violence includes psychological, emotional, economic and technological abuse. Even in the face of this type of abuse, it is possible for the victim to continue to be in love with the perpetrator, although over time the love may turn to ambivalence.

[266] Dr. Jaffe testified that “with intimate terrorism, usually there’s a relationship that’s developed over time.” There’s an emotional bond to that individual and most victims initially respond with shock. They cannot believe this is actually happening to them. When it happens repeatedly, they may blame themselves or think maybe their partner needs to be fixed somehow and will stop doing this. They are hoping and wishing that the abuse will cease.

[267] Dr. Jaffe testified that the minority of victims of domestic violence contact the police. When a victim calls the police, it is usually because the violence has escalated. They are concerned about the frequency and potential consequences. Most victims who call the police do so because they want the violence to stop. They usually do not want their partner necessarily to be arrested or detained, or lose his livelihood due to going to jail or having a criminal record. There is often a complex dynamic.

[268] Dr. Jaffe added that there is no definite time period that a victim of domestic violence would stay in the home before attempting to leave. This varies depending on the victim’s individual factors and differs across all demographics. One study showed that victims may leave four or five times before the final break. Dr. Jaffe also stated that more commonly, persons who leave due to victimization take their children with them. A victim who has been seriously injured might still return to the home. There is no rule of thumb as to how long a victim may stay away before returning. The victim may return because of a sense of hope for change. The victim is often persuaded to return not by further threats but by apologies, expressions of love, promises of reform and appeals to loyalty and compassion.

[269] In this case, the Crown says that Adeel's email after her April 2014 escape is what engendered hope in Sara that she had “the old Adeel back” and prompted her to return.

[270] Dr. Jaffe testified that “leaving a domestic violence situation is a process, more than an event." He spoke about the continuing common myth that if a victim is struck, she would leave the relationship. Many victims stay out of fear, beliefs, economic dependence, poor self-esteem, blaming themselves, for the sake of the kids, or out of hope and love to keep the family together. Victims who will not report can be accused of not protecting their children. Yet, victims that do report and do leave may be then drawn into prolonged custody and access hearings. This can create a dilemma for victims.

[271] Dr. Jaffe also talked about technology used by an abuser to dominate the victim. He opined that one could consider the use of Sara’s Facebook and Gmail account as an example of using technology to control a victim.

[272] Dr. Jaffe testified that it is not uncommon for a victim to be reluctant to inform medical professionals. Dr. Jaffe explained that up to half of victims recant, and the research indicates that it would be between zero and fifty percent.

[273] “A layperson may find it hard to understand why anyone would stay in any abusive relationship especially one of extreme abuse. It seems so extreme that it's hard to believe these things actually happen in a relationship”. Dr. Jaffe spoke about the term “brainwashing”. Over time, if one is in an abusive relationship, one can be convinced of things that may not be true because of one’s traumatic bond with the abuser and because of the abuser’s control.

[274] Dr. Jaffe went on to say that there could be limited information because of isolation and lack of contact with people in the outside world such as friends, family, neighbours or coworkers. One might lose the ability to think independently and may start to believe things about the abuser – that the abuser is potentially all powerful, that you are being watched 24/7, and you can never leave the situation. “Stockholm Syndrome” was used as an analogy for extreme abuse in intimate terrorism. The Crown submits this is the situation that Sara found herself in, which could explain why she believed Shaheen’s story about the men outside waiting to kill her. Mr. Hasan responds that it is too fantastical to be believable.

[275] The defence argues that Dr. Jaffe, as an expert in domestic violence, provided evidence about victims of domestic violence and how there is no one way for a victim to behave. The defence says that the court must be cautious as to how much weight this evidence is afforded. Despite his denials or protestations, the defence argues that it is clear that Dr. Jaffe is an advocate. He eats, lives and breathes his work, which effectively requires the rote acceptance that a claimant is a victim. His bias is demonstrated by the careless manner in which he prepared his report in this case.

[276] The defence submits that beyond issues of partiality, Dr. Jaffe’s evidence had significant limitations, many of which he was forced to concede. There is no accepted profile of a victim or an abuser – no one way in which either will behave. The research is retrospective. Most importantly, there is a lack of knowledge and research about false allegations. Without an accepted profile of a victim, Dr. Jaffe cannot shed light on whether or not Sara was abused based on the way she conducted herself. Without having a substantive amount of knowledge about false allegations of domestic abuse, Dr. Jaffe cannot provide an opinion on whether or not Sara could be lying. The evidentiary value of any “trends” such as delayed disclosure, may be negligible in the circumstances as the studies rely almost exclusively on the presumed veracity of the claimants’ reports of abuse.

[277] Indeed, the defence makes some very strong arguments in challenging this expert’s analysis and opinion. In fact, during a vigourous cross-examination by Ms. Wilhelm, it came to a point where - in a somewhat exceptional request - Dr. Jaffe asked to withdraw from the case in mid-testimony as an expert witness for the prosecution. At the same time, there was an allegation of plagiarism and unprofessionalism.

[278] While I denied the expert’s invitation to withdraw and rejected the claim of academic or professional misconduct, I advised the parties that Dr. Jaffe’s opinion would be narrowed with the appropriate weight accorded to his evidence.

[279] I acknowledge that there is no one way a victim is expected to act but accept that we cannot apply normative values to such behaviours. On occasion, defence counsels’ suggestions played into the myths and stereotypes surrounding domestic violence.

[280] I accept Dr. Jaffe’s evidence, but only to a limited extent. It provides rationale for Sara’s delayed disclosure and her conduct in returning to the Safdar home in April. Dr. Jaffe’s evidence is augmented by appellate jurisprudence that cautions judges about falling into the stereotypical myths that have plagued the criminal courts for decades. Thus, I do not draw any adverse inference about Sara’s delayed disclosure of the incidents to her parents and the health professionals, in and of itself, following November 5, 2014. Recall that there was some initial, albeit terse disclosure made by Sara to Dr. Adam in April 2014 about the genesis of her burn injury and leg carving.

[281] Disclosure of abuse may happen over time. Victims often delay disclosure as it is a painful topic and might make things worse. There can be a stigma about being an abuse victim. Victims who leave successfully are often able to get third party assistance. Once a victim feels safe they may disclose. The scope of such disclosure was not commented upon by this expert.

[282] I also accept that that there is no particular demographic from which domestic violence victims arise. They cross all levels of education, income, background and include educated individuals, professionals like doctors as well as the unemployed, rich or poor. The fact that Sara is a physician with an undergraduate and medical degree has no adverse bearing on her response to domestic violence. Dr. Jaffe testified that women with higher income, education or socio-economic status tend to cover up the abuse to protect the abuser and/or cope with their shame or embarrassment.

[283] I note that, according to Dr. Jaffe, domestic violence victims are often isolated from their loved ones, friends and family. Here, Sara was isolated from her parents, sisters and friends. According to Sara, she was also not permitted to work and she was taken from her home country. Her cell phone was taken away and she was not permitted to use a computer. Recall that Callendar confirmed that Sara’s phone stopped sending or receiving messages in January 2014. Sara testified that she was made to eat dinner separately from the rest of the family. For months there was constant demoralizing treatment which created dependency in Sara so that she could do nothing without the approval of members of the Safdar family.

[284] Dr. Jaffe’s evidence cannot confirm that Sara was actually abused. Moreover, it cannot verify that her remaining in the home, in persistently maintaining a narrative she now claims to be false, or in changing her version of events is consistent or inconsistent with being victimized. However, Dr. Jaffe’s opinion evidence provides some assistance in understanding the full panoply of events that flowed from Sara’s experience with Adeel and the Safdar family.

[285] Turning to another area of his opinion, Dr. Jaffe testified that he conducted two psychological tests on Sara in April 2017. The first was the Personality Assessment Inventory. That test revealed no marked elevations that should be considered to indicate the presence of psychopathology and was entirely within normal limits. In other words, she presented with no mental illness in April 2017. Dr. Jaffe testified that had there been a major mental illness in the past there would likely have been some residual signs or symptoms, albeit not at the same level of severity, all of which did not appear.

[286] While the Personal Assessment Inventory did not reveal any residual signs of past significant mental health disorder, Dr. Jaffe agreed that the tests he conducted on Sara both had limitations and cannot be relied on to conclude that someone has never had a mental health issue. Indeed these tests are not retrospective and mental health afflictions can be transient.

[287] Interestingly, Sara’s test results showed no trauma symptomology and that she did not suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Dr. Jaffe acknowledged that there is a general expectation of trauma symptomology in persons who have been abused. When confronted with a study, he agreed that between 31-84% of victimized women exhibit PTSD symptoms, and that victims with frequent or severe abuse were more likely to suffer from PTSD.

[288] While Dr. Jaffe’s expert opinion along with these psychological assessments provide a framework for domestic violence and a snapshot of Sara’s mental health respectively, there still remains some serious questions about Sara’s overall behavior and her repeated disclosure of self-harm to police, medical staff, psychiatrists and others during the course of these events.

Sehrish Hassan :

[289] Sehrish testified for the defence. After the Crown and defence made their initial submissions, I advised all counsel that I rejected this witness’ evidence in its entirety.

[290] All counsel agree that she had lied. In fact, she lied many times and was caught by the Crown attorney in cross-examination. One of her excuses for lying was that Mr. Levy intimidated her. That is entirely nonsense.

[291] As counsel pointed out, one should be sceptical of the evidence of a lying witness. I agree. Her blatant and obvious lies make her entire testimony not believable. Before her notes were actually produced at lunch time, Mr. Levy asked Sehrish if she had read any of the disclosure. She adamantly denied having looked at any of the disclosure. During the lunch break, the Crown received Sehrish’s “notes”. The witness acknowledged that she spent some time looking through her purse for the notes, claiming that she also had work documents in the same folder. When confronted with the fact that she had torn off the last page before handing the notes to Mr. Paquette to turn over to the Crown attorney, she claimed it was an accident.

[292] However, it was the last page that demonstrated that Sehrish had been lying about not having reviewed any of the disclosure. This was no accident. Even after she was “caught”, she refused to acknowledge that she had, in fact, lied. She continually used the word, “misspoke” to describe her actions. It was not until re-examination that she finally admitted that she had “lied”.

[293] Defence counsel suggest that this lie is only in regard to the fact that she reviewed the disclosure and therefore does not affect the rest of her testimony which is corroborative of the rest of the defence evidence. I disagree. I am persuaded by the Crown that it is much more than that.

[294] Where she acknowledged that she had reviewed all of the disclosure, she eventually admitted that she had indeed read every correspondence, legal document, affidavit and police disclosure. She tried repeatedly to minimize her conduct. She claimed that she was explaining the documents to her family members. She would tell them the difference between an application and an affidavit and tell them they should talk to their lawyers.

[295] The heading of the impugned “notes” is “Sehrish Hassan’s Account”. On the first page and a half, she provides background. Why would one have to put 10 bullet points relating to her background or have to write down information under various headings to refresh her memory? One could reasonably expect her to remember these things without notes. I agree with Mr. Levy in that these were included because it is a script from which to testify from. More notably is the section entitled “My headscarf”. Sehrish talked at great length about the reasons she wears a headscarf. When asked why she felt that needed to be in her notes, she was unable to provide a coherent answer.

[296] I disagree with Mr. Paquette’s suggestion that these notes are the witness’ ‘will says’ or preparatory notes. The writing appears to be virtually the same as the evidence she gave in chief. Moreover, a witness does not include things that he or she does not have any knowledge about in a will-state. For example, a heading includes: “No idea about burning”. At the time she made the notes, she knew about the burning of Sara with the hot iron. Why would she need a note to remind her of something she did not know? Another key example of this being a script was the information under the heading “Burning Stove”. She writes this from first person perspective as if she was present. In fact, she was not there to witness the incident. She was unable to adequately explain why she would have put it in first-person context.

[297] On cross-examination, the Crown asked her about her use of the word, “self-flagellating” during her testimony and the fact that word was not in her notes. Sehrish denied that she had such a note with the word before it had even been produced through disclosure. I reject that assertion. For example, in her “notes” she used the phrase, “hit herself on the back”, a much simpler turn of phrase than self-flagellation. It seems that her use of the specific term was directly obtained from Dr. Fernandes’ report and referenced during his testimony at trial.

[298] Throughout the course of her testimony, Sehrish was evasive, and non-responsive. Her answers were long, drawn out, stilted and often resulted in long hesitations in the middle of sentences. Her answers were sometimes flip or condescending such as when she said “I don’t know what the big deal is on that”. At one point she answered four questions in a row with “Absolutely not”, apparently parroting Adeel’s frequent responses to Mr. Levy on cross-examination. (The Crown observes that they have counted the phrases “Absolutely” and “Absolutely Not” used over 500 times between Adeel and Sehrish in their respective testimony).

[299] Moreover, if it was not in her script, she simply could not answer the simplest of questions. Her lack of ability to answer questions outside the parameters of the script is a telling example about what to say and how to say it. There are numerous examples of this type of non-response in cross-examination on subjects that are not addressed in the “notes”. When one looks at the script, it seems to address virtually every single factual issue in this case. In my view, this was all contrived to bolster her testimony for the defence.

[300] I find that this witness is clearly biased in favour of the defence. I will go as far as to conclude that this witness committed perjury in the face of the court.

[301] While she denied having colluded with Adeel and/or Aatif, the Crown submits that there is collusion and seeks a remedy in this regard.

