R. v. S.A., 2025 ONSC 3757

R. v. S.A., 2025 ONSC 3757

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-30000223

DATE: 27062025

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Between:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

S.A.

Defendant

Saehee Park, for the Crown

Deryk Gravesande, for the Defendant

HEARD: June 9-17, 2025

P.T. SUGUNASIRI J.

REASONS FOR DECISION

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION

Pursuant to s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the persons described in this judgment as the complainant may not be published, broadcast or transmitted in any manner.

Overview:

1This case arises from two assault and one sexual assault allegation against Mr. A. by his domestic partner, Ms. S.B. The indictment reads as follows:

1. S.A., stands charged that he, between the 1st day of October in the year 2007 and the 30th day of April in the year 2008 at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region did commit an assault on S.B., contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. S.A., stands charged that he, on or about the 13th, day of September in the year 2019 at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region did commit an assault on S.B., contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

3. S.A., stands charged that he, on or about the 7th, day of November in the year 2021 at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region did commit a sexual assault on S.B., contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

2The complainant and Mr. A. were in a common-law relationship since around 2005. They have two children together. The three assaults are alleged to have happened at their family home in Scarborough. The complainant reported all three to the police on December 5, 2021 and gave a video statement.

3The issue on the two assaults is whether they happened at all. The issue on the sexual assault is whether Ms. S.B. withdrew her consent. If she did, did Mr. A. continue the activity despite the withdrawal, or did he fail to hear the withdrawal such that he did not know that Ms. S.B. was no longer consenting.

4The Crown’s only witness was the complainant, Ms. S.B. Mr. A. chose to testify at the close of the Crown’s case. The case turns on Ms. S.B. and Mr. A.’s credibility and reliability. As in all such cases, if I believe Mr. A. that he did not assault or sexually Ms. S.B., I must acquit. If I do not believe him but his evidence leaves me in a state of reasonable doubt, I must acquit. Even if I completely disregard his evidence, I can only convict on any charge if the rest of the evidence I do accept persuades me beyond a reasonable doubt of all the elements of each offence.

5I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the two assaults happened, though not in the way described by Ms. S.B. who I find exaggerated the gravity of the assaults. I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. A. sexually assaulted Ms. S.B. I find that I am unsure if Mr. A. knew that Ms. S.B. had withdrawn her consent. I explain my decision below.

Count #1 - The 2007 incident

6To prove that Mr. A. assaulted Ms. S.B., the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. A. intentionally touched Ms. S.B. without her consent and knowing that she did not consent.

Ms. S.B.’s evidence

7Ms. S.B. testified that their son was born in April of 2017. After his birth, she experienced post-partem depression. Ms. S.B. described that one night, at a time when the baby was unwell from teething, Mr. A. was going out and she held onto his jacket and begged him to stay and help. At the time she did this, he was walking towards the front door. Ms. S.B. stated that “I was holding onto his jacket, and pleading with him not to go, and he flung me off of his arm, and raised his hand and – his right hand, and hit me. I flew into – we have a front closet right by the door. Part of that is a concrete wall that separates the front entrance to the kitchen. I flew into that closet and smacked my head off the concrete wall. I fell down into the closet and he left.”

8Ms. S.B. described feeling shocked because it was the first time Mr. A. had been physical with her. She did not remember what Mr. A. did other than her noting generally that there was a pattern of any time there was physical or a big altercation, he would buy flowers for the house or for her. Ms. S.B. described them as remorse gifts.

9In cross-examination, Ms. S.B. stated that she suffered from PTSD from childhood trauma and relational trauma by Mr. A. Ms. S.B. agreed in cross-examination that her memory of events in her life were impacted by memory loss. Some memories came back to her in the form of flashbacks and some memories were what she described as overly visual. According to her, the recollection of this incident was by way of flashback and original memory. She did a lot of work to forget about the incident but became fearful of Mr. A. moving forward.

Mr. A.’s evidence

10Mr. A. recalls this incident but remembers it differently. He agreed that his son was teething and had kept them up that weekend. It was a challenging time with him teething and Ms. S.B. suffering from post-partem depression. Mr. A. recounted that on the day in question which he believed to be a Monday; he was leaving the house in the morning for work. He inferred that it would have been around 8:50 a.m. because this is when he always left for work. Mr. A. testified that Ms. S.B. did in fact grab his jacket and computer bag to and was asking him not to leave. Mr. A. stated that he tried to reassure her and reminded her that his mom was nearby and could help. There is no question that Mr. A.’s mother lived in the same coop and was minutes away. Mr. A. testified that ultimately, despite being upset, Ms. S.B. let go of him and he left for work.

