Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CRIMJ(P)1805/12 DATE: 2019 07 22

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN C. Nadler, for the Crown

- and -

L.G. D. Humphrey and N. Lutes, for the Defendant

HEARD: April 2, 3. 4, 5, 9,10,11, & 16, 2019

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Justice Thomas A. Bielby

INTRODUCTION

[1] L.G. stands charged that he, on or about the 21st day of December, 2010, at the City of Mississauga, did unlawfully commit a sexual assault on A.E., contrary to section 271(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[2] This matter was first tried, by judge and jury, in 2013. The conviction was appealed and the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial on the grounds of new evidence.

[3] The new trial proceeded before me, without a jury.

[4] The accused is a medical doctor and the complainant, A.E. was a patient of the accused who had been treating her since she was a child. Both the accused and the complainant speak Spanish as their first language. The majority of the accused’s patients were from South and Central America and are Spanish speaking.

THE EVIDENCE

[5] On December 21, 2010, the complainant, A.E., who was 21 years of age at the time, attended at the accused’s office, having made a medical appointment. The complainant’s sister C.E. accompanied the complainant as the plan was that they would go Christmas shopping after the medical appointment.

[6] The complainant testified that, at the time she was experiencing back pain and as a result, had been off work. She required a note from her doctor to return to work.

[7] The complainant testified that they arrived at the accused’s office around 2:00 pm and had a long wait, as was the norm.

[8] The building in which the office is located faces onto Dundas Street. The entry to the medical office is at the back of the building facing a parking lot and Agnes Street. There is also a small house adjacent to the office building. The building and the small house are owned by the accused and his wife, A.G. The accused’s medical practice was located in the small house for a time but in 2010 moved into the larger building in which was also located a pharmacy.

[9] The complainant testified that while in the waiting room, she stayed busy texting her boyfriend.

[10] Eventually the complainant was called in for examination and was placed in examination room 2, one of three examination rooms. The door was left open. After a few minutes the accused came into the room at which point he received a call on his cell phone and walked out to take the call. The complainant testified that, when the accused returned, he closed the door and said to her, something to the effect of, “She don’t want to go out with me”. The complainant testified she thought it a joke and did not believe the accused was serious. She responded, saying something to the effect of, “Who wouldn’t want to go out with a doctor, they are rich.”

[11] The complainant testified that the accused then approached her and told her, “How beautiful she had grown”.

[12] The complainant testified that the accused then gave her a “side” kiss to her right cheek which lasted a bit longer than usual. She testified he caught her off guard. The accused told her how sexy she was and proceeded to kiss her neck. She describes the kisses as sloppy and wet and she could feel his tongue.

[13] The accused then proceeded to hug the complainant and pressed her body close to him.

[14] The complainant testified that the accused then let her go and placed his hand on her left breast, underneath her blouse and bra. He told her, how good it felt. He removed her breast from her bra. He put his hand under her shirt.

[15] The complainant testified that she said nothing. She was numb. In her mind, it was not happening.

[16] While holding her breast the complainant testified that the accused, in Spanish, asked her if she wanted him to make love to her. The complainant did not say anything.

[17] The complainant testified that the accused told her how horny he was and proceeded to unzip his fly and pull out his penis. He put his hand to the back of her head and tried to push it down, in an attempt to have her perform oral sex.

[18] The accused grabbed her forearm and tried to move her hand towards his penis. The complainant said to him, without response, “This isn’t right.”

[19] The accused said to the complainant a phrase in Spanish which means, “Bite it” which the complainant testified means, “Go down on him”.

[20] The complainant testified that, likely because the complainant would not do anything, the accused put his penis away and started a normal doctor-patient conversation. He asked her why she was there and she told him of her back pain and need for a letter. He did a back examination with his hands, under her shirt. He kneaded knots in her upper back. A.E. described that when the examination was conducted, she felt comfortable and was not concerned with any unwanted sexual advances by the accused.

[21] The complainant testified that the accused examined her feet and told her that she had bunions and may need surgery. He marked the bunions with ink.

[22] After completing his examination the accused gave the complainant some papers and then came close to her and said, “I’m so hard, so horny”, and started kissing the right side of her neck. He tried to kiss her on the lips and put his tongue in her mouth.

[23] The accused is alleged to have told the complainant that she was a bad kisser and would show her how to kiss. He asked her to put her tongue in his mouth so he could show her.

[24] The complainant again described the kisses as, sloppy.

[25] The complainant testified that she did not kiss him back. She said that at some point the accused put his hands down the back of her pants and squeezed her bum. The accused kept saying, “This feels good.”

[26] The accused then looked at the complainant and wiped her neck with the sleeve of his shirt. He whispered in her ear and asked, would she go out with him and said something to the effect of, “This is our little secret.”

[27] The complainant testified that she could have left at any time and should have. She also agreed that had she raised her voice, others would have heard her. However, she denied the suggestion that had she been sexually assaulted she would have raised her voice, saying she was in shock.

[28] The complainant then went to leave the examination room but first the accused had to unlock the door. She was told by the accused that he would book a Pap test and arrange for blood work.

[29] The complainant testified that she then walked down the hall to the waiting room and said to her sister, “Let’s go”, and they left the building.

[30] The complainant and her sister walked along Agnes Street in the direction of Hurontario Street to catch the bus. She acknowledged that when they left the office they walked through the parking lot and passed the small house, however she could not recall on which side of the small house they walked.

[31] While walking, C.E. asked her sister, the complainant, how it went. The complainant testified that in response, she told her sister, “I have to tell you something.” She told her sister she could not tell their mom and dad. The complainant then told her sister that the accused, their family doctor, had sexually harassed her.

[32] The complainant testified that she did not give her sister the details. Her sister was in disbelieve. The complainant described herself as upset and embarrassed. She recalls getting on the bus and trying to process what had occurred. She could not recall if she and her sister, while on the bus, talked about what had happened.

[33] The complainant testified that she thinks her sister told her to report it but the complainant said no, she was embarrassed and did not want others to know. She did not want people to think that she provoked the accused or why she allowed it to continue. In some way she thought she was at fault.

[34] Later the complainant called her best friend, J.M. for advice. Her friend’s boyfriend was a police foundation student and would have knowledge as to what to do. The complainant just told her friend she had been sexually assaulted. She told her friend she was thinking of taking legal action which she testified meant going to the police.