[302] In R. v. Figliola, 2011 ONCA 457, 105 O.R. (3d) 641, the Court of Appeal stated at para. 219: The trial judge should have instructed the jury that, in the absence of evidence of collusion between the witness and the accused, there was no basis on which they could use the witness’ evidence or the fact that he was a liar to support an inference that the accused were liars too. The Judge should have instructed the jurors that there was no adverse inference to the defence that could be drawn

[303] In R. v. Chisholm, [1995] O.J. No. 3300 (G. D.), the judge held at para. 17: In the absence of collusion or a link between the wife’s alleged inconsistencies and the accused’s defence, I find that the wife’s evidence would have minimal probative value. That the witness was the wife of the accused creates no presumption of collusion. Collusion must be demonstrated. In the absence of such demonstration, the powerful effect of such evidence, particularly the suggestion that the entire defence is a concoction without any compelling evidence of the accused’s involvement in concocting it, far outweighs its probative value.

[304] Based on this witness’ testimony, the Crown asks to draw certain reasonable inferences and inject an adverse finding to the testimony of the principal defence witnesses, in particular Adeel and Shaheen. As mentioned, I have completely rejected Sehrish’s testimony as it pertains to her own version of events or evidence adduced to corroborate Adeel’s or Shaheen’s testimony.

[305] There is no doubt that some of the evidence was discussed or reviewed with one or more of the accused prior to trial. However, I am unable to draw an adverse finding against the defence. While there is some evidential foundation for this serious assertion, I am not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that there was collusion.

Arshad Alfridi:

[306] Arshad is Shaheen’s younger brother and lives in New Jersey. Arshad was involved throughout the planning process of the wedding and kept in touch with Sara and Adeel following the event.

[307] Arshad testified about witnessing Sara’s odd behaviour in 2013 and about his communications with her in 2014. He testified about information he received from Adeel and other members of the family about Sara along with Sara’s parents’ allegations.

[308] For a period of time, he acted as a go-between for Sara and her parents. He agreed to check on Sara and Ayat and inform Rashda how they were doing. In early 2014, Arshad’s contacts with Rashda became more frequent. He found her intrusive and felt that she was trying to interfere with Sara and Adeel’s personal and married life. She wanted Arshad to speak to Adeel because she said “he listens to you more”.

[309] Each time Rashda would call Arshad, she would make the same allegations that Sara was in Canada against her will and that the Safdars were impeding her communication with Sara. Arshad attempted to explain that it was Sara who did not want to speak with her parents.

[310] During the January to April period, Arshad communicated directly with Sara five or six times. Rashda requested that he keep them informed of how Sara and Ayat were doing. As Arshad seemed to be the only line of communication to Sara, he was confused as to where Rashda was getting her information since it was not coming from him.

[311] This line of communication between Arshad and Rashda continued until April 2014, when Sara ran away. Rashda made allegations that the Safdars had probably killed her. At that point, Arshad testified that he was no longer prepared to continue assisting Rashda.

[312] Arshad also provided some evidence with regards to Shaheen’s ailments and physical limitations over the course of many years.

[313] I am persuaded that Arshad was a credible and reliable witness. He came across as honest and forthcoming. He was not seriously challenged in cross-examination and his version provides some corroboration to the overall evidence adduced by the defence.

Dr. Subramanian:

[314] I am persuaded that Dr. Subramanian suffered from some testimonial deficits. Not only did she exhibit some sympathy in favour of Adeel and Shaheen, but her professional actions in assessing Sara’s mental health status raise some concerns.

[315] I agree with the Crown that Dr. Subramanian’s “so-called diagnosis” of Sara as having bipolar disorder and depression was ill-advised, uninformed and unprofessional. She used a brief questionnaire provided by pharmaceutical representatives. This questionnaire is only a rudimentary screening assist as it clearly indicated that it was not a diagnostic tool. In other words, if the results tended to be positive, refer the patient to a psychiatrist. I note that the doctor did not take a proper history, did not conduct adequate testing and failed to follow other common sense or medical protocols for making such a diagnosis.

[316] Dr. Subramanian claimed to have seen marks on Sara’s forearms. On cross-examination, she remembered viewing scars yet acknowledged that she could have been mistaken when shown the photographs of Sara’s arms and wrists, which show no visible cutting scars.

[317] I am left with some trepidation about this doctor’s evidence regarding Sara apparently hitting herself in her office and describing the breakage of her jaw. The doctor was successfully impeached in cross-examination on this issue. While she acknowledged that the jaw break was significant, she claimed that Sara was demonstrating the hitting action against her face. It also appeared that she provided different information to the CAS on October 20, 2014 about the jaw injury. [6]

[318] I have some difficulty accepting this witness’ evidence on critical points regarding her interaction with Sara. The fact that she did not agree that Sara had suffered injuries resulting in a deformed ear seems totally incongruent with all of the other medical evidence and the visible injury shown in the photographs. It does not take a medical degree to come to that conclusion.

[319] However, I accept certain segments of Dr. Subramainian’s evidence. For example, her testimony about what she told Adeel and/or Shaheen regarding Sara’s medical and mental condition on September 22. I also believe Dr. Subramainian’s evidence about the September 30 visit to her office and what she advised Adeel regarding Sara’s broken jaw, including her directions as to the immediate actions he should take as a result of the injury. Dr. Subramanian would have no motive or reason to fabricate this evidence.

[320] Along this theme, it is noteworthy that Dr. Subramanian instructed Adeel that he needed to take Sara to the hospital straightaway. Yet it is somewhat perplexing that the doctor stated that this action was imminent and necessary because if Adeel failed to act with dispatch, he could potentially be blamed for the jaw injury. One has to wonder whether Dr. Subramainian was truly acting in Sara’s best interests. Nevertheless, Adeel did follow up with the doctor’s direction and he took Sara to the emergency department without delay.

[321] I also accept Dr. Subramainian’s testimony about Shaheen’s overall physical health issues and the related treatments or medical interventions rendered by her to support her patient.

Shaheen Safdar:

[322] Shaheen testified on her own behalf with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter.

[323] The defence position is that Shaheen was too ill, weak and immobile to have inflicted the serious physical abuse upon Sara. She was too uneducated and unsophisticated to have made the types of threats Sara reported, such as that there were men waiting to kill Sara if she went outside.

[324] Shaheen described difficulty going from sitting to standing and vice versa. She cannot walk for any sustained or long distance without becoming breathless. She testified that she could not chop vegetables, or even lift a jug of water. She could not grip or swing any objects. She has endured these health issues for the past 10 to 15 years.

[325] In addressing Shaheen’s health issues and physical limitations, I heard from several witnesses. As mentioned, Dr. Subramanian was Shaheen’s family doctor for over a decade. She testified that Shaheen’s medical conditions included hypertension, diabetes, hypothyroidism, polyarthrigal myalgia, complaining of muscle aches and pains, fatigue, auto-immune hepatitis, and lupus. Shaheen had gallbladder surgery, has problems with osteoporosis, and also complained of chest tightness and difficulty breathing. Shaheen also has had back pain and arthritis for many years. Dr. Subramanian testified that these conditions began around 2002 and she sent Shaheen to a rheumatologist in 2009 for her arthritis. The rheumatologist report stated that Shaheen had multi-joint issues as well as muscle problems. In 2013, Dr. Subramanian referred Shaheen to a respirologist because of breathing difficulties.

[326] In 2014, Dr. Subramanian was seeing Shaheen as a patient approximately every one to two months. The doctor termed Shaheen’s overall picture of health as poor compared to her age. Because of arthritis and fatigue, Dr. Subramanian described her as “not a very swift moving person” and Shaheen could not perform vigorous physical activity. Her strength at that time was described as “poor to fair”.

[327] In cross-examination, Dr. Subramanian conceded that, despite her apparent infirmities, Shaheen could undertake certain activities in relation to the offences alleged. To a degree, Shaheen could pick up and swing a wire hanger or a hammer and could pick up a hot iron and use it to burn Sara.

[328] Adeel testified about his mother’s health. Adeel stated these problems have been going on for over a decade. He said that on a day-to-day basis, her health issues severely affect her mobility. Shaheen has a lot of pain in her joints and is only able to do minimal activities on her own. Shaheen cannot walk far and has a difficult time going up and down stairs.

[329] When questioned about Shaheen’s health, Arshad testified that she has many health issues. He saw her twice in 2013 when she stayed with his family in New Jersey. He stated that she had limited mobility to the point that he asked his eldest son to be with her as much as possible. When Shaheen was going up or down the stairs, one of them had to assist her. He testified that Shaheen would have to stop after walking short distances as she would lose her breath. He would have his son sleep with her at night in case she needed to go to the bathroom.

[330] The evidence from Dr. Subramainian and Arshad tends to corroborate some of Shaheen’s symptomology, ailments and physical limitations.

[331] The Crown says that Shaheen’s physical limitations, at least in 2013 and 2014 have been exaggerated in order to try to persuade the court that she could not have inflicted the abuse on Sara. Here, I am persuaded that to a limited degree, the defence has overstated or inflated Shaheen’s maladies and physical limitations to such an extent that they would have me believe that she could do none of the activities alleged at the relevant time.

[332] In 2012, the Safdars bought a two story house in which Shaheen had her bedroom on the second floor. If so infirm, how was Shaheen able to climb the stairs to her second floor bedroom on a daily basis? How was she ever able to cook or clean? Indeed, how did Shaheen sleep on a beanbag or sit on the low stool in Boston?

[333] In her presentation in court over the course of several months of trial, it seemed to me that she was prone to some excess or exaggeration of her gait or mobility. Indeed, I have some lingering trepidation that Shaheen is not actually as frail as suggested and that she could do a lot more at the time of these incidents than is being portrayed.

[334] I also note Adeel’s vacillating versions of Shaheen’s direct role in relation to Ayat’s caregiving. It places into question the suggestion that Shaheen was in no physical condition to have regularly assaulted Sara. It may be that at the relevant time, Shaheen was capable and took over as the primary care giver for Ayat, even during and after Adeel’s temporary absence from the Binbrook home.

[335] I reject Shaheen’s evidence that she did not clean the apartment in Boston or her claim that she did not cook any meals. I find it implausible that she did not cook meals in Binbrook as she could not chop and cut food. After the carving incident, Shaheen categorically denied being the primary caregiver for Ayat. She repudiated being able to lift Ayat once she was no longer an infant. Yet, it seems logical that if someone had to look after Ayat when Adeel was away or at work; and as her husband, Sehrish and Aatif were employed, and if it was not Sara, then it could only have been Shaheen. This is also supported by virtue of the information found in the CAS records.

[336] While I am not persuaded about the degree of Shaheen’s infirmity, I do not automatically conclude that she in fact perpetrated the assaults against Sara. Although I do not accept that she was hampered physically to the level suggested by the defence, it cannot be ignored that Shaheen did suffer from some serious physical ailments as the symptomology is corroborated from a number of sources. This evidence was not contradicted and it must be afforded some significant weight.

[337] I have some evidence about Shaheen’s attitude regarding discipline. Allegedly, she informed the Salims’ that it is acceptable for a mother-in-law to physically discipline a daughter-in-law. When I harken to the evidence, I am cognizant that she may be a woman of simple background who gave answers in cross-examination through an interpreter. That said, being a simple woman does not negate the possibility that she would be a serial assaulter of her daughter-in-law.

[338] Overall, I do not accept substantial segments of Shaheen’s evidence. As examples, that she did not know the bag of cut up credit cards and Sara’s notebook were in the night table in her bedroom and her claim that she never used that night table and cannot even open the drawers; her vacillating assertions about not cooking or cleaning in Boston or at the Binbrook home.

[339] In summary, Shaheen tended to minimize all activity that might lead to being implicated in the assaults or threats. Despite her physical limitations, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Shaheen could have abused Sara psychologically or have struck Sara with her hand or various lighter implements as described. Shaheen’s dogged assertions in respect of her limited role in the family and with Ayat defies common sense. I find that her overall reliability as a true historian of events suffers from a lack of credibility.

Adeel Safdar :

[340] Adeel testified on his own behalf. While, at some points during his testimony, his evidence was corroborated, overall I do not find him to be a reliable witness. His testimony suffered from external and internal inconsistencies and his responses on fundamental issues suffered from a lack of credibility.

[341] First, I am persuaded that throughout the trial, Adeel blamed Sara for everything negative about the relationship and took credit for anything positive. In other words, everything was always Sara’s fault but he never did anything wrong throughout their entire relationship. According to Adeel, when asked about what caused him to call her parents, it was referenced to Sara and her personality or odd behaviour. Adeel claimed his conduct was perfectly normal at all times. He testified that “I did not do anything, this is how she was behaving”.

[342] The Crown suggested to Adeel that he would not let Sara see a doctor and that he did not insist that she seek treatment. Adeel replied that he insisted on her seeing a doctor. He tried to pursue it as much as possible but she was adamant and persistent that she would not go. He claimed that she said he was a Ph.D. and she was an M.D. so she knew better.

[343] Adeel called the police when Sara left the house in April. If I accept Adeel’s evidence that Sara was allowed to come and go as she pleased without restrictions, again, why then did he call the police so quickly after her departure from the home in April?

[344] Adeel testified he wanted to tell police everything he knew about Sara to help them find her. It is understandable to show the police a photograph of Sara’s face. Yet, if finding Sara was the impetus for the call to the police, why show them a photograph of the leg carving? It was of no utility since she was wearing long pyjamas and her leg could not be seen if she was found. Why would he try to preserve evidence of such a terrible event? A devoted husband would want to protect his wife if she did something so horrendous (to use Adeel’s words), not put it on display by taking a picture. When asked why he took the photograph, Adeel could not provide a logical or rational answer, saying “After the carving my trust in her was badly shaken up, especially now that she is not going to doctor. Plus beforehand I heard allegations that Sara’s parents made too. A lot was happening. My trust was shaken. I had to take a picture of it.” The Crown asked what he intended to do with the photograph and he responded that he had no intention to do anything with it.