11On cross-examination, Mr. A. indicated that this was the first time they had a big argument, where it escalated into her pulling him and asking him not to go anywhere. She was acting like he was leaving forever, he stated. He denied the Crown’s suggestion that during this time in their life he was upset because he was carrying so much of the load at home even though Ms. S.B. was home on maternity leave. He agreed that when Ms. S.B. was trying to stop him from going to work, it was frustrating at the beginning but he did his best to de-escalate the situation. He denied being upset that Ms. S.B. was acting that way or swinging at her as a result. Instead, he said that he had to go to his job, he could not be late and had to leave.

Analysis

12Defence counsel argued that Ms. S.B. was not a credible or reliable witness, with her evidence pieced together from flashbacks or entirely fabricated to gain an advantage in her family law litigation with Mr. A. Ms. S.B. agreed that a month before she reported this and the other two incidents to the police, she and Mr. A. had amicably discussed separation. By the time she reported the incident to the police on December 5, 2021, she had applied for a rental property in Pickering but her application had been denied. Her explanation for reporting when she did was that she finally had the courage to report and it was the only way she could think of to get out of the relationship.

13Crown counsel pointed out that a motive to fabricate is different than a motive to report. The family law proceeding might have given Ms. S.B. a motive to report events that had happened but that does not mean she fabricated the assaults. In the Crown’s view, it is Mr. A. who was not credible nor reliable. He was too cool, too calm, and too collected.

14I agree with the Crown that, if believed, Mr. A. was superhuman in his interactions with Ms. S.B. I do not find him credible or reliable on this point. I do not accept his evidence that he was calm and did nothing physical to shake Ms. S.B. off, nor does his evidence leave me in a state of reasonable doubt that he physically pushed Ms. S.B. off him. He admitted that he had had a difficult weekend with his son who had kept him up. He also had a depressed spouse who was physically holding onto him. His evidence that Ms. S.B. eventually let go of him despite her agitated and upset state does not make sense and does not fit into the parties’ description of their overall dynamics in the relationship. I do not accept that he never got upset and was not even minimally irritated at Ms. S.B. physically trying to prevent him from leaving. I find that he grossly downplayed natural reactions that anyone might have to a difficult domestic situation. It is this purposeful downplaying, coupled with the uncontested core allegations, that satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. A. assaulted Ms. S.B.

15I accept Mr. A.’s evidence that he was going to work when this assault happened. I accept the core of Ms. S.B.’s allegation – that Mr. A. was leaving at a time when their son was unwell, they were sleep deprived, she was depressed and, she held onto him to try and stop him from leaving. This is uncontested. Mr. A. was faced with an unwell spouse dealing with a sick baby and had a choice to make. He chose in the moment to use some physical force, however minor, to remove Ms. S.B. so that he could leave.

16Any discrepancies in Ms. S.B.’s evidence or a motive to embellish does not raise reasonable doubt because those discrepancies are either immaterial or I do not rely on them to come to my conclusion. For example, Ms. S.B. was extensively cross-examined on differences between her police statement and trial evidence but I do not find that any differences in the details of the encounter diminish the veracity of the core allegations. Further, I do not accept Ms. S.B.’s evidence that Mr. A. hit her in the face with an open hand. I do not find her credible or reliable on these details given her admission that the whole incident came back to her in a flashback and that she was prone to overly visual memories because of PTSD. It makes more sense that given his size as described by Ms. S.B., the physical gesture he made to remove her from his laptop bag could have pushed S.B. back against the wall or into the closet. I also hesitate to rely on this aspect of her evidence because of a very real motive, not to fabricate the incident altogether, but to consciously or unconsciously embellish the details of the interaction in a way that might assist her in the family law litigation.

17That said, I do not need to accept this evidence to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. A. used some physical force, however, minor, to remove Ms. S.B. from his person. It is Mr. A.’s purposeful downplaying of his reaction coupled with the uncontested core allegations that allow me to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that physical force was used.

