COURT FILE NO.: CNJ 9653
DATE: 2020/09/16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
RICHARD JOHN NOBBS
Accused
Dominique Kennedy, Counsel for the Crown
Bruce Ritter, Counsel for the Defendant
HEARD: January 13, 14, 15, 16 and July 30, 2020
MR. JUSTICE D.A. Broad
reasons for judgment
ORALLY
Background
[1] The accused Richard John Nobbs (“the accused”) is charged with two offences alleged to have been committed by him on July 7, 2018 against his then spouse Yvonne Nobbs (“the complainant”) as follows:
Count 1: that he did by verbal communication knowingly utter a threat to Yvonne Nobbs, to cause death to her contrary to section 264.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada;
Count 2: that he did wound Yvonne Nobbs thereby committing an aggravated assault contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[2] The offences are alleged to have occurred in the early morning hours of July 7, 2018 following a party hosted by the accused and the complainant at their residence to celebrate the complainant’s birthday.
[3] The Crown alleges that sometime after 4:30 a.m. the accused exited the residence onto the rear patio and observed the complainant sitting at a patio table with a young man Darien Roberts (“Mr. Roberts”). An argument ensued and it is alleged that the accused became angry, and started shouting at the complainant, threatening to kill her. The Crown alleges that the accused choked the complainant and struck her several times in the face with his hand, fracturing her jaw in three places and causing bleeding and a tooth to be knocked out. The complainant was taken by ambulance, underwent surgery and was hospitalized for three days.
[4] The defence does not dispute that the complainant suffered the injuries described by her on the morning in question nor does he dispute that the injuries constitute “wounding” within the meaning of Section 268 of the Criminal Code so as to support a conviction of aggravated assault if the other elements of that offence have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
[5] The accused denies that he threatened the complainant or that he struck her and denies that he caused her injuries. The accused states that the Crown has failed to prove the offences in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt and, in particular, has failed to prove that the complainant’s injuries were caused by his having struck her, rather than by another mechanism, such as, for example, falling.
Basic Principles
[6] It is useful to review the basic principles which apply to this prosecution and the nature of the burden of proof which rests on the Crown. The first principle is that Mr. Nobbs is presumed to be innocent of each of the charges, unless or until the Crown has proven each of the essential elements of each count in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.
[7] Reasonable doubt is not a far fetched or frivolous doubt. It is doubt based on reason and common sense and which logically arises from the evidence or lack of evidence led at trial. In order to convict him, it is not enough to find that the accused probably or likely committed one, or both, of the offences with which he is charged. However, the Crown is not required to prove with absolute certainty that he committed the offences.
[8] The existence or non-existence of reasonable doubt is to be based on the totality of the evidence. It is not necessary for the Crown to prove each individual piece of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Principles Governing the Assessment of Evidence
a) Distinction Between Credibility and Reliability
[9] Recognizing the distinction between credibility and reliability is essential to a proper analysis of a witness' evidence. As confirmed by Justice Watt in R. v. C. (H.), 2009 ONCA 56 (Ont. C.A.):
Credibility has to do with a witness' veracity, whereas reliability has to do with the accuracy of the witness' testimony involving the witness' ability to accurately observe, recall and recount events in issue. Veracity refers to the truthfulness or honesty of the witness. Although a witness whose evidence on an issue is not credible, cannot give reliable evidence on the same point, credibility is not a substitute for reliability. A credible witness may be honestly mistaken and may therefore give unreliable evidence.
b) Burden of Proof on the Crown
[10] The paramount question is whether on the whole of the evidence I am left with a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. That is the central consideration before me. A verdict of guilt must not be based on a choice between the evidence of the accused and the Crown’s evidence, as such an approach would undermine the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (see R. v. Vuradin, 2013 SCC 38 at para. 21).
[11] Hill, J. in the case of R. v. Williams 2010 ONSC 184 (S.C.J.) reinforced the following principles at paras. 55-57:
The evidence of a single witness may be capable of raising a reasonable doubt.
A determination of guilt or innocence in a criminal trial does not devolve into a credibility contest between witnesses. Such an approach would erode the presumption of innocence and the assigned burden of persuasion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Where credibility is a central issue in a trial, the court must be alert to the relationship between the assessment of credibility and the prosecution's ultimate burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Mere disbelief of an accused's evidence does not satisfy the burden of persuasion upon the Crown. The trier of fact must be satisfied on the whole of the evidence that there exists no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
A trier of fact, in assessing credibility, considers a variety of factors including the plausibility of evidence having regard to experience and common sense and inherent probabilities and improbabilities, inconsistencies within a witness' evidence, how a witness' version of events fits with other evidence in the case, the weight of testimony pointing in a particular direction, motive to fabricate, and witness demeanour.
[12] Although it is fundamental that an accused is not required to testify, where he chooses to do so, as the accused did in this case, the law requires that I take the following approach:
a. if I believe the accused’s evidence that he did not commit the offences charged, I must find him not guilty;
b. even if I do not believe the accused’s evidence, if it leaves me with a reasonable doubt about his guilt, or about an essential element of an offence with which he is charged, I must find him not guilty of that offence; and
c. even if the accused’s evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt of his guilt, or about an essential element of an offence with which he is charged, I may convict him only if the rest of the evidence that I do accept proves his guilt of it beyond a reasonable doubt.
(see R. v. W. (D.) 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 (S.C.C.))
[13] It is important to note, in applying the first two prongs of the W. (D.) formula, that the accused’s evidence, and other evidence favourable to him, is not to be considered in isolation but rather is to be considered in the context of all of the evidence. The evidence of any witness, including that of the accused, may be believable standing on its own, but when other evidence is given which is contradictory to it or which casts doubt on the credibility or reliability of the witnesses’ evidence, that evidence may no longer be believable, or in the case of the accused, may no longer raise a reasonable doubt (see R. v. Hoohing, [2007] O.J. No. 34 (C.A.) at para. 15).
[14] I remind myself that the duty on the Crown is to prove the accused’s guilt on each of the two individual counts in the indictment from start to finish never shifts. The accused did not have to present evidence or to prove anything.
[15] In my review of the evidence that follows, it is possible that reference may be made to the absence of evidence on a particular subject or issue. Any such comment or observation should not be interpreted as a shift of the burden of proof to the accused or a requirement that he offer evidence.
