COURT FILE NO.: 416-19

DATE: 20211022

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Her Majesty the Queen

– and –

Randle Prior

Defendant

Jen Swart for the Crown

Phil Dinis for the defendant

HEARD: July 13,14, 15 and August 4, 2021

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION

By court order made under s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information

that may identify the person described in this judgment as the complainant may

not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner. This judgment

complies with this restriction so that it can be published.

Garson j.

Introduction

[1] Randle Prior, the defendant, stands charged with one count of touching a person under fourteen and one count of sexual assault. The allegations date back to late 1988 through early 1989.

[2] The trial proceeded virtually, on consent, via Zoom before me over four days.

[3] These reasons explain the verdicts I have reached in this matter.

Admissions and s. 278.1 Criminal Code Procedural Issue

[4] The defendant conceded the elements of identity and jurisdiction.

[5] The trial was briefly interrupted by the need to hold a mid-trial voir dire during the complainant’s (“JC”) cross-examination, for a determination of whether Facebook messages in the possession of the defendant met the definition of “records” within the meaning of s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

[6] The messages were determined by me not to be “records” and were accordingly available to the defendant to use when cross-examination of JC resumed, either for impeachment purposes or to make full answer and defence.

The Case for the Crown

[7] The Crown called three witnesses, JC, JC’s mother and JC’s stepfather.

The Incidents

[8] Although not certain about specific dates, JC, 11 years old in the fall of 1988 and 43 at the time of trial, recalled the defendant as someone who frequently attended parties at her parent’s rural farm property between Lambeth and Delaware (“the property”). The defendant was dating JC’s mother’s best friend and was at the home, according to JC, every weekend, or every other weekend.

[9] Alcohol was prominent at all these parties. Guests, including the defendant, often crashed overnight at the property and would sleep in their vehicles, in tents, or on a couch in the home.

[10] The first incident JC recalled was a party in the fall of 1988 where everyone except the defendant had left the property or gone to bed. She found herself alone with the defendant, who she referred to (along with other unrelated older males who hung around the property) as her “uncle”.

[11] She described her feelings for the defendant at that time by saying that she had “crushed on him a bit”.

[12] The defendant asked her to come to his vehicle, a customized black van that had captain’s seats in the front, a couch that folded down into a bed in the back and a blue velvet interior.

[13] According to JC, the defendant asked her to lay on the bed with him, pulled down her pants and began touching and petting her chest and kissing her neck. After what JC described as “not a lot of intimacy”, the defendant lay on top of her and placed his penis in her vagina and proceeded to have intercourse with her. She could not recall how long intercourse lasted.

[14] JC described intercourse as hurting “like hell” and stated that it caused her to bleed for days after. She waited until the following morning to go back into her house and take a bath and described seeing a lot of blood in the tub.

[15] When intercourse ended, the defendant told JC not to tell anyone and stated that “you know what will happen if you tell somebody”. JC felt that what happened wasn’t right and that “uncles shouldn’t do this to their nieces”.

[16] JC testified that this similar type of incident continued every other weekend over the next 8 months, or approximately 16 times. It ended sometime in April 1989. No condom was ever used by the defendant and JC had no idea of whether the defendant ever ejaculated during these incidents.

[17] JC recalled two additional incidents: the first at the defendant’s mother’s house and the second in a transport truck.

[18] She described the incident at the defendant’s mother’s house (where the defendant also resided) as likely occurring around Christmas or New Year’s 1988. She recalled visiting the home with her parents. The defendant was watching porn on TV. This upset JC’s mother, so her parents left the home, while JC remained.

[19] The defendant then began dancing with JC and touching her at the kitchen table in the presence of a male friend of the defendant’s, Brian, who lived nearby. After Brian left, the defendant took JC to his bedroom and sexually assaulted her, including intercourse like the earlier-described incident. No one else was home at the time and, when the incident ended, JC slept the night on a couch at the defendant’s mother’s residence. The defendant brought her home the next day.

[20] The second incident happened during a day trip to Ohio. JC went along with the defendant for a delivery as part of his job as a long-haul trucker. She recalled this trip taking place between February and March 1989. The defendant sexually assaulted her in the back of the truck during that trip. The assault included intercourse and was like the earlier-described incidents.