[345] Adeel also provided the police with notes Sara had written, which he claimed to have coincidentally discovered that very night after she left the home.

[346] I agree with the Crown that none of this conduct makes sense. A reasonable inference can be drawn that Adeel likely took the photograph to assist him down the road to demonstrate or sustain the notion that Sara was mentally unstable. Yet, at this stage, Adeel denied that Sara had any mental health problems. Why show the police those notes along with an identity card with her signature so as to confirm that she really did write those notes?

[347] Dr. Subramanian testified that she recalled clearly giving Sara’s prescription to Adeel. Dr. Subramanian said it was important for Sara to start taking the medications as soon as possible and for Sara to have the blood tests completed to establish a base line for comparison. She also asked that they come back in a week. Why would Adeel deny receiving the prescriptions from the doctor? Given the urgency, why didn’t Adeel go to a pharmacy? He claimed that he wanted to go to the drug store but Sara wanted to go home.

[348] It is beyond comprehension why Adeel denied receiving the prescription and did not follow up with a timely visit to any pharmacy to fill it. Nor did he even fill it the following day at his preferred pharmacy at McMaster, which had all of the family’s records. The prescription was not tendered until four days later, all this in the face of being informed that it was important that the medications be started as soon as possible. He did not take Sara for blood tests in the days following the first visit with Dr. Subramanian. His actions do not reflect his stated intentions.

[349] Adeel also said he never took her to the doctor because she did not want to go. Adeel never made a follow up appointment with Dr. Subramanian after the September 22nd visit. He only took Sara back to the doctor because she had an obvious broken jaw with a bruised face.

[350] While Adeel claimed that Sara did not want to go and could have gone herself, this is his wife who he claimed he still loves, and who had been diagnosed or at least, by April 2014, had exhibited some serious mental health concerns. At the very least, she was behaving very bizarrely and yet he would have expected her to get blood tests or fill prescriptions on her own? These and other explanations are simply not believable.

[351] Notwithstanding the allegations of inexplicable behaviour, Adeel dithered and equivocated as to when or if he recognized any of Sara’s conduct as a mental health issue. His evidence on this point defies common sense.

[352] Adeel denied any wrongdoing and testified that neither he nor anyone else in the Safdar household ever struck, beat, whipped, abused or assaulted Sara. He is adamant that he never caused the breaking of Sara’s jaw.

[353] Mr. Levy confronted Adeel with numerous inconsistencies in his statements to the authorities. For example, in examination-in-chief, Adeel stated: “To my knowledge of the broken jaw, when I found out that there is a broken jaw, that was at St. Joseph Hospital. So if you ask me, I have no idea what mechanism would have caused the broken jaw.”

[354] When interviewed by Detective Brady (“Brady”), Adeel provided the following: Detective Brady: Okay. And how did she damage her jaw? Adeel Safdar: She just keep hitting herself. Detective Brady: Did you see her hitting herself when she hurt herself? Adeel Safdar: Absolutely. Detective Brady: And where was she when she was hitting herself… Adeel Safdar: At home. Adeel Safdar: She was at home; I cannot distinctly remember, but she was at home around our, in our, on the second floor where we, all three of us, I mean we are — three families literally, right. Detective Brady: Yeah. Adeel Safdar: So it’s my parents, my brother and my sister-in-law and me and her at that moment. And we were on the second floor. And it was, I cannot remember exactly, it was, it was, it must have been outside the bedroom. That’s exactly when it happened. Detective Brady: Okay. But you saw her doing this to herself? Adeel Safdar: Yeah.

[355] In reference to the hammer incident, Adeel advised the police as follows: Detective Brady: Okay. How many times did you take a hammer away from her? Adeel Safdar: I would say ten plus times. Detective Brady: Okay. And where would she be hitting herself with a hammer? Adeel Safdar: All over the body.

[356] In cross-examination, Adeel stated: Q. And how many times did you see her hit herself with a hammer? A. Sir, that one time. Q. Just one time? A. That's right, sir.

[357] This exchange reveals a fundamental inconsistency. I reject his explanation for the inconsistency in that his statement to the police was made under duress and intimidation by the officer. He added that he was not able to exercise his right to silence. These bald assertions were offered by the accused, notwithstanding that there was no Charter application and voluntariness was conceded by his experienced, senior defence counsel.

[358] As mentioned, there is conflicting evidence about Shaheen’s role and why she came to Boston. Adeel initially testified that the primary reason for Shaheen to come to Boston was to help out. He said that Shaheen was doing the cooking and he would help out whenever he could. Yet, this rationale changed. First, Shaheen was to come to help out, cooking and helping pregnant Sara. Then, he was the cook of the house and was not just “helping out”. Then it morphed into Shaheen’s role was for some housework and for Sara's mental health. Yet until Sara went to the hospital in April, Adeel claimed he did not recognize any mental health issues.

[359] In respect of who was Ayat’s principal caregiver, his testimony was all over the map. In prior statements, he claimed that Shaheen was the primary caregiver. It was only at trial that Adeel maintained that he was the primary caregiver for Ayat, and not Shaheen. At other times, Adeel also said that he and his mother were the primary caregivers.

[360] When I examine the CAS reports of April, May and October 2014, the record is replete with Adeel’s assertions that grandmother (Shaheen) provides primary care for Ayat. For example, on April 27, 2014, “The AHES worker spoke with dad who advised that mom has always been ‘spaced out and clumsy’. He advised that mom is not a primary care giver to the child. The paternal grandmother acts as a primary care giver to the child.” Another note from CAS reads: “10:12am -- spoke to Adeel -- ...he states [Sara] has not been the primary care giver for his daughter, his mother has been… Adeel states the grandmother looks after the baby -- his wife helps out"

[361] CAS note from April 29, 2014: "pat gm and dad have been primary caregiver to child since she was born". CAS note from May 1, 2014: "The child is safe in the care of her father and grandmother…" "The child is in the care of her father and grandmother"… May 26, 2014: Moved to Hamilton so Adeel and Shaheen could take care of child. October 2, 2014: "The Father says that he left the child in the care of the paternal grandmother, who is the primary caregiver during the days, until the father comes home from work". April 16, 2015: "PGM primary caregiver for ©. PGM changes ©'s diaper every 2 hrs, wakes w © every 2 hours during the night - will change bum and give water"

[362] On April 16, 2015, Adeel advises the police: "Yeah. And so my mom had to come into the room and feed her, change her. Like except for maybe like three or four times, I don’t remember Sara ever changing the diaper for the baby. She couldn’t. She couldn’t give her a proper bath, bathe her or anything like that. Even when she’s trying to like, you know, change her, she was never really careful. So my mom had to be, more so than me, even, right because I mean she’s at home, right." On April 17, 2015 a police note indicates: “Detective Brady: …the grandmother becomes almost like the mother. Adeel Safdar: Yeah.”

[363] During his cross-examination, Adeel also imports and expands his father’s role as a caregiver for Ayat when he was questioned about Shaheen’s alleged physical limitations. Adeel attempted to dismiss the notion of his mother’s role yet, later conceded that he had advised Brady that Shaheen was the primary caregiver for Ayat. Adeel’s testimony was wholly inconsistent as it pertained to Sara’s cooking and cleaning. There is validity to the Crown’s argument and examples of the changing narrative.

[364] Turning now to the injuries sustained by the complainant, unbelievably, Adeel claims he was unaware of almost all of the more serious wounds suffered by Sara during her nine months living in his parent’s home and had never seen most of the over 200 scars depicted in the photographs. On cross-examination, Adeel was shown the photos taken in November 2014 of what he agreed were significant injuries to Sara on various parts of her body. Yet, he indicated that he had never seen those injuries until he had been shown the photographs. Again, he attempted to qualify his responses.

[365] However, when Adeel had just been charged, he informed Brady that Sara had injuries not just to her face but all over her body. This in spite of the fact that the photos of Sara taken in Rochester had not yet been disclosed to the defence. Adeel’s testimony is not credible when it comes to his lack of knowledge about Sara’s numerous and serious injuries, aside from the leg carving and burns.

[366] There were inconsistencies about what and when Adeel told Sara about leaving Boston for Canada. Although Adeel provided some documentation in respect of his job at McMaster, the tortuous manner in which this evidence was presented and the various permutations raise concerns as to the timing or genesis of the documents. The rationale provided to explain the timing of the disclosure to Sara is suspect.

[367] I reject his claim regarding his limited involvement with Sara’s email and accessing her Facebook accounts. As mentioned, it seems to me that he did more than just advise or assist Sara with the various postings. Further, the style and content of these messages and prose in contrast to other evidence suggests to me that Adeel composed the writing or entries.

[368] Moreover, given his professed level of love and support for Sara and his desire to make Canada his permanent home with his family, it is very perplexing that Adeel did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that Sara had legal residency status; or take any practical steps whatsoever to obtain OHIP and other government benefits. Adeel provided certain explanations for the first time in examination-in-chief that were not put to the prosecution witnesses. For example, his unsuccessful attempts to have a birth certificate or other documents sent to him from Rashda before he could obtain benefits for Sara. Nonetheless, no action was taken on this front throughout the entire time Sara was in Canada.

[369] On September 22, despite receiving a minor injury to his head from allegedly being hit by Sara with a hammer, Adeel did not advise Dr. Subramainian of either being struck or his injury. He later explained that Sara had actually informed Dr. Subramainian about her hitting him with a hammer, to which Sara categorically denied.

[370] Another example of inconsistency or illogic was the differing versions Adeel provided to Brady about how many times Sara attacked him. At trial, it was once; in his police statement it was two or three times. I reject another of his oblique attempts to explain the inconsistency, namely the notion about whether Ayat was present or being held by him at the time.

[371] Adeel was also cross-examined about numerous inconsistencies when contrasted to his Family Court affidavit. In response he said it was prepared "haphazardly". It seems that his versions of events changed from his initial statements to his trial evidence in order to overcome gaps in his story. All of his explanations are entirely self-serving.

[372] Again, the thrust of Adeel’s testimony was to repeatedly overstate and shift the blame or provide nonsensical responses for a variety of issues leading to the series of disturbing events inflicted or subjected upon Sara.

[373] I find that Adeel is not a credible witness. He was evasive, most often attempting to qualify his answers, and repeatedly non-responsive to questions posed to him in cross-examination. He tended to minimize any and all involvement that could cast him in an unfavourable light. I reject his testimony where it conflicts with other principal witnesses and where not corroborated by objective evidence.

Sara Salim:

[374] Again, if Sara’s evidence is to be believed, then it must be accepted that she was able to mislead all the doctors, nurses, social workers, and police officers whom she spoke to during the relevant times; many of whom were aware of the spectre of domestic violence. It means she was not only able to tell a convincing narrative of self-harm and mental illness, but also do it so well that highly trained medical professionals saw fit to hold her for days under care during her various admittances to hospital.

[375] The defence submits that in the face of her repeated assertions of self-harm, her repeated denials of abuse, the suspicious circumstances of her disclosure and her powerful motive to lie, Sara’s allegations of abuse at the hands of the Safdars are incredible. At the very minimum, they are left unexplained and they are incapable of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[376] The defence asks: Does it defy credulity that an intelligent, educated woman with strong familial ties, resources and intimate familiarity with western cultural norms and practices would hold the beliefs and rationalizations that she claimed underlay her acquiescence to this alleged abuse? Does the logic put forward by Sara for her revised narrative of abuse and her reactions make sense?

[377] Sara gave two examples or rationale for her submitting to Shaheen’s alleged abuse: That if she did not comply, Shaheen would flee to Saudi Arabia or some other country with Ayat; and that if she tried to leave Shaheen had armed men waiting in the wings to kill her. Examples include Sara claiming Shaheen told her that she had men watching her who could come and kill her. Cars would drive by and Shaheen would point to them and say, “that’s one of them”. At the mall, Sara claimed that Shaheen waved at a security guard and told Sara that was “one of them”.

[378] The defence says that a highly educated person, with a medical degree no less, would accept as fact that such a person had the power and resources to effect those threats is absolutely ludicrous.

[379] The Crown responds that it was not necessary for Shaheen to arrange such a threat; only that Sara believe it. By the time Shaheen first started making this threat, Sara had been so worn down by the physical, mental and emotional abuse that she was susceptible to believing anything, including this threat.

[380] I confess that I am having some difficulty reconciling the Crown’s position with regards to Sara’s testimony about unknown persons waiting outside the Safdar home at all hours of the day or night.

[381] Recognizing the defence position as to Sara’s level of education, intelligence or acquaintance with North American culture, it is crucial that I not subscribe to any of the myths regarding domestic violence victims. While the defence provides the most logical approach to the issue, I am mindful of Dr. Jaffe’s testimony about how victims react to situations of abuse.

[382] Does it seem inconceivable that Shaheen could affect such a threat in modern Western society? Can it be said that even the most ill-informed North American would recognize the impossibility of such a prolonged and ubiquitous scheme being perpetuated, let alone a medical doctor? Although subjected to prolonged domestic violence, Sara’s fear is all the more irrational when one considers her claim that she maintained this same belief after being admitted to Rochester General Hospital, when she was some three or so hours away from the Safdars, and living in another country.

[383] Even accepting Dr. Jaffe’s opinion at its highest and accepting that Sara was dominated by the Safdars, I find that the assertion of men waiting outside to kill her if she left the house stretches the limits of credulity.