Crown Evidence
a) Evidence of the Complainant
[16] The complainant testified that guests began arriving at the party around 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2020. She stated that she drank two or three glasses of wine at around 9:00 p.m. and had two or three “puffs” of marijuana with a group of guests. At around 10:00 p.m. she went to sleep in her upstairs bedroom as she felt dizzy, tired and a little nauseated from the marijuana. She was later awakened by a police officer standing in her bedroom. There had been an altercation at the front of the house and the police officer was checking on her well-being.
[17] The complainant testified that after being woken by the police she returned downstairs. A number of guests were still there including Mr. Roberts who was in his 20’s and was an acquaintance of the family, having played minor football with the complainant and the accused’s twin sons when they were children.
[18] The complainant testified that when she returned to the backyard the accused had retired to bed. Mr. Roberts was still in the backyard as was her friend Betty Robinson (“Ms. Robinson”). The complainant had understood that Ms. Robinson was planning to stay overnight to help clean up in the morning. Ms. Robinson went inside and began cleaning up in the kitchen. The complainant remained outside at the patio table with Mr. Roberts talking and laughing.
[19] At some point Ms. Robinson emerged from the house and announced that she was leaving to go home. Following her departure, the complainant and Mr. Roberts were alone in the backyard.
[20] The complainant testified that she decided to go to a store to purchase cigarettes. Mr. Roberts agreed to accompany her. The complainant drove to a service station about four blocks away. Mr. Roberts went into the store to purchase cigarettes and they both returned to the Nobbs residence and resumed their places at the patio table in the backyard.
[21] The complainant and Mr. Roberts were sitting at the table for about a half hour or more. The complainant said she drank two or three glasses of wine and was smoking during this time.
[22] The complainant testified that the accused emerged from the sunroom and approached where she and Mr. Roberts were sitting. He was “screaming and yelling” saying “where the hell were you; where the fuck were you?” The complainant responded that they went for smokes and advised the accused to calm down.
[23] The accused continued yelling and put his face right into the complainant’s face. His hands were pointed in her direction. The complainant was sitting in a chair. Mr. Roberts stood up and asked the accused to calm down and said “it was just a little birthday kiss man; we just made out. A little make-out. It was nothing.” The complainant testified that the accused reacted by punching Mr. Roberts in the face very quickly.
[24] The complainant testified that the accused screamed in her face, calling her names. He was standing in front of her while she was sitting. He began choking her, but she did not know whether he used two hands or one. He picked up the pack of cigarettes and “squished” them in her face and struck her on the face several times while screaming obscenities and yelling “I’ll fucking kill you. I hate you” and calling her a “piece of shit.”
[25] The complainant testified that she was hit several times by the accused, and her face was “being moved around.” There were hits to the side of her head. The final hit was “definitely” to her mouth and it knocked her to her left and her chair tipped. She slowly toppled and she put her knee and hand out to touch the ground. She stated that her face never hit the ground.
[26] The complainant recalled that blood was “just pouring out” of her mouth. She heard Mr. Roberts saying “Stop. What are you doing man? What are you doing, stop it.”
[27] The complainant stated that she remembered being punched in the face by the accused between five and ten times.
[28] The complainant testified she did not know whether the accused used an open or closed hand to strike her. She stated that she was bleeding, was dizzy and her ears were ringing. She hung her mouth between her legs while sitting in the chair and blood was pouring onto the concrete.
[29] The complainant stated that she attempted to stop the flow of blood with napkins. She felt that a tooth was missing, and her jaw would not close. She felt the tip of her tongue between her bottom front teeth and had the sensation that her jaw was separating between her two bottom teeth in the centre of her chin.
[30] The complainant went inside and called 911 from the bathroom to report that the accused had assaulted her. She could hear the accused yelling at her. She heard him say “I guess I’m going to go. She is calling the cops.”
[31] In the course of the 911 call the complainant moved upstairs from the bathroom to her bedroom. On the audio recording of the 911 call the complainant identified the voices of the accused and Mr. Roberts in the background. The accused was in the background saying “Shut up. I just slapped you. I slapped her.” She recalled saying “You did not. You punched me” and “you didn’t slap me. You fucking punched my jaw.”
[32] The complainant testified that the accused said “I’ll be waiting outside” and Mr. Roberts stated “You hit me. It’s OK – no one will know about it.”
[33] The complainant testified that nothing else happened that could have caused her injuries. She did not fall and no person other than the accused hit her.
[34] The complainant identified four photographs taken of her at the hospital. The first depicted swelling and redness to her neck and chin, the second showed her jaw out of alignment, the third showed scrapes on her left knee sustained when her knee touched the concrete and blood, and the fourth depicted blood on her shirt which she testified was not present prior to the incident in which the accused struck her.
[35] On cross-examination the complainant estimated that it was approximately 4:30 a.m. when she and Mr. Roberts returned from buying cigarettes. She consumed wine after they returned but did not know how much.
[36] She said that the accused came out and questioned where she and Mr. Roberts had been. The accused was triggered by Mr. Roberts’ statement that “it was just a little make out – just a little kiss” to become very angry. She could not recall the accused saying that he “wanted out” or “wanted a divorce.” She stated that she saw the accused hit Mr. Roberts in the face. She then turned her head away. However, she acknowledged that she could not “reframe the picture” of the accused hitting Mr. Roberts in her mind.
[37] The complainant explained her statement to police in her initial interview on July 7 that “I’m not sure he [the accused] hit him [Mr. Roberts]” by saying she was sedated by painkillers at the time of the interview. She acknowledged that she lied to police when she told them that she did not know Mr. Roberts’ last name. She also acknowledged that in her statement to police on September 28, 2018 she related that she had not seen the accused hit Mr. Roberts but saw Mr. Roberts’ feet “just still.” However, at trial she testified that “the more I remember now I can see his legs as well as his feet” and “I remember things more clearly now. The events remain the same but there’s a little more description I can provide now than I could then.” She maintained that when she told the court in her examination-in-chief that she saw the accused hit Mr. Roberts she was being truthful because she remembered it.
[38] The complainant acknowledged that she told some people that the injuries to her jaw were caused by an accident because she was frustrated with others calling and asking about it and she found it very embarrassing to tell them the truth. However, she told the truth to close friends and family.
