Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: CR-23-562
Date: 2025-05-29

Between:
His Majesty the King
– and –
S.A.

R. Dhandhari, for the Crown
E. Battagaglia, for the Defendant

Heard: April 7, 9–11, 2025

Reasons for Judgment
Renu Mandhane

Introduction

[1] The Crown alleges that the defendant, S.A., trapped his niece, D.D., in her maternal grandmother’s bedroom and put his penis in her vagina when he was 19 years old and she was four, contrary to sections 151 (sexual interference) and 271 (sexual assault) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. To prove sexual interference, the Crown must prove that the defendant touched the complainant directly with his penis, that the touching was for a sexual purpose, and that the complainant was under 16 at the time. Given the nature of the allegations, the key question is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant touched the complainant with his penis.

[2] The complainant testified for the Crown. She was nearly eight when she was interviewed by police, and nearly ten when she testified via closed-circuit television before me. The complainant adopted her February 20, 2023 videotaped statement to police as her evidence in chief and was cross-examined on it by the defence. The complainant’s father also testified for the Crown; he videorecorded the complainant’s initial disclosure to him, took her to the police afterwards, and eventually took her to a doctor to be examined. The paternal grandmother’s evidence was entered by way of agreed statement of facts. The defendant took the stand to deny the touching; he is now 24 years old.

[3] I must consider all the evidence in deciding whether the Crown has proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. W. (D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. If I believe the defendant that he did not touch the complainant with his penis then I must find him not guilty. However, even if I do not believe him, I must still consider whether his evidence, either alone or together with all the other evidence, leaves me with a reasonable doubt about whether he committed the offence. If it does, then I must find him not guilty. If I do not know whom to believe, it means that I have a reasonable doubt, and I must acquit. Finally, even if the defendant’s testimony does not raise a reasonable doubt, I must go on to consider whether, based on all the evidence that I do accept, the Crown has discharged its onus and satisfied me beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant sexually interfered with the complainant.

[4] I provide an overview of the facts before turning to the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, and finally to my factual findings and verdict.

Overview

The Family Relationships

[5] In December 2019, the complainant was growing up in a multi-generational household in Bradford, Ontario. She lived with her mother, father, younger brother, paternal grandmother, and paternal grandfather (collectively, “the Bradford Family”).

[6] The father was a geriatric physician in Barrie and was often away overnight. As such, the mother and children would visit the maternal extended family in Brampton weekly, often sleeping over and spending a few days at a time. The maternal side of the family also lived in a multi-generational household that included the complainant’s maternal grandmother, maternal grandfather, maternal aunt, and two maternal uncles—an “elder uncle,” and the defendant (collectively, “the Brampton Family”).

[7] The Bradford and Brampton families had kinship ties going back to Peshawar, Pakistan; the paternal grandmother from the Bradford family and the maternal grandmother from the Brampton family were sisters. The Bradford family immigrated to Canada sometime after 2001, while the Brampton family followed in 2013 when the defendant was twelve years old. The mother and father are first-cousins and had an arranged marriage shortly after the Brampton family arrived in Canada. The Brampton and Bradford families saw each other and communicated regularly; they trusted one another in the manner of a large, extended family. The defendant admitted that the two sides of the family visited each other frequently and that the complainant’s parents both trusted him to take care of her and be around her unsupervised.

The Alleged Sexual Touching

[8] The touching is alleged to have taken place in December 2019. The complainant said it was a sunny day and that she was in her maternal grandmother’s bedroom on the bed in the Brampton house. She did not remember how she got into the bedroom but described being “trapped” inside because the defendant was standing in her way. She remembered her mother and brother also being at home when the incident happened, and possibly her maternal grandmother as well.

[9] In her statement to police and during cross-examination, the complainant had a specific recollection of her body positioning during the incident. She said it happened while she was lying down with her back on the bed, and with her legs dangling off the foot of the bed because they were too short to reach the floor. She said that the defendant was standing directly in front of her, that he did not say anything, and that his expression was neutral. Under cross-examination, when presented with a diagram of the bedroom created by the defendant, the complainant recognized the layout of the bedroom and noted where she was on the bed in relation to the defendant.