[35] The complainant denied that what she meant was to sue the accused for money. She initially thought about it but did not pursue it. She did confirm that recently she sought the advice of a friend of a friend who was a law clerk. The complainant was told she was out of time to bring a lawsuit. When questioned as to why she did this, she stated she never thought she would still be dealing with the incident, nine years later.

[36] The complainant testified that she did not start a civil suit against the accused. She has never spoken to a lawyer in that regard.

[37] A.E. testified that suing was not her priority. She denied any suggestion that she fabricated the story in order to get money or that she had a plan to do so which her sister, C.E. disagreed with.

[38] The following day the friend advised the complainant to call the non- emergency police phone line and provided the number to her.

[39] On December 22nd the complainant had to work at the Sheraton Hotel at the airport where she was employed as a server and met up with her boyfriend, who also worked at the same place. She told her boyfriend that she had been harassed by the doctor and he responded that he would call someone. He later provided a police phone number to her which she called that evening.

[40] The complainant testified that after a couple of days went by she provided the police with a videotaped statement.

[41] In 2010 the complainant testified that she was very petite five feet, two inches, in height and weighed 104 pounds. She was slightly taller than her sister who is four feet, ten inches tall.

[42] The complainant testified that ultimately she became angry at herself for not reacting when she was assaulted and for allowing it to continue to the point it did.

[43] The complainant testified that she left the accused’s office on the 21st, she does not remember seeing anyone or anything remarkable in relation to the small house.

[44] On cross-examination the complainant testified that it was not unusual for her sister to go with her to appointments. She testified that she and her sister are very close. When in the waiting room at the accused’s office she and her sister likely spoke to each other and would use a mixture of the English and Spanish languages. While the complainant’s parents were from El Salvador, she and her sister were born in Canada. The complainant testified that she has been told she does not speak good Spanish.

[45] The complainant said that it was probable that she and her sister changed seats while in the office waiting room.

[46] The complainant testified that when in the examination room she never left the room, prior to the arrival of the doctor, to go and talk to her sister. She did agree however that is was possible, although she could not recall whether she went back to get her wallet and spoke to her sister. She did not prevent her sister from going into the examination room with her.

[47] The complainant denied any suggestion that she wanted to be alone with the accused. There would be no reason for that.

[48] The complainant agreed that when the accused came into the exam room he closed the door for privacy and looked at the file.

[49] She agreed that it was most likely that the accused was using his right hand to push her head down and when he grabbed her hand to move it towards his penis. Given their positions in the room, she was of the opinion that he would have used his right hand.

[50] The complainant testified that at the time of the encounter she was unaware of the accused having an injury to his right hand. She only became aware of this at the first trial in 2013.

[51] She agreed that when the accused tried to use his hand to push her head down she was pushing back, as much as she could. She was fighting against force with force.

[52] When the accused tried to move his hand towards his penis, the complainant agreed that she was pulling back as hard as she could.

[53] She confirmed that when the accused hugged her he had his hands around her back and for a few seconds, lifted her off of the ground. A.E. offered no resistance.

[54] The complaint, when reporting the assault, was asked by Police Officer Hutchinson if she had washed her shirt to which she answered, no. The complainant believed that the police were interested in testing the shirt for the accused’s saliva. She knew not to wash her clothes as any findings would be important in support of her complaint.

[55] The police never collected the clothes, nor did the complainant deliver the clothes to the police. Eventually she returned to washing and wearing the shirt.

[56] A.E. testified that after she left the examination, she walked down the hallway and entered the waiting room. She was not visibly upset.

[57] The complainant testified that her sister told her she had to report what had happened and likely suggested to the complainant that they go back to the accused’s office and talk to him.

[58] The complainant’s sister, C.E. confirmed that the accused had been their family’s doctor since her parents first came to Canada. She confirmed she went to the December 21st appointment with her sister. C.E. also wanted to go shopping and did not drive and was not good at taking buses on her own.

[59] C.E. testified that they did not have to wait too long in the waiting room before her sister was taken in to an examination room. She could not recall any conversation between her and her sister while in the waiting room.

[60] She also confirmed that after her sister was taken into an examination room her sister came back out which caused C.E. to think that her sister wanted her to go into the examination room with her. Accordingly, she got up and started following her sister. However, her sister only wanted her wallet and C.E. remained in the waiting room.

[61] C.E. testified that when her sister returned to the waiting room after her examination was complete, her face was pale and her eyes red. It was like she was in shock, a different person (than the person who went into the examination room). She recalled that her sister went to the reception desk to either leave some papers or get a medical note from the doctor. The two women then left the accused’s office.

[62] She confirmed that they walked through the parking lot and passed the little house. While they walked close to the little house she did not recall anyone on the roof of the house.

[63] When they reached the sidewalk C.E. asked her sister is she was ok. Her sister responded saying she had something to tell her but did not know if she should but then said she had been sexually harassed and that he (the accused) had taken out his privates.

[64] C.E. testified that upon hearing what happened she felt disbelief and anger and wanted to go back and confront the doctor. Her sister said she did not want to go back and C.E. should let it go.

[65] They continued walking and C.E. said that her sister had tears in her eyes and it looked like she was trying to hold them back. Eventually her sister started to cry.

[66] It was C.E.’s evidence that she suggested to her sister that they could call the police. She said she somewhat encouraged her sister to call the police.

[67] C.E. conceded that while on the bus she and her sister had a conversation about what happened. She denied any suggestion that when they left the accused’s office her sister said that, “I’ll say he touched me and you say you saw me crying.” Nor did her sister say something to the effect of, “It doesn’t matter, the old guy is rich.”

[68] C.E. denied that while riding the bus her sister was trying to convince her to go along with the plan.

[69] In December 2010, S.R. was the complainant’s boyfriend. He did not talk to her that day and via text, A.E. was short with him and did not want to talk. She said something had happened to her and she was upset.

[70] S.R. saw the complainant the next day at work and she was upset and broke down crying. She still did not want to talk about what happened. When he tried to touch the complainant physically, such as putting his hand on her shoulder, she pushed his hand away. She did not want her boyfriend to touch her.