[39] The complainant denied that she had a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Roberts prior to the preliminary inquiry. She acknowledged that a mutual friend had set up a meeting. However, it was a brief meeting at which she and Mr. Roberts enquired about how they were each doing and did not involve “exchanging any kind of testimony.” She testified at the preliminary inquiry that her conversations with Mr. Roberts had been just via Facebook and that they did not meet face to face or speak by telephone. When pressed she stated that she could not remember when the meeting took place. Specifically, she could not remember whether the meeting occurred prior to or after the preliminary hearing.
[40] The complainant denied that she was trying to persuade Mr. Roberts of “how he should remember” what happened the night of the incident. She testified that, in other messages that they exchanged, she had expressed her hope that he would “do the right thing,” would not be intimidated and would testify in court. She denied that she and Mr. Roberts spoke at length during the meeting about the events that took place on the night in question. She maintained that she had not intentionally misled the court at the preliminary inquiry when she denied that there had been a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Roberts.
[41] The complainant also denied the suggestion that she was claiming that the accused struck her because she was suing him for damages related to her injuries in the family law proceeding between them. She denied the suggestion that she was prepared to lie to the court in order to pursue a claim for damages and was prepared to lie at the preliminary hearing about not having had a meeting with Mr. Roberts.
[42] On re-examination the complainant confirmed that the family law proceeding between herself and the accused had not been commenced at the time that she placed the 911 call to report the assault. About one week after the incident she received a letter from the accused’s lawyer demanding that she vacate the house so it could be sold immediately. She then sought out her own legal counsel.
b) Evidence of Darien Roberts
[43] Mr. Roberts testified that he drank beer steadily throughout the party. He also consumed three to five “shots” of various kinds of hard liquor in the kitchen, alternating shots “one-for-one” with the accused.
[44] After taking “a lot of shots,” the last events that he could recall were being at a store with the complainant buying cigarettes and the two of them being back in the backyard of the Nobbs’ residence. He was able to recall the accused coming out of the house to the backyard and asking them where they had been. The next thing he remembered was waking up the next day in his bed. He had no memory of the complainant speaking by telephone with the police. He did have a faint memory of leaving through the back gate of the Nobbs property.
[45] Mr. Roberts described that, when he woke up, he felt hung-over and had a sore jaw “like I got hit.” His top molar was cracked and several days later a piece of the tooth fell out.
[46] When listening to the recording of the 911 call at trial Mr. Roberts identified his voice in the background saying, “I didn’t get hit - that if anyone asks, I didn’t get hit.” He stated that he was probably just trying to stay out of the situation.
[47] Mr. Roberts stated that he had one or two brief telephone conversations with the complainant after the incident. He thought that she either wanted to meet or possibly was explaining to him that he would be summoned to court. He did meet with the complainant at the home of an acquaintance, at which time they went over what had happened. The meeting lasted about 40 minutes, during which she told him everything that she remembered. At no point did the complainant tell him to lie or what to say.
[48] On cross-examination Mr. Roberts acknowledged that he had no personal recollection of how his jaw became sore.
[49] Mr. Roberts testified that his meeting with the complainant took place approximately six months prior to the preliminary hearing. The meeting was set up by the complainant. She wanted to speak to him about the incident, to tell him her side of the story and to ask him what he remembered. He told her that he was unable to remember what had happened. He had testified at the preliminary hearing that she was trying to “line up their stories” during the meeting.
[50] Mr. Roberts stated that, although the complainant did not say that she was trying to convince him to say certain things which he did not know were true, it was “kind of implied” that she was “trying to persuade [me of] the way I thought about that night.” However, she never told him to “say anything in particular.”
[51] Mr. Roberts stated that the complainant never put it to him that he should say anything or repeat anything that she told him. He did testify, as he had at the preliminary hearing, that it appeared to him that she wanted him to be able to testify to things in court on her behalf. She was trying to tell him things “in a way to make him understand that it was important to her and her family.”
[52] On re-examination Mr. Roberts stated that his conversations with the complainant after the incident had no impact on his testimony at trial.
c) Evidence of Betty Ann Robinson
[53] At the time of trial Ms. Robinson had known the complainant and the accused for about nine years. Although she was familiar with the accused, she was primarily a friend of the complainant.
[54] Ms. Robinson stated that she assisted the complainant and the accused at the party by answering the door and by serving food and drinks to the guests.
[55] She testified that, after the complainant had got up from her nap and the party was winding down, she was engaged in cleaning up the food as she always did when she attended parties at the Nobbs’ residence. From her observations the complainant seemed “fine” – she was not stumbling around, she did not observe her to fall, nor was she crashing into things.
[56] Ms. Robinson testified that she felt tired and advised the complainant that she wanted to return home. She left by 3:00 a.m. travelling by Uber. She slept at her home until she heard a notification on her cell phone of an incoming text message from the accused at 5:19 a.m. on July 7. The message read:
“Sorry for bugging you. She was making out with the kid. Caught her. My heart is broken.”
[57] Ms. Robinson testified that she was not sure who “the kid” was as referenced in the text and did not know what the accused was talking about. She sent a message back to the accused at 5:26 a.m. stating:
“OMG, I am sorry for you Rick. She’s not in her right sound of mind. I grabbed an Uber home and I was not expecting this to happen.”
[58] She stated that she did not know at that point what was going on and had just woken up after sleeping for one and one-half hours. She wanted to know what had occurred and phoned the accused. The accused advised her “it looks like I’m going to jail” and that the complainant had “called the police and they’re taking me to jail.” The last thing she recalled him saying was “I gotta go…they’re taking me now.” The conversation lasted less than a minute. She could hear voices in the background, including the complainant’s but could not discern what they were saying.
[59] Ms. Robinson learned by means of a call from one of the accused’s and complainant’s sons at around 10:00 a.m. on July 7 that the complainant was in the hospital with a broken jaw, that she was going in for surgery and had requested to see her at the hospital.
[60] Ms. Robinson testified that she returned to the Nobbs’ residence during the morning of July 8 to complete the cleanup after the party. She stated that she discovered “quite a bit of blood” on the stone bricks in the location of the table and chairs under the gazebo. The area of blood was about the size of a dinner plate. She discovered the blood stain as she was pushing the chairs in by the table.