[10] The complainant described the defendant taking off her pants and then taking off his own pants. She remembered seeing his penis before closing her eyes. Then, she felt something “very weird” in her female private parts, but kept her eyes closed because she was “too scared to know.” She was certain that “something went inside” her but admitted in cross-examination that she never saw or felt the defendant on top of her body. When asked to identify the part of the body that the defendant touched her with, the complainant circled the penis on a diagram of a male child. When asked to draw the sexual touching on a diagram of a female child, the complainant drew a penis in between the labia majora of the child’s vulva and described the touching as being “like a finger in there.”

[11] Because her eyes were closed, the complainant testified that she did not actually see the defendant’s penis enter her vagina but stated that she was “very sure that he was poking his penis inside mine.” At trial, the complainant clarified that her eyes were mostly open during the incident but that she closed her eyes for the most “disgusting part” when “the quote-unquote finger was in my private parts.” When talking about the touching, the complainant instinctively closed her eyes tightly, grimaced, and squirmed her upper body. When asked to draw her own expression during the incident, the complainant drew a face with closed eyes and a squiggly mouth. The complainant testified that all she could think while it was happening was, “so disgusting, so disgusting, so disgusting, cannot take.” At trial, the complainant consistently and exclusively referred to the sexual touching as the “disgusting incident.” She did not know whether the “disgusting incident” lasted seconds, minutes, or hours.

[12] The complainant testified that the touching felt “weird”, that it was “very, very, very gross,” and that she did not like it. When describing the incident, the complainant repeatedly pretended to gag and vomit. Afterwards, she told the officer she felt some tingling and it felt as though one of her labia majora was flipped or folded up towards her vaginal opening. She said there was no wetness, it did not hurt, and she was not sore afterwards. The complainant told the officer that she sometimes felt like the defendant’s penis was still inside her, likening the feeling to ants crawling up your legs when they are not. The complainant did not know why the defendant touched her but thought that he might have been “in a silly mood, or something.”

[13] The defendant took the stand and denied the sexual touching. He denied putting his penis or finger in the complainant’s vagina.

Disclosure and Aftermath

Disclosure to Her Mother and Aftermath

[14] After the touching was over, the complainant testified that the defendant left the room without saying anything to her; and admitted that he never told her to keep the touching a secret. She said she found her pants “right there” and put them on; she told herself to, “calm down.” She described leaving the room in a panic, shaking the knobs of the double-doors at the same time, but the doors not opening because they were “sort-of broken” such that they would not open if you turned both knobs at once. Eventually, the complainant testified that she turned one of the knobs slowly to open the door, stepped out of the room, and ran down the stairs from the second-floor landing to the main floor.

[15] After descending the stairs, the complainant says she saw her mother in the dining room, grabbed her, was “really freaked out,” and immediately told her about “everything” that had happened. Under cross-examination, the complainant denied lying to her mother but admitted that she has since formed the impression that her mother does not believe her.

[16] The complainant testified that the defendant never touched her inappropriately again, explaining that someone told her that her elder uncle had physically assaulted the defendant to teach him a lesson. The complainant told her father and the police officer the same thing, stating that the defendant got beaten up by her elder uncle, was hospitalized, and needed a “blood bag” afterwards. Under cross-examination, the complainant admitted that it was possible that the defendant ended up in the hospital for an entirely different reason but maintained that she had been told that the defendant was beaten up because of the touching and that’s why he needed a blood bag.

[17] The defendant testified that he continued to see the complainant at the Bradford and Brampton houses after December 2021. The defendant denied ever being beaten up by the elder uncle; testifying that he had been hospitalized, undergone surgery, experienced a secondary infection, and ultimately needed a blood bag sometime during the pandemic—either in 2020 or 2021.

Disclosure to the Paternal Grandmother

[18] The complainant testified that she told the paternal grandmother about the touching sometime in 2023 and that she told her the truth the first time they spoke. The paternal grandmother’s evidence is that the complainant told her that the defendant put his “pupalo to her pupalo,” but admitted that she did not say that the defendant put his pupalo in her pupalo.