[71] After more questioning the complainant told S.R. that the accused touched her inappropriately and he told her to call the police. She seemed like she did not know what to do. Eventually they figured out who to speak to. S.R. testified that he spoke to a police officer he knew and was given a non-emergency police phone number for the complainant to call. S.R. accompanied the complainant to the police station.

[72] S.R. testified that the complainant never talked to him about suing the doctor.

[73] J.M. in December, 2010, was the complainant’s best friend. On December 21, 2010, the complainant called her, and described the complainant as having a trembling voice. She was pausing to catch her breath and J.M. could tell the complainant was stressed. The complainant told her something bad had happened.

[74] J.M. later spoke to her boyfriend and texted to the complainant what she was told by her boyfriend.

[75] J.M. did not recall the complainant telling her she was thinking about legal action.

[76] The accused, L.G., testified on his own behalf. He is a medical doctor and has been married to his wife, A.G. for 47 years. He opened his family practice in 1987, moving his practice to Mississauga in 1995.

[77] The accused’s practice was focused on the Spanish community and he saw on average 50 patients a day.

[78] The accused has not practised medicine since 2013 and his daughter has taken over the practice.

[79] December 21, 2010 was a Tuesday and L.G. testified that office hours that day commenced at 1:00 pm. The accused employed two secretaries, D.O. and E.T. and his wife, A.G., who was the officer manager. During that period there was two medical residents working at the office, one of whom was the accused’s daughter, as well as a medical secretary student.

[80] On any given day the accused saw patients who had booked an appointment as well as walk-ins. Appointment times were approximate. Generally, patients had to wait 2-3 hours.

[81] In 2010 the office included three examination rooms. When the doctor is seeing patients all three rooms are occupied and the doctor goes from examination room to examination room with the office staff ensuring when a patient exits an examination room a new patient is escorted to the empty room.

[82] The examination rooms are off a hallway that runs from the waiting room to the doctor’s private office.

[83] The accused testified that the examination rooms are not sound proof and conversations at a normal level can be heard in the hallway, outside of an examination room. If someone was speaking loudly it could be heard elsewhere.

[84] The accused testified that the complainant had an appointment that day at his office but denies absolutely all of her allegations in regards to sexual assault. He absolutely denied that anything of a sexual nature took place.

[85] The accused described the examination as short and brief and stated there was nothing memorable about it. It was uneventful.

[86] The accused has no recollection of the purpose of the appointment. He had no recollection of a back examination although he agreed it was possible. Nor could he recall anything about foot pain and bunions. He agreed that if he did a foot examination, it was his practise to outline by black marker any bunions.

[87] The accused carried a cell phone with him at all times and while he could not recollect a call just after he entered the examination room occupied the complainant, he testified that it was possible.

[88] The accused could not recall any comment made by him along the lines of she doesn’t want to go out with me. He testified that it would not be the type of joke he would make, but if it was made, it was a joke.

[89] He could not recall the complainant saying something like, who wouldn’t want to go out with a rich doctor.

[90] The accused denied that he told the complainant that she had become a beautiful young woman or that she was sexy and hot. He absolutely denied that he found A.E. attractive and that he was so sexually attracted to her that his hand pain would not stop him from what it is alleged he did to A.E.

[91] The accused, when testifying, denied saying to the complainant “Quieres Mondelo” and any other such phrase, noting however it means, do you want to bite, but not in a sexual way. He later, after being referred to some Spanish songs, agreed that such words seemed to have had a sexual context but that such context would never be used in the area of Uruguay he came from. He described the lyrics as vulgar.

[92] The accused testified that in December, 2010 he had issues with his left and right hands, more so with the right. In November, 2010 he suffered an injury which caused severe pain in his right hand. He treated himself by icing the injury and then putting a splint on his right thumb and wrapping his hand and wrist with a tensor bandage. He wore the splint for two months.

[93] By February, 2011, he was feeling better and, while using a saw in an attempt to cut wood, re-injured his hand. He then decided to seek medical assistance and was referred to Dr. Weinberg, a plastic surgeon who he first saw on May 15, 2011.

[94] He was examined and told he had a number of options, one of which was a series of cortisone shots. Surgery would be a last resort. The accused received over a period of time, five cortisone injections.

[95] In December, 2010 the accused was still wearing the splint and the injury to his right hand was effecting the day to day office routine. He testified he could not lift, grasp or pinch. He could not tie his shoes.

[96] Normally when the accused was about to enter an examination room which was occupied by a patient he would find the patient’s file in a rack mounted on the wall, outside of the examination room. Because of the injury a member of the office staff would place the file open and on the counter in the room.

[97] The accused testified that while the issue with his right hand was much worse he could not use his left hand to pick up a file. The accused testified that he is right handed.

[98] It was the accused’s testimony that on December 21, 2010, because of the injury to his hand, he absolutely would not have been able to push the complainant’s head down or grab her arm in an effort to have her hold his penis. He testified that the pain would be too much. He denied he could lift anyone off the ground.

[99] The accused testified that until January, 2011, he required his wife’s assistance to see to his personal hygiene.

[100] However, as a result of the injury the accused did not lighten his patient load nor did he have any recall of turning patients away. He continued his practice with more help from his staff.

[101] The accused testified that in December, 2010 he had difficulty writing and would only make small notes contemporaneously during an examination. He would make more extensive notes on each file later each day after seeing his patients. In any event, he described the notes to the complainant’s file to be brief and skimpy.

[102] He explained that his staff were assisting him with everything.

[103] The accused testified that he would have written down patient complaints and would record any medications prescribed.

[104] By March, 2011, the accused could write normally.

[105] The accused identified R.P., D.C., E.M. and O.M. as patients. R.P. was the accused’s tenant in the small house referred to above.

[106] After the first trial in which the accused was found guilty, counsel for the appellant, in preparation for the sentencing hearing, asked the accused to contact patients, friends and colleagues for letters of support. He and his office staff contacted such persons and ultimately they obtained over 200 letters.

[107] All of these people were only told that the accused had a problem at the office. They were not told that the problem related to a young woman.

[108] It was also decided to call the patients who were at the office on December 21, 2010. By using the office appointment book the accused, his wife and the office secretaries, identified the people who had been there and contacted them and asked if they saw or heard anything that day which was unusual or out of the ordinary and to write it down in a letter for support.