[384] Not that Sara’s level of education and intelligence should matter when dealing with her responses to alleged domestic violence. While it is agreed that she is an intelligent, educated woman, it could be argued that she is “book smart”, not “street smart”. She appears to have led a very sheltered life. In discussing the myths regarding responses by domestic violence victims, the defence submits that Sara is less credible because she did not disclose the abuse until she had been back in Rochester for a month and a half. In R. v. Neff, 2012 ONSC 6587, Molloy J. wrote at para. 7: It is now well-settled that delay in reporting an assault does not give rise to any inference that the assault did not occur. On the contrary, particularly in situations of domestic abuse, it is common for a victim of assault to say nothing, even to her closest friends and family.

[385] Then, after quoting from R. v. D.D., [2000] S.C.R. 275, Molloy J. continued at para. 8: Although the offence in D.D. was a sexual assault, this principle is equally applicable to the assault charges at issue in the case before me. The reasons given by Ms. McCaw for not initially reporting the assault to the police are plausible and common in domestic assaults: she felt embarrassed and humiliated; her partner was contrite; she still loved him; and she wanted to keep her family together.

[386] For the most part, this same rationale could apply in this case to explain Sara’s reactions. After her “escape” on April 26, 2014, Sara accessed her emails. She testified that she reached out to a couple of friends of whom had not been heard from her for a long spell. By the time she heard back from a friend, she had decided to return home after receiving “we miss you” emails from Adeel. As a victim of domestic violence and given the events leading up to the “escape”, with Sara’s own admission that this plan had been brewing in her own mind for a long time, is it reasonable that if Sara was truly fleeing abuse she would have reached out to the police? Or, driven home to Rochester to her parents or contacted her parents or sisters, and not just driven randomly?

[387] I accept that at the time Sara was not ready to go to the police as she did not want the Safdar family to get into trouble. She did not want her parents to worry about her or see her in the predicament that she was in, presumably with her head shaved. Why she reached out to distant friends who were not in any real position to render timely assistance is a mystery.

[388] There is no dispute that once Adeel sent an email to Sara claiming to love her, indicating the family missed her and asking her to come home, she did so, without hesitation. When Sara received that email, she testified that she became hopeful that this was the "old Adeel", and things would be different. The Crown says that she obviously wanted her marriage to work, particularly in light of the fact that they had a baby together.

[389] However, it is not lost on me that by this point, according to Sara, she had been punched, slapped, hit with a wire hanger, a broomstick, and a hammer. She had been pinched, had her head smacked against a bannister, had a chunk of her hair pulled out, and been forced to hold the “chair” position. She was not allowed to care for her baby, she had been cut off from her family and friends, and was not allowed to leave the house unaccompanied. She testified that she was forced under threat to shave her head and carve the words “I want to kill Adeel and Ayat” into her leg. She had been burned with an iron on multiple parts of her body. She claimed that she feared for her life. She was so desperate that she was willing to leave her daughter behind in the hands of her abusers.

[390] Yet, with the level of abuse and plans to escape, all it took to secure her return back home without any meaningful hesitation or trepidation was one brief email. Sara testified that what prevented her from leaving before was a fear of being caught trying to run and the punishment that would ensue. Yet, that short email made Sara return to her life of alleged abuse.

[391] Indeed, on April 27, at 9:03 p.m., Sara emailed Adeel saying she was sorry, asking for his forgiveness. In her emails to Adeel, Sara expressed her remorse for running away and her fear, not of retribution or of punishment, but of Adeel divorcing her. This appears to be an inconsistent comment that belies all that she claims was happening. This one email was enough to overcome all of her fears and desperation.

[392] When Sara returned, police intercepted her and took her to the station. She was asked about any domestic violence and Sara adamantly denied it. She claimed she had carved her own leg and shaved her own head. She was not ready to disclose and was hopeful things would get better.

[393] On cross-examination, Sara was questioned about her interview with Callendar. She was equivocal and tried to explain why she said and did certain things, and at times actually disputed what Callendar noted what she had reported. For example, she said she did not think she identified having a child as being something she had a hard time dealing with. She didn’t think she said that she was depressed, but admits she would have replied affirmatively if asked. The defence would suggest that this is not consistent with being a victim of abuse.

[394] Recall that Dr. Jaffe testified that when it comes to domestic violence victims, leaving is a "process" and that very often a victim leaves four, five or more times before the departure is permanent. There is no set pattern or methodology as to how, when and why victims report abuse.

[395] Here, Sara waited three plus months before contacting police. She sought out a psychiatric assessment before disclosing the abuse. She showed up to her police interview with a 30-page document of the allegations, a document that she prepared over a period of time. The defence says that Sara’s actions were calculated and scripted, designed to achieve a specific end. The three months that passed between her disclosure to her social worker and her report to police combined with the steps taken in between further undermine the veracity of her new narrative.

[396] This is a vexing question. Does this conduct call into question, not only her motivation, but the real reason for the delay in contacting police? Was it premised on some compulsion or design to gain an advantage in the Family Court proceedings?

Sara’s Mental Health:

[397] Much of this trial revolved around this issue. Sara provided various explanations for why she did not report abuse, instead declaring self-harming behaviour.

[398] There is no dispute that at various times and for a period post-September 2014, Sara lied to various medical professionals. Not only had Sara lied to treating physicians and specialists, but also to the CAS and police officers.

[399] Sara repeatedly claimed the Safdars told her what to say to the medical professionals. Yet, as the records detail, Sara provided hospital staff with a convincing history of self-harm on many occasions without an opportunity for complicity or collusion by the Safdars. For example, when speaking to a nurse on April 28, Sara reported feeling overwhelmed with the new baby and all the related responsibilities. She said she left the home in April 2014 to clear her head. She reported being “very down” in college and getting help from an online forum. She reported cutting in her late teens but had 10 good years after college. On April 30, Sara reported having self-deprecating thoughts and said she woke up five times in the night because of thoughts she was not doing well enough.

[400] The May 2014 St. Joseph’s Hospital discharge summary details Sara’s mental health issues, and repeats Sara’s issues with cutting in her teens: Difficulty coping with new responsibilities of being a mother Sara reports having “clumsy behaviour”; “poor concentration”; and being more “distractible”, Sara acknowledges leaving objects in Ayat’s diaper by mistake, Sara reports decreased sleep, amotivation and weight loss, Sara reports preoccupation with her own sense of worthlessness, Sara reports difficulty with her relationship with Adeel in that “he would always give in to arguments he started”, Sara reports difficulty post-partum because she was no longer working and work was a source of achievement and pride, Sara reports her mother-in-law acted as a mediator in arguments she had with Adeel, Sara reports that she totally wanted to quit work, Sara reports that her parents don’t get along with Adeel, Sara acknowledges missing her family but chose to stay with Adeel, Sara reports that her parents were making allegations that Adeel was abusive… Sara reported feeling out of place socially growing up and described herself as having an “identity crisis”, Sara reported wanting to be a physician for humanitarian reasons but parents wanted her to do so for monetary purposes, Sara reported her family’s expectation was that she would become a doctor and take care of her parents financially… Sara reported not wanting her mother to visit after having her baby in Boston and that her parents made an uproar at the university where the baby was born and made allegations of physical abuse by Adeel, Sara reported Adeel told her parents that she was not functioning well post-partum in the home, either in caring for daughter or doing housework/cooking, Sara reported her parents thought she should get divorced because Adeel was controlling; that they felt Adeel wanted her not to work, Sara reported being unhappy when she moved to Canada, Sara reported she wanted to have a child and thought she’d be able to look after the home and child, but was very overwhelmed with responsibilities, Sara reported clear desire to stay in the marriage, Sara reported ideally she would like to look after Ayat and call in for meals and housekeeping if they could afford it, Sara reported that when she carved her leg with the threat to kill husband and child she did not feel worthy as a wife and mother and turned that unworthiness inward, Sara reported mixed feelings about an extended family in Canada and was emphatic that she is not resentful of her mother-in-law and is quite thankful for Shaheen’s help in caring for Ayat and doing the housekeeping that she is unable to do. Sara reported that things were improving with Adeel.

[401] When discharged from St. Joseph’s Hospital, the conclusion was that Sara had major depressive disorder with nihilistic thoughts; borderline traits; burns to right forearm, left and right hip which were self-inflicted from a hot clothes iron. “It did seem Sara had some nihilistic thoughts about her being worthless as a wife and mother and is not clear to [Dr. Adams] if this crossed over into the psychotic realm but that [Dr. Adams] felt it was worth putting Sara on Zoloft and a low dose of Respiridone.”

[402] It appears that Dr. Adams never conducted any psychological tests to confirm any diagnoses. There has never been any diagnosis of any kind of psychosis. Strong Memorial Hospital ruled out bipolar disorder. [7]

[403] Sara made other disclosures of self-harm when she returned to St. Joseph’s Hospital at the end of September. On October 2, 2014, Sara admitted to self-harming causing injury and a history of mental illness and self-harm. She said she “self-punishes” by whipping herself with a belt buckle or hangers. Later that same day, she reported that she self-harms as a way of “punishing” herself for being a “bad mother” and also reports “losing time” and hurting herself and others during these episodes.

[404] Upon imminent discharge from St. Joseph’s Hospital, the record reveals Sara’s original representations of self-harm as the cause of her jaw injury as well as similar issues regarding her thought patterns, mood and behaviours: Dr. Salim was admitted for alleged self-inflicted injury to jaw resulting in fracture. She reports that these injuries to jaw resulting in fracture. She reports that these injuries resulting from punching self in jaw and later in interview elaborated that she may have hit face against the tub. She endorses along hx of self-harm as worsening in times of stress. She endorses low mood although denies _____stress of MDD except ↑ sleep.... She reports self-harm as a means of "punishing" herself for being a "bad mom". She also reports "closing time" and has self-harmed herself + other (fractured bone of mother-in-law) during their episodes… She reports auditory hallucinations that include command-type nature to do seemingly benign things such as "mop the floor" while in hospital… MSG – Dr. Salim presents as a very thin woman with multiple bruises + swollen jaw… Her affect was flat and mood is "sad". Her thought form was linear + Ø delusional thought content + she endorses auditory hallucinations + hypnogogic hallucinations.

[405] A psychiatry note dated October 2, 2014 reveals: IIP: Dr. Salim presents w/ severe injuries that she reports are self-inflicted. She has mood sxs and issues around shame + punishment. She requires reduction of her jaw fracture and requires transfer for US hospital as US citizen. We suggest the following: She will likely require inpatient Ψ admission in US. Her self-harm is striking and given her small stature I question whether her injuries are not due to other forms of violence and concerned about her safety + that of her baby… We are deferring dx although possible mood D/O, will be important to R/O BAD Type II, w/ cluster B traits. We would suggest caution using SSRI given her impulsivity. May benefit from mood stabilization. Strongly suggest psychotherapy given her pronounced issues w/ shame… We have called CAS. She has no thoughts to harm baby although afraid of what she may do during an amnestic/associative state.

[406] A key entry in the St. Joseph’s Hospital records is the progress report prepared by Staff Psychiatrist Dr. Rosebush on October 3, 2014. She wrote that she spoke with Sara at length in preparation for her transfer to the US: “In my opinion, factitious disorder/Munchausen should be included on the differential. I do not support continuation of Form 1. She requires treatment of chronic self-harm.” A notable feature of this record is that the doctor’s discussion with Sara occurred with the knowledge of her transfer to the USA.

[407] Much like her earlier hospitalization, the records from her second admission to St. Joseph’s Hospital demonstrate Sara’s unwavering commitment to the narrative of self-harm. Even with Dr. Jaffe’s evidence, Sara’s explanations for her reluctance to even raise the issue or to speak with the various health care professionals when such copious opportunities arose is perplexing.

[408] As mentioned, Sara was admitted to Rochester General Hospital on October 3, 2014. For the third time in a seven month span, Sara finds herself in another hospital, in a different city, in a different country. She continues to assert her initial narrative of self-harm and mental illness to a plethora of highly trained medical professionals who accept and act on those assertions to make diagnoses and prescribe treatment.

[409] Dr. Rosenbloom notes that Sara said she had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder and requests to see a psychiatrist. Collateral reports from October 4 state that Sara’s parents did not realize she was sick and were in denial that she had a psychiatric problem. Her parents wanted to take her out of the hospital for two to three hours but the hospital advised this was not possible as she needed inpatient care. Sara asked to be admitted for treatment.

[410] On October 6, Dr. Shaheed notes in a pathology report that Mohammad approached doctors with concerns about possible spousal abuse. The doctor then spoke, one-on-one with Sara and she disclosed the following: Her mother was emotional all the time and was “doing verbal abuse to her”; She had been self-inflicting injuries since age 15 and was cutting herself and nobody was noticing; This went on until age 19... She began having episodes of depression. After moving to Boston, she felt her parents were interfering in her life, causing marital disputes. She seemed to be happy with her husband. She said she loved her husband. There were times since her pregnancy that she felt worthless, helpful, and causing self-harm; There was also a time when she was considering killing herself or Adeel or Ayat because she thought she did not have any worth and was unable to take care of her family; After realizing that her parents were interfering with her life, she stopped talking to them, but they thought this was her husband and in-laws not wanting her to be in contact with them.