18Upon finding that Mr. A. intentionally touched Ms. S.B., there is no issue that it was without her consent and that he knew it was without her consent. I find Mr. A. guilty on count #1.¹

Count #2 - the September 2019 incident

Ms. S.B.’s evidence

19Ms. S.B. testified that she and Mr. A. had planned a family trip to Huntsville on September 14, 2019. The plan was to go kayaking and Ms. S.B. was going to take a yoga class while Mr. A. took the kids to a movie. Ms. S.B. stated that on the evening of September 13, 2019, Mr. A. intended to go out, which Ms. S.B. did not like. She was afraid that he would be out late, drink too much and not be ready and present in the morning for the trip. They argued about it.

20That night, Mr. A. did go out and their son slept with Ms. S.B. She testified that he returned around 5 a.m. on September 14, 2019 and slept in their son’s room. Ms. S.B. testified that she let Mr. A. sleep in but later tried to wake him up three times. She swore at him the third time saying, “Get the fuck out of bed.” Ms. S.B. stated that she was “in my emotions” and really upset so left the room. According to her, Mr. A. then ran behind her. She made it to the kitchen before he spun her around and grabbed her wrists. She stated: “I flew out of his wrists.” Ms. S.B. testified that he then grabbed her again, dragging her down – he had her right arm with his left arm, and she was trying to get out of his grip as he dragged her in the sense that she was having to walk fast to go along with him. Ms. S.B. stated that she put her nails into him to try to get out of his grip. When they got to the bedroom he is alleged to have flung her onto the bed and lock the door behind him. Ms. S.B. testified that he screamed at her while she was pacing and crying. She stated “like, I was out of body…”

21Ms. S.B. testified that after about 15 or 20 minutes, Mr. A. opened the door. She paced for a while and then called her cousin reporting that Mr. A. had been physical with her again and called her mom to come get the kids. Ms. S.B. stated that she put herself together and went out to the living room where she found Mr. A. sitting on the couch with the kids and his things ready as if nothing happened. Shortly after, Ms. S.B.’s mom came to the door as did her cousin Sarah. Ms. S.B. asked Mr. A. to leave the house and stated that she would report him to the police if he did not give her time and space to feel safe. According to Ms. S.B., Mr. A. ultimately did leave the house and they only resumed living together three weeks later. Ms. S.B. did not suffer any physical injuries from the alleged assault but stated that she had emotional trauma compounded by what she stated was a pattern of abusive behaviour by Mr. A.

22Ms. S.B. was thoroughly cross-examined on her recollection of the alleged event. Much time was spent on the different version she had at trial and to the police about the timing of events – what time Mr. A. got home, what time she tried to wake him up, and what part of her arm Mr. A. grabbed. For example, at trial Ms. S.B. testified that Mr. A. grabbed her by her arm, closer to her wrist. She later testified that at first he grabbed her by the arm, spun her around and then repositioned his hand to her wrist. She broke free from his grip by putting her arms in an X and pushing up. Later when pressed Ms. S.B. expanded the assault allegation to two incidents of non-consensual touching – the first when he grabbed her arm, then wrist and she got out of it, and a second time when he “re-grabbed” her and she could not get out of it, causing her to scratch his arm with her nails. In contrast, Ms. S.B. told the police that Mr. A. grabbed her arm and dragged her to the ground. Ms. S.B. maintained that she did not recall being dragged to the ground, and did not know why she told that to the police other than that it was what she recalled at the time.

23While the timing of Mr. A.’s return home and her attempts to wake him up differed between trial and what she told the police in her video statement, the core of her evidence of the circumstances leading up to the alleged assault in the hallway was unshaken. She agreed that she was very angry and frustrated, and felt out of control. She agreed that after the argument she started organizing her daughter’s clothes to calm herself down. Ms. S.B. agreed that she was shouting and swearing at Mr. A. and that he did not respond physically while she was in the room. Ms. S.B. does not recall what he said to her at the time or that when he got up, he went to the bathroom first before leaving the bedroom. She did not recall him trying to calm her down or asking why she was being like that before a big family trip. She denied that he only reached for her but never touched her.