[109] The accused and D.G. who had been at the office on December 21, 2010, met at a coffee shop at which time D.G. provided the accused with her letter. She told the accused not to open the sealed envelope but rather to give it to his lawyer.

[110] The accused testified that O.M. had written that on December 21, 2010, she had seen someone of the roof of the small house. Accordingly, he approached the tenant of the house, R.P., and asked him if he could recall anything about December 21, 2010.

[111] R.P. told the accused that on December 21st he was on his roof cleaning out the eave troughs. The accused asked R.P. to put into writing anything he had seen or heard that day.

[112] The accused denied telling R.P. that the problem was in relation to an allegation by two young women.

[113] The accused absolutely denied that he told anyone what to write. Nor did he promise them anything. He only spoke to R.P. and with D.G. at the coffee shop. He could not recall speaking to E.M., although agreed that if she said he did, he would abide by that. He could not recall telling her that, a girl, a young woman, was making an allegation against him.

[114] He denied that he would have said that the problem had to do with two young women. He denied telling anyone that he had been convicted of sexual assault and only asked them to write down anything they had seen or heard out of the ordinary on December 21st.

[115] The accused agreed that on or after December 21, 2010, the complainant A.E. never contacted him and ask for money. She did not sue him.

[116] The accused denied he had any practise that involved hugging patients. At best they would shake hands. Nor does he give friendly cheek kisses, although he conceded that if he knew a patient most of their life a kiss on the cheek was possible.

[117] During his testimony the accused testified that he had looked at the complainant’s medical file and his notes of the December 21, 2010 appointment and examination in order to refresh his memory for the purpose of testifying at trial. As a result I ordered that he was to produce the December 21st portion of the complainant’s file. He continued to describe the December 21st file note as skimpy and short.

[118] The December 21, 2010 chart and note relating to A.E. was entered as Exhibit 15.

[119] The accused testified that prior to his examination of the complainant, he would have reviewed the complainant’s file and would have updated it. He testified that one of the office staff would have given him a blank template, which would tell the doctor that he needed to update the information.

[120] During the examination the accused testified that he would have made bullet notes from which he would later use to write more detailed notes. The bullet notes were then thrown away.

[121] The template notes included subject headings which the doctor was to fill out. The letters, PMHX refer to past medical history. Directly across from those letters is written, “old fibroodenona disease. u/s not done yet.” U/s means ultrasound.

[122] The letters PMHX are circled with an arrow to a phrase which reads, “check up // note: on issue 1st. on issue with her breast pain and swelling and bilateral lumpy breasts that come and go that pte would like examined old fibroodenona disease u/s not done yet.”

[123] The next line reads (2) check foot complaint pain then refers to the patient “waitressing in downtown queen, stands too.”

[124] The next line if across from the letters HPI, meaning current complainants. The letters are circled and an arrow drawn to the top line which speaks of breast pain.

[125] There is a notation, “No like you rich doctors that asked me out.”

[126] Also noted is, “(3) also having issues with her retard stupid sister and goes on to read that she makes things up and will explode. Since I’m home this is too much.”

[127] About two thirds down from the top across from the word Skin, is written, “R and L Bunions” and below are written the words, “very tender severe deformed flat feet bunions.”

[128] Following that entry are the words, “def. will come to late patient too volatile, confrontational.”

[129] The accused then noted the patient to have a personality disorder//depressive mood. The doctor explained that this comment was based on three comments made by the patient’s comments that, she had no control of her emotions and impulses, that she ran away from the house and that she did not want to follow the religious beliefs.

[130] To the right of those written comments the accused drew a diagram of the complainant’s chest showing her two breasts. Beside the sketch is written, “tender R and L breast.” Next line is noted, ‘no pus and dic (discharge) or red lumpy breast.’

[131] There is no reference to the complainant telling the accused about a sore back.

[132] The note records that the patient refused a mammogram.

[133] While he does admit to doing a brief medical examination of the complainant, it was the accused’s evidence that all the references in the note with respect to the patient’s breasts related to past visits and was said by the accused to be an update to the chart.

[134] The complainant denied the suggestion that the writing suggests that the complainant came in complaining of breast pain and that he examined her breasts that day. He testified that even the diagram of the complainant’s breasts were simply to update the file in relation to past complaints. He testified that he used the diagram to refresh his memory. There was no breast examination on December 21st.

[135] The accused testified that the focus of the exam was the complainant’s feet.

[136] It was the accused’s opinion that the complainant had personal relationship and control issues. The accused testified that he offered to refer the complainant to a psychiatrist and she refused.

[137] It was suggested to the accused that he wrote this note to discredit the complainant if she, in fact, filed a complaint. The accused denied this suggestion.

[138] It was also suggested to him that he made all the references to the complainant’s breasts in order to explain why he may have touched her breast. The accused denied the suggestion.

[139] E.M. was a patient of the accused. On February 13, 2013, she received a phone call from the accused asking for a letter of support. He also asked her if she remembered being in the office on December 21, 2010, something out of the ordinary, something that would catch her intention. The accused spoke of a problem in the office but provided no other reason.

[140] Over the next few days E.M. thought about things and eventually, on February 20, 2013 wrote a letter and delivered it to the office a few days later.

[141] E.M. had an appointment with the doctor sometime before 3:00 pm on December 21st. She testified that she recalls that day because it was the day her sister called her from Cuba, to tell her their mother was terminally ill. She testified that she will never forget that day.

[142] When E.M. arrived at the accused’s office there were about 10-12 people in the waiting room, including two younger women who were handling their cell phones, moving around and sometimes changing seats. She testified that one of the young women was skinnier than the other.

[143] When E.M. left the office building she walked to bus stop and boarded a bus which was, pretty much full. She stood near the front of the bus. E.M. testified that she saw the two young women board the bus and walk behind her. The women were talking using a mixture of Spanish and English and she testified that she heard one of them say to the other, “Help me finish this, it is good for business.” At the time she did not think there was anything unusual about what she heard.

[144] E.M. was unable to comment on the emotional state of the women or if one of them was upset.

[145] E.M. testified that she was not promised anything for writing the letter. No one told her what to write. E.M. testified that she respected the accused as a person and a doctor.

[146] E.M. testified that when writing the letter, she was unaware that the accused had been convicted of sexual assault. She had no idea of his problems.