[411] On October 6, 2014, Dr. Mohammad R. Shaheed’s notes also reflected Sara’s teenage experience with cutting and her feelings that her parents were interfering in her life. Dr. Shaheed wrote: Patient was admitted to Rochester General Hospital on 10/3/2014. PROGRESS NOTE: She has a complex psychiatric and family dynamic history… She seems to be happy with her husband. She loves her husband. She does have a child. But there is a time since her pregnancy that she felt worthless, helpless, and was not worth anything and causing self-harming and also there was a time that she was considering to kill herself or kill husband the her 8-month-old baby because she thought she does not have any worth and she is unable to take care of her family. That is why she was going through these modes…After realizing that the parents are interfering with her life, she stopped talking to her parents, while parents were thinking that this was her husband and also in-laws not wanting her to be in contact with them. It seems there is a lot of confusion in the story. M.D. asked her about her self-injury patterns. She said that she was never hit by her husband or abused by her in-laws. She described how she was hitting herself, punching herself in the face multiple times every day, and on some occasions she was not aware of hitting herself. Mostly she would fall asleep and then she would start beating herself. Her brother-in-law, her sister-in-law and mother-in-law all were restraining her not to hit herself. On 1 occasion she remembers that she requested to tie her hands so that she would not hurt herself, but she would raise both hands and use both her hands to punch her face. She became violent at home and she started punching her in-laws. She remembers punching her mother-in-law causing a breastbone fracture and also leg fracture in her sister-in-law and also punching her brother-in-law. She could not recall any reason why she was so violent and inflicting these injuries.

[412] Doctor Shaheed found no hint of spousal abuse. Sara repeatedly denied it on multiple occasions in response to various questions. The doctor also noted that she seemed to be in love with her husband and wanted to be with her child. Sara’s parents continued to raise their concern of abuse.

[413] The following day, October 7, Dr. Angitipalli reports that Sara stated she is still depressed and thinks she will self-harm if they let her go home. She denied any abuse from the family. “There is some concern of physical abuse but she denied it even after repeated questioning.”

[414] On October 8, Dr. Angitipalli reports a lengthy conversation with Mohammad. Sara’s parents are concerned about spousal abuse and her father thinks her husband might have caused the mandible fracture. “I asked her [Sara] multiple times today and she denied spousal abuse to me.”

[415] Sara had a consult for a psychiatric evaluation on October 9 with Nurse Patricia Hanson. “Writer spoke with Dr. Angitipalii who describes a complicated case involving self-inflicted injuries, broken jaw that is wired shut from pt punching self in jaw. She also has scars on her body that say “kill” and then has names of family after it… Pt has had problems with depression and self mutilation beginning in mid teens”. Another consult note was authored by Ms. Hanson at the request of Dr. Angitipalli. The note again reflects Sara’s teenage history with self-harm and depressions. Ms. Hanson notes: Pt feels the need to punish herself for not adequately taking care of her family. Pt has extensive scarring and cuts on her skin and GMU MD reports that pt has scars on leg that say kill and have her husband’s and infant daughter’s name. Pt denies current suicidal ideation, plan or intent but has a hx of suicidal ideation…but she denies past suicide attempts. She acknowledged past thoughts of killing her husband and daughter and the Canadian equivalent of CPS has been involved and pt cannot see daughter (even when they lived in the same home) unless her husband or mother in law was in agreement.…She also claimed she would get up and wander during the night, going towards her daughter which she wasn’t supposed to do and physically harming family members (husband, mother in law, husband’s sister, brother and father) who tried to stop her. She cannot recall these events and have been told about them by other family members. There is some mention that she fractured her mother’s arm at one point but it is unclear if this was her mother in law’s arm or mother’s. She is alert and oriented x3 and concentration is intact. Insight and judgment are poor. She reports past auditory hallucinations, heard mother in-law’s voice or heard voice telling her to clean something. She denies any recent a[sic] hallucinations…. Father insistent that pt’s husband injured her although pt continues to deny same. Father seems unaware of the extent of pt’s symptomatology. Pt states parents ignored hx of cutting and self mutilation beginning at age 15.

[416] Sara informed Dr. Challapalli that she did not feel good since the birth of Ayat. She reported that a couple of months ago she got very frustrated and shaved her hair because she wanted to do something extreme. Sara denied a history of abuse and admitted self-injurious behaviour. She insisted the injuries were non-suicidal but admitted to having very low self-esteem.

[417] On October 10, 2014, Dr. James C. Mead wrote: “On exam, she presents fully alert, appearing depressed and somewhat ambivalent and reports that her primary goal with hospitalization is to “get a good diagnosis and get started on medications”. Dr. Mead’s impressions include: This is a case of a female with a prior history of a mood disorder and self cutting/injury. The cause of the exacerbation of [mood and self-injury] symptoms at this time is unclear, but may well relate to an untreated mental illness, possibly complicated by underlying Axis II pathology of a borderline nature. At this time Sara is presenting as a clear risk of harm to self. Admission to better assess safety and to link with outpatient follow-up is indicated… Addendum: Pt and family are attempting to facilitate transfer of patient to Strong Hospital but questioning of patient shows that this is not for medical reasons but rather for convenience of family for visiting as her father teaches at Strong. Without a medical indication for admission, transfer is not realistic and in fact, she will get better continuity of care at this facility, which can fully treat her condition, but also is following her surgical procedure that was done in this facility and remains an issue.

[418] The doctor noted Sara as being a clear risk of harm to herself at that point. He stated that Sara was to be admitted and monitored closely for safety.

[419] On October 14, Sara again admitted to being very depressed and out of control. The note stated Sara was at risk to self and others and that her judgment was impaired. She needed inpatient care to stabilize her psychiatric issues.

[420] Sara’s particular denial of domestic abuse at this juncture is noteworthy. First, she is now back in the United States and far away from Adeel and the Safdars. Second, not only does she deny abuse but she adds to it and provides a history of self-injury and alleges her mother verbally abused her when she was younger.

[421] On October 16, Dr. Challapalli notes that she had a meeting with Sara and her father. Mohammad stated something changed since Ayat was born. He said Sara had no contact with her parents for almost nine months and they were not allowed to see Ayat. Sara stated in the meeting that she was angry with her parents due to “some misunderstanding” and that she did not care to contact them, but that she was no longer upset.

[422] Sara was discharged from Rochester General Hospital on October 20, 2014. On that day, she presented with depressed mood and blunted affect, but she was calm, cooperative, and denied pain. Sara requested that the nurse note: “I want you to write in my record that when I was in Canada between the dates of January 2014 and September 2014, I was not able to speak with my parents or sisters.” Sara would not elaborate on that statement and was unable to explain her motivation for it during cross-examination.

[423] This comment was made days after Sara testified that Adeel had told her that he was done with their relationship. Adeel’s evidence was that this conversation took place on October 8. At that time, he presented her with an ultimatum of stopping her parents who were making allegations to CAS or ending the relationship. Although she continued to attempt to contact him after this point, he believes this was the last time they spoke. In either case, some time had passed with no contact. The timing is debateable as to what prompted Sara’s particular request to add these particular comments to her medical records.

[424] I observe that after being discharged from Rochester General Hospital Sara continued to propagate her initial narrative of self-harm and mental illness for a further 15 days as an outpatient at Strong Memorial Hospital. By this point, she is home with her parents and no longer even in contact with the Safdars. It was clear the marriage was over.

[425] On October 21, 2014 a social worker, Nicole Allen, conducted an intake assessment with Sara. She asked Sara: “Do you feel safe in your current relationship?” Sara responded “yes”. The social worker asked her, “Have you been hit, kicked, punched, or otherwise hurt by a partner within the past 6 months?” Sara answered “no.”

[426] On October 23, 2014 Sara met with Dr. Digiovanni for an Interdisciplinary Treatment Plan. Sara reported her depression and anxiety both as 7 to 8 out of 10 with 10 being the most severe symptoms. The plan was for her to receive psychotherapy at least once per week and group therapy 5 times per week. Sara indicated that her “family/friend support” is her parents but she was not willing for the team to contact them.

[427] Also on October 23, Sara stated that shortly after she gave birth to her daughter she was finding that her thoughts were becoming negative and intrusive in nature. She stated that she was easily distracted and was not taking good care of her daughter at that time.

[428] On October 23, Denise Plane, a staff member at Strong Memorial wrote: Patient presented with depressed mood and underlying anxiety. Patient denied suicidal ideation plan or intent. Patient talked of having engaged in self injurious behaviors by cutting though has not had urges to do so in some time. Patient talked of having difficulty with focus and concentration at times. Patient stated shortly after she gave birth to her daughter she was finding that her thoughts were becoming negative and intrusive in nature. Patient stated that there was an incident where she had changed the baby’s diaper and left a pacifier in the diaper and does not remember it being there when she changed the baby. Patient indicated that after her pregnancy her thoughts became very negative and she focused on all the bad things that have occurred in her life. Patient stated that this pregnancy was planned and that she really wanted to have this baby. Patient indicated however that she has not been able to move on with her career as she and husband to recently move to Canada for his job and she had not been able to find work. Patient stated that due to financial reasons they had to move in with husband’s family. Patient stated that this is not how she had seen her life going. Patient reported having had similar symptoms occur when she was graduating high school and moving on to college. Patient stated that changes always been difficult for her. Patient stated that she feels that her whole sense of herself is defined through her work or and/or school and has not been able to establish herself as a mother at this time. Patient talked of having engaged in self-injurious behaviors. Patient stated that she blames herself somewhat irrationally for all the things that occurred in her life. Patient stated when she carved the ”word” on her leg she did not mean that she wanted to kill her husband or daughter though felt that her behaviors were making things worse as if she were killing them. Although patient patient’s thoughts were logical and organized it did seem as though she was having some underlying delusional thinking.

[429] On October 27, 2014, Sara reported continued depression and anxiety. She felt that she and Adeel would stay together and work through their problems. She said she missed Ayat but “recognizes she’s not able to take care of her child at this time”. She said she knew there were things she needed to get in place before returning to Canada. Sara’s continuing belief in reconciliation tends to demonstrate her conflicted thought processes even at this stage.

[430] This set of U.S. hospital records is particularly striking in a number of ways. First, as already mentioned, Sara is now out of the Safdar home, out of Hamilton, and out of Canada. Any alleged fear of retribution must logically be blunted if not negated. Yet, the disclosures Sara makes at this hospital are consistent with previous detailed disclosures regarding self-harm.

[431] Moreover, Sara provides greater details about her relationship with her parents, the pressures they had exerted and their lack of knowledge of her mental health difficulties over the years. She speaks of wanting to ascertain a proper diagnosis and course of medication. It appears that the medical professionals in the U.S. hospitals have much more information to consider.

[432] Sara appears to have been adept in that she was able to continue to perpetuate and add detail to her account of self-harm and mental illness and convincingly portray the symptomology consistent with this narrative. This lead to multiple highly trained medical staff and practitioners to diagnose, treat and hold her in hospital. Sara continues to provide telling details, which would be unnecessary for purposes of a fictitious narrative. She continues to present in a manner that is consistent with her original claims. Cumulatively, her assertions and behaviour continue to be so realistic as to mislead highly trained mental health professionals, into accepting that her injuries were self-inflicted, into making serious mental health diagnoses and prescribing psychiatric medications.

[433] However, the self-harm narrative changes on November 5, 2014. Sara discloses the abuse inflicted upon her by the Safdars. Denise Plane writes: Writer met with pt and her father. Patient reported that her mood is slightly less depressed though underlying anxiety continues. Patient with support from her father was able to reveal to writer the abuse that she has endured since moving to Canada with her husband. Both husband and his family have prevented her from making any kind contact with her family and have tried to make her believe that her family is the reason for all their problems. Patient stated that they have controlled everything in her life. Patient stated that husband blames her for even the simplest things such as of not having his dinner ready when he got homer. Patient stated that husband tells her that she needs to be punished. Father revealed that when he talked with a surgeon who had set patient’s jaw due it being fractured the surgeon stated that this type of injury could unlikely be self-sustaining and it was most likely that she was punched or hit by someone or something else. Patient however is very fearful of what may happen to her despite the fact that she is no longer living in the household. Patient stated that she is afraid that they are trying to make her look incompetent and that she will never be able to have custody of her child. Patient stated that she has been hopeful of trying to have a relationship with her husband however he has not communicated with her or even asked how she has been doing since she has moved up to this area. Patient is slowly recognizing that she does have choices and control in her life but will need further assistant in reestablishing her sense of self-worth. Patient’s father talked of several incidences of what he has been concerned about possible abuse that has occurred to patient but feels like he had no way of trying to assist her as patient would tell him that everything was okay. Patient gradually has become more forthcoming with her family about things that occurred when she was living in Canada. Writer continue to encourage patient to be more honest with her family as well as her new treatment team to assist her in working through these issues and possibly taking legal action to obtain at least visitation with her daughter. Patient and father were very appreciative of the support provided in program. Patient is planning to follow up with further supportive psychotherapy and attending the PROS program.

[434] On cross-examination, Mr. Hasan took Dr. Jaffe to the DSM V. Dr. Jaffe was asked questions regarding a number of recognized disorders and their symptomology, which have parallels to that reported by Sara over the relevant time frame. As the defence points out, this evidence may not prove Sara suffered from any particular mental health affliction. This is by no means a diagnosis of Sara but it does tend to demonstrate the congruency with her symptomology and a number of recognized psychiatric disorders.

Hamilton CAS Records:

[435] As mentioned, the CAS was involved off and on in this case from early 2014. I have already made reference to some of their interactions.

[436] On April 29, 2014, during an interview with a social worker, Sara stated she had been self-harming since age 15. She claimed that she lied about Shaheen harming her because she was embarrassed. Sara joked about changing the word “kill” on leg to “kiss” when asked what Adeel would think. Sara told the CAS worker that there had been arguments in the household, over Adeel being fed up with her lack of responsibility. She told CAS she did not flee for safety and that her parents have caused a lot of issues for the family. She revealed that she started self-harming again one week before the baby was born.

[437] On October 8, 2014, there was a phone call with Sara. She advised CAS that her broken jaw was a result of self-inflicted punching. She stated that no one did it to her and she had never been harmed by Adeel or his family. She was on and off medications, and was supposed to be taking antidepressants. She told the worker that Adeel wants her to get better, she hopes they will get back together. She also confirmed she thought she heard voices and experienced hallucinations.