Mr. A.’s evidence

24As with the first incident, Mr. A. agrees on the surrounding circumstances of the alleged assault including the argument, but denies that he ever touched Ms. S.B. Mr. A. testified that the trip with the family was planned for September 14, 2019. He corroborated Ms. S.B.’s testimony that he did go out the night of September 13, 2019, that Ms. S.B. did not want him to go out because she was concerned about his energy the next day. They argued about it, but he went out anyway. Mr. A. also confirmed Ms. S.B.’s evidence that when her returned home in the early hours of the morning he slept in his son’s bedroom. He testified that Ms. S.B. came into the room and yelled at him to get out of bed. He did not get up right away. Mr. A. stated that she then came back into the bedroom, kicked the bed and said, “get the fuck out of bed.” S.B. was very angry.

25Mr. A. diverged from Ms. S.B.’s account in describing his response which Ms. S.B. stated she did not remember. Mr. A. testified that he asked her if they had to start the day like that. He told her that everything was going to fine, got up and went to the bathroom. Mr. A. recalled that as Ms. S.B. was passing the bathroom, yelling and cursing at him, and heading towards the living room, he went up behind her and stretched his arm out to ask if they could go talk in the bedroom. That, he testified, is when Ms. S.B. scratched him. Mr. A. continued to insist that they talk in the bedroom because he did not like to argue or have profanities expressed in front of the children.

26Eventually, Ms. S.B. agreed to go into the bedroom with Ms. S.B. entering first. Mr. A. stated that he then entered, walked past her to the opposite side of the king size bed and tried to de-escalate the situation while she closed the bedroom door. After no longer than 10 minutes, Ms. S.B. left the bedroom and went into the bathroom. He continued to get ready for the day and waited in the living room with the children. Ultimately the family did not go on the trip that day. His mother-in-law came over and was standing just at the door. According to him she shrugged her shoulders. He does not know where the kids went.

27On cross-examination Mr. A. agreed that he and Ms. S.B. were upset with each other quite often. He denied however being angry with Ms. S.B. because of the way she was acting even though she was difficult to deal with at times. Mr. A. again presented himself to Crown counsel as always calm and cool, and always trying to de-escalate every situation while understanding Ms. S.B.’s mental health challenges. He testified that he never felt frustrated with their relationship, his household obligations nor his role as the primary breadwinner. Even after Ms. S.B. kicked the bed and told him to get the fuck up, Mr. A. responded in cross-examination that he was not upset at her behaviour but only sighed and wondered why they had to start the day like that.

28Mr. A. also maintained in cross-examination that when he reached out to her to coax her into the bedroom to de-escalate the argument, he never touched her but was in fact about three feet away from her. When he reached out, she had already turned her body around to speak to him. That is when she yelled at him to not touch her and she scratched him. Mr. A. testified that despite Ms. S.B. being “pissed”, and yelling profanities at him, he was not upset. Ultimately she agreed to go into the bedroom without him touching her. Even after the scratch, Mr. A. maintained that he remained calm in the bedroom while Ms. S.B. was yelling. He did not raise his voice because he knew that would only make things worse. In the end, the children left and it was only after that Mr. A. noticed the scratch on his arm and took a picture of it. He agreed that the only person upset during this incident was Ms. S.B.

Analysis:

29Having considered the whole of the evidence, I do not find Mr. A.’s evidence credible that he was completely cool and nonplussed with Ms. S.B.’s behaviour, and spent the entire time trying to calm her down, even when she scratched him. His alleged nonchalance in the circumstances, even after what he described was a deep scratch and a destroyed family trip, is unbelievable. I do not find Mr. A. credible when he stated that he was three feet away when he reached out to Ms. S.B. and that Ms. S.B., having not been touched, unilaterally decided to scratch him. It does not make sense that following that action and while still in a rage, Ms. S.B. suddenly decided to capitulate to Mr. A.’s calm requests to discuss the issue further in the bedroom. There was no description by either party of Ms. S.B.’s inclination to calm down in that way. The only evidence is the opposite – that Ms. S.B.’s reactions to things were extreme, and that she was often the provocateur of the conflict.