[147] However, in cross-examination it was pointed out to her that at the first trial she testified that when she was called by the accused to provide a letter he told her he was convicted of sexual assault. She testified that at the first trial the question put to her was unclear and reiterated that when she provided the letter she was unaware of the conviction.

[148] E.M. denied the suggestion that she was told about the sexual assault conviction and decided to focus on the two young women. She denied fabricating the story at the request of the accused.

[149] A.G. is the accused’s wife and testified on his behalf. As noted previously, she worked at the office as the officer manager. Through her was entered Exhibit 16 which is a photocopy of the office appointment book for the period December 20–22, 2010. She testified that the times across from the names of the patients was not necessarily their appointment times. Names were written in wherever there was space, especially with respect to the walk–in patients. Patients usually waited 2-3 hours before seeing the doctor.

[150] A.G. testified that when patients are taken into an examination room the door is left open. When in the hallway you can hear what is going on in the examination rooms. She testified that you can overhear normal conversations.

[151] A.G. testified that on December 21, 2010 she met the complainant in the hallway coming out of examination room 2. A.G. nodded to her and the complainant smiled and nodded back. A.G. testified that they made eye contact and that the complainant appeared normal, she looked fine.

[152] A.G. confirmed that in December, 2010, her husband had an injury to his right hand. Her husband had a splint on his right thumb and was taking pain and anti-inflammatory medication. The injury affected his day to day routine. Instead of putting the patient files in the rack outside the door of the examination rooms, the files were placed open and on the counter in the rooms.

[153] A.G. testified that after the conviction in the first trial her husband’s lawyer asked them to get letters of support. She spoke of the letters of support and believed she may have been the one to suggest contacting the patients seen on December 21, 2010 and ask them if they heard or saw anything unusual. No patient was told that the accused had been convicted of sexual assault.

[154] On cross-examination A.G. testified that her evidence as to how the complainant looked when exiting the examination room was important and she recalled this evidence when she learned of the allegation. She did not however testify at the first trial. Nor did she tell the police about this observation.

[155] A.G. agreed that despite the injured hand her husband did not cut back on his patient load. She testified that she helped him in the evenings complete the patient charts. She agreed that her husband wrote out the notes but said he went slow and sometimes he had to stop.

[156] O.M. was a patient of the accused since 1991. The accused’s daughter is now her doctor. She too wrote a letter for the accused on February 20, 2010.

[157] In February, 2013 O.M. went to the accused’s office to make an appointment and was told by D.C., one of the secretaries, that the doctor was no longer giving consultations for patients because the doctor had had a problem with one of the patients, a girl. O.M.’s last appointment with the accused was on December 21, 2010. D.C. suggested to O.M. that she write a voluntary letter in favour of the accused and include in the letter anything she remembered about her December 21st visit that was out of the ordinary.

[158] O.M., on February 20, 2013, wrote such a letter and dropped it off at the office on the same day.

[159] In the letter, O.M. stated that on December 21st she went to see the doctor in relation to a work injury she had suffered to her shoulder. She had an appointment for 2:30 pm and arrived at the office around 2:00 pm.

[160] Once she checked in, O.M. returned to her car in the parking lot to wait. The car was parked with its front end facing in. She ate a sandwich and smoked a cigarette. To the left of where she parked was small house and she observed a man on the roof of the house, wearing a hat and fixing something.

[161] When asked why she remembered this observations O.M. testified that she was scared the man would fall down and what she saw left an impression.

[162] O.M. testified that she had a high opinion of the accused and respected him professionally.

[163] On cross-examination this witness was adamant that she saw the man on the roof on December 21st and not a day or two before or after. O.M. denied any suggestion of her fabricating this story or that she had confused the date. December 21st was the last day she ever saw the accused.

[164] D.C., in 2010, was a medical secretary at the accused’s office. She testified that when she would be in the hallway connecting the waiting room with the examination rooms she would be able to hear what was going on in the examination rooms. She testified that the accused always spoke in a fairly loud voice although while she could hear his voice she could not hear what he was saying.

[165] In 2010 she knew the accused had suffered a hand injury in the summer or September, 2010. He wore a splint on his right thumb. The injury changed the office routine. The office staff were required to put the patient files in the examination rooms instead of in the rack outside. When examining a patient the accused would make brief notes and would ask the staff to take the files to his office where later he would do his charts.

[166] After the accused was convicted in the first trial, D.C. recalls that the accused’s wife, A.G. told her that they needed to contact the patients who had been at the office on December 21st and other patients they knew. She would make calls saying that the accused was going through a situation and needed support. She could not recall saying that the accused had a problem with a girl although she said that could have happened. She denied mentioning a conviction for sexual assault. In regards to the patients seen on December 21st, they were asked if they saw something different that day.

[167] E.T. was a secretary at the accused’s office. She testified that the office sees 50-60 patients per day. She confirmed that when in the hallway, you could hear conversations coming from the examination rooms.

[168] E.T. also confirmed that in 2010, the accused had injured his right hand. For a couple of months he wore and splint and bandage. Regardless of the injury she believed the accused worked full days.

[169] R.P. was a key defence witness. He and his family were tenants in the small house owned by the accused and his wife, who were his landlords. He has rented the house for 10-11 years.

[170] At the request of the accused, on February 19, 2013, R.P. wrote a letter of support for the accused. He testified that he was asked if he remembered December 21, 2010, and anything that he observed or heard. He was told the accused had a problem with a patient on that day.

[171] R.P. put in his letter and testified at trial to the following. On December 21st between 2:00 and 4:00 pm, he was on his roof cleaning out the eaves troughs. He observed two young girls coming from the accused’s medical clinic. When he was on the north side of his roof he overheard part of their conversation.

[172] R.P. testified that the girls were walking through the parking lot between the office and his house. He testified that although he could not see the girls he heard one of the girls say to the other, in Spanish, “I’ll say he touched me and you can say I was crying. The other girl then say something to the effect of. “That’s not right.” He testified that the first girl then said, “It doesn’t matter the old guy has money.”

[173] R.P. described the conversation as a bit loud, almost like arguing.

[174] R.P. also overheard the name, “Cindy” although he could not recall how the name came up.

[175] When asked how he could remember this, R.P. testified that he could recall the day because he was on vacation. Further, he had a daughter about the same age of the girls and her name was Cindy.