[61] Ms. Robinson testified that she did not observe blood anywhere else in the yard aside from the area she described under the gazebo where the table and chairs were.
[62] Ms. Robinson’s next contact with the accused was an exchange of text messages on July 14, 2018 initiated by the accused. Following Ms. Robinson’s reply asking the accused how he was, the following exchange took place:
The accused: “Been better but OK I guess”
Ms. Robinson: “Good”
The accused: “Just still heartbroken”
Ms. Robinson: “Better than having your jaw broken, Rick”
The accused: “For me I would take the broken jaw. I feel horrible for Yvonne. I really do and am very embarrassed. Just can’t figure out why she did what she did.”
Ms. Robinson: “What did she do to deserve that, Rick? Her jaw is broken in three places”
The accused: “I didn’t say she deserved it. I know she didn’t. What did I do to deserve her fucking around with a 22 year old? Bad situation all around. No winners for sure.”
Ms. Robinson: “She said she had a birthday kiss and goodnight. Rick, no woman deserves to be hit like that. You’re…”
The accused: “You are right. No person man or woman deserves to be hit like that. I’m not arguing that at all. More than a goodnight kiss according to the kid. He told me the truth”
Ms. Robinson: “lucky she didn’t die. I’m sorry Rick, but you obviously need help.”
The accused: “Sorry, I didn’t really text to bring all this stuff up. I just wanted to see how you were doing.”
[63] Ms. Robinson had no further contact with the accused subsequent to this exchange of text messages on July 14.
Evidence of the Accused
[64] The accused testified that he began drinking beer at the party at around 5:00 p.m.. Although he could not remember how much beer he consumed, it was “not a lot”. He believed that he also consumed one shot of chocolate tequila, one ounce of rum and one ounce of another variety of tequila. He denied that he became intoxicated.
[65] The accused stated that at some point during the party the complainant walked past him and said something like: “I’m loaded” or “wasted” and “I’m going to bed.”
[66] The accused stated that, about 20 minutes after the police left following the first incident at the front of the home, he decided to go to bed. When he got into bed the complainant got up rejoined the party. The accused subsequently fell asleep.
[67] When he awoke, he realized that the complainant had left. He looked around the house to try to locate her. When he was unable to do so he went back upstairs. He thought that he texted or called Ms. Robinson to enquire if she knew where the complainant was. When he did not receive a response, he returned to his bed and lay down. He then heard voices in the backyard, and he went there and found the complainant with Mr. Roberts. The complainant was sitting on a chair and Mr. Roberts was standing.
[68] The accused enquired of the complainant and Mr. Roberts where they had been, to which the complainant responded: “we just went to get smokes.” He observed a half a pack of cigarettes sitting on the table in front of the complainant. This made him question whether they had in fact gone to a purchase cigarettes. He responded “bullshit-you didn’t go get smokes” and turned to Mr. Roberts and asked him where they had been. Mr. Roberts stated that they were “just making out.”
[69] In response to Mr. Roberts’ statement that the they were “making out” the accused became upset and called the complainant what he characterized as “a couple of names” and said something like “I’m done. I’m not doing this anymore. I want a divorce.” The accused testified that his marriage to the complainant at that time was “not great.”
[70] The accused stated that he then left the backyard area. He denied that he hit either the complainant or Mr. Roberts. He also denied that he pushed either of them, although he acknowledged there might have been some incidental contact with Mr. Roberts.
[71] The accused specifically denied that he punched Mr. Roberts or that he punched the complainant in the face, that he punched her on the head, that he grabbed the complainant’s neck to choke her or that he threatened to kill her. Although he acknowledged that he had grabbed the pack of cigarettes, crushed them and threw them back on the table, he denied that he shoved the pack of cigarettes in the complainant’s face.
[72] The accused also denied that he observed any blood coming from the complainant.
[73] The accused said he then returned to the upstairs bedroom and yelled out the window to Mr. Roberts “get out of my backyard - get lost - just fricking leave.” He stated that he then grabbed his pillow and headed to the spare room where he lay down and drifted off to sleep.
[74] The accused testified that he awoke to the complainant yelling at him through the bedroom door or partially in the room, accusing him of hitting, slapping or hurting her. The complainant’s yelling lasted a minute, following which she walked up the hallway, saying “I’m calling the cops.” He said he got up and looked at his phone and noticed that he had missed a call from Ms. Robinson. He texted a message to her that he “caught her [that is the complainant] messing around with the kid” to which Ms. Robinson replied to the effect that she was sorry.
[75] The accused stated that Ms. Robinson phoned him and that he was in the hallway speaking with her while the complainant was on the phone with the police. He stated that Mr. Roberts came upstairs at some point and began speaking to him while he was on the phone with Ms. Robinson.
[76] In listening to the recording of the 911 call at trial, the accused identified himself saying to Ms. Robinson “I’ve got to go.” He stated that he was intending to leave the house and wait outside for the police to arrive. He denied that he believed at that point that he had physically injured the complainant in any way.
[77] He identified Mr. Roberts on the recording saying “you didn’t hit me” or “no one hit me” or “something about getting hit” however he did not remember him saying it at the time.
[78] The accused denied making any admission that he had slapped the complainant or that he had held or choked her. He said that did not make any assumption that the complainant had been injured other than from overhearing her conversation with the police. When he found out later that the complainant had suffered a broken jaw, he assumed that it was from “probably falling drunk,” however he acknowledged that there was no way of him knowing that. He did not see her fall.
[79] The accused testified in chief that when he stated in his text message to Ms. Robinson that “I feel horrible for Yvonne” he did not feel that he caused the injury to her. He stated that when he texted “I really do and feel very embarrassed” he was expressing his embarrassment about “the whole situation” including the complainant “messing around with the 22-year-old.” He denied that he felt embarrassed for hitting her and breaking her jaw.
[80] The accused maintained that in the ensuing exchange of text messages with Ms. Robinson he did not intend to acknowledge that he had assaulted the complainant and had caused her injuries.
[81] He testified that when he responded to Ms. Robinson’s comment that “no woman deserves to be hit like that” it was Ms. Robinson who was referring to a hit and he was “just, kind of, giving back what she said to me.” He said that he was simply agreeing that “people do not deserve to get hit, like, for any reason.” He again denied that this statement was any acknowledgement that he had hit the complainant.