30This is why any conscious or unconscious embellishment by Ms. S.B. motivated by the family law matter, or incomplete memories due to PTSD, does not raise reasonable doubt that Mr. A. touched her on this occasion. Those embellishments do not detract from the core allegations of the hallway fight nor the overall conclusion that some touching happened, however minimal. I believe Mr. A. when he testified that he was concerned about the children, and it makes sense that he would have pulled Ms. S.B. to another room to keep the yelling and swearing away from them. As with count #1, it is Mr. A.’s own evidence coupled with the core allegations that assure me beyond a reasonable doubt that he grabbed Ms. S.B.’s arm or wrist and committed the offence. He need not have held malice or anger in his heart to have done so. The elements of the offence are that Mr. A. intentionally touched Ms. S.B., without her consent, and knowing that she was not consenting. In the circumstances, I find that the Crown has proven all elements beyond a reasonable doubt.²

31I find Mr. A. guilty on Count #2.

Count #3 – the November 2021 incident

Ms. S.B.’s evidence

32Ms. S.B. testified that in the early hours of November 7, 2021, she and Mr. A. had returned from an evening of playing dominoes at her sister in law’s home. After checking in on their son who was still awake, the couple retreated to their bedroom. Ms. S.B. and Mr. A. began to be intimate. Ms. S.B. testified that Mr. A. retrieved an anal sex toy from a drawer. She stated that they had not used this particular one before. Mr. A. began “prepping” the anus with very slight penetration. Ms. S.B. testified that “it hurt me – so I – we stopped.” After they paused, Ms. S.B. testified that they discussed it and she told him to be careful. They recommenced a second time, this time with more penetration. She described that she was on her knees, kind of collapsed so that she was on the front of her body. Mr. A. was behind or, on his side but overtop. Ms. S.B. stated that it was very painful this second time and she told Mr. A. to stop, four times. According to Ms. S.B., it was not until she pushed him away with her hands and legs that it stopped. She testified, “..I had to say it four times, It was like he wasn’t hearing – it was like he wasn’t hearing me.” The whole interaction, from the first time they were intimate, was about 3 minutes.

33Afterwards Ms. S.B. was bleeding and in a lot of pain. She testified that she remembers screaming and worrying that her son would hear. She yelled, “What the fuck is wrong with you? I want to kick you in your face right now…” Ms. S.B. explained that this was because at this point, her legs and feet were close to his body. Ms. S.B. testified that Mr. A. apologized, said he was trying to pleasure her and did not mean to hurt her. He kept repeating this apology and got progressively angrier, causing her to go out to the balcony to calm down. Ms. S.B. stated that after she returned to the room, she told Mr. A. that she did not feel safe with him anymore. He then got mad, ripped on the light, said some degrading comments and left. After that, Ms. S.B. stated they never slept in the same bed. They rotated rooms in the home with the other two kids. They stopped doing things together on weekends and had separate time with the children.

34On cross-examination, Ms. S.B. equivocated on her positioning during the alleged assault. She said it was her side, her knees with her chest on the bed, they moved around, she could not quite remember but she thought she was on her back when she pushed him off. Ms. S.B. agreed that it was difficult to access the memories. She recalled his weight being on her but then was not sure if that was during the second act of anal penetration. She also agreed that the first act was not penetration and that during the break from using the toy they were “fooling around”. Ms. S.B. agreed that she consented to the second act but it then quickly went from pleasure to pain.

35On December 5, 2021, S.B. went to the police with her complaints. She testified that she reported it because she felt it was the only way to get out of the relationship. After the second incident she had threatened to report to the police if he did not give her space and time. This is when he left the home for three weeks. This time she also mentioned to Mr. A. that she would go to the police but testified that she did not feel safe to do so.

36On cross-examination, Ms. S.B. agreed that in mid-November she and Mr. A. had a meeting without the children at the Keg. It was an amicable meeting where they discussed separating and telling the children. Ms. S.B. also agreed that by December 1, 2021, she had applied to a rental property that she hoped to move into with her mother and daughter but knew that her application had been denied. She asked the officer when reporting, how she could get Mr. A. out of the house. Further on cross-examination, Ms. S.B. agreed that on December 5, 2021, she had met up with her friend Rebecca. She had advised Mr. A. that Rebecca was coming over for dinner. Ms. S.B. agreed that they had made a grocery list and hat Mr. A. was going to pick up the items and cook them dinner.

Mr. A.’s evidence

37To prove sexual assault, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. A. intentionally touched Ms. S.B. in a sexual way, without her consent, and knowing that she did not consent.