[176] On cross-examination R.P. was directed to his letter in which he wrote, “Two young Hispanic women were arguing. The taller one said: “Cindy, I’ll say that he touched me and you say that I cried here”. Cindy said to her: “I don’t agree. It doesn’t matter, that old man has money, he’s rich”.

[177] The wording of the letter suggests the second girl uttered the last line of the overheard conversation which was different than his trial evidence.

[178] On October 18, 2014, R.P. executed an affidavit. At paragraph 14 thereof R.P. deposed that the first girl uttered the last comment. The affidavit included other information not included in the letter including that the girls were standing right below his house when he overheard them. He also deposed that both girls had long hair and were thin. He deposed that they were speaking a mixture of Spanish and English.

[179] When asked about any discrepancies R.P. stated that the letter version of what he heard was the correct one and suggested any differences may have been an issue of translation.

[180] R.P. denied any suggestion that he was told what to write and said that he wrote what he remembered. He denied that the accused told him the problem was with two girls in the office. He only learned of the problem with two girls when he attended at the lawyer’s office to sign his affidavit.

[181] R.P. denied any suggestion that he could have been mistaken about the date and whether he could have cleaned his gutters on the 20th or the 22nd.

[182] R.P. testified that in 2016 he was contacted by Peel Police Officer Boyer who asked to meet with him and to provide a statement. The officer made several attempts to meet with him.

[183] R.P. testified that an appointment was made and he attended at the police station and was told Officer Boyer had left.

[184] R.P. stated that he went to the police station on another occasion to look for the officer, without success.

[185] R.P. agreed that by this time he knew that the accused had been convicted of sexual assault and knew what he had to say was likely important. When it was suggested he could have followed up with the police he said that the police were free to call him and make an appointment. He reiterated he was only called twice by the police.

[186] R.P. denied the suggestion that he did not want to talk to the police, saying, if that was the case, then why would he have gone to the police station on two occasions?

[187] Peel Police Constable Steven Jimenez was called as a reply witness for the Crown. Because he spoke Spanish he was asked by Officer Boyer to contact the “new evidence” witnesses, one of whom was R.P.

[188] Officer Jimenez testified that he made two appointments to take R.P.’s statement but that both were cancelled by R.P. at the last moment. He testified that had the witness come to the police station at a time when the officer was not there, he would have received a message of the event.

[189] The officer recalls calling R.P. several more times and even left a voicemail message.

[190] All of this transpired between February 1st and the 18th, 2015. The officer stated that he did his due diligence and believed R.P. did not want to be involved with the police.

[191] In the first trial, one of the defence witnesses was Dr. Micheal Joseph Weinberg who the accused saw for his injury to his right hand. It was agreed by both counsel at this trial that Dr. Weinberg’s transcribed evidence could be admitted into evidence before me and thereby avoid the need and expense of calling Dr. Weinberg to testify again.

[192] My summary of his evidence is as follows. Dr. Weinberg is a plastic surgeon and has expertise in the functioning of the hand and thumb. He started treating the accused in 2011 when the accused was diagnosed with osteoarthritis in his right thumb which had an impact on the functioning of the hand. He described that such a condition would be painful, at times, excruciating.

[193] He first saw the accused on May 25, 2011, when the accused told him of his injury in November, 2010 and a re-injury in February, 2011. Tests were conducted and it was determined that the accused had significant degenerative changes, with the osteoarthritis.

[194] The condition would have existed in December, 2010.

[195] Dr. Weinberg treated the damage with a series of steroidal injections.

[196] Dr. Weinberg testified that if the accused had used his right hand in an effort to push the complainant’s head down to get her to perform oral sex it would have caused the accused excruciating pain with so much force going through the thumb.

[197] Patients with this degree of arthritis would not be able to lift. Lifting someone off the floor would cause excruciating pain.

[198] Using the right hand to pull the complainant’s right hand towards his penis would have caused the accused excruciating pain.

[199] Dr. Weinberg opined that the injury suffered by the accused could have caused significant change.

ARGUMENT

THE CROWN

[200] The Crown submits that the evidence proves the guilt of the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.

[201] It is submitted that the complainant, A.E. was a thoughtful, measured, candid and forthright witness and her evidence ought to be believed. It is submitted that the complainant did not overstate or exaggerate her evidence.

[202] The incident in issue occurred on December 21, 2010, more than eight years ago. Over that time the complainant has told her story often. She gave a statement to the Peel Regional Police. She testified at the discovery and at the first trial. It is submitted that her core story remains unchanged. Any inconsistencies in her overall evidence are to be expected and, it is submitted, suggests her story is real and not fabricated. The complainant in fact testified that given the passage of time, certain things have blurred and she apologized for this.

[203] For example, there was a conflict in regards to whether the complainant, when telling her sister what occurred, was crying or bawling. It is submitted that almost nine years later the difference is insignificant.

[204] Counsel for the accused submitted that the allegations of the complainant were a fabrication, concocted in an effort to extort monies from the accused. The Crown submits that there is no credible evidence to support this theory and that there is absolutely no evidence of the complainant making demands or threats.

[205] The Crown submits that the court ought to accept the evidence of C.E. as to her impressions of the complainant after the examination and the conversations she had with her sister.

[206] The Crown submits that had extortion been the motive, the complainant would have confronted the accused.

[207] Both the complainant and her sister denied any motive or intent on the part of the complainant to try to profit from the story. There is no evidence of such motive.

[208] It is submitted by the Crown that the complainant’s evidence as the “ring of honesty” and that she never tried to bend or tailor her evidence. The Crown submits, for example the use of the phrase sexual harassment instead of sexual assault, is an example of this.

[209] The complainant in her evidence testified that she did not really try to stop the accused from molesting her. She did not yell out nor did she leave the examination room. The Crown submits that while the defence questions why she did not do more to protect herself, in matters of sexual assault there is no normal or expected way for a victim to react.

[210] The Crown acknowledges that there is no doubt that in December, 2010, the accused had an injury to his right hand which resulted in him wearing a splint. The Crown submits that it is unclear as to which hand the accused was using in trying to push the complainant’s head down in an effort to have her engage in oral sex or in his effort to have the complainant touch his penis.