[21] The sexual assaults stopped in April 1989 after the defendant got a new girlfriend, Trina, whom the defendant later married. JC really liked Trina and stood up for her as a bridesmaid at their wedding.

The Disclosure

[22] JC told no one about these incidents for a few years and then disclosed to her first boyfriend, Todd White, that it was OK for him to touch her because she had been touched by the defendant.

[23] During the few years between the incidents ending and her parents finding out, JC testified that the defendant remained a big part of her life, that she hung out with him and Trina a lot and that both Trina and the defendant still came to the property every other weekend.

[24] JC says she did not tell her parents about the sexual assaults but that they found out after Todd told his friend Travis, a neighbor to JC. Travis later told his dad who then told her parents.

[25] Unsurprisingly, JC testified that her parents were not happy when they heard about the assaults. JC’s stepfather went straight over to the defendant’s house and “beat him up”. The defendant moved away 2 weeks later and contact between JC and the defendant ceased going forward for decades.

Initiating Contact with the Defendant and the Police

[26] A few years prior to the laying of these charges, JC contacted the defendant via Facebook and eventually met him in person at a school parking lot near her home. She told the defendant that she needed some financial help to cover counselling expenses. She said that “sorry is not enough” and that she would contact him later.

[27] A second meeting took place in a school parking lot where JC again said she needed financial help for rehab or counselling to close the “anger box”. The defendant said he was sorry, which JC understood to mean that he was sorry for what he did to her and that he would help her.

[28] JC testified that she wished she had brought “a spiked bat” with her to this meeting to beat up the defendant because she was still hurting from what he did to her.

[29] JC reached out a second time on Facebook and told the defendant she needed help with money to get stuff for her kids’ schooling. The defendant refused to pay. JC told him that if he wanted to stay off the sex offender registry and pay penance, this is how she plays. She also told the defendant that if he didn’t pay, she would call the cops.

[30] She went to police reluctantly, since it went against everything she knew. In fact, she had her own court appearance on the very same day that she reported these incidents to police. She summed up her feelings that day by testifying that “I don’t want to sit behind bars because this motherfucker ruined my life”.

JC’s Cross-Examination

[31] JC accepted that she was mistaken when she told police in her statement that the defendant ejaculated every time she was sexually assaulted. As far as she knows now, there was no ejaculation.

[32] She agreed that it is difficult for her to remember these incidents because of her substance abuse over the years. She accepted that she has lifelong struggles with drug addiction and financial challenges.

[33] She maintained that these incidents took place “like clockwork” every other weekend for 8 months.

[34] She explained that her parents were fine leaving her at the defendant’s house alone with the defendant after he was watching porn because he was hanging around their property all the time.

[35] She agreed that Todd White was the only person she told when she was approximately 13 and that her parents found out a few years later.

[36] She recalled that her stepfather had been drinking the day he was told about these incidents because she specifically recalled him being drunk after he returned from “beating the shit” out of Randy.

[37] She described her mom as “hysterical” when she was told about the incidents. She also described her mom as “drunk and stupid” which explained why she left JC alone with the defendant at his house when the defendant was also drunk and watching porn.

[38] She confirmed and acknowledged her criminal record that spans from 2001 to 2019 and includes numerous convictions for breaches of court orders, drug offences, frauds, thefts, possession of identity documents and identity fraud. She explained that many of her convictions for possession of identity documents arose in circumstances where she was found in vehicles that contained identity documents belonging to others.

[39] JC explained to police that she reported the incidents when she did so that she could start dealing with her problems and go to rehab and get on with her life. She agreed that this explanation was not accurate.

[40] More specifically, she did not tell police that she demanded a large sum of money from the defendant and that she threatened consequences for him if he failed to pay.

[41] When confronted with a series of Facebook messages she apparently sent to the defendant in August 2018, she initially did not recognize or recall sending them to the defendant.

[42] The messages ask for $1500 right away for rehab. They include repeated reminders to the defendant not to ignore her and make clear that JC will be meeting with police shortly. They conclude with JC telling the defendant “charges up bud…you took way too long…Good luck in court”.

[43] JC described these messages as being completely out of context but agreed that she had a Facebook account with the same name at that time and could see herself responding this way. JC agreed that the statements contained in the Facebook messages sound like things that she would say, however, she testified that she “swears a lot more” than these messages depict.