[19] At trial, the complainant clarified that she thought “pupalo” was the Persian word for “penis,” but that she used it to refer to both female and male genitalia. During her police interview, the complainant told the female police officer that she did not want to refer to her own genitalia when describing the touching because, “it is not good to say.” Her father confirmed that the complainant would have been taught by her mother and her paternal grandmother to use the word “pupalo” to refer to genitalia because it was considered “vulgar” to refer to genitals by the proper terminology. The father said that “pupalo” was a “made-up word” that had its origins in their clan or family; it was a euphemism for genitals used by children. The defendant testified that he had never heard the word “pupalo” before and suggested that it was a word that was used only by the Bradford family.

[20] The complainant admitted that she spoke to her paternal grandmother a second time, and that she lied to her on that occasion. The paternal grandmother secretly audio-recorded the second conversation and, in it, the complainant describes the defendant cornering her in the basement playroom at the Bradford house, covering her eyes, taking his pants off, getting on top of her and wiggling his body near her private parts. The complainant also told her paternal grandmother that this was a “secret” between them and not to tell her mother, that the defendant was making her uncomfortable, and that she was scared that he might try to hurt her while her parents were away for their upcoming anniversary. The complainant referred to the second story as the “fake story” in her testimony before me.

Disclosure to the Father

[21] The father testified that he first learned about the alleged touching from the paternal grandmother. A couple of days later, the father asked the complainant about the allegations and secretly videotaped their ensuing conversation. In the video, the complainant says that the defendant had gotten her into the maternal grandmother’s bedroom, taken off her pants, put his “pupalo in my pupalo,” and that he hurt her. The complainant told her father that it felt awkward and that she did not like it, but clarified that she was not hurt badly, she was not bleeding or in pain, and that she did not need to go to a doctor.

[22] The complainant told her father that her mother and maternal grandmother both knew about the touching, and that she had also told the paternal grandmother about two incidents even though only the first one was true. She said the defendant never touched her after the first incident because her elder uncle beat him up badly afterwards. When the father told the complainant that her mother and the maternal grandmother had never told him about the allegations, the complainant appeared surprised saying, “Oh?”, but also said that she hoped they could all forget about it and that “it is done for good.”

[23] The father testified that he believed the complainant and that he had no reason to think she was lying about the touching. He testified that he did not consider the complainant to be the type of child to lie, and that she had never lied about anything major like this before. The father said that he took the allegations seriously and spoke with other family members about them. From his conversation with the mother, the father formed the impression that she assumed that he knew. The father could not explain why the mother or maternal grandmother did not report the allegations to police back in 2019 or 2020. The father specifically denied ever learning about the touching from the mother or maternal grandmother; he believes that they kept it from him to keep the parent’s marriage together. Indeed, the parents ended up separating shortly after the father learned about the allegations.

The Police Interview and Medical Examination

[24] Sometime after the complainant’s disclosure to him, the father spoke with the police and arranged for the child to give a formal police statement. The complainant gave a videotaped statement to police on February 20, 2023. She told them that she was speaking to them so that the defendant would not be able to come to the Bradford house to see her anymore.

[25] The police also referred the complainant to Dr. Sarah Barker at the Regional Centre for Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Day Clinic at Soldier’s Memorial Hospital in Orillia. Under cross-examination, the father denied not taking the complainant to the doctor sooner because he did not believe her, explaining that he did not want to subject her to further “trauma” unless it was deemed necessary by the police.

[26] Dr. Barker’s September 2023 examination of the complainant was inconclusive. It found that the complainant’s hymen was intact, and that her genitals and anus were “normal variants that are commonly seen in non-abused children.” However, the doctor noted that the examination could neither confirm nor deny the allegations of child abuse because “the majority of physical examinations done in children where sexual abuse concerns have arisen are normal or show nonspecific findings, especially when the child is asymptomatic and the interval between the alleged occurrence and the physical examination are prolonged.” The doctor noted that a normal examination does not rule out sexual abuse because “some forms of sexual abuse may not result in injury detectable on examination and genital tissue heal quickly and often without residua.” The doctor stated that “a child may report that a penis, finger, or object was ‘inside’ their body when in fact it was inserted between the labia, but external to the hymen,” which would not result in “hymenal injury.”