[211] It is submitted that there is a possibility that the accused used his left hand, suggesting it is not completely sure in the mind of the complainant.

[212] On this point I disagree with the Crown. The complainant testified that she had played it out in her mind and in relation as to how they were standing that the accused must have used his right hand. The accused is known to be right-handed.

[213] In any event, the Crown notes that the accused never reduced his case load and continued to see approximately 50 patients per day and was able to conduct his examinations. Further, while it may have taken longer, the accused was able to complete his charts, writing with his right hand. The injury did not result in a complete inability of the accused to utilize his right hand.

[214] It is submitted that, regardless, in a state of sexual arousal, the accused would have done what it is alleged he did, notwithstanding any pain. It is submitted that this explanation is entirely plausible and that the assault happened the way the complainant said.

[215] The question is then does “entirely plausible” overcome reasonable doubt?

[216] While the complainant ultimately washed the clothes she was wearing on December 21st and thereby destroyed any DNA evidence, the Crown submits this fact is not powerful evidence as suggested by the defence.

[217] The complainant had put the clothes aside after initially speaking to Officer Hutchinson. The police made no further effort to retrieve the clothes and after a period of time had passed the complainant washed and started wearing the clothes again.

[218] The Crown submits the evidence of the accused is not worthy of believe. On cross-examination many of his answers did not respond to the question. Rather he embarked on a soliloquy. The accused was unable to answer a simple question with a corresponding simple answer.

[219] For example, when the accused was asked whether he was circumcised the accused testified as to the practise of the region from which he was from and the reasons for circumcision.

[220] Further, it is submitted by the Crown that the accused’s explanation for the chart notes made with respect to the complainant’s examination cannot be believed. It is submitted that the references to a breast exam were not historical but represented a story to explain any allegation made that he touched the breast of the complainant. Further, his notes that the complainant was volatile and confrontational, together with other notations represents an effort to discredit the evidence of the complainant should she file a complaint.

[221] The Crown submits that the Court ought to reject the “fresh evidence” given by the other defence witnesses. The Crown submits that the evidence of how their evidence was sought out and the ability to remember certain events over two years later is simply incredible and represent an effort by the accused to have others collude with each other and fabricate a story of the complainant and her sister coming up with a plan and being overheard discussing a plan.

[222] For example, R.P. testified that he recalls being on the roof of his home on December 21, 2010, and remembers two Hispanic young women below him, walking through the parking lot and recalls a specific verbal exchange.

[223] It is submitted that such a recollection as well as the recollection of the other defence witnesses defies belief.

[224] It is also submitted that R.P. together with the other fresh evidence witnesses were reluctant to speak to the police and avoided any attempt made to get a police statement from them.

[225] On the totality of the evidence the Crown submits that the guilt of the accused for sexual assault has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

DEFENCE ARGUMENT

[226] Counsel for the accused submits that the Crown has failed to meet their burden and prove his client’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is submitted that on December 21, 2010, the accused conducted a normal examination in regards to A.E.’s complaints of back and foot pain. Anything more represents false allegation and it is not the defence who must explain the complainant’s false allegations.

[227] Nevertheless, it is submitted that the complainant’s story was made up as an attempt to extort money from the accused and that the complainant was pressured to call the police which she did and which prevented her from any “shakedown” of the accused.

[228] Further, it is submitted that the complainant never said that she would not pursue a civil remedy at the conclusion of the criminal case.

[229] Counsel for the accused reminded the Court of the need to consider a R. v. W.(D.) analysis on the totality of the evidence or the lack of evidence. Even if the complainant is found credible there can still be a finding of reasonable doubt.

[230] It is submitted that the evidence of the accused was steadfast notwithstanding a vigorous cross-examination. It is conceded that the accused was not a perfect witness. At times he was wary and argumentative. Counsel asks the court when considering the evidence of the accused to put into context of responding to a very serious charge and the impact it has had on the accused.

[231] Counsel for the accused submits that there can be no doubt that in December, 2010 his client was suffering from an injury to his right hand and that as a result he could not have done the things to the complainant alleged by her. He could not have pushed her head down or attempted to pull her arm without suffering excruciating pain.

[232] Dr. Weinberg’s evidence is corroborative and established that there is a medical improbability of the acts alleged.

[233] Further, had anything happened in the exam room any noises or voices would have been heard in the hallway which was frequented by the office staff and other patients in the two other exam rooms.

[234] Had the complainant raised her voice or yelled out she would have been heard. The fact that she did not is supportive of the allegation that her motivation was money.

[235] Counsel for the accused submits that there were some important inconsistencies in the Crown’s evidence. It is conceded that some inconsistencies are to be expected and can be badges of honesty. However, certain inconsistencies are more important.

[236] For example, the complainant’s sister, C.E. at first said that she and her sister did not talk about the incident while on the bus. She later conceded that they had.

[237] Another example is found in the testimony of the complainant when she testified that she did not fully resist the pushing of her head or the grabbing of her arm. At the first trial she testified she resisted as forcefully as she could.

[238] It is submitted that the complainant’s scenario is improbable. It is submitted that the evidence of the complainant that in the middle of the sexual assault the accused conducted a normal medical exam cannot be believed. After being sexually molested it is hard to believe that the complainant would allow the accused to touch her.

[239] It is submitted that the “fresh evidence” witnesses, while patients of the accused in the past owed him no allegiance and had no reason to lie. There is no evidence of collusion and the witnesses, are not friends with each other, although R.P. is the accused’s tenant.

[240] Their evidence allows one to reach the conclusion that the allegations were fabricated to shakedown the accused for money or, at the very least raise a reasonable doubt as to the bona fides of the complainant.

[241] For these and other reasons counsel for the accused submits that at the very least there is reasonable doubt and the accused ought to be found to be not guilty.

THE LAW

[242] While this case is factually based, certain authorities were provided to assist the Court with its approach to the evidence.

[243] In considering the evidence I must approach the evidence as directed in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.

[244] Reliance on a stereotype to found an assessment of credibility bearing on reasonable doubt is impermissible. Reliance of myths or stereotypical assumptions about how sexual assault complainants are expected to behave is an error in law. The defence cannot rely on prejudicial generalizations about sexual assault victims even if based on common sense. It is an error in law to conclude how a person would act if sexually assaulted (R. v. A.B.A., 2019 ONCA 124).