[44] JC explained that the defendant “had a chance to avoid all this and didn’t want to do it so I pressed charges”. She went on to refer to her criminal record and noted the defendant “raped me and did no time and paid no fine. Why do I pay when that motherfucker who hurt me doesn’t pay” for his actions?”

[45] JC concluded her testimony by confirming that she went to police when the defendant “refused to play the game”.

JC’s Parents

[46] JC’s mother Janet testified. She confirmed many aspects of JC’s testimony including that the defendant:

1. often attended the property on weekends and, like everyone else in attendance, consumed alcohol and almost always stayed overnight at the property;

2. drove a dark customized van;

3. once took JC across the border somewhere;

4. once had Janet, her husband Gordon, and JC over to his parent’s house where he lived. After becoming aware that he was watching porn on the television, which Janet found disgusting, Janet and her husband departed, leaving JC behind and alone with the defendant; and

5. admitted to her, while crying and immediately after her husband beat him up and caused him to have a bloody nose, that “he did it and was sorry”.

[47] Some of Janet’s testimony was inconsistent with JC’s evidence, including that:

1. JC was not at the property every weekend between 1988 and 1989 and would sometimes sleep over at friends’ houses;

2. she did not recall a sleepover by JC at the defendant’s home and the defendant bringing JC back to her home the following morning;

3. she recalled JC, then a young teenager, disclosing to her during a conversation about JC’s relationship with a new boyfriend that JC had already had sex with the defendant. Janet kept this disclosure a secret from Gordon and only revealed that she knew after Gordon became aware and told her; and

4. although she was upset, she did not agree with a description of her as being hysterical when she became aware of these allegations from JC a few years later when JC was 14.

[48] Janet explained that her reasons for not going to police at that time were that she promised JC she would not say anything, she did not want to put JC through anything more, and sometimes things are dealt with differently in the country (as opposed to the city).

[49] JC’s stepfather Gordon also testified. Like Janet, he confirmed some aspects of JC’s testimony including that the defendant:

1. drove a black customized van; and

2. was left alone with JC on occasion as basically a babysitter.

[50] His testimony was inconsistent with JC’s when he described how the defendant would head home at the end of most of the parties at the property and that he only “occasionally spent the night there” either in his van or on a couch in the home.

[51] Gordon became aware through his neighbor Lloyd that the defendant apparently started a rumour at the local legion that Gordon had sexually assaulted JC. This made Gordon very angry. He later learned from Lloyd that there was now a second rumour that it was the defendant who sexually assaulted JC.

[52] Gordon, after a couple of beers and in the company of Lloyd, drove to the defendant’s home. He broke into the home at night and “laid a beating” on the defendant, punching him several times until he was pulled off by Lloyd.

[53] Gordon later told the defendant just to tell him he did it and why. The defendant said “yes I did it” which Gordon understood to mean that he did sexually assault JC. Gordon made clear to the defendant at that time that he would “tear his head off” if he didn’t tell the truth.

The Defence

[54] Todd White testified for the defence. His evidence was inconsistent with JC’s. He could not recall speaking with JC about the defendant or any other older adult male involved in her life when they worked together at a gas station outside of Lambeth roughly 30 years ago. Todd was unfamiliar with and had never met or heard of the defendant.

[55] Todd was 17 or 18 and a few years older than JC at that time. He thought JC was maybe 13. He recalled they hung out maybe 5 or 6 times. He had no recollection of ever talking to JC’s neighbor Travis or Travis’s father Lloyd about JC.

The Law

Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof

[56] The defendant is presumed innocent of the charges unless and until the Crown establishes his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a heavy burden on the Crown that never shifts.

[57] Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not equal to proof of probable or likely guilt. It requires that I be sure that the defendant committed the offences. The standard of proof applies to each of the essential elements of the offences and requires that I determine whether the evidence as a whole establishes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Adult Testimony of Events that Occurred as a Child

[58] An assessment of the credibility of an adult witness who testifies to events that occurred as a child must consider the usual criteria for an assessment of adult witnesses. Yet when the evidence pertains to events that occurred as a child, inconsistencies dealing with peripheral or minor matters, such as times and locations, are to be expected and must be considered in the context of the age of the witness at the time of the alleged events: R v. W.(R.) [R.W.], 1992 CanLII 56 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122 at para.26.