[438] A later entry on October 21, 2014 reveals Mohammad advised CAS over the phone that from January to September Sara was not allowed to talk to her parents. The note in the CAS record said that it appeared that Sara was listening and was getting upset that her father was saying these things.

[439] On January 8, 2015, the CAS interviewed Sara by telephone. Sara maintained that her in-laws were kind to her and had never harmed her. She added that she knew Adeel filed for divorce, but was hopeful of a continued relationship with him.

[440] On January 20, 2015, CAS called Adeel to advise him the file was being closed. When CAS called Sara to advise her of this action, Sara wanted to speak further with the worker and asked for the file to remain open. On January 21, Sara advised CAS that they will be receiving documents in the next week or so, including medical reports. Sara said she was having psychiatric testing done. During this same phone call, Sara disclosed allegations of violence by the Safdars, including that Shaheen hit Ayat one time. Sara stated she disclosed the violence to her parents first around the end of October then to doctors in November. Sara stated that the information she provided about self-harm was not true.

[441] The CAS worker asked Sara how Rashda knew what happened to her before she disclosed anything. Sara responded that “her parents suspected for a long time that she was being abused… her mother has told Sara what she believes has happened to Sara.” Sara added that she carved words into her leg because she was threatened that she would be hit with a hammer.

[442] On February 23, 2015, CAS records reveal an update note with a recommendation to close the file. CAS determined that Sara had not previously disclosed domestic violence and the previous claims reported by Rashda did not have any corroborating evidence. They also noted that Sara repeatedly asserted self-harm and did not disclose any domestic violence at the relevant time.

[443] The next day, CAS advised Adeel that they were closing their file. Again, the CAS advised Sara the file would be closed, informing Sara they already received medical records from her lawyer. Sara tried to convince them to keep the file open and that she has more medical documents she wished to file.

[444] Sara stated that she was often in the same room as Ayat when she was assaulted. The CAS worker reiterated that there are no current child protection concerns. Sara stated that the paternal family had threatened to take Ayat away, that is why she did not disclose while in hospital. The writer opines that it is unclear how Adeel could have made threats to move the baby to another country if mom had no contact with paternal family. Sara asks if it would make a difference if she explained Adeel was a very violent person. The CAS worker explained this is not a child protection issue. Sara also stated that Shaheen slapped Ayat. The worker had seen Ayat on several occasions with no marks on her body, and no concerns of abuse.

[445] On March 10, 2015, CAS makes a note in the file stating the following: It is a worry that Sara consistently denied the allegations of domestic violence made by her mother. The maternal grandmother provided very descriptive opinions of what she believed to be occurring in the marital home between Sara and her husband, however consistently denied that Sara had directly provided her with this information. Since Sara has been living in Rochester in the maternal home, Sara has disclosed domestic violence, providing identical examples of abuse previously provided by her mother. It is a worry that due to Sara’s seemingly delicate mental state that Sara may be being lead [sic] by her mother, given that Sara made disclosures of domestic violence to medical staff only in the presence of the maternal grandfather, and is providing information previously given only by the maternal grandmother, prior to the time that Sara said that she had started telling her mother about any domestic violence.

[446] On March 10, 2015, the CAS file was formally closed for the second time. On April 15, the CAS file notes that police are prepared to execute arrests and searches. Police advised CAS that Sara was in Hamilton with her parents, had met with a lawyer, and would be seeking custody of Ayat.

[447] On April 16, 2015, Sara attended CAS to provide allegations about the Safdars. Sara explained that she was unable to take Ayat when she fled because there were so many people in the house and she did not have a car seat. On April 21, CAS noted that a judge ordered Ayat to return home with Adeel. On April 22, CAS determined that the child would be discharged from care and would be returned to Adeel. The occurrence would be closed.

[448] The CAS records following Sara’s disclosure in November are quite telling as they tend to demonstrate escalating efforts by Rashda and Sara to obtain custody of Ayat.

Was Sara’s testimony credible and reliable?

[449] I pause to mention that, as we instruct juries, I too must be mindful of any assessment of a witness’ demeanour. Sara testified for 10 days on the witness stand. I observed that throughout her testimony, she presented with no emotion whatsoever, very staid. My observation of her robotic and stoic presentation, which was clearly noticeable, is also reflected in the medical reports. This flat affect continued even when challenged by difficult facts or emotional aspects of the various incidents, or when speaking about her own child, and persisted throughout her evidence.

[450] Despite her obvious demeanour, the Crown says that Sara’s version is too detailed a story to all be made up for Sara to gain custody of Ayat. If Sara was going to make it all up, she could have made it much simpler; she could have just said that Adeel broke her jaw which would have been sufficient. The Crown says why add the rest of this admittedly bizarre story if it was not true? The Crown raises a very interesting point. Why did Sara involve Aatif?

[451] As Mr. Hasan asserts, if Sara was going to lie, why make it so elaborate with what he called “fantastical falsehoods” that could easily be disproven because they were impossible. For example, Mr. Hasan says the “chair position” as described by Sara is unattainable. Sara said she was forced to and could do it for minutes or hours, albeit not at the actual 90 degree angle.

[452] There were multiple references in cross-examination of Sara by counsel suggesting that Sara was too clever to respond in the way she did to the alleged abuse by the Safdars. There were also suggestions by Adeel and others that Sara was absent-minded and could not even remember her own appointments or to eat regularly. The defence argues that these characteristics mean that, in spite of her intelligence, she must be mentally ill and therefore must have made up this elaborate story.

[453] One thing is certain, however, the scars and injuries on her body, over 200 of them are real.

[454] Both defence counsel have acknowledged that domestic assault victims cannot be expected to react in a specific way. Counsel is not arguing that generally, persons holding characteristics similar to Sara with strong familial ties, resources and intimate familiarity with western cultural norms can never be victimized. However, Mr. Paquette submits that the situation in this case is markedly different. The defence argues that surely Sara would have told someone if this was really happening and would not have always maintained that the injuries were self-inflicted.

[455] Well, she did, at least once. Sara initially told Dr. Adam at St. Joseph’s Hospital in April that her mother-in-law told her (under threat of harm) to carve the words in her leg, and that her mother-in-law burned her with the iron. Dr. Adam did not believe her. After informing Adeel and Shaheen what she had told the doctor, Sara then recanted and thereafter continued to maintain that she had done it to herself.

[456] I accept that there is no documented or objectively proven history of any mental illness diagnosis outside of the 2014 timeframe. In that period, there was a record of almost seven months of self-harm and mental illness, which included lengthy involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations.

[457] The Safdars all say that Sara had no interest in Ayat and Sara is using the criminal law to try to facilitate obtaining custody of her daughter. When she returned to Canada in February 2015 to make her criminal allegations, one of the first disclosures she made to police was that the reason for her return and her primary motivation was to get her daughter back. As of this writing, this continues to be litigated in family court. To be able to practice medicine, she would need to establish that she was mentally fit to do so. The defence argues that retroactively blaming the Safdars for her own behaviour could be a means by which to accomplish these goals.

[458] Of significance, is Sara’s testimony that she had been planning for about a month prior to April 26, 2014 to escape the Safdar’s continual abuse. Yet, when she finally got out of the home, she apparently had no plan and did not seek help from the obvious sources, like her parents who had been pushing an agenda of domestic violence, or the police who had been involved earlier that year because of her parents’ allegations.

[459] Ever mindful of Dr. Jaffe’s evidence, now that Sara had expressed her plan to escape and firmly acted on that intention to seek refuge; it is perplexing that having contemplated the plan and taking full advantage of the opportunity, that no messages were sent to any of the obvious parties; the police, her parents, or sisters. Even so, the messages that were actually sent to her friends clearly did not reflect any of the wide-ranging abuse that Sara testified to in this trial. In fact they belie that narrative. There is no suggestion of running from horrific violence – not a hint of that at all with a friend – a friend who Sara has chosen as her first contact for help contemporaneous with the getaway plan. Indeed, Sara did not reach out or mention to anyone any hint of allegations of domestic abuse or violence during the 30 hours of this ‘escape’.

[460] For almost seven months following the flight from and return to the Safdar home, Sara persistently and consistently told anyone with whom she interacted that she engaged in chronic self-harm, having caused the severe injuries that are the subject matter of this trial.

[461] Further, she presented with symptomology so consistent with her narrative that highly trained medical mental health practitioners at three different hospitals on four different occasions diagnosed, treated, prescribed drugs and in some case involuntarily kept her in their facilities. This, because they all reasonably believed she was mentally unwell and needed that care.

[462] Indeed, it was only on or after November 5, 2014, after months of repeating, and detailing her assertions of self-harm, Sara for the first time disclosed to a social worker that it was the Safdars, not she, who caused her injuries.

[463] It is not disputed that this disclosure was made after Adeel told her to stop calling him and her realization that the relationship was at an end. Whether this revelation was as a result of phone contact when Sara left Canada or on October 8 or 18 is of no moment. Either way, in their last conversation, Adeel told Sara to stop calling him until she did something about her parents, who were calling CAS and continuing to make allegations about Ayat’s care.

[464] A note of the session on November 5 at Strong Memorial makes this clear: Patient is very fearful of what may happen to her despite the fact that she is no longer living in the household. Patient stated that she is afraid that they are trying to make her look incompetent and that she will never be able to have custody of her child. Patient stated that she has been hopeful of trying to have a relationship with her husband however he has not communicated with her or even asked how she has been doing since she has moved up to this area.

[465] The disclosure was made at a point when Sara had left in-patient care at Rochester General and was living with her parents, who had continually advocated domestic violence in the past.

[466] Dr. Jaffe was very clear that victims go across all social classes and backgrounds. This certainly can include the intelligent, highly educated Sara. The arguments that Sara is too intelligent and sophisticated to be a victim of domestic violence perpetuates the myth that Dr. Jaffe referred to in his evidence. Again, there is no one or particular way in which domestic violence victims are expected to react. I do not fault or otherwise diminish Sara’s credibility for the delayed disclosure to her parents. Sara has provided totally reasonable explanations for why and when she disclosed.

[467] Mr. Hasan suggested that Adeel calling Sara’s parents to come and get her on September 30, knowing her parents had been making accusations of domestic violence, would have been the worst possible time to send her home with a broken jaw. This would be completely irrational conduct for a guilty party. While Adeel would not have known the extent of the injury, Mr. Hasan argues that it would be incomprehensible that after working so hard to conceal this abuse that Adeel or the Sardars’ would send her home where they would no doubt be exposed with her worst injury.

[468] To the contrary, I tend to agree with Mr. Levy in that September 30 was perhaps the perfect time. Sara had been so-called “diagnosed” by Dr. Subramanian as having bi-polar disorder. Adeel also had evidence to support his contention that she was mentally unstable, as well as the journal in which Sara - either voluntarily or by threat – blamed herself for all the ills in the family and wrote that she had caused all her own injuries. Once her parents took her, she would be in a different country. He could be in a favourable position to gain custody in Family Court because a judge would not likely grant custody to the child’s seriously mentally ill mother. By calling her parents to come and get her, he would not be saddled with a large medical bill from St. Joseph’s Hospital for treatment of her broken jaw.

[469] As referred to earlier, there are some red flags to Sara’s evidence. Sara’s description of several segments of the abuse is “over-the-top”. One allegation in particular that rings hollow is the “chair position”. According to Sara, it involved putting her feet flat on the ground, with the lower legs perpendicular to the floor and her thighs parallel to the ground with her knees and hips close to a 90 degree angle. Her evidence in-chief on this point left the impression that she was required to hold the position in perfect formation; however, she backpedaled when confronted in cross-examination of the impossibility of doing so.

[470] Sara alleged the Safdar family made her hold this “chair” position with her arms in the air for minutes or hours. She claimed that Shaheen would stay up all night to watch her and make sure she was holding the position. This was oft-repeated during her time at the Safdar residence. Firstly, as a matter of common sense and experience, I am satisfied that it is nearly physically impossible to maintain the position the way Sara describes it, let alone to do so for a significant period of time as claimed. Secondly, the suggestion that Shaheen would stay awake all night to insure compliance is irrational.

[471] As mentioned, CAS opened an investigation into Ayat’s welfare in April of 2014. These records provide a contemporaneous and objective perspective. The CAS credited Sara’s behaviours as self-harm and took steps to protect Ayat. Specifically, they dictated that Sara could not be left alone with Ayat. This makes sense given CAS’ understanding at the time that Sara carved words on her leg expressing a desire to kill her child.

[472] I agree with the defence that this is an important point that Sara repeatedly tried to avoid and dispute during her testimony. She claimed that Adeel and Shaheen were the ones who imposed this rule on her. However, it is clear that it was CAS and not the Safdars who stipulated that she could not be left alone with the baby. While seemingly a small point, Sara’s disagreement with this aspect of the CAS records speaks volumes to both her credibility and reliability. Her confusion on what would have been a significant event suggests that perhaps her recall of various episodes is wanting, or her mental state at the time is to blame. The alternative explanation is that she is deliberately distorting the truth to paint the Safdars in a negative light that is more consistent with her new narrative.

[473] Principally, Sara’s inability to accept independent witnesses’ notes related to her and some of the treating physician’s observations tends to diminish her credibility. There appears to be a pattern of disputing evidence of objective third parties that place her in a negative light. Recall Sara’s dispute with Callendar’s evidence when he referred to both his initial interaction with Sara and when he and Currie attended to meet with her later at the hospital.

[474] Like the police investigation following Sara’s return home, the CAS involvement was also coloured by the repeated allegations of domestic violence by Rashda. Akin to the hospital records, the CAS records demonstrate Sara’s contemporaneous explanations for her injuries and behaviours, as well as her adamant denials of abuse and domestic violence. All of which she now says were fabricated.