Did the Defendant Touch the Complainant with His Penis?

[27] I must consider all the evidence in deciding whether the Crown has proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. W. (D.). Because this is a credibility case, the questions I must answer are:

• Do I believe the defendant when he says that he did not touch the complainant with his penis, or does his evidence raise a reasonable doubt?
• If not, has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant touched the complainant with his penis?

[28] I answer these questions below.

Do I Believe the Defendant When He Says That He Did Not Touch the Complainant with His Penis, or Does His Evidence Raise a Reasonable Doubt?

[29] The defendant does not have a criminal record and there are no other charges outstanding. He was respectful and conducted himself appropriately during the trial. He was calm and dispassionate when giving his evidence and did not appear to harbour any antipathy towards the complainant or the court process. He had a good command of the English language and was able to communicate easily and effectively despite describing himself as an introvert for whom English was a second language. When asked about peripheral matters, the defendant was direct and specific in his evidence: for example, clarifying for the Crown that his itinerary from Pakistan to Canada included a layover in Dubai; providing names and addresses when recounting his schooling and employment; explaining the nuances of the Farsi and Dhari languages for the court; and outlining the requirements for Ontario’s plumbing apprenticeship program.

[30] When asked about the touching, the accused offered an unvarnished denial. I acknowledge at the outset that it is very difficult to prove a negative and that the defendant cannot be expected to offer a version of what might have happened to raise a reasonable doubt: R. v. A.J.S., 2011 ONCA 566, para 17. Rather, the issue is whether the defendant’s unvarnished denial raises a reasonable doubt about his guilt when considered in the context of the evidence as a whole: R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, para 56.

[31] I find that it does not because the defendant was not a credible witness. Foremost, the defendant’s evidence about whether he had the opportunity to commit the offence was implausible and self-serving: C.H., at paras. 59, 64. When the Crown suggested in cross-examination that the defendant had ample opportunity to abuse the complainant in 2019, the defendant initially stated that he could not remember ever being left alone with her. When pressed by the Crown, the defendant spontaneously remembered being alone with the complainant once when they tossed a ball to each other from opposite sides of the maternal grandmother’s bed. He denied that it was even possible that he had been left alone with her more than once. In submissions, the Crown explained that the ball-throwing incident had formed the basis of an (unsuccessful) prior discreditable conduct application before another judge.

[32] I reject the defendant’s evidence that he did not have an opportunity to touch the complainant because it does not make sense considering the evidence as a whole. The defendant admitted that the complainant was visiting the Brampton house for a few days every week in 2019, that he was in high school and often home by 3:00 p.m., that the complainant would often seek him out to talk to and play with, and that the parents trusted him around her. In the face of these facts, I cannot accept the defendant’s evidence that he was never alone with the complainant before or after the ball-throwing incident, even accounting for the periods when he had a part-time job at a restaurant. Given the kinship ties between the two families, their regular association, and the trust they placed in one another, I find it much more likely that the complainant was regularly left alone with the defendant while the other adults were occupied in other areas of the Brampton house.

[33] I also find that the defendant was evasive when asked to characterize his relationship with the complainant: see C.H., at para. 52-54. When asked by his counsel to describe his relationship with the complainant as a baby, he clarified, “Is ‘normal’ something you are looking for?” When pressed in chief to provide some details, he stated, “Honestly, I don’t know what I can say to that,” reiterating that he was simply “her uncle” and that there was nothing more to be said. When asked by his counsel whether the complainant would have trusted him, the defendant answered, “Honestly, I don’t know if she would trust me because I don’t know what she would think.” In cross-examination, the defendant maintained that he did not have specific memories involving the complainant despite admitting that he had known her since she was a baby, that he saw her regularly, and that she sought him out to play with. The only details that the defendant proactively offered were to spontaneously deny ever changing the complainant’s diaper and to maintain that the only time they had ever touched would have been when he held her hand in the park for safety reasons. Given their family ties, I would have expected the defendant to have offered some details or memories about the complainant’s nature, their interactions, or even her relationship with other family members.