Reasonable Doubt and Credibility

[59] In light of the defence evidence called, I must apply the modified principles established in R. v. W. (D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 (“W.(D.)”), which require as follows:

i. if the evidence called by the defence raises a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, I must find him not guilty; and

ii. even if I disbelieve the evidence called by the defence and it does not raise a reasonable doubt, I can only find the defendant guilty if on the evidence that I do believe I accept his guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[60] The W. (D.) requirements apply not to each individual piece of evidence but to the essential elements of the offences.

[61] When assessing credibility, I must examine both the internal consistency of a witness’s evidence as well as consistency of that evidence with other witnesses. I must apply the same level of scrutiny to all witnesses.

[62] I must be mindful of the plausibility of a witness’s account and of any motive to fabricate or embellish. I must consider a witness’s interest in the proceedings and assess whether their evidence is corroborated or contradicted by other witnesses or other evidence.

[63] I must be careful not to place too much weight on the demeanour of any witness, considering the increasing recognition that individual traits and experiences may impact demeanour without necessarily affecting credibility.

[64] An honest witness may still be unreliable or have an imperfect or inaccurate memory or recall of earlier events.

[65] In a case of this nature, credibility assessments are a central issue that help to inform the findings that determine whether the Crown had proven the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt or whether the evidence, considered as a whole, raises a reasonable doubt.

[66] There are two offences before me: sexual touching and sexual assault. The offence of sexual touching requires that the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:

i. intentionally touched JC with a part of his body;

ii. that the touching was for a sexual purpose; and

iii. that JC was under fourteen at the time.

[67] The offence of sexual assault requires that the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:

i. intentionally touched JC; and

ii. that the touching was of a sexual nature.

[68] Given JC’s age at the time of these allegations, the Crown need not prove consent as JC lacked the capacity, due to her age, to consent.

[69] In assessing JC’s credibility, I must be careful not to subscribe to any of the judicially recognized myths and stereotypes regarding sexual assault, including that real victims report any sexual assault at the earliest opportunity and do not associate with the perpetrator after the offence.

[70] I must be wary of assumptions about the “typical” or “normal” response by victims of sexual assaults and be mindful of factors such as power imbalances and fear and how such factors, if they exist, affect the behaviour of the parties.

[71] While avoiding reliance on or drawing adverse inferences from the traditional myths and stereotypes regarding sexual assault, I must ensure that I apply the same level of scrutiny to JC’s testimony as I do to the testimony of other witnesses.

Confessions

[72] This case involves evidence from three separate witnesses that the defendant made statements to them that they each interpreted as a form of confession to these offences.

[73] At common law, all statements made to “persons in authority” must be proven to be voluntary through a voir dire before they are admissible at trial.

[74] Voluntariness looks to the presence of such factors as threats, promises, inducements, coercion, or other forms of oppression. There is also a requirement that the person making the confession do so with an operating mind and in the absence of police trickery: R v. Oickle, 2000 SCC 38, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3.

[75] The facts in this case are somewhat similar, in that regard, to the leading case of R. v. Hodgson, 1998 CanLII 798 (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 449 (“Hodgson”), where the parents of a sexual assault complainant assaulted the accused by hitting him and holding him at knife point, at which time (according to the complainant and her parents) the accused confessed to the sexual assaults. The defence in Hodgson did not object to the admission of the confession without a voluntariness voir dire and the confession was admitted and the accused convicted.

[76] In Hodgson, the Supreme Court of Canada placed the onus on the defence to advance the “person in authority” issue with the trial judge and noted that trial judges should only initiate voir dires on their own motions in those extremely rare situations when they become alerted to the fact that the confession may have been made to a person in authority.

[77] The Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Quinton, 2021 ONCA 44, 70 C.R. (7th) 149, at para. 47, recently cited Hodgson with approval and noted that judicial intervention is required to direct a voir dire where defence counsel is silent in the face of “clear evidence” that objectively alerts the judge to the need for a voir dire.

[78] In Hodgson, “persons in authority” were recognized as those persons “formally engaged in the arrest, detention, examination or prosecution of the accused[… and those] whom the accused reasonably believes are acting on behalf of the police or prosecuting authorities and could therefore influence or control the proceedings against him”: Hodgson at para. 48, points 3–4.