[475] I accept the plethora of the medical records as objective evidence as to not only what Sara said, but their professional opinion as to Sara’s mental state at the relevant time.

[476] I cannot discount the evidence that Sara was fearful for her personal safety. However, at the same time I confess to some difficulty in assessing Sara’s behaviour at the time and her assertions. It simply cannot be completely discounted as the product of an abused and fearful woman lying to protect her abusers. It is far too involved, far too sophisticated, organic and objectively consistent with her initial claims. As the defence submits, the 180 degree shift in her narrative must be viewed with skepticism.

[477] Leaving aside the numerous recantations and the explanations offered for them, I also find that there were significant external inconsistencies in Sara’s evidence in relation to the medical and other reports filed.

[478] While I consider the peripheral inconsistencies as less significant, I have some fundamental concerns about certain alleged events as described by Sara, in view of her versions provided to numerous psychiatrists and health care professionals during and after the course of these incidents.

[479] Thus, I am unable to accept Sara’s testimony as credible or reliable on particular allegations without other reliable, confirmatory evidence. While I reject a great segment of Sara’s testimony, I do not discard her evidence entirely in the course of my analysis. As will be discussed momentarily, I accept certain parts of her testimony where corroborated by objective medical evidence.

[480] Leaving aside for the moment the most serious charges of aggravated assault, I turn to the other specific allegations.

Assault and Assault causing bodily harm:

[481] In this judgment, I have already detailed the events in question. Briefly, in January/February 2014, according to Sara, Shaheen slapped her face on numerous occasions for a variety of reasons. In March, Adeel dragged Sara by her hair after a discussion about whether Sara would run away. Adeel pinched Sara’s arm causing bruising. Shaheen hit Sara’s head off of the banister because Sara was bragging about getting a good job and buying a new BMW. Shaheen pulled out a one centimeter patch of Sara’s hair.

[482] In April, Shaheen punched Sara in the face on several occasions, at least one time resulting in a bloody nose. Aatif pushed Sara down the stairs and Adeel twisted Sara’s arm in response to a pacifier being found in Ayat’s diaper. Adeel pushed Sara’s head into the counter because she was not cleaning well enough. Sara’s face was also repeatedly slapped by Adeel. In June, Aatif and Shaheen hit and punched Sara in the stomach in response to Hilary’s visit. In August/September, Sara says Aatif pushed her into the wall. Shaheen also pushed Sara down the stairs and she punched Sara’s eyes and the lower part of her face. Shaheen grabbed Sara’s head and banged it against the floor and twisted Sara’s left arm for cleaning too slowly.

[483] The scars on Sara’s back and right arm and shoulder suggest that they may be in locations where Sara could not have possibly been able to inflict those injuries on herself. However, the manner of causation related to these injuries was not fully explained by Sara or detailed by the medical evidence. Adeel and Shaheen denied causing any of these injuries resulting in scars.

Assault with a weapon:

[484] The assault with a weapon counts involve various objects. According to Sara, in February 2014, Shaheen beat Sara with a wire hanger. That same month, Shaheen hit Sara over the shoulder with a broomstick. In March, Shaheen hit Sara’s toes, fingernails and legs with a hammer, resulting in hematomas on both toes, with some of the toes turning blue.

[485] In April, Shaheen and Aatif both used a wire hanger to strike Sara. In June, Shaheen beat Sara on her legs with a wooden spoon, claiming to have “beat the devil out of her”. In August/September, Shaheen whipped Sara’s back and legs with a hair appliance cord. Shaheen continued to beat Sara with a wire hanger, belt, a metal trophy, metal knife sharpener and vacuum cord. Shaheen hit Sara’s knees and other parts of her body with a hammer. She scratched Sara’s upper arms back and stomach with a knife. Shaheen also twisted Sara’s skin with pliers. Shaheen and Aatif beat Sara with a wooden spoon after Shaheen hurt her hand when Sara moved out of the way from being struck.

Utter Threats:

[486] There were alleged threats of death or bodily harm made throughout the time that Sara was in the Safdar home. According to Sara, in March, Shaheen got angry at Sara for wrongly preparing Adeel’s lunch and threatened to kill her if she left the home. Shaheen also threatened to throw hot oil onto Sara. Aatif threatened to drag Sara out of the house and hit her. Adeel menaced Sara after Shaheen hurt her hand in striking Sara. Adeel threatened to kill Sara and place her body in the pond behind the house. In April, Aatif threatened to beat Sara up if she did not follow Shaheen’s instructions. Shaheen threatened to hit Sara if the latter refused to shave off her hair. Shaheen threatened Sara by advising her that her military brother would kill her. This was often repeated in August/September with details about men situated outside of the home waiting to kill her if she left.

[487] In March, it is accepted that Sara herself carved the words into her leg. Aside from the obvious questions regarding this act, Sara’s testimony on this point was evasive and somewhat vague, except when explained by her to the medical personnel. Overall, I reject her evidence that she was threatened by Shaheen to such an extent to cause this self-mutilation.

[488] I acknowledge that for a long time, Sara repeatedly and steadfastly told various health care practitioners that her injuries were self-inflicted. As mentioned, this does not enhance her credibility in relation to injuries that are not otherwise corroborated.

[489] Recall that the second test conducted by Dr. Jaffe was a Trauma Symptom Inventory, which was designed to detect presence of symptoms of trauma. Sara had no trauma symptoms for the previous six months. From Dr. Jaffe’s report, he mentioned that she had moments of sadness and worry but she tried to cope by keeping busy and not thinking about the past. She reported no explicit nightmares or flashbacks about the reported abuse in her marriage although she does have bad memories that she tries to avoid.

[490] I agree with the defence that the evidence is not clear or convincing as to what actually occurred or who caused the various or specific assaults. I need not necessarily decide what happened or how the injuries were caused in order to acquit. Of course, the defence need not prove that Sara caused these injuries to herself to raise a doubt in this case.

[491] Sadly, there is no doubt that these serious injuries occurred. I will go as far to say that given Sara’s descriptive claims about the ongoing plethora of assaults committed upon her over the months, it may be that Shaheen had some participation in the infliction of injuries sustained by Sara.

[492] However, an examination of all of the evidence, the peripheral circumstances, the actions of the parties, my assessment of the credibility of witnesses, Sara’s post-event statements to various hospital staff, doctors and other persons, along with Sara’s, Adeel’s and Shaheen’s testimony; my consideration of the third branch of R. v. W.(D.) yields a reasonable doubt concerning the central issue of who inflicted the injuries.

[493] For all of the aforementioned reasons, I cannot conclude what actually happened or who inflicted the assaults or caused the injuries as they pertain to the counts of assault, assault with a weapon, or assault causing bodily harm. I am not persuaded by the evidence that the alleged threats from any of the accused to cause death or bodily harm to Sara actually occurred.

Aggravated Assault – Iron Burns

[494] I now turn to the counts of aggravated assault each leveled against Shaheen and Adeel, respectively. These counts are in relation to the iron burns on Sara’s legs allegedly inflicted by Shaheen and Adeel breaking Sara’s jaw and striking her ear causing a permanent deformity.

[495] Dealing first with the burning of Sara’s legs. The Crown says that if one looks at the photographs of the iron burn on her left thigh, it is clear that for Sara to have done this to herself with her right hand, she would have had to reach across her body. If she used her left hand she would have had to hold the iron backwards. Regarding the second burn on the right thigh and the third on the right arm, if she had used her right hand for the first two, she would have had to change hands to do the third burn.

[496] There is much logic with Mr. Levy’s argument. There is an actual imprint of an iron on her upper left thigh. It is high up the thigh and the point of the iron mark is turning towards the rear. Sara could not have used her left hand. She would have had to use her right hand. It seems logical that it would have been extremely difficult to do it herself. She would have to stretch her arm around her front and over to the left side with some degree of force. From this angle, it makes more sense to point the iron downward on her right leg, or over to her left leg.

[497] It seems unlikely that Sara could maneuver to commit the acts in question, not to mention the resulting pain that she would have to endure.

[498] Yet, is it reasonable to expect that given the pain it must have caused, had there been one self-inflicted iron burn, there likely would not have been two more such burnings in rapid succession? Recall, however, that she admitted carving into her own leg with the concomitant pain that she had to endure.

[499] As noted, Sara testified that Shaheen called her into the downstairs bathroom where her mother-in-law held the iron in her hand and told Sara to pull down her pants. Sara did not notice the iron was plugged in, but pulled her pants down. She claimed she did not have any indication as to whether the iron was hot or not. Sara’s description places Shaheen in the bathroom and Sara just outside the bathroom. Shaheen suddenly reached her hand out and burned Sara’s left thigh. Sara immediately rotated to the left and then Shaheen burned her right thigh. Sara then put her right arm up and Shaheen burned her right forearm.

[500] Assume for a moment, a high pain threshold. Mr. Levy says that the more reasonable inference to draw is that these were inflicted very quickly by Shaheen; in that Sara turned away after the first one to the left side, exposing her right side on which the other two were inflicted in rapid succession. The response of turning away is more likely than backing away, if there was any truth to the allegation that Shaheen did the burning in the manner described by Sara.

[501] I note that Sara was not backed into a corner of the washroom. No one was holding her down. If she was outside the bathroom and Shaheen was inside, the natural reaction it would seem would be to back away from the area instead of staying in the same place and turning around or lifting up an arm. Sara had a clear exit but allowed this woman to continually burn her.

[502] Shaheen categorically denied this specific allegation. As mentioned, Sara’s evidence with respect to this particular event suffers from significant testimonial defects. Soon after the discovery of the burns by hospital staff, Sara repeatedly blamed herself for causing these serious wounds. For example, her spontaneous statement to Nurse Veenendaal of April 29, 2014. According to Dr. Fernandes, the areas where the iron burns occurred could be considered accessible by the victim.

[503] In sum, I reject Shaheen’s entire version of events. Given the logic as to the manner of infliction of the burns, I am left with some very serious lingering and disquieting concerns. However, given Sara’s oft-repeated and detailed versions of how she inflicted the burns on herself to medical staff and others at the relevant time, without sufficient objective corroboration and in accordance with the third branch of R. v. D. (W.), I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Shaheen burned Sara with a hot iron.

Aggravated Assault - The Broken Jaw:

[504] This specific charge is no doubt, the most serious of all of the allegations.

[505] Mr. Levy submits that if this court has a reasonable doubt on most of the charges based on all the evidence, then I should still convict Adeel for aggravated assault for breaking Sara’s jaw, in the absence of any other reasonable explanation.

[506] With respect, as I alluded to earlier, the absence of any other reasonable explanation is not the test for a criminal conviction, for it would inadvertently shift the onus and place the burden of proof on the defence.

[507] For Adeel to be found guilty of aggravated assault, the Crown must prove that he intentionally applied force to Sara and that the force he intentionally applied wounded, maimed, disfigured or endangered Sara’s life.

[508] As stated, I have rejected Adeel’s evidence as self-serving, contrived and not credible. I have also rejected much of Sara’s evidence when juxtaposed with the independent and impartial records. For the most part, I am unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence(s) occurred based on her version alone. Even if such confirmatory evidence is ascertained, I still must assess the totality of the evidence that I do accept whether the Crown has satisfied their onus beyond a reasonable doubt.

[509] Fundamentally, Sara provided several versions for how her jaw was broken. She either hit herself repeatedly in the bathroom, or struck the tub with her jaw, or was punched multiple times in the face or chin area by Adeel.

[510] Sara testified that on September 28, Shaheen and Aatif accused her of trying to cause problems in Aatif's marriage by asking for something to eat. She maintained that she did not ask Shaheen or Adeel for any food. Adeel later questioned Sara about causing problems in the family.

[511] Subsequently, Shaheen told Adeel that earlier that day Sara had hit her. Adeel was angry and suddenly came into the bedroom where Sara was situated and started punching his wife in the face with a closed fist. He punched her jaw on both sides four to five times. These punches were harder than other times. Sara asserted that she did not fight back.

[512] Sara testified that eventually Adeel stopped his assault and she went to the bathroom mirror and looked inside her mouth. There was blood on her bottom row of teeth and her teeth were separated from each other, the lower jaw bone was jutting out. Adeel told her that she tore the gum line. There was a lot of pain. Sara testified that it was alarming to see herself look like that - 95 pounds, hair had not grown back, cauliflower ear was exposed and there was "something bright white sticking out of the lower part of my mouth". She received no treatment for more than 24 hours other than Shaheen offering Tylenol.

[513] On September 30, Sara was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital for what turned out to be a broken jaw. Her jaw was wired shut and she was provided with IV morphine. At the time, Sara reported that multiple self-inflicted punches to the right side of her face caused the injury.

[514] The Safdar family witnesses say that Sara’s mental health started to deteriorate in September. Adeel said Sara started to develop mood swings and was argumentative. She started to seclude herself, lost her appetite, skipped bathing and was not interested in taking care of Ayat. These observations appear to correspond to when Sara stopped taking her medication. Adeel said that he observed Sara hitting herself.

[515] Towards the end of September, Adeel was at work and his father called him because Sara had locked herself in the washroom. This was the same day he took her to Dr. Subramanian for the first time.

[516] Adeel and other defence witnesses claim that Sara did not sustain a serious injury to her jaw. Sara appeared to be behaving without much distress. At the time of the jaw injury, Sara apparently could not eat solid food and her jaw clicked when she tried to talk. But according to Adeel, he did not notice any of that. He did not take her to the doctor until, as he says, he was called home because she was persistently hitting herself.