[34] Finally, the defendant was also evasive when the Crown tried to establish a potential timeframe for the touching. For example, the defendant could not recall the year he graduated from high school or the year he underwent surgery and got the blood bag, despite these being dates that I would have expected him to be able to remember. When pressed about the date of his surgery, the defendant eventually offered that it happened during the pandemic but could not narrow it down to either 2020 or 2021. The defendant’s evidence here contrasted with his ability to recall very specific details when it came to peripheral matters such as his schooling and employment.

[35] Overall, I reject the defendant’s evidence because it was not credible. His evidence about whether he had the opportunity to commit the crime was internally inconsistent because he admitted that the complainant visited the Bradford house regularly and slept over, that her parents trusted him around the complainant, that she sought him out as a playmate, and that he had been alone with her at least once while playing ball in the maternal grandmother’s bedroom. His evidence that there was only one time that he could recall ever being alone with the complainant seemed contrived to explain the Crown’s case and did not have the ring of truth. The defendant was also evasive when pressed for details about his relationship with the complainant or dates that would have established a timeframe for the offence.

[36] Taken as a whole, I do not believe the defendant when he says that he never touched the complainant with his penis; his evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind. Even still, the law requires that I go on to consider whether the Crown has met its burden of proof on the remaining evidence that I do accept.

Has the Crown Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That the Defendant Touched the Complainant with His Penis?

[37] The Crown’s case turns on the complainant’s evidence, so I start there. Given her young age, I must assess her evidence based on criteria appropriate to her mental development, understanding, and ability to communicate: R. v. B. (G.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30. The factors I can consider when assessing the complainant’s credibility are her demeanor, her intelligence, her knowledge of the difference between the truth and a lie, any motive to fabricate, and whether her evidence was tainted by previous coaching or questioning: C.H., at para. 46; R. v. Ignacio, 2021 ONCA 69, para 36; and R. v. S.S.S., 2021 ONCA 552, para 28. In the end, I can rely on the complainant’s evidence without corroboration if I am convinced that it is credible and reliable. I should look for other evidence that confirms or supports her testimony if there are risks in accepting it on its own: R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122, at pages 132-33; R. v. Marquard.

[38] The standard of a “reasonable adult” does not apply to children because they cognitively process information and perceive the world differently: R. v. D.F., 2023 ONCA 584, para 57 (dissenting), rev’d 2024 SCC 14. While children’s recollection of events may not be as complete and accurate as an adult when describing details such as time and place, this does not necessarily mean that the child has misconceived essential matters: B.G., at p. 55; C.H. at para. 42. The fact that a child may have lied in the past may not be as relevant to assessing their credibility as it would be when it comes to an adult: the question is whether they understand the difference between the truth and a lie, and whether the lie was about a central issue or something peripheral: R. v. A.T., 2013 ONSC 232, paras 63-65, aff’d at R. v. A.T., 2014 ONCA 126; R. v. C.N., 2025 ONSC 1570, para 56. The important thing for me to consider is whether deficiencies of this sort mean that the complainant has misconceived the events she described.

[39] Applying the law on credibility to the case at hand, the complainant was a credible and reliable witness. In both her statement to police and her testimony in court, it was clear that the complainant understood the difference between the truth and a lie because she spontaneously provided age-appropriate examples revolving around cupcakes and pencils. She confirmed that she understood when the police officer told her that it was a “rule” to answer the officer’s questions truthfully and to correct the officer if she misstated a fact. She promised to tell the truth to the officer and to the court: s. 16.1, Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5.

