Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-40000588-0000 Date: 2025-08-29

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King – and – M.T.

Counsel: V. Gallegos, for the Crown M. Worsoff, for M.T.

Heard: August 18-21, 2025

Reasons for Judgment

SCHRECK J.:

I. Introduction

[1] In 2018, R.S., who was nine years old at the time, and her father, M.T., immigrated to Canada. They settled in Toronto and lived for a time with R.S.'s step-mother and her two young half-brothers, and then alone together after M.T.'s relationship with the step-mother ended. Between 2018 and 2023, M.T. worked very long hours as an Uber and food delivery driver. According to R.S., M.T. provided her with everything she needed, including clothes, jewelry, a mobile phone, and tuition at a private school. But she also alleges that he repeatedly sexually abused her.

[2] R.S. first made her allegations against M.T. to the police in April 2023 and as a result, he was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching. He elected to have a trial in this court without a jury. R.S. repeated her allegations in her testimony at trial. M.T. testified and unequivocally denied any type of sexual contact with his daughter.

[3] Like many trials involving offences of this nature, the central issue is the credibility of the witnesses. R.S. and M.T. cannot both be telling the truth. Assessing the credibility of witnesses is not an easy task. The following reasons explain how I have conducted that assessment and the conclusion that I have reached.

II. Evidence

A. Crown Evidence

(i) Background

[4] R.S. was the sole Crown witness at trial. In addition to her testimony, the Crown relied on a video statement she gave to D.C. Stephanie Danson on April 20, 2023, which was admitted on consent pursuant to s. 715.1(1) of the Criminal Code. R.S. was 16 years old at the time of her testimony and 14 years old at the time she gave her statement.

[5] In 2018, R.S. came to Canada from a country in Africa together with her brother, his daughter, her step-mother and her two young step-brothers. Her father, M.T., joined them about a month or two later.

[6] After arriving in Canada, the entire family lived in a two-bedroom apartment on Weston Road in Toronto, except for R.S.'s brother and niece, who lived elsewhere. According to R.S., M.T. and her step-mother did not get along and often argued. R.S.'s step-mother told her that she did not want to sleep in the same room as M.T. and preferred to sleep with her sons, so R.S. would have to sleep in the same room as her father. M.T. agreed with this arrangement. There was only one bed in M.T.'s bedroom, which he and R.S. shared.

(ii) Alleged Sexual Contact at the First Apartment

[7] R.S. testified that after she began sharing a bed with M.T., he began to tell her to touch and caress his penis and he would touch her "boobs." He never ejaculated during these incidents. The sexual activity would usually end when R.S. had to go to the bathroom or leave the room for some other reason. This was the only sexual activity that occurred at the Weston Road address.

[8] According to R.S., M.T. told her that it was okay to do this because he was her father and it was a "bonding thing" and "when you're older it's, like, for future purposes, like, for your husband." Whenever R.S. resisted, M.T. became aggressive. When R.S. was in Grade 7, her teacher told the class that it was inappropriate for children to have sexual contact with their parents or other adults. She told M.T. about this and he responded, "No, this is just for, like, the white people. Like, in our culture, we, we do this, like, the smart parents" and that "Indians also do it as well."

[9] R.S. did not have a good relationship with her step-mother. She believed that her step-mother was aware of the sexual contact between her and M.T. because she would "hint" comments to that effect. When R.S.'s step-mother was upset with her, she would say things like, "Ok, like, go fuck your dad."

(iii) Alleged Sexual Contact at the Second Apartment

(a) Escalation of the Sexual Abuse

[10] At some point in 2019 or 2020, the family moved to a three-bedroom apartment on Ridelle Avenue. R.S.'s step-mother continued to share a room with her sons and R.S. and M.T. each had their own bedrooms. A few months after they moved, R.S.'s step-mother and half-brothers moved out.

[11] According to R.S., the sexual abuse became worse after her step-mother left. M.T. would call her into his bedroom and tell her to remove her clothes. He began to put his penis on, but not in, her vagina and would "caress" her vagina with his penis. This usually continued until M.T. ejaculated, which he did either on her stomach or into a tissue. He told her that this was a "father and daughter bonding thing."