[82] In reference to Ms. Robinson’s text in which she said “lucky she didn’t die. I’m sorry, Rick, but you obviously need help,” the accused testified that the purpose of his initial text to her was “to make sure [she] was okay” because “she’s an older woman. She is, you know, mentally-she’s fragile. So I just wanted to make sure she was okay.” He explained that once she responded with her text he thought “it was, like, okay, you’re obviously-you’re being passive-aggressive or made up your mind,” so he texted to her that he really did not want to “bring all this stuff up” but had just wanted to see how she was doing.
[83] The accused testified that when he was searched at the police station there were no marks or blood on his hands and no blood on his clothing or any other part of his body.
[84] On cross-examination, the accused stated that when he entered the backyard and found the complainant and Mr. Roberts together, he was “concerned” about where they had been and “concerned” that his wife had disappeared with a young man. He refused to acknowledge that he suspected her of cheating but admitted that “it’s always something in my mind” and thought that it was a possibility. He stated that he did not believe her response that they had been out purchasing cigarettes and he was “frustrated more than upset.”
[85] The accused denied the Crown’s suggestion that the only reason the question of where the complainant and Mr. Roberts had been was of any interest to him was because he thought the complainant was lying to cover up the fact that she had been with Mr. Roberts.
[86] Although he acknowledged that he would feel “betrayed” and “upset” if he had caught the complainant “making out” with Mr. Roberts, he declined to acknowledge that he would feel angry. He was prepared to describe other emotions that he would feel but refused to acknowledge that he would feel angry.
[87] The accused agreed that when Mr. Roberts told him that he and the complainant had been “making out” he called the complainant various names which “probably” included “a piece of shit,” “trailer trash,” and “whore.” He initially acknowledged that the use of these names displayed anger as well as disappointment. However, he subsequently denied that he had been angry with the complainant. He denied the Crown’s suggestion that he was not prepared to acknowledge that he had been angry because to do so would increase the likelihood that he had punched the complainant in the face.
[88] The accused testified that he felt betrayed by Mr. Roberts as well as by the complainant, saying that he “did a lot for that kid in the past.” Despite that, he stated that he did not hit him but rather he “disengaged.”
[89] In reference to the exchange of text messages with Ms. Robinson on July 14, the accused denied in cross-examination that by saying “I am very embarrassed. I can’t figure out why she did what she did” he meant that the complainant deserved a broken jaw. However, he did affirm that when Ms. Robinson texted “her jaw is broken in three places” she was accusing him of causing it. He acknowledged that he did not deny Ms. Robinson’s accusation and offered the explanation that “I just assumed she was believing what Yvonne’s telling her and feeding her.”
[90] The accused also acknowledged that “it could be taken” from Ms. Robinson’s statement “Rick, no woman deserves to be hit like that” that she meant “Rick you punched Yvonne. You hit her like that, and no woman deserves it.” However, he later qualified that by saying “It’s possible. It could be taken any number of ways.”
[91] The accused denied that he knew what Ms. Robinson was referring to when she texted “no woman deserves to be hit “like that” when he replied “you are right. No person, man or woman, deserves to be hit like that.” He maintained that he “repeated back what she’s given to me and I’m not arguing that. Nobody deserves – nobody at all deserves to get hit.”
[92] The accused acknowledged that when Ms. Robinson stated in a text message “lucky she didn’t die. I’m sorry Rick, but you obviously need help” she was making an accusation against him. At that point he ended the text exchange saying “this is not why I texted. I’m out.” He disputed the Crown’s suggestion that he did not deny Ms. Robinson’s accusations because they were true.
Position of the Defence
[93] The defence does not dispute the nature and the severity of the injuries suffered by the complainant on July 7, 2018 and that they satisfy the test for “wounding” for the purpose of supporting a conviction for aggravated assault. However, the defence argues that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused the complainant’s injuries. Although the defence postulates that the complainant may have sustained the injuries as a result of a fall, it is not necessary for the court to make such a finding as there is no burden on the accused to prove that the injuries were caused by a mechanism other than by him having struck the complainant.
[94] In making the determination of whether the Crown has discharged its burden, the credibility and reliability of the complainant is the central issue.
[95] The defence submits that the complainant had a motive to fabricate her initial reports to police and her evidence at trial. If the court accepts the accused’s evidence that, during the confrontation, he told the complainant that the marriage was over, the complainant had a motive to lie at the time of her 911 call to police in order to gain an advantage in the ensuing family law proceedings. The defence points to the fact that the complainant has included in the family law litigation a claim against the accused for damages related to her injuries, for the purpose of seeking to deprive him of an interest in the matrimonial home.
[96] The defence submits that there are serious concerns respecting the complainant’s credibility and reliability. It says that the complainant persistently sought to portray the accused in the worst possible light and that her antagonism towards the accused coloured her evidence. As an example, the complainant testified that the accused constantly “had a beer in his hand,” not just at the party but whenever he was at home and sought to depict the accused as a heavy drinker as well as a loud and aggressive person.
[97] The defence also points to a number of inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence. The first inconsistency relates to whether she actually observed the accused strike Mr. Roberts. On cross-examination the complainant maintained that she saw the accused punch Mr. Roberts, whereas in her first statement to police at the hospital she had stated that she was not sure and in her subsequent statement at the police station she stated that she did not see the hit. The defence asserts that the complainant’s explanation that her memory was better at trial than at the time of her earlier statements is preposterous.
[98] The defence also points to the complainant having lied during her first interview with police when she denied knowing Mr. Robert’s surname.
[99] The defence made reference to the complainant having denied at the preliminary inquiry that she and Mr. Roberts had had an in-person meeting and had discussed the evidence with him. It points out that Mr. Roberts was clear in his evidence that there had been such a meeting and the complainant ultimately admitted that fact but sought to downplay the extent to which she had been trying to ensure that her story and Mr. Roberts’ story lined up. When the suggestion was put to her that that was what she was attempting to do, she responded in an evasive manner, stating “no not that I recall.”
[100] Although the defence did not suggest that Ms. Robinson was a wholly unreliable witness, it did characterize as “strange” her account that, after she received the accused’s initial phone call that the complainant had been taken to hospital and the accused to the police station, she fell back asleep without checking on the complainant’s well-being.