[79] The determination of whether someone is a “person in authority” must be viewed subjectively from the accused’s point of view but must also withstand objective scrutiny. The accused must have a reasonable basis for the belief that his confession was to a person in authority.

[80] If the trial judge remains satisfied that the recipients of the confession were not “persons in authority”, but is of the view that the confession arose from coercive tactics including violence and threats of further violence, he or she must be very cautious about accepting the confessions and attach little, if any weight to them: Hodgson at paras. 30, 48.

Evidence from Potentially Unreliable Sources

[81] The evidence of JC, as a matter of common sense, must be viewed with some caution. I must be alert to the risks of adopting her evidence, particularly considering the significant role her evidence plays in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

[82] I must assess whether there is a need for some form of confirmatory evidence before relying on her evidence, which occupies a central position in this case and may be suspect both by reason of her related criminal record, which includes many crimes of dishonesty, or by her actions immediately prior to reporting these incidents to police: R. v. Dadollahi-Sarab, 2021 ONCA 514 at paras. 110, 113–114, citing with approval Vetrovec v. The Queen, 1982 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811.

Credibility Assessments

JC

[83] JC testified about several sexual assaults. She appeared genuinely traumatized by these childhood events. She remembered many specific details about the defendant’s cologne, his van, his home, and his truck. I felt very sympathetic towards her, considering the obvious difficulties she has endured over the past 30 years.

[84] Her palpable anger while testifying laid bare the traumatic impact these earlier events have had on her life. It is clear to me that in her mind she sincerely and genuinely believes that these events occurred in the manner she described in her testimony.

[85] However, her credibility assessment cannot end there. The law requires that I undertake a careful analysis of the reliability of her evidence, which is of paramount concern in these circumstances.

[86] Although I observed several inconsistencies in her evidence, both internally and when contrasted with other evidence, I need only focus on a few of the more significant inconsistencies, especially considering her age at the time of the incidents.

[87] The following inconsistencies raise concerns:

i. JC described that these incidents took place like clockwork every 2 weeks for a period of 8 months, yet both her parents testified that during some of that timeframe, either JC or the defendant was not at the property. They reported that, at times, JC was at a sleepover or the defendant went home without spending the night;

ii. JC said Todd was the first person she spoke to about the sexual assaults and that Todd then told Travis who told his dad, Lloyd, who told JC’s stepfather. Yet Todd testified that he was never told about this, nor did he tell this story to Lloyd. JC’s stepfather testified he found out after first hearing a rumour from Lloyd through the legion that he (JC’s stepfather) was molesting JC. Then he heard a second rumour from Lloyd that it was in fact the defendant who started the first rumour and it was the defendant who was the one molesting JC; and

iii. JC told police she reported these incidents to start dealing with her problems and get on with her life. Yet Facebook messages clearly show a series of threats made by JC to go to police if the defendant does not immediately pay her $1500. These messages end with a clear message that time is up and JC is going to police.

[88] These inconsistencies must also be viewed in the context of her lengthy criminal record, with repeated convictions for fraud and possession of identity documents. These repeated and in some cases recent crimes of deceit and dishonesty must be considered in assessing the reliability of her evidence.

[89] I am further troubled by the way these allegations were brought to the attention of police. Although mindful that delay, standing alone, cannot raise an adverse inference, there is much more before me in terms of JC’s reasons for reporting these incidents to police than mere delay.

[90] I would describe the Facebook message exchanges as quasi-extortive. Simply put, JC threatened to report the defendant to police if he didn’t pay her money immediately. She leveraged these allegations to coerce or force the defendant to pay her money. When he refused “to play the game”, the gig was up.

[91] Although she tells me that these messages are out of context, there are no other messages before me as evidence to place them in any other context.

JC’s Parents and Todd White

[92] This case turns on the evidence of JC. JC’s parents and Todd White—the former of whom were Crown witnesses; the latter was the sole defence witness—all testified in a straightforward manner. None were shaken on cross-examination. I accept their evidence and, more importantly, where it conflicts with the evidence of JC, I prefer and accept it and reject JC’s evidence.

[93] I will have more to say about the reliability of JC’s evidence later in these reasons. I next turn to my discussion.