(b) Shaving of Pubic Hair

[12] R.S. also described occasions when M.T. shaved her pubic hair using an electric shaver. He told her that this was something he had to do for her until she reached the age of 15. R.S. testified that this happened from time to time after M.T. asked to look at her pubic hair to see how much it had grown.

(c) Fellatio

[13] On one occasion, M.T. told R.S. to get on her knees and suck his penis. She did so for about a minute, after which she said, "I don't wanna do this" and left the room. This happened only once.

(d) Attempted Sexual Intercourse

[14] On another occasion about a year before R.S. gave her statement, M.T. tried to penetrate R.S.'s vagina with his penis. She screamed, told him it was hurting her and asked him to stop. M.T. stopped, got off the bed, and said, "Oh, I'm sorry."

[15] M.T. never touched R.S. with his penis after the attempted penetration. However, he asked her to take showers with him every Saturday during which they would wash one another. M.T. said that this was a "bonding thing." He also continued to touch her "boobs" on occasion and was "always talking about sexual stuff."

(iv) Photographs and Videos

[16] R.S. testified that M.T. showed her pornographic videos depicting sexual activity between fathers and daughters and said, "You see, this is what they do and …. it's, like, normal and everything."

[17] In her statement, R.S. said that M.T. showed her pictures and videos on his phone of women's vaginas and people involved in sexual activity in different positions. He told her that he had received these from women friends of his, and R.S. recognized one of the women. M.T. also showed her videos depicting women who had had plastic surgery and had "big butts and stuff," as well as workout videos. The purpose of these was to get her to develop a particular body shape.

[18] R.S. told D.C. Danson that she still had photographs and videos that her father had sent her. It is not clear in the statement whether she was referring to the material with sexual content, the material depicting plastic surgery, or the workout videos. At trial, R.S. stated that M.T. showed her videos with sexual content but did not send them to her, although he did send her some videos, the nature of which was unclear.

[19] At the time she gave her statement, D.C. Danson asked R.S. to send her the photographs and videos she has received from M.T. and she agreed to do so. R.S. testified that she knew D.C. Danson's e-mail address and did send messages she received from M.T. to her. D.C. Danson testified that she never received any photographs or videos from R.S. She never followed up on this.

(v) R.S.'s Evidence About Frequency and Timing of the Sexual Incidents

[20] During her statement, R.S. said that the sexual contact on Weston Road "happened, like, every, like, once in, like, two weeks, like, it, like, it was a daily basis…." Later in her statement, she said:

Like, that would happen every single time he would tell me to come to the bed or, like, you know, when he's sleeping or laying down, and then, yeah, he would ask me to do it.

[21] Later in her statement, R.S. was asked whether the sexual contact took place one or two times a month, to which she replied, "Yeah, no, a week." During her testimony at the preliminary inquiry in September 2024, R.S. stated that the sexual activity occurred once or twice a month. At trial, she said that it happened "once or twice a week, every other week," that is, two to four times a month.

[22] When asked during her police interview about the time of day when the sexual activity typically occurred, R.S. said, "I would say, like, evening towards the night …. Sometimes, sometimes in the afternoon as well." At trial, she testified that it happened during the week and on weekends. At the preliminary inquiry, she said that it only happened on weekends, never on weekdays. According to R.S., she had not understood the questions she was asked about this at the preliminary inquiry.

(vi) Circumstances Surrounding Disclosure of the Allegations

(a) The First Statement to the Police

[23] R.S. agreed that M.T. worked very long hours and provided her with everything she needed, including a mobile phone, a laptop computer, quality clothing, a credit card and tuition to attend a private school. However, he was also a strict disciplinarian who "pushed her too hard," which caused her to be upset with him as she wanted more freedom. R.S. was initially a good student, but at some point her grades began to fall, which upset M.T.

[24] At around this time, in February 2023, R.S. made a statement to the police that resulted in an investigation of M.T. The subject matter of the statement was not introduced into evidence, but it is an agreed fact that it did not include any allegations of a sexual nature.[^1] R.S. moved out of the apartment at this time and generally stopped having contact with M.T.[^2]

[25] Some time after giving her statement in February, R.S. sent an e-mail to D.C. Danson stating that she did not want her father to be charged with an offence because there were "other solutions" and because "[his] intentions aren't bad he just needs to be educated." D.C. Danson responded by explaining to R.S. that whether or not charges were laid was not for her to decide.