[40] In terms of her memory, the complainant adopted her videotaped statement to police as her evidence in chief, stating that she had a better recollection of the events back then, that she was telling the truth, and that she was doing her best given that she was a “a very small version” of herself: s. 715.1, Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. She admitted that, given her age, perhaps she was not as clear as she could have been and that her language was sometimes “faltering.” While the complainant stated that she has a current memory of the alleged sexual touching, she admitted that it is “pretty bad” especially in terms of what she did and who she told immediately afterwards, and the dates on which she disclosed the touching to others.

[41] I also note that the complainant’s chronology of the incident is internally consistent and was not shaken on cross-examination. The complainant maintained under cross-examination that the defendant took off his pants, took off her pants, exposed his penis, and put his penis in her vagina. She maintained under cross-examination that this took place in the maternal grandmother’s bedroom, while she was lying on her back with her feet dangling off the foot of the bed, and while her eyes were tightly closed. While the complainant was unable to put dates or even years to the touching, the internal consistency of her account and the fact that it was not shaken through cross-examination lends to her overall credibility.

[42] In both her police statement and testimony before me, the complainant came across as intelligent and articulate. She testified in a manner that was consistent with her age and stage of development. She tended to use exaggerated facial expressions, non-verbal body language and gestures, impersonations, onomatopoeia, and song to communicate different types of information and degrees of emotion. When talking about matters unrelated to the touching, the complainant appeared comfortable, spontaneously offering information about her school, her friends, her pets, and her family, singing to herself or dancing in her chair.

[43] The complainant’s demeanor changed dramatically when she was questioned about the touching. At these points in the examination, the complainant was often detached and quiet. When the police officer asked the complainant what the defendant did with his penis, she said she could not talk about it and averted eye contact. Before me, when the Crown asked the complainant if she was comfortable speaking about the allegations, the complainant said that she “preferred not to,” was visibly uncomfortable and silent before finally explaining, “my mouth is refusing to talk about it.” When she was asked directly about the touching, the complainant would sometimes change the subject or deflect answering. The complainant’s change in demeanor when testifying about the touching appeared unrehearsed and spontaneous and lent credibility to her account.

[44] The complainant also displayed an age-appropriate and evolving knowledge about human sexuality which cuts against any suggestion that she was coached or fabricated the allegations. The complainant had a very limited understanding of human sexuality when she first disclosed the touching to her paternal grandmother and father, using the term “pupalo” to refer to both male and female genitalia, and referring to the defendant’s pupalo being “in” and “on” her pupalo interchangeably. However, when speaking with police, the complainant was able to use the English word “penis” because she had seen her younger brother’s. She also recognized the word “vagina” from school when the police officer reminded her of it. When asked to draw genitalia during the police interview, the complainant drew the vagina as a “W” and the penis as a “U.” During her police statement, she told the officer that she was “embarrassed” to be talking about the touching and explained that she sometimes giggled because it was disgusting. As of the trial, the complainant was able to use the words penis and vagina properly and was consistent throughout her testimony that the defendant’s penis went inside her vagina, but she still did not have the proper terminology to describe the alleged touching, referring to it only as the “disgusting incident” and not as sexual intercourse.

[45] I also find that certain peripheral aspects of the complainant’s evidence about the incident were corroborated by the defendant. For example, the complainant’s description of the layout of the bedroom to police was consistent with the diagram that the defendant created, and which was presented to her at trial. While the defendant emphasized in his evidence that the bedroom door did not have a lock, his description of one of the doors always being open while the other was latched at the top was consistent with the complainant’s evidence that she could only open one door and not both at the same time. Her evidence about the defendant having a “blood bag” sometime after the incident was also corroborated by the defendant who said that he had surgery in 2020 or 2021 and required a blood bag. The complainant’s evidence about telling different family members about the touching after it happened was also corroborated by the father who formed the impression that the mother and maternal grandmother both knew about the allegations.