[101] The defence pointed to the accused’s steadfast denial that during the confrontation between he and the complainant in the backyard he assaulted her. He readily acknowledged that he had been drinking but denied having been intoxicated. The police did not describe him as being intoxicated in their interaction with him on their first attendance at the residence the night of the party. The only witness who described the accused as intoxicated was the complainant.
[102] The defence pointed out that the accused had no blood or marks on him and sustained no injury to his hands, being facts consistent with him never having choked or punched the complainant.
[103] The defence maintains that the accused’s responses to Ms. Robinson’s text messages on July 14 cannot be taken as admissions that he assaulted the complainant.
[104] The defence states further that, although the police and EMS personnel made no observation that the complainant appeared intoxicated, this evidence does not disprove that she had been intoxicated earlier. It points out that the complainant’s evidence regarding the amount of her alcohol consumption was inconsistent.
[105] In summary, the defence asserts that the complainant’s evidence was neither reliable nor credible and the court must therefore find that the Crown has failed to prove the accused guilty of the charges in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.
Position of the Crown
[106] The Crown states that, in considering the totality of her evidence, the complainant was a credible witness and that her demeanour was consistent in her examination-in-chief and on cross-examination.
[107] Moreover, the Crown states that the complainant’s evidence was corroborated in a number of respects.
[108] The Crown asserts that the existence and location of the blood spot found by Ms. Robinson on the patio beneath one of the chairs corroborates the complainant’s account of leaning over with her head down and blood gushing from her mouth. There was no evidence of blood in any other location, and no suggestion that the complainant was running or wandering around the backyard. The evidence of the blood was entirely consistent with the complainant’s account.
[109] The Crown also points to Mr. Robert’s evidence of waking later in the day feeling like he had been punched supports the complainant’s evidence that she observed the accused striking Mr. Roberts and its immediate aftermath with Mr. Roberts lying “knocked out” on the ground.
[110] The Crown submits that the complainant’s injuries were consistent with the assault on her by the accused that she described.
[111] The Crown states that no motive to fabricate on the part of the complaint was borne out in the evidence. The complainant testified that she did not hear the accused say that “the marriage is over.”
[112] The Crown also states that the complainant’s 911 call to police to report having been assaulted by the accused is an objective piece of evidence, admissible as part of the res gestae, which exists independent of any issues of credibility relating to the complainant. The Crown states that the 911 call undermines the defence claim that the complainant fabricated her evidence in order to frame the accused in an effort to gain an advantage in the subsequent family law litigation. The Crown described the 911 call as the most compelling rebuttal to the defence claim that the complainant had a motive to lie.
[113] In the recording of the 911 call the accused is heard acknowledging having “slapped” the complainant, which is an admission which contradicts his testimony that he did not strike the complainant. The Crown states that it was not an accurate admission in that the accused sought to minimize his conduct by saying he slapped, rather than punched, the complainant.
[114] The Crown denied the significance of any inconsistencies between the complainant’s statements on the issue of whether she actually observed the accused striking Mr. Roberts. It is clear that she either saw the actual hit or had turned her head and saw the aftermath with Mr. Roberts unconscious on the ground. The Crown says there is no real practical difference as the evidence supports the fact that the accused struck Mr. Roberts which goes to narrative and animus.
[115] With respect to the complainant’s having told police in her initial police interview that she did not know Mr. Roberts’ surname, the Crown states that her reluctance to involve Mr. Roberts in the investigation is understandable and is consistent with Mr. Roberts’ attitude that he did not want to be involved. The Crown points out that the complainant readily acknowledged that she had not been truthful with police on this issue. Moreover, the complainant’s reluctance to involve Mr. Roberts is inconsistent with the defence theory that she sought to frame the accused.
[116] With respect to the defence suggestion that the complainant and Mr. Roberts colluded, the Crown points out that each of them denied any suggestion that the complainant told Mr. Roberts what to say in testimony. The complainant does have an interest in the outcome and it was not surprising that she sought to encourage Mr. Roberts to come forward to say what happened. Mr. Roberts agreed that the complainant was pleading with him to do so, but he testified that the complainant never told him what to say. The Crown submits that the complainant’s failure to acknowledge having met with Mr. Roberts should not taint or undermine the totality of her evidence particularly since much of it was corroborated in any event.
[117] The Crown takes the position that the accused’s exchange of text messages with Ms. Robinson constitutes an admission of liability by means of his adoption by silence of Ms. Robinson’s accusations that he had struck the complainant and broke her jaw in three places. The Crown submits that the accused’s admissions represented by the text message exchange is extremely probative.
[118] The Crown submits that the accused was evasive in his evidence, denying anything that he thought would hurt him. He denied being angry, denied or sought to minimize the names that he called the complainant, denied that the complainant’s injuries were catastrophic, and refused to acknowledge that a slap was less aggravating than a punch.
[119] The Crown asserts that in a number of respects the accused’s evidence made no sense. For example, he acknowledged that he was suspicious that the complainant had been cheating, but later changed that to being “concerned.” The Crown adds that his narrative that after he realized that the complainant was missing, (1) finding her alone with a young man, (2) accusing her of lying about where they had been, (3) walking up to her physically, grabbing the pack of cigarettes out of “frustration” and then (4) turning around, going to bed and falling asleep makes no sense.
[120] The Crown submits that the accused’s testimony ought to be rejected outright and that he should be found guilty of the charges in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis
[121] As indicated above, since the accused testified, I am required to apply the approach laid down in W. (D.).
[122] As noted by Code, J. in the case of R. v. Thomas, 2012 ONSC 6653 (Ont. S.C.J.) at para. 23, W. (D.) does not describe three sequential analytical steps that a trier of fact must pass through, but rather describes three distinct findings of fact that a trier of fact can arrive at when considering all of the evidence at the end of the case. At paragraph 24 he stated as follows:
A trier of fact must look at all the evidence, when deciding whether to accept the accused's evidence and when deciding whether it raises a reasonable doubt. It is at that same point in time that the trier of fact will also determine whether the Crown's witnesses prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the accused's contrary exculpatory account must necessarily be rejected. In other words, these decisions are all made at the same time on the basis of the same total body of evidence. The so-called "three steps" in W.(D.) are simply different results, or alternative findings of fact, arrived at by the trier of fact at the end of the case when considering the totality of the evidence.