[245] An accused is not required to respond to a question of why such a complaint would be made if the alleged incident did not happen. The defence is not required to establish a motive for fabrication. There is no onus on an accused to explain away the complaint (R. v. L.L., 2009 ONCA 413).

[246] The absence of any apparent motive to lie is an unreliable marker of credibility and is generally an unhelpful factor in assessing credibility (R. v. Sanchez, 2017 ONCA 994).

[247] Even if a complainant is credible, there can still be reasonable doubt. There is a distinction between a finding of credibility and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt can survive a finding that the complainant is credible (R. v. J.W., 2014 ONCA 322, para. 26).

[248] The assessment of credibility based on demeanour alone is not good enough. Demeanour and credibility are not the only issues. The reliability of the evidence is what is paramount (R. v. Norman (1993), 87 C.C.C. (3d) 153 (Ont. C.A. pg. 173)).

[249] It is not correct to accept a complainant’s evidence on the basis of credibility and then proceed to discredit contrary evidence. The appearance of telling the truth is only one of the elements that enter into the credibility of the evidence of a witness (R. v. Gostick (1999), 53 C.C.C. (3d) 53 (Ont. C.A.), paras. 15 & 17).

ANALYSIS

[250] R. v. J.H. 2014 ONSC 3826 is decision of mine in a matter in which the accused was charged with sexual assault. Therein I acknowledged my obligation to approach the issue of credibility as proscribed by R. v. W.(D.).

[251] At paragraph 84 of my judgement I quoted M. A. Code J. from his article, “Applying the W.(D.) Framework: What Has Changed?”, where at page 6 he wrote,

“However, it has repeatedly been held that this formula is not a magical incantation and that the specific language used in W. (D.) need not be followed, provided the substance of the instruction is communicated.”

[252] I quoted R. v. Hull, [2006] O.J. No. 3177, para. 5, which states,

“The evidence of any witness, including the accused may be believable standing on its own, but when other evidence is given that is contradictory, or casts doubt on the accuracy or reliability of the witnesses’ evidence, that evidence may no longer be believable or in the case of an accused, may no longer raise a reasonable doubt.”

[253] As noted by Code J. in R. v. S. (J.H.) (2008) 2008 SCC 30, 231 C.C.C. (3d) 302, at paras 307-308,

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

[254] The passages are of note especially in cases of sexual assault when the only persons who know what really happened are the complainant and the accused and their evidence is conflicting.

[255] The complainant, A.E. was a good witness. I agree with the Crown that she gave her evidence in a forthright manner, without embellishment. Given the passage of time and the number of times the complainant has had to tell her story, any inconsistencies in her evidence are understandable and do not undermine her reliability or credibility.

[256] She answered questions put to her in a timely manner without any hesitation.

[257] There is nothing in her evidence to suggest that she had a financial motive. Further, if the complainant had commenced a civil law suit or commenced a claim under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, under our laws she would be entitled to do so.

[258] The fact that she did not cry out or raise her voice, or even leave the examination room does not reduce her credibility. Every victim of sexual assault responds differently. They often are overwhelmed. At the time of the assault the complainant was only 21 years old and only really beginning her adult life experiences. Her response to such an assault now would likely be much different.

[259] Further, and as part of my W.(D.) analysis, I disbelieve the evidence of the accused. He was a very poor witness. He was argumentative and vague. Many of his answers did not respond directly to the questions asked. Some answers were long and involved and in the end failed to answer the question.

[260] The accused clearly was looking beyond the questions asked of him in an effort to see where the Crown was going with her questions.

[261] For example, the accused was asked if he ever saw an attractive women or if he ever found another woman attractive whether in a mall or other such place. He would not admit to such a simple question.

[262] To him it seemed as if each question was a trap.

[263] The accused’s evidence in regards to the completion of the complainant’s chart with respect to the December 21st examination lacks all credibility. Why would he complete a note in such a manner as to include the complainant’s past medical history, especially with an injured hand? It is more likely that he was attempting to protect himself in case allegations of sexual assault were made. The accused testified that the examination was short and if his notes were skimpy. Yet the chart produced references the complainant’s demeanour as being volatile and confrontational. The chart includes a drawing of her breasts and noted a personality disorder. It cannot be said to be skimpy.

[264] Despite a hand injury, the accused continued to see 50 or more patients a day and completed their charts at the end of the day.

[265] In my opinion the accused’s evidence is not believable and on its own, does not raise a reasonable doubt.

[266] However, in my opinion, the balance of the defence evidence does in fact, raise a reasonable doubt.

[267] The evidence of Dr. Weinberg raises a doubt in regards to the mechanics of the assault. If the accused used his right hand to push the complainant’s head down or pull her hand would have been very painful. That is the unchallenged evidence of the doctor who specializes in the treatment of hand injuries.

[268] Further, in this trial the defence called witnesses who did not testify at the first trial.

[269] I agree with the submissions of the Crown that the precise December 21st recollections of any one of the “new evidence” witnesses seem, to some extent, incredible.

[270] How do you remember specific conversations of complete strangers two years later? Or recall what you were doing on a specific day and at a specific time?

[271] However, there is no evidence of a connection between the witnesses, other than they were patients of the accused, who has not practised medicine since 2013. There is no evidence of collusion or motive for such witnesses to come forward and perjure themselves.

[272] While the circumstances surrounding the testimony of the “new evidence” witnesses is suspicious I cannot be sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the offence was committed.

[273] Two witnesses testified about overhearing the complainant and her sister talking about a plan to make up an allegation for some purpose. Another confirms the evidence of the accused’s tenant being on the roof of his home confirming he would be in a position to overhear the complainant and her sister.

[274] Any reluctance in these witnesses to speak to the police may be nothing more than the result of their perception of the police in the countries they left to live in Canada. Theses witnesses were unshaken when testifying and while I may not accept their evidence completely, despite the Crown’s valiant effort to impeach their testimony, it, along with Dr. Weinberg’s evidence, gives rise to a reasonable doubt.

RULING

[275] Accordingly, the accused L.G., is found not guilty of the charge.

Bielby J.

Released: July 22, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: CRIMJ(P)1805/12 DATE: 2019 07 22 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – L.G. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Bielby J. Released: July 22, 2019