(b) The Second Statement

[26] By April 2023, R.S. was living with her brother in another city. On April 19, 2023, she gave a statement to members of the police service in that city, who then advised her to contact D.C. Danson. The following day, D.C. Danson took the statement which was admitted at trial.

[27] D.C. Danson asked R.S. why she had not mentioned the sexual contact when they spoke in February 2023. R.S. responded as follows:

Yeah, so at the time I was really scared and I wasn't sure, like, if I would, if I was, um, gonna go back to [M.T.] and, um, um, like, I just didn't feel, like, ready and comfortable to, to come forward with, with what happened. And, yeah, I was unsure and there was a lot going through my mind and I said, um, I don't know, like, I didn't, I wasn't really planning to talk about it, like, I just, uh, I told my brother because it's just, like, at this point, like, I know that I'm probably not, never gonna go back to my dad. And so that's why I was, like, I'm, like, I should probably tell my brother about it.

After R.S. told her brother, he advised her to tell the police.

B. Defence Evidence

(i) M.T.'s Work Schedule

[28] M.T. testified that he came to Canada in 2018 to flee political persecution. He arrived here with his spouse and four of his children, including R.S. and her brother. He has five other children in Africa whom he supports financially. M.T. does not have a criminal record in Canada or elsewhere. He unequivocally denied ever having any type of sexual contact with his daughter.

[29] M.T. was not able to bring any assets with him when he came to Canada, so he obtained work as an Uber driver. Uber company policy prevented him from working for more than 12 hours, so he also obtained work as a delivery person for the food delivery applications Doordash and Skip the Dishes. During his examination in-chief, M.T. said that he worked for Uber for 12 hours each day and thereafter for three, four or more hours for each of the food delivery companies, for a total of 20 or 21 hours per day. In cross-examination, he said that this was in fact an understatement and that he always worked more than 21 hours a day. He never took a day off or had a vacation.

[30] M.T. testified that he would usually get home from work at around 4:00 a.m. or even 5:00 a.m., have a meal and then go to sleep. While his spouse was living with him, she would sleep in the bed with him. M.T. testified that while living on Ridelle Avenue (which is near Eglinton Avenue West and Allen Road) he would get up at 8:00 a.m. to take R.S. to her school in downtown Toronto and drop her off at 8:15 a.m.[^3] At one point in his testimony, M.T. stated that he slept two to three hours per day every day.

(ii) The Sleeping Arrangements

[31] According to M.T., at the Weston Road address he and his spouse shared a bedroom and R.S. and her brothers shared the other bedroom. At the Ridelle Avenue address, he shared a bedroom with his spouse, R.S. had her own bedroom and his sons shared the third bedroom. After his spouse and sons moved out, he and R.S. each had their own bedrooms and the third bedroom was unoccupied.

(iii) Conflict With R.S. and Her Departure From the Home

[32] M.T. testified that R.S. had historically been a very good student and was always at the top of her class. However, beginning in January 2023, she began to have problems in school, including skipping classes, fighting with teachers and other students, and committing plagiarism. The teachers and the school principal contacted him to tell him about these things, but when he confronted R.S., she insisted that the teachers were lying, which M.T. did not believe.

[33] According to M.T., when he learned about R.S.'s behaviour at school he wanted to "put her on time out" and take away her phone and other possessions she valued, but the school principal convinced him not to do so. The principal proposed that R.S. be given two weeks to do some additional schoolwork to make up for the assignments she had plagiarized. R.S. promised that she would complete the assignment, so M.T. did not take her possessions away.

[34] In February 2023, M.T. learned that R.S. had not completed the extra assignment and her report card indicated that she was not doing well in school. M.T. told R.S. that because of this, he would take away her phone and other possessions. R.S. was "not happy about this" and pleaded with M.T. to forgive her and let her keep her things, but he refused. R.S. then left the apartment before M.T. could take her to school. He tried to call her throughout the day, but she did not answer.