Discussion

[94] The main issue before me is whether these events occurred. In other words, given JC’s age and the nature of the allegations, namely repeated full intercourse with an 11-year-old child, there is little doubt that if these events happened as described by JC, then JC was clearly touched for a sexual purpose, and in a sexual manner at a time when she was incapable, by law, of consenting.

[95] This is a very difficult case. On the one hand, the complainant told her story in a heart-wrenching and emotionally raw way. Her tears, her repeated aggression and profanity-laden attacks on the defendant demonstrated to me that something happened when she was a child that has profoundly impacted her. I believe that her substance abuse, criminal record, and other lifelong challenges can all be traced back to these early years and some form of abuse.

[96] On the other hand, I am faced with some significant discrepancies in JC’s evidence, both internally and when compared to other evidence. These inconsistencies are compounded by her criminal history, including many crimes of deceit and dishonesty and the extortion-like behaviour that led to these allegations being reported to police.

[97] Although I accept that Todd may simply have forgotten about earlier conversations with JC and that JC’s mother may have also forgotten some information over time, I must nonetheless consider the totality of these various inconsistencies.

[98] I remain convinced that something happened to this vulnerable 11-year-old child in the late 1980’s. There is no denying that what happened has profoundly and adversely impacted her life since. She has paid a heavy price for her childhood suffering.

[99] Although her parents confirm some aspects of her evidence, they also undermine other parts of her testimony.

[100] I simply cannot assess JC’s evidence in isolation. I must consider it with the rest of the evidence. When I do so, I must also be mindful of the dangers of relying on her evidence alone, absent confirmatory evidence on key aspects.

[101] I accept that JC’s criminal record, standing alone, does not make her evidence unworthy of belief. It is but one of many factors I must consider in assessing the reliability of her evidence.

[102] I place little to no weight on the supposed confessions by the defendant to JC, her mother, and her stepfather. The confessions to JC’s parents are made generically and include the phrase “I did it”. This is a vague and bald admission of wrongdoing. They are uttered after JC’s stepfather puts a beating on the defendant who, by all accounts, is now bleeding. In fact, Lloyd had to pull JC’s stepfather off the defendant to stop the beating.

[103] When the defendant makes the alleged confession to JC’s mother, he does so while being forcibly confined at his home and yelled at by her.

[104] When he confesses to JC’s stepfather, he does so while being threatened with another beating if he doesn’t tell the truth. It is a fair inference to make that this ultimatum leaves only one option available to the defendant, and that is to confess.

[105] To place any weight on these unreliable confessions in these circumstances would be unsafe and send a dangerous message encouraging similar behaviour in the future.

[106] Similarly, the confession to JC was equally vague and generic and included the defendant apologizing for “what he did to her”. It came after she reunited with him after almost three decades and told him she needed money.

[107] In this context, given JC’s other evidence and considering the evidence as a whole, I place little to no weight on this alleged confession to JC.

[108] I reject the suggestion by the Crown that the Facebook messages and JC’s candour about her criminal past bolster her credibility in these circumstances. These messages threaten criminal proceedings if money is not paid to JC by the defendant. They are clearly sent by her from her account. Her record demonstrates a clear and consistent pattern of crimes of dishonesty.

[109] I also reject the submission by the Crown that the other Crown witnesses (her parents) corroborate JC’s evidence on the material and essential elements. Although they may provide some confirmatory evidence regarding time and opportunity, I have already explained why I place little to no weight on the confessions offered to all 3 Crown witnesses by the defendant. I accept that many of the inconsistencies, standing alone, may be considered minor or otherwise explainable but cannot ignore the volume of inconsistencies before me.

[110] At the end of my analysis, I am left with a reasonable doubt as to whether these incidents occurred in the manner described by JC.

[111] For clarity, I am convinced that something of a sexual nature happened to JC as a child. I am very suspicious that the defendant may have been involved in these offences. Mere suspicion is not enough.

[112] I return to the governing principles in W. (D.). Even if I disregard or disbelieve the defence evidence, I must acquit the defendant if the evidence I do accept does not prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not.

Conclusion

[113] For the above reasons, I find the defendant not guilty.

“Justice M.A. Garson”

_________________________ Justice M.A. Garson

Released: October 22, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: 416-19

DATE: 20211022

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

Randle Prior

Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Garson, J.

Released: October 22, 2021