[517] In her evidence, Sara says she knew her jaw was broken right away. While hospital staff notes that on physical examination Sara was in no apparent distress and was fully alert, the hospital records support the narrative that Sara had sustained a serious break of her jaw that required immediate intervention. Medical staff also noticed an obvious deformity of the left ear, which Sara reported as a bug bite from approximately one month prior.

[518] I have no doubt that Sara was in need of urgent medical attention for the visible injuries to her jaw.

[519] Recall that Dr. Subramanian testified that both Adeel and Shaheen were in her office on September 22 and September 30 when she examined Sara. Adeel maintains in his testimony that he was only in the room on September 22. Yet, I accept that in his statement, Adeel told the police that he was in the examination room at the doctor’s office at all times. During the second visit, Adeel also informed Dr. Subramanian he had filled the prescriptions and showed her the bag with the bottle of pills. He apparently did not tell anyone at the hospital that he had just filled them that morning.

[520] For some reason, at trial, Adeel felt it was necessary to deny that he knew Sara’s jaw was broken until after the X-ray at the hospital, even when Dr. Subramanian knew and stated that he had to take her to the hospital without delay. I agree with the Crown that Adeel’s testimony is not believable as Dr. Subramanian was very clear on this point. This follows along the same thread of Adeel’s testimony wherein he attempted to distance himself for the acts by furnishing rationale for not taking Sara to the hospital earlier, his evidence regarding the two doctor’s visits, various explanations for not filling the prescriptions sooner or taking Sara for blood tests in a timely manner.

[521] As mentioned, a significant and fundamental internal inconsistency arose when Adeel testified repeatedly in both examination-in-chief and in cross- examination that he specifically denied ever observing Sara breaking her jaw and didn’t know how Sara’s jaw injury occurred. During his testimony, Adeel denied saying that he was talking about Sara hitting herself, as isolated from the broken jaw incident. From the evidence, I accept that Adeel informed Dr. Subramanian that Sara broke her jaw by punching herself continuously and that he observed her hitting herself. Adeel also provided this same version to the CAS.

[522] In his video statement upon his arrest, he unequivocally informed Brady that he observed Sara breaking her own jaw by continually hitting herself. After rendering tortured permutations in his responses, Adeel finally admitted to informing the officer in the manner suggested by Mr. Levy. Yet, he continued to minimize his involvement and said his comments were offered in hindsight. He repeatedly tried to qualify his answer by offering explanations; for example, that he was blanking out, or was trying to exercise his rights to silence, and was being forced, bullied and intimidated by the police to provide answers. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

[523] I reject Adeel’s testimony entirely on this issue. I accept that he informed the police authorities shortly after the event that he was present when the injury occurred and that he tried to provide an explanation for the cause of the jaw break injury. On this fundamental issue, all of this was entirely inconsistent with his trial evidence.

[524] Turning to the nature of the mandible injury, on October 22, 2014, Dr. Nicholas Schellati, a dentist in Rochester wrote: The patient was living in Canada where reportedly she had hit herself in the face causing mandible fractures. Because she is not a resident, she did not have Canadian insurance, she was unable to be treated in Canada and her father drove her down from Canada back home to Rochester where her parents live and she was admitted to Rochester General with bilateral mandibular fracture and for psych evaluation. She had bilateral mandible fractures, left angle fracture and right body fracture that is an unfavorable fracture, displaced. She was initially treated with arch bars and maxillary mandibular fixation wires which did not get a satisfactory reduction and so surgical team advised patient to have surgery for open reduction internal fixation of the fractures to achieve a better reduction of the fractures and better occlusion of the dentition.

[525] At trial, both experts who testified about the jaw injury did so in a credible manner. They did not embellish their testimony and reasonably conceded points raised by defence counsel in cross-examination. I accept their testimony without reservation.

Dr. Langston:

[526] Dr. Andrew Langston is a dentist with specialization in surgery. He was not qualified to give a forensic opinion as to causation of the mandible break, but could offer an expert opinion as to Sara’s injury as her treating specialist. As such, his opinion is entitled to reduced weight. Dr. Langston provided evidence to the court regarding Sara’s broken jaw and the extensive procedures taken to repair it.

[527] In his treatment report, Dr. Langston wrote: “It was reported that she had self-inflicted mandible fractures which is improbable d/t the amount of force required to cause fractures of the mandible. Today, she reported that she was in fact assaulted by her husband causing her mandible fracture and inability to raise her left arm d/t nerve damage. She think she was hit on the left side of face which coincides with the type of mandible fracture she sustained”.

[528] Dr. Langston’s opinion as her treating surgeon was that it was improbable that she had self-inflicted the fractures because of the degree of force required to do so. However, he acknowledged that studies are unable to quantify the amount of force required to break a human jaw because they use constant tensile pressure instead of real life blunt force trauma.

[529] While Dr. Langston had observed self-inflicted injuries in his practice, he had never seen an extensive wound like this caused by self-abusive behavior. Again, I am cognizant of his limited forensic experience in this area.

[530] While treating Sara, Dr. Langston conceded that he had very little information about her psychiatric history. Notably, he was not aware that she’d previously been an involuntary psychiatric patient. He did not know about her diagnosis of major depressive disorder, nihilistic thinking, and borderline personality traits.

Dr. John Fernandes :

[531] Dr. Fernandes testified for the Crown as an expert in forensic pathology. He was eminently qualified to give an expert opinion relating to the nature and cause of Sara’s various injuries.

[532] He testified extensively on self-harm, commenting that cutting has to be on surfaces that are accessible, generally on the front of the body, including forearms, inner aspects of thighs, along the legs anywhere, and on the abdomen. He said that one does not see injuries on the back unless somebody participates in self-flagellation, which is extremely rare.

[533] As a baseline, the likelihood of self-inflicting such injuries is “low”. However, the likelihood of self-injury may increase where the person is suffering from mental illness. Indeed, when he prepared his report he recommended that Sara undergo an independent psychiatric assessment.

[534] Although Dr. Fernandes was aware that the complainant was alleging her injuries were inflicted by the accused, he did not have medical records of Sara’s stay at Rochester General Hospital or Strong Memorial Hospital beyond issues relating to her jaw. He was not aware of how long she was in the hospital or all of the diagnoses considered. Dr. Fernandes acknowledged his opinion was limited by the absence of any meaningful information pertaining to Sara’s state of mind at the time of the injury. The incomplete information provided about her psychiatric history was enough for him to suggest that Sara submit to an independent psychiatric assessment. No such assessment was ever done.

[535] Dr. Fernandes opined that a person’s ability to self-inflict the injuries at issue is, in part, a function of their mental status. The defence strenuously argues that Dr. Fernandes would have wanted a forensic psychiatrist to take a look at things comprehensively, both presently and retroactively to be in a position to offer an opinion. The defence focuses on the argument that an independent psychiatric assessment of Sara is the missing piece of the puzzle that would have permitted Dr. Fernandes to provide a more accurate opinion regarding Sara’s capacity to self-inflict these injuries. Without the benefit of the psychiatric assessment, the probability of self-infliction is “low”. However, a psychiatric assessment demonstrating a major isolated or ongoing psychiatric episode would increase that probability.

[536] The defence reminds me that we know by Sara’s own admission that she carved into her leg “I want to kill Adeel and Ayat”. It would take significant willpower and an extremely high pain threshold or tolerance to be able to inflict those wounds on herself with a knife. Most reasonable people would likely see that behaviour as impossible for a person of sound mental status.

[537] As mentioned, I did not receive any evidence of a psychiatric assessment of Sara, independent or otherwise, currently or retrospectively. Notably, Mr. Levy advised the court of his intention to call Dr. Bentevegna, who purportedly conducted such an examination. On the basis of that intention, the Crown was permitted to pose certain questions of Dr. Jaffe. However, the Crown later opted not to call Dr. Bentevegna. The defence submits that the failure to call Dr. Bentevegna ought to lead to an adverse inference that his evidence would not have been helpful.

[538] While the Crown is permitted to call its case as it sees fit, the defence says the issue with the expert medical evidence is that it does little to help answer the looming question of the cause of Sara’s injuries. Moreover, it leaves completely unanswered the question of her mental state during the relevant time. The defence says that from the evidence of Dr. Fernandes, these two issues are inextricably linked and critical to the issue of causation; the absence of this evidence leaves a monumental gap in the Crown’s case that is significant, or even fatal to proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[539] With respect, the defence overstates the issue and the reliability or weight to be attributed to the thrust of Dr. Fernandes’ testimony. In my view, Dr. Fernandes was still able and entitled to offer his opinion regarding the issue of causation in this case. He was very cautious with his expert opinion even with the unavailability of any follow-up psychiatric assessment. That did not prevent him from reviewing all of the factors in providing his expert opinion on the mechanism of the injury sustained by Sara.

[540] Further, even if such a psychiatric opinion was obtained months or years after the event and presented during this trial, it would not be conclusive as to Sara’s mental health and state of mind at the time of the jaw injury sustained in September 2014.

[541] In any event, notwithstanding the absence of a post-event formal psychiatric assessment, I am not without some evidence of Sara’s mental state at the time of the injury as well as the overall dynamic in the Safdar home.

[542] Dr. Fernandes testified that he has seen serious cases of self-inflicted injuries. Dr. Fernandes testified that it is not possible for a jaw to be cumulatively weakened by many persistent punches and that it would take one blow of considerable force to break the jaw. Dr. Fernandes explained: A. So, the midline of the jaw is an area called the symphysis. This is a fused joint that developmentally occurs when the jaw bones are developing and it’s in the midline that they fuse. When we see someone who trips and falls for instance, they typically strike the chin. They may a laceration of the skin, bruising or abrasion on the skin surface, and a fracture typically in the midline, and in doing so, the impact further drives the join up toward the base of the skull and we would see fractures across what are called the condyles. So that would be the typical three portions of fractures that would result from a fall. I cannot completely exclude that someone can strike on a fall, however, offset – so that they can have an offset impact injury on the jaw at the parasymphysis, which is the area adjacent to the symphysis. Q. So that could be – you can’t exclude it. A. I cannot exclude it. … Q. MR. LEVY: …Alright, you did say that if there was a fall, I believe you said you would expect to see other injuries to the facial area as well, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. What kind of other injuries? A. Typically the impact site on the skin’s surface has abrasion or laceration and bruising. Q. Okay. And are you aware of any such injuries in this case? A. I did see them described. MR. LEVY: …Had she suffered the jaw injury in a fall, which you said you can’t exclude, if there abrasions and contusions, would you still expect to see them or some remnant of them 6 weeks later? A. Not an abrasion or contusion, but if there was a laceration, I would expect to see a scar. Q. Okay. And there’s no scar of such nature in those photos? A. I don’t see one. No. Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now, although you said you can’t exclude a fall, what is your opinion as to the likelihood of a fall? Causing these injuries. A. I think it’s on the lower end rather than an inflicted injury of some sort. Q. In this particular case, can you opine on the likelihood of a self-inflicted injury with – without a firearm? With this being self-inflicted. A. I think it would be low. Q. Alright. If you were told that the person who – Sara Salim, at the time of the injury weighed – was 5 foot 2 and weighed approximately 95 pounds, would that impact on your opinion, where you’ve said it’s low - would that change it or would it be the same? A. I haven’t seen described anywhere where somebody has a blunt force injury isolated to the jaw that’s self-inflicted, especially with someone of such small stature. Q. Now, you mentioned earlier, - I asked you about a 95 pound, 5 foot 2 woman... A. Yes. Q. ...being able to cause this fracture and I should ask you, on the scale of jaw fractures, where do you rate this jaw fracture? A. Jaw fractures are considered to be serious injuries. They’re serious injuries for a number of reasons. First of all, they’re serious because they take a great deal of force to result in this injury. It is not something that is a subtle injury. The complications from these injuries are severe in that they require, very often, surgical intervention in order to reconfigure the jaw so that there is no functional disruption of the jaw. That’s the reason why we see in this case that Sara Salim’s jaws have been wired. Not only have the fracture lines been repositioned so that they align, so that healing of her bone can occur, but the teeth are also wired so that the jaw itself is not permitted to be mobile during the time of healing. It requires surgery. It requires a general anesthetic. It requires a 6 to 8 week, perhaps even longer period of recovery, depending on an individual’s recovery. So these are considered to be serious injuries by themselves, just from an injury perspective. Q. If the injury caused – or if the blow to the jaw – and I’m not sure, I may have asked you this already. Is this consistent with one blow or more? A. It’s consistent with a blow. Whether or not there are more than one blows, I cannot tell. The presence of two fractures does not inform us to the number of blows. You can get this from one blow. Q. Could a person who strikes themselves with a fist, closed fist or open hand, in the jaw area, on a regular basis, without causing a fracture – would that weaken the bones to make it cumulatively more likely that the same kind of force would eventually break the jaw? A. No. MS. WILHELM: Q. And then as far as the issue of whether there’s additional injuries, abrasions, lacerations, bruising, et cetera, occasioned by a fall, would the type of service on which a person falls have an impact on the likelihood of seeing such additional injuries? A. Yes. … MS. WILHELM: Q. On which a person falls, have an impact on the likelihood of seeing such injuries? A. Yes. Q. And I take it a smooth surface, you’re probably likely less likely to see additional injuries? A. Yes. Q. As compared to a rough surface? A. Yes. Q. And can you comment on the likelihood of seeing those type of additional injuries with a smooth surface? A. You might still see bruises, but – and you may even see lacerations. You probably would not see the skin surface abrasions as readily. Q. And again, couching your language in may or may not because there’s no rule as to how these things manifest? A. That is correct.

[543] As Dr. Fernandes explained, to inflict this kind of injury on oneself, “you’d have to be able