[35] Later the same day, M.T. received a call from somebody at the Children's Aid Society ("CAS") who informed him that R.S. did not want to come home and wished to live with her brother. He had no further contact with her after that.

[36] R.S. stopped living with M.T. after February 2023. He did not have any contact with her, although he did learn that the CAS was involved and that there would be family court proceedings.

(iv) Allegations and Charges

[37] In April 2023, M.T. was contacted by the police and told to attend the police station. When he did so, he was advised that he was being charged with sexual offences based on allegations made by R.S., which he viewed as "sick accusations" that were "disgusting to even hear." This was the first time M.T. was aware that R.S. had made any allegations. In his testimony, he emphatically denied committing any of the offences alleged by R.S. or ever having any sexual or inappropriate contact with her at any time.

(v) The "Apology"

[38] M.T. testified that in June 2023, after he was charged, he received a message on the WhatsApp application on his phone from a number belonging to R.S., which was listed in his phone contact list as "My daughter [R.]." The message read as follows:

Dear dad … I'm writing this letter as an apology for my unessential behavior. I don't really know where to start, I have so much to say but don't know how to begin. I know it's been hard for you when I don't act right, the worry I have put you through, the pain. This upsetting mess has been so hard for you to put up with. I've lied and hurt you so badly. And I can never take back what I did as much as I wish I could turn the clock backwards and make the right decisions. I'm not perfect, I that that's not a good excuse but when I lie to you I feel guilty. And I don't get a prize for lying I just get the effect from it. I think the reason people lie is because they don't want the truth to come out. I cried because I realized I brought out the worst in you. In my heart I know that I'm a good daughter. I do have good intentions, I do not go about them in the right way.

M.T. testified that he did not respond to this message.

[39] A screenshot of the message was tendered as an exhibit at trial. Although the date of June 2, 2023 appears on the screenshot, M.T. testified that this was the date on which he forwarded the message to someone else and not the date on which he received it.

[40] R.S. was shown a copy of the screenshot of the message during cross-examination. She denied writing it and advanced the theory that M.T. has written it and sent it to himself.

III. Analysis

A. Overview -- The Burden of Proof

[41] M.T. is presumed innocent of the charges against him and cannot be convicted unless the Crown proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no onus on M.T. to prove anything, least of all his innocence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard. It is far higher than proof of likely or probable guilt.

[42] R.S. testified that M.T. had repeated sexual contact with her on a regular basis. M.T. denied that any such contact ever took place. There is no issue that if R.S.'s evidence with respect to the sexual contact is accepted beyond a reasonable doubt, the offences in the indictment will have been proven. If M.T.'s evidence is accepted, or if it raises a reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal on all counts. In other words, this case turns entirely on an assessment of the credibility and the reliability of the witnesses.

[43] It is well established that cases of this nature cannot be resolved by the trier of fact simply determining which version of events is preferable. The correct approach to take in cases like this has been expressed in various ways. One well-known articulation is that set out in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, at para. 28. The trier of fact should first determine whether he or she believes the accused's version of events when considered in the context of the evidence as a whole. If so, he is entitled to an acquittal. If not, the trier of fact should consider whether the accused's evidence, although not believed, leaves the trier of fact with a reasonable doubt. If so, he is again entitled to an acquittal. If not, the trier of fact must still consider whether the remaining evidence proves the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Then, and only then, can there be a conviction.

[44] The W.(D.) approach has been the subject of some criticism: R. v. Ryon, 2019 ABCA 36, 84 Alta. L.R. (6th) 1, at paras. 20-54; R. v. Achuil, 2019 ABCA 299, 92 Alta L.R. (6th) 270, at paras. 17-18. Clearly, the approach in W.(D.) is not intended to be a "magic incantation" that must be followed word-for-word: R. v. J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 152, at para. 13. Nor must the steps set out in W.(D.) necessarily be performed in any specific order: R. v. J.M., 2018 ONSC 344, at paras. 4-20.