[123] In the case at bar the accused provided a steadfast denial that he struck the complainant, choked her or threatened her. Although he acknowledged that the complainant suffered the injuries that the Crown alleged including a fractured jaw in three places, he denied that he caused those injuries.
[124] The accused acknowledged that he confronted the complainant and Mr. Roberts when he discovered them sitting together at a table in the backyard and suspected the complainant of lying to him about having gone with Mr. Roberts to purchase cigarettes. He also acknowledged that when Mr. Roberts stated that he and the complainant had “made out” he called the complainant various names which he said “probably” included “a piece of shit,” “trailer trash,” and “whore.” Nevertheless, he repeatedly refused to admit on cross-examination that he was angry or even upset and characterized his feelings at that time as “disappointed” and “frustrated,” notwithstanding that he had initially agreed that directing these names at the complainant demonstrated anger, an admission which he later sought to withdraw.
[125] In my view, the accused’s denial that he was angry and upset at the complainant makes no sense in the context of the events that were taking place in the backyard. For the accused to level names such as “a piece of shit,” “trailer trash,” and “whore” at his spouse is clearly indicative that he was feeling intense anger towards her and was not simply “disappointed” in her or “frustrated” with her. I find that once the accused came to believe that the complainant had lied to him and when he heard Mr. Roberts state that he had the complainant had “made out” he became enraged and lost control. I also find that the accused, by denying that he was angry, was seeking to deflect blame from himself by making it seem less likely that he would assault the complainant. His evidence that he was not angry at the complainant is simply not believable. This evidence is not peripheral or collateral but goes to the core of the Crown’s case.
[126] Similarly, I find that the accused’s stated reason for having initiated the exchange of text messages with Ms. Robinson on July 14 makes no sense. As indicated above, he maintained the purpose of his initial text to her was to enquire after her well-being because she was “an older woman” and “mentally fragile.” There was nothing in the evidence which would suggest that the relationship between the accused and Ms. Robinson was such that the accused would independently initiate an enquiry after her well-being. Ms. Robinson stated she had known the complainant and the accused for about nine years. When asked if she was friends with the accused, she responded that she was friends with the complainant mostly, with whom she did “all kinds of things together” including cooking and going out together. She stated that she had experienced negative feelings towards the accused in the past as a result of demeaning comments that he had directed towards her. Moreover, there was no evidence that Ms. Robinson was “mentally fragile.” Although it was evident that she is older than the complainant and the accused, his characterization of her as an “older woman” seeking to imply that she required special care and attention from him was unsupported by the evidence.
[127] I find that, although in his initial text to Ms. Robinson the accused asked how she was, his true intention was not to sincerely enquire about her well-being, but rather to test the waters to determine whether she was aligned with the complainant in the criminal proceeding and the matrimonial dispute and whether he could possibly enlist her as an ally. When it became clear to him that Ms. Robinson had accepted the complainant’s version of the events and was accusing him or implying that he had assaulted the complainant, breaking her jaw, and it was unlikely that she would support his position, he quickly ended the text exchange. His stated reason for having initiated the text exchange represented another attempt to deflect blame from himself and to mislead the court. I find that the accused’s evidence in this respect is not peripheral but goes to a central aspect of the Crown’s case.
[128] There were clear deficiencies in the complainant’s evidence. She admitted having lied to police in her initial interview at the hospital by denying that she knew Mr. Roberts’ surname. This appears to have derived from a misguided attempt to protect Mr. Roberts from involvement in the aftermath of the incident. She was also not truthful at the preliminary enquiry by denying having attended a meeting with Mr. Roberts when they discussed their recollection of the occurrence. Her explanation at trial of how this occurred was far from satisfactory. However, these are collateral matters which do not directly bear upon the core of her testimony regarding what happened on the rear patio of the home in the morning hours of July 7, 2018 when she stated that the accused became enraged, called her insulting names, crumpled a package of cigarettes in her face and struck her between five and ten times in the face. The evidence of the complainant on those core issues was unshaken on cross-examination.
[129] In my view any discrepancy in the complainant’s evidence with respect to whether she actually saw the accused’s punch to Mr. Roberts land or whether her head was turned momentarily is not surprising nor significant. It related to a collateral matter. She explained that given the passage of time she was unable to “frame” the picture of the hit in her mind. She was consistent that she witnessed the aftermath of the hit, observing Mr. Roberts “knocked out” on the ground.
[130] It is axiomatic that the court may accept all, part or none of a witness’ testimony.
[131] I find that the Crown’s case does not rest entirely on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant, but rather includes a number of elements which corroborate the core of her testimony, such that the effect of the deficiencies in her testimony respecting collateral matters is lessened.
[132] The blood stain found by Ms. Robinson beneath the location where the complainant testified that she was sitting when she says she was struck by the accused and afterwards hung her head between her legs with blood emanating from her mouth corroborates her testimony. There was no evidence that Ms. Robinson found blood elsewhere on or around the property.
[133] The complainant’s 911 call to police added weight to her testimony. No objection was taken by defence counsel to the admission of the recording of the call and no request was made for a voir dire into its admissibility. The defence effectively waived a voir dire in these circumstances (see R. v. Sylvain, 2014 ABCA 153 (Alta C.A.) at para. 29).
[134] At paras. 42-43 of Sylvain the court made the following observations:
Even accepting for the sake of argument only that a res gestae statement is subject to the limitations that apply to exceptions to the rule against prior consistent statements, the 911 call could still be used to add weight to the complainant’s in-court testimony. That very point was made by Paciocco, J. [now Justice Paciocco of the Ontario Court of Appeal], supra at 194 when speaking about a witness making the same claim by way of an excited utterance as in court:
... While there is no weight in the simple fact of repetition and no independent corroboration in repetition, the circumstances in which the hearsay statement was made - its indicia of reliability - can and should add weight to the correlative in-court testimony. (emphasis added)
In this case, at a minimum, the 911 call had probative value beyond mere repetition. It was evidence of the sequence and timing of events and both the emotional state, and physical state, of the complainant at the time of the call.
[135] The 911 call, as a prior consistent statement, was not admissible for the truth of the report that the complainant made to the police, but rather the circumstances of the call, as an “excited utterance,” was admissible for the purpose of adding weight to the complainant’s testimony in court. After examining the condition of her jaw in the mirror in the washroom, the complainant became angry at what the accused had done to her and decided to call 911 to report that she had been assaulted. It was evident from the recording that she was capable of verbally describing what had happened to her and how she felt, and she did not display any confusion about those matters.