[46] The biggest issue with the complainant’s credibility is the fact that she fabricated an allegation against the defendant in her second conversation with the paternal grandmother, i.e. the fake story. The complainant denied being coached by anyone to tell the fake story. She explained that she made it up because she was in a “lying mood,” because she “loved drawing attention” to herself, because she wanted her paternal grandmother to “feel worried” about her, and because she was “once afraid of telling the true story.” While the complainant admitted that the true story and fake story could sound the same to the Court, she denied lying about the true story, stating that she knew the difference between the truth and a lie, that she only ever told the fake story once to get attention, that she never told the fake story to her father or the police, and that she would not lie to the court because now she hates drawing attention to herself.

[47] The defence says that the fact that the complainant was willing and able to tell a convincing story about a fictitious incident of abuse by the defendant should leave me with serious concerns about whether she is telling the truth about the alleged sexual touching or, at the very least, raise a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt. While this makes sense as a general proposition, I note that children sometimes lie and that this is not always fatal to their credibility. To determine what effect if any the lie has on the child’s credibility, I must consider the nature of the lie, the child’s explanation for telling it, and whether the child understands the difference between telling the truth and lying.

[48] Here, the complainant understood the difference between the truth and a lie, and there is no direct evidence to suggest that the complainant lied about the allegations before this court. While the complainant admitted that she was in a “lying mood” when she told the fake story to her paternal grandmother, she never identified being in a lying mood when she told the true story to her mother, her grandmothers, or her father. Indeed, in her evidence before me, the complainant was able to distinguish between the fake story being “a big, fat lie,” and the real story being the truth, and her father testified that she had never lied about anything “major” before.

[49] I now turn to the complainant’s explanation for telling the lie, namely that she had become scared of telling the true story, because she wanted her paternal grandmother to worry about her, and because she wanted to draw attention to herself. I accept the complainant’s explanation for why she told the fake story because her explanation was logical based on all the evidence before me. The audio-recording of the complainant’s disclosure to her paternal grandmother provides a cogent explanation for why the complainant wanted to draw attention to herself, namely, because she was afraid of the defendant and worried that he might hurt her in the future. Moreover, her evidence about her reasons for telling the fake story were internally consistent because—after telling the fake story and drawing her paternal grandmother and father’s attention—the complainant immediately recanted it and only told the true story from that point onwards. I also accept her evidence that she had become afraid of telling the true story because it is consistent with her evidence that she had formed the impression that her mother had not believed her when she told the truth before, and because she testified that she stopped being afraid to talk about the “real story” after her father believed her. Finally, I also accept the complainant’s evidence that she told her mother and both grandmothers about the touching and not her father because she was “not really comfortable talking about this stuff with men” and because she did not have the proper terminology to refer to what had happened. It is uncontroversial that the complainant never went to a male relative to disclose the touching, and only disclosed it to her father when he asked her directly about it.

[50] Finally, I reject the defence suggestion that the complainant fabricated the touching to get attention from her father because he was working a lot as a doctor. First, while the complainant admitted that she missed her father when he was away from work, all the evidence pointed towards the complainant and her father having a close and loving relationship throughout the relevant time periods. Second, it does not make sense that the complainant would fabricate the allegations of touching to her mother in 2019 to get attention from her father, but not bring it up with the paternal grandmother or him directly in the years afterwards. While I accept that the complainant may have had other reasons for fabricating the allegations of touching, there was no other evidence about a potential motive to fabricate before me.

Verdict

[51] I do not believe the defendant when he says that he did not touch the complainant, and his evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind.

[52] I accept the Crown’s evidence as establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant touched the complainant’s vagina with his penis in her maternal grandmother’s bedroom in December 2019. The complainant was intelligent and articulate and understood the difference between the truth and a lie; her story was internally consistent and unshaken on cross-examination; she testified in a manner consistent with her age, stage of development, and knowledge about human sexuality; her demeanor changed dramatically when talking about the touching; and aspects of her evidence were corroborated by the defendant himself, as well as the father. To the extent that the complainant admitted that she had lied to get attention, I have no trouble concluding that she knew the fake story was a lie and that the real story was the truth, and that she told the fake story to draw attention to the real story.

[53] The defendant is guilty of both counts in the indictment.

Renu Mandhane
Released: May 29, 2025