Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-28609 DATE: 20200214 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Brent Groh Applicant – and – Melanie Gabrielle Levesque Respondent

Counsel: Dante D. Gatti, for the Applicant Joseph Deluca, Amicus for the Respondent

HEARD: February 11, 2020

Ruling on Application

carey j.:

[1] This was confirmed as a matter that was expected to be unopposed and sought an order of possession for the applicant, Mr. Groh, for the property owned by him located at 260 Elsworth Avenue, LaSalle, Ontario.

[2] The application had been brought in order to allow Mr. Groh to secure his home and his belongings and eventually return to live at that address.

[3] The applicant is presently on a Form 11 Release Order in relation to charges of sexual assault and assault with offence dates of January 6 in Windsor, Ontario and December 31, 2019 in LaSalle, Ontario, respectively, alleged.

[4] The Form 11 Release Order was not part of the material filed on this motion but was provided during argument (see attached copy). It has not been reviewed or varied.

[5] The respondent is the alleged complainant and appeared having not received any legal advice and without filing any material.

[6] The respondent had been living at the Hiatus House shelter and it appeared that she had moved from there to temporary accommodations.

[7] She initially indicated to the court that she would consent to the orders sought as long as there were no costs sought against her.

[8] At my request for counsel as amicus to assist Ms. Levesque, who appeared emotional and tearful, Mr. DeLuca volunteered to assist her.

[9] Later in the morning, Mr. Gatti, counsel for the applicant and Mr. DeLuca readdressed the matter. Initially, there was an indication on Ms. Levesque’s part that she would agree to the order if she was allowed two weeks to find another place to live and remove her belongings.

[10] This was not agreeable to counsel for Mr. Groh initially, but as noted in my earlier endorsement, eventually both sides agreed to an order on the terms sought effective February 25, 2020.

[11] The service of any material upon the respondent has agreed to be accepted by Mr. DeLuca who was not formally retained.

[12] I indicated to both counsel that I have concerns about both the process, the lack of material from the respondent, my jurisdiction for making such an order and the fact that the Crown Attorney’s office and the Victim Witness Program had not been informed of this process.

[13] I reserved my decision on the joint request and urged counsel to engage in discussions involving Victim Witness Program services and the Crown Attorney’s office.

[14] I indicated that if I could not grant the order requested, I would adjourn the matter to February 25, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

[15] I am not satisfied, despite the able assistance of Mr. Gatti, that I should issue the order as requested.

[16] I heard nothing about the circumstances of the alleged offences that led to Mr. Groh’s arrest. I have no background as to the reasons Mr. Groh was required not to attend at his residence except once with police assistance to get his belongings. I have only Mr. Groh’s affidavit about the length of the relationship and his concerns that the respondent has falsely charged him and has plans to sell his belongings.

[17] He indicates without details, that he understands she has done this before.

[18] I have no indication that this information was brought to the attention of the Crown Attorney or the police investigating the matter.

[19] There is no indication that the respondent/complainant has a criminal record or has made false charges in the past as deposed by the applicant.

[20] The applicant cites no Statute or Rule for this application and no answer or reply has been filed.

[21] I am not convinced that I have jurisdiction to make the order requested.

[22] Moreover, I am deeply concerned about civil proceedings being brought, with costs sought, against an unrepresented complainant in a domestic assault/sexual assault case by the person she has charged. It has the appearance of an “end run” around the criminal court’s jurisdiction as well as a step that could serve to intimidate this complainant and other alleged victims of sexual and domestic assault in our community, whether that was the intended purpose or not.

[23] For these reasons, I decline to make the order requested. The matter is adjourned to February 25, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

“Original Signed by Justice T.J. Carey ” Thomas J. Carey Justice

Released: February 14, 2020

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-28609 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Brent Groh v. Melanie Gabrielle Levesque RULING ON APPLICATION Carey J.

Released: February 14, 2020