[45] Whatever approach is taken, the important points to keep in mind are that the burden of proof is always on the Crown and a trier of fact has three options with respect to exculpatory evidence: he or she can reject it, accept it, or be unsure whether the evidence is true or false: see R. v. L.K, 2020 ONCA 262, at paras.18-19. Either of the latter two options leads to a verdict of not guilty. Even if the exculpatory evidence is rejected, a finding of guilt can only occur if the evidence that the trier of fact does accept proves the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

[46] While I intend to generally follow the W.(D.) framework, for reasons that will hopefully become apparent, I will only do so after first considering the narrow factual issues arising from the "apology" message.

B. The "Apology" Message

(i) The Significance of the Evidence

[47] As outlined earlier, M.T. testified that he received a text message from R.S.'s number in June 2023 in which the author of the message makes an apology to a person identified as "dad." R.S. denied writing or sending the message. Counsel for M.T. submits that I should find that R.S. did send the message and that it is essentially a recantation of her allegations. Crown counsel submits that I should accept R.S.'s denial that she wrote the message and find that M.T. in fact authored it himself.

[48] The importance of this evidence is obvious. If R.S. did send it and if it is essentially a recantation, this would seriously undermine the Crown's case. Moreover, R.S.'s denial of having written it could significantly affect her credibility. On the other hand, if M.T. wrote the message himself and falsely claimed otherwise, this would seriously undermine his credibility as well as eliminate a significant aspect of the defence. For reasons I will explain, I do not wholly accept either party's position on this issue.

(ii) Findings

[49] In my view, the suggestion that M.T. wrote the message and then sent it to himself is implausible. He does not appear to have the sophistication or the technological skill required to execute such a deception, nor is his ability to write in English likely good enough for him to do so. Furthermore, as discussed below, the message is not at all clear. If M.T. was going to fabricate a recantation, one would expect that it would contain an unequivocal statement that the allegations were false.

[50] The message appears to come from the number described in M.T.'s contacts as that belonging to R.S., and the message is addressed to the author's "dad." I accept that R.S. wrote the message. I will consider the effect of this finding and R.S.'s denial of having written the message when I consider her credibility.

[51] Although I accept that R.S. wrote the message, I do not accept that it was a recantation of her allegations of sexual abuse or that she sent it after making her statement to the police in April 2023. The message makes no mention of sexual abuse allegations. When its contents are read carefully, the words suggest that the message was about something else. I draw this conclusion for several reasons.

[52] First, in the message, R.S. states that she "can never take back what I did as much as I wish I could turn the clock backwards and make the right decisions." This is simply not true if the message is about false sexual abuse allegations. It would have been open to R.S. to contact the police and retract her allegations, yet there is no evidence that she at any time suggested that her allegations were untrue. Defence counsel points out that R.S. was subject to being prosecuted for public mischief if she recanted her allegations. This may be true, this does not mean that she could not "take back what I did," only that she had reasons for choosing not to do so. Furthermore, it would have been apparent to R.S., who appears to be an intelligent and astute young person, that the consequences to her for recanting her allegations would be less than the consequences to M.T. if he was convicted based on false allegations.

[53] Second, there is no evidence that R.S. took any other steps towards recanting her allegation. The message she sent to D.C. Danson after her first statement shows that she was capable of expressing her views about whether her father should be prosecuted.

[54] Third, in the message, R.S. states that she feels guilty "when I lie to you." If the message was about the sexual abuse allegations, the lie was not to M.T. but to the police.

[55] Fourth, R.S. stated "I think the reason people lie is because they don't want the truth to come out." This make little sense if the lie being referred to was the sexual abuse allegations. What "truth" would R.S. be wanting not to "come out" by making such false allegations?

[56] Fifth, R.S. states that she "cried because I realized I brought out the worst in you." This makes little sense in the context of false allegations as there is no evidence that M.T. did anything inappropriate as a result of being charged with these offences.

[57] In my view, the contents of the message fit far better with it being an apology for R.S.'s misbehaviour in school and the conflicts she was having with her father at the beginning of 2023. It is clear from the evidence of both witnesses that M.T. was very upset and worried by R.S.'s behavior, which had resulted in consequences R.S. could not "take back," such as poor grades and likely negative entries in her school records. According to M.T., R.S. had lied to him by falsely stating that her teachers were lying about her skipping school, which was undoubtedly a "truth" that she did not want to "come out." M.T.'s reaction to R.S.'s conduct was to punish her by taking her possessions. Furthermore, during this period R.S. made allegations against M.T. of a non-sexual nature, the details of which are unknown. All of this explains why R.S. "realized I brought out the worst in you."