38Mr. A. agreed that in the early hours of November 7, 2021, he and Ms. S.B. had a sexual encounter involving an anal toy. There is no question that Mr. A. touched Ms. S.B. with this toy in a sexual way and that initially he had her consent to do so. Ms. S.B.’s testimony is that she withdrew her consent after the second act of touching but that Mr. A. continued to touch her until she pushed him away.

39Mr. A. largely agreed that after the first instance of touching with the sex toy, they paused because Ms. S.B. was complaining of discomfort. He agreed that she asked him to be careful, and they embarked on a second act of intimacy with the anal sex toy. Mr. A.’s evidence differs in that he said that on both occasion while using the sex toy, he was performing oral sex on Ms. S.B. – something Ms. S.B. vehemently denied in cross-examination. He said that she was on her back during the first occasion, and then her hips were propped up on a pillow on the second occasion when Ms. S.B. said the sexual assault occurred. Ms. S.B. agreed that she may have told the police about being on her back with a pillow under her but stood by her testimony at trial that they were moving around, she was on her knees and then side, but that she was not on her back at the time of the assault. Mr. A. testified that he did not hear her withdraw her consent and that the activity stopped abruptly after she climaxed. At that point her legs were tight around his head before she quickly pushed him away and was angry. He was shocked and bewildered as to why.

40He agreed that afterwards they lived more separately. The meeting at the Keg ended in a tearful embrace. He testified that Ms. S.B. got angry when they told the kids about the separation because Mr. A. suggested that the children could decide who they wanted to live with. This, he suggested, was the reason she went to the police and fabricated the sexual assault.

Analysis

41Based on the whole of the evidence, I believe Mr. A. when he said that he did not hear Ms. S.B. say stop and did not know that she withdrew her consent until she moved away from him. I accept that he was performing oral sex on her while using the anal toy. I find him credible and reliable in his description of the encounter and the surrounding circumstances. Though thoroughly questioned, there is no evidence to suggest that either party’s actions or reactions were influenced by alcohol.

42I do not find Ms. S.B. credible or reliable on the important surrounding circumstances of the sexual encounter or the encounter itself. She equivocated at trial on their positioning even though she had unequivocally told the police the that she was on her back and there was a pillow under her. This report to the police aligns with Mr. A.’s account. The report to the police was much closer in time than her testimony at trial. Ms. S.B. had no reasonable explanation for insisting that the trial version of events was the correct one.

43Overall, I find that Ms. S.B. either continued to have a patchy and unreliable memory, or consciously or subconsciously altered key parts of the narrative to bolster her attempt to get Mr. A. out of the home. I do accept Ms. S.B.’s evidence that she withdrew her consent by moving away but I am not sure that she said “no” four times to signal to Mr. A. that she was withdrawing her consent.

44Mr. A. agreed that Ms. S.B. very abruptly stopped the interaction and was angry. Clearly something was not right. Even if Ms. S.B. said “no” and was not, as Mr. A. testified, climaxing, I accept that Mr. A. was genuinely befuddled as to what had happened based in on his and Ms. S.B.’s account of his reaction afterwards. Mr. A. was alive to Ms. S.B.’s withdrawal of consent at other points in the interaction – he stopped the first time she said she was uncomfortable and stopped when Ms. S.B. moved away or pushed him away the second time. I have reasonable doubt whether Mr. A. knew that Ms. S.B. had withdrawn her consent prior to her physically moving away from him. If she said “no” four times, I have reasonable doubt that Mr. A. heard her given the physical position I accept he was in. For these reasons, I find him not guilty on Count #3.

Conclusion:

45I find Mr. A. guilty of assault on count #1.

46I find Mr. A. guilty of assault on count #2.

47I find Mr. A. not guilty of sexual assault on count #3.

48Mr. A. will return for sentencing on July 21, 2025 and I have encouraged counsel to work on a joint submission.

P.T. Sugunasiri J.

Footnotes

1. 1Mr. A. did not rely on the doctrine of de minimus non curat lex as part of his defence. It was only briefly discussed in response to a question that I raised. The defence did not raise any other defence other than arguing that Ms. S.B. was not reliable and credible, and had a family law motive to fabricate.
2. 2Mr. A. did not rely on the doctrine of de minimus non curat lex as part of his defence. It was only briefly discussed in response to a question that I raised. The defence did not raise any other defence other than arguing that Ms. S.B. was not reliable and credible, and had a family law motive to fabricate.