[136] Moreover, I find that the fact of the 911 call helps to counter the suggestion of the defence that the complainant fabricated her claim against the accused in an effort to gain an advantage in the ensuing family litigation. I find that, even if the accused had stated to the complainant during the confrontation in the backyard that he intended to divorce her or to end their relationship, she either did not hear the comment or it did not register with her as signalling that divorce litigation would ensue. The complainant testified that she did not hear the accused make the comment about divorce and the accused was equivocal in his testimony respecting the language that he used. On cross-examination he testified that he said something like “I’m done.” He stated that he “implied that the relationship is done” but had no recollection of using the word “divorce.” I find that the complainant’s initial report to police in the 911 call that the accused assaulted her was not part of a plan to claim an advantage in later matrimonial litigation.
[137] The accused acknowledged on cross-examination that in listening to the 911 recording he could hear himself telling Ms. Robinson on the telephone in the background that he had “slapped” or “held” the complainant or “something like that.” In my view this is corroborative of the complainant’s testimony that he struck her, albeit in a way that was minimized by the accused.
[138] As indicated above, the Crown asserts that the accused admitted assaulting the complainant and causing her injuries in the text exchange with Ms. Robinson on July 14.
[139] The principles respecting adoptive admissions were summarized in R. v. Robinson, 2014 ONCA 63 at paras 48-50, citing Watt’s Manual of Criminal Evidence (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2013), at para 36.04, as follows:
David Watt, Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2013), at para. 36.04 sets out the general principles relating to adoptive admissions by silence, in part, as follows:
An adoptive admission is a statement made by a third party in the presence of and adopted by D. There is only adoption to the extent that D assents to the truth of the statement expressly or impliedly. Assent may be inferred from D's
i. words;
ii. actions;
iii. conduct; or
iv. demeanour.
Assent may also be inferred from D's silence, or an equivocal or evasive denial. Where the circumstances give rise to a reasonable expectation of reply, silence may constitute an adoptive admission.
The respective roles of judge and jury in adoptive admissions are controversial. Consistent with basic principle, where an issue arises, the trial judge should first determine whether there is any evidence of assent or adoption by D, before permitting the evidence to be adduced before the jury. Where there is evidence on which the jury could find adoption, the factual determination should be left to them with appropriate instruction.
Under the heading "Related Provisions and Principles", Watt J.A. sets out additional requirements where an accused's silence is alleged to constitute an adoptive admission:
Where silence is the manner of an alleged adoption, there are several conditions that must be met:
i. D must have heard the statement;
ii. the statement must be about a subject matter of which D was aware;
iii. D must not have been suffering from any disability or confusion;
iv. the declarant must not be someone to whom D would be expected to reply, as for example, a child.
[140] The court in Robinson added at para. 51:
In addition to the actions of an accused that might lead to an inference of adoption that are referred to in Christie, this court has consistently held that an accused's silence may lead to an inference of adoption of a statement made in the accused's presence in circumstances where the accused could reasonably have been expected to reply.
[141] At para. 55 the court adopted the following statement from R. v. Warner (1994), 1994 842 (ON CA), 94 C.C.C. (3d) 540 (Ont. C.A.) at p. 549 (quoting Martin J.A. in R. v. Baron):
The silence of a party will render statements made in his presence evidence against him of their truth if the circumstances are such that he could reasonably have been expected to reply to them. Silence in such circumstances permits an inference of assent.
[142] In my view the circumstances of the text exchange were such that the accused could reasonably have been expected to reply to the accusatory statements made by Ms. Robinson and that his silence permits the court to draw an inference that he assented to the accusations.
[143] As stated above, the accused understood that Ms. Robinson was accusing him of having assaulted the complainant and broken her jaw. Rather than replying to deny or dispute the accusations, when he would reasonably be expected to do so, the accused chose to end the exchange. The exchange took place while the event was fresh, one week after the event, and was the first contact between the accused and Ms. Robinson after his arrest. The exchange was focussed on the incident and was serious. An inference may therefore be drawn that he admitted Ms. Robinson’s accusations by his silence in failing to deny them.
[144] In applying the principles derived from W. (D.), I find that the evidence which is contradictory of the accused’s exculpatory testimony is such that it is no longer believable and does not raise a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the rest of the evidence led by the Crown that I do accept, as set forth above, proves the accused’s guilt of aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, I find that the accused choked the complainant by applying force to her neck with at least one hand and struck the complainant’s face with his hand at least five times. I also find that at the time of the assault, the accused had objective foresight of bodily harm to the complainant. The complainant sustained a fractured jaw and bleeding as a result of the accused’s assault, which on the admission of the defence, constituted “wounding” for the purposes of section 268 of the Criminal Code.
[145] The first count in the indictment alleging that the accused uttered a threat to cause the complainant’s death received relatively limited attention in the final submissions of counsel.
[146] The complainant testified that in the course of yelling and screaming obscenities at her and calling her demeaning names the accused stated “I’ll fucking kill you. I hate you.” The accused admitted that he called her names that probably included “a piece of shit,” “trailer trash,” and “whore” but denied that he threatened to kill the complainant or uttered any other threat against her.
[147] I find the complainant’s testimony with respect to the threat made by the accused towards her to be credible and reliable and was not undermined on cross-examination. The accused’s exculpatory statement that he did not threaten the complainant does not raise a reasonable doubt. I have found that when the accused came to believe that the complainant had lied to him and that she had “cheated” on him by “making out” with Mr. Roberts he became enraged. I do not accept the accused’s contrary evidence that he had not become angry but was only “disappointed” or “frustrated.”
[148] In the context of or circumstances in which the accused’s words were spoken, I find that they would convey a threat of death or serious bodily harm to a reasonable person. The words were meant by the accused to intimidate the complainant or to be taken seriously.
Disposition
[149] For the foregoing reasons I find the accused Richard John Nobbs guilty of both counts in the indictment.
D.A. Broad, J.
Released: September 16, 2020
COURT FILE NO.: CNJ 9653
DATE: 2020/09/16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
RICHARD JOHN NOBBS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D.A. Broad, J.
Released: September 16, 2020