[58] If the message is about R.S.'s misbehaviour at school, then she would have sent it while these issues were ongoing in January 2023, not in June 2023. Whether or not she sent it in January, I find that she sent it at some time prior to April 2023. I will return to this finding and its effect when I consider M.T.'s credibility.

C. M.T.'s Evidence

(i) Overview

[59] As noted, M.T. testified and denied committing the offences. He portrayed himself as a very hard-working father who tried to give his daughter everything she could ask for. There are two aspects of M.T.'s evidence which are causes for concern.

(ii) M.T.'s Evidence About His Work Schedule

[60] First, while I accept that M.T. likely worked very long hours at several different jobs, his claim that he worked 20 or 21 hours every day on only two or three hours of sleep is implausible. He claimed that he worked such long hours every day and "never had a day off." While he may have worked such long hours on such little sleep for some periods, the gist of his evidence was that this was essentially his schedule throughout the period covered in the indictment, which is about five years.

[61] Furthermore, some aspects of M.T.'s testimony about his daily schedule were inconsistent. For example, at one point he testified that he worked from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. the following day, but later claimed that he woke up at 8:00 a.m. every day to drive his daughter to school. Later, he said that he woke up at 7:45 a.m.

[62] Considering his evidence as a whole, it is clear that M.T.'s exaggerations about the time he spent working are not simply the result of a faulty memory. Rather, they are clearly designed to minimize the opportunity he would have had to be alone with R.S. It was part of an attempt to mislead the court.

(iii) The "Apology" Message

[63] The second cause for concern relates to the apology message. For the reasons explained earlier, I find that the message was not sent in June 2023 in relation to the sexual abuse allegations, but was sent some time earlier in relation to something different and likely related to the difficulties R.S. was having in school at the beginning of 2023.

[64] It follows from these findings that M.T.'s claim that he received the apology in June 2023 cannot be true. He must have received it much earlier than that and before R.S. first made her allegations of sexual abuse in April 2023. His claim that he received it in June is an attempt to repurpose an unrelated apology in order to undermine R.S.'s allegations. Like the exaggerations about his work schedule, this was part of an attempt to mislead the court.

(iv) Conclusion

[65] Having concluded that M.T. gave deliberately misleading testimony, I cannot accept his evidence, nor does it leave me with a reasonable doubt.

[66] This does not end the matter. Rejection of the defence evidence does not relieve the Crown of the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown relies on R.S.'s testimony to do so, and it is to her evidence that I now turn.

D. R.S.'s Evidence

(i) Overview -- Assessing the Evidence of Children

[67] Counsel for M.T. made several submissions about R.S.'s evidence and why it should not be relied on. I will consider each in turn. In doing so, I must have regard for R.S.'s age at the time she gave her evidence as well as at the time of the events she was testifying about.

[68] R.S. was 16 years old when she testified and she described events that occurred when she was as young as nine years old. It is well established that the evidence of children cannot always be assessed in the same manner as that of adults: R. v. B.(G.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30, at pp. 54-55. In particular, "the presence of inconsistencies, particularly as to peripheral matters such as time and location, should be considered in the context of the age of the witness at the time of the events to which she is testifying": R. v. W.(R.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122, at p. 134. This does not mean, however, that the burden of proof is any lower in cases involving child witnesses or that their evidence should not be carefully scrutinized: B.(G.), at p. 55; W.(R.), at p. 134.

(ii) The iCloud Account

[69] Many of the submissions and much of the evidence of both R.S. and M.T. related to M.T.'s "iCloud" account, to which R.S. had access on the mobile phone M.T. had given her, and whether she accessed that account, made online purchases through it, or alterations to it such as changing the password. Counsel ultimately conceded during submissions that this evidence had little significance. R.S. clearly had access to the account, the username of which was M.T.'s e-mail address, and she changed the password and other account information on it at some point. She did not deny this, nor did her doing so prejudice M.T. in any way. While she made at least one purchase using the account, it appears that she did so using a credit card in her own name.

