Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CR-24-0218-0000
Date: 2025-04-25
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King (Applicant)
M. Otim, for the Crown
and
TM (Respondent)
C. Gandy, for the Defence
Heard: March 4, 5, 6, 10–14, 2025
Ruling by: Mirza
Charges
TM was originally charged with the following offences:
- Assault with a weapon against TL on August 29, 2021, in Brampton, to wit: a cellphone.
- Assault (choking) against TL on August 29, 2021, in Brampton.
- Assault causing bodily harm against CW on August 29, 2021, in Brampton.
- Point firearm at TL between January 1–31, 2021, in Brampton, to wit: a handgun.
- Sexual assault with a weapon against TL between January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2021, in Brampton.
- Sexual assault causing bodily harm against TL between January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2021, in Brampton.
- Sexual assault causing bodily harm against TL between January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2021, in Brampton.
At the close of the Crown’s case, the Crown invited dismissal of the charge of assault-choking alleged to have occurred on August 29, 2021. This was count 2 on the original indictment. Accordingly, this count was dismissed.
The Crown also applied to amend the remaining counts to reflect the evidence led at trial regarding timelines and location. The Defence consented to the amendments, reserving the right to argue that the changes were relevant to credibility. The amended Indictment was filed on consent.
Summary of the Evidence
TL: Complainant #1
[6] TL is 22 years old. She met TM on Snapchat when she was 17, through mutual friends. They had known each other for three to four years at the time of the incident.
[7] She was living in Thunder Bay and initially had contact with him online only.
[8] About two to three months later, she met TM in person in Brampton. They became boyfriend and girlfriend. She was 18. They dated for about one to two years.
[9] They lived together, moving around to motels and hotels before finding an apartment.
[10] They moved into an apartment in Brampton, with TL as the primary person on the lease.
[11] A year into the lease, their relationship abruptly ended. She told him he had a period of time to collect his belongings.
[12] She said there were four incidents.
[13] In cross-examination, she said she reviewed her statement and there was nothing she wanted to correct.
[14] She did not read over her preliminary transcripts.
Home Incident: Counts 1 and 2
[15] TL described being attacked by the accused at her home after he attended uninvited to collect his belongings after she broke up with him. Her friend CW intervened and was stabbed.
[16]–[59] (Detailed factual summary of the incident, including the altercation, involvement of CW, and aftermath.)
CW: Complainant #2
[60] CW is a platonic friend of TL, 27 years old, who testified remotely on consent.
[61]–[112] (CW’s account of the incident, his injuries, and the aftermath.)
Other Witnesses
[113]–[122] (Landlord and other witnesses’ observations.)
Other Incidents
Gun Incident – Motel 6: Count 3
[123]–[144] (TL’s account of an incident where TM allegedly put a gun to her head.)
Forced Oral Sex and Stabbing: Counts 4 and 5
[145]–[178] (TL’s account of forced oral sex and stabbing.)
Anal Rape: Count 6
[179]–[199] (TL’s account of alleged anal rape.)
Agreed Facts
[200] The Crown and Defence agreed to a series of facts regarding the incident on August 29, 2021, the police response, and the injuries observed.
The Law
Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof
[201]–[202] The accused is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is on the Crown.
Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
[203]–[209] The standard of proof, its meaning, and application, with reference to R. v. Lifchus, para 39 and R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, para 231.
Credibility and the W.(D.) Analysis
[210]–[226] The methodology for assessing evidence where credibility is at issue, including the W.(D.) framework.
Motive
[227]–[233] The law on motive to fabricate and its relevance to credibility.
Prior Statements
[234]–[236] The law on prior consistent and inconsistent statements.
Self-Defence
Criminal Code, s. 34 is set out and discussed.
Positions
Crown
[237] The Crown submits that all offences are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defence
[238]–[240] The Defence submits that there is reasonable doubt on all charges, and that the complainant and CW are not credible or reliable.
Analysis
[241]–[377] The court’s detailed analysis of the evidence, credibility, inconsistencies, and the application of self-defence.
Conclusion
[378] The court finds TM not guilty of all charges.
Cited Legislation
Cited Case Law
(See YAML frontmatter for full list and links.)
Released: April 25, 2025
Judge: Mirza