(iii) Inconsistencies Respecting Frequency and Timing

[70] As counsel pointed out and as outlined earlier, there were inconsistencies in R.S.'s evidence at trial and the preliminary inquiry as well as her statement respecting the frequency of the sexual incidents she testified about and the time of day at which they occurred. At various points, she described the sexual incidents as occurring once every two weeks, one or two times a month, one or two times a week, once or twice a week every other week, and on a "daily basis." At the preliminary inquiry, she said that the incidents only happened on weekends but at trial said that they happened during the week as well.

[71] While there are clearly inconsistencies in R.S.'s evidence on this issue, there are several reasons why they do not undermine her credibility. First, as noted earlier, R.S. was testifying about events that occurred while she was a child and the inconsistencies must be considered in that context. Second, she testified that she had misunderstood some of the questions put to her at the preliminary inquiry, and I accept her evidence in that regard. Third, while she did use the term "daily basis," she explained in her evidence that she used that term to mean "often" rather than literally. Having considered all of her evidence, I do not find that the inconsistencies result from R.S.'s failure to keep a false account straight, nor do they indicate that her evidence about the sexual contact was unreliable.

(iv) Motive to Fabricate

[72] It is the defence position that R.S. fabricated her allegations of sexual abuse in retaliation for M.T.'s decision to take away her phone and other valuable belongings as a disciplinary measure and because he was generally too strict and demanding. I do not accept this submission.

[73] Prior to making her allegations of sexual abuse in April 2023, R.S. had made other allegations of a non-sexual nature against M.T. in February. While there is no evidence as to whether M.T. was ultimately charged with any offences as a result of these allegations, they did result in R.S. leaving the home and the involvement of the CAS. R.S. took the phone with her when she left. Although it appears that M.T. cancelled the account linked to the phone, it was never returned to him. According to M.T., R.S. left her laptop computer at his home after breaking it. There is no evidence as to what other possessions she took with her.

[74] In these circumstances, R.S. had little to gain by making additional allegations against M.T. in April 2023. She was no longer subject to M.T.'s strict discipline, she still had the mobile phone and the laptop computer was already broken.

[75] Although I do not accept that R.S. had the motive to fabricate ascribed to her by the defence, I caution myself that an absence of evidence of a motive to fabricate does not mean that no such motive existed: R. v. Ignacio, 2021 ONCA 69, 400 C.C.C. (3d) 343, at para. 29; R. v. John, 2017 ONCA 622, 350 C.C.C. (3d) 397, at para. 97. A witness's motives are not always apparent. Furthermore, there is no onus on a defendant to demonstrate that a complainant has a motive to fabricate and the absence of such a motive does mean that the witness is telling the truth: R. v. Gerrard, 2022 SCC 13, 468 D.L.R. (4th) 389, at para. 4; R. v. Polemidiotis, 2024 ONCA 905, 174 O.R. (3d) 359, at para. 61; R. v. Batte (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.), at para. 120-121.

[76] I was required to consider the motive to fabricate alleged by the defence and have concluded that it does not exist in this case: R. v. S.R., 2022 ONCA 192, 79 C.R. (7th) 162, at para. 30; Ignacio, at para. 35. While it is entirely possible that R.S. had some other motive to fabricate her allegations, there is no evidence of any such motive and this is a factor that I can and do consider in assessing her credibility, although I recognize that it is but one factor and not dispositive: Ignacio, at paras. 37-59; Polemidiotis, at para. 62.

(v) Delayed Disclosure

[77] Although R.S. gave a statement to the police in February 2023, she made no mention of any sexual abuse by M.T. at that time or for several months. It is well established that there are many reasons why a complainant may delay disclosing sexual assault allegations and such delays generally do not impact an assessment of the complainant's credibility, although they may be relevant when considered with other circumstances depending on the facts of the case: R. v. D.D., 2000 SCC 43, [2000] 2 S.C.R 275, at para. 65; R. v. S.G., 2022 ONCA 727, 85 C.R. (7th) 420, at para. 43.

[78] As described earlier, R.S. explained that she did not disclose her allegations earlier because she was scared and unsure whether she would be returning to live with M.T. I accept her explanation.

(vi) Photographs and Videos

[79] During her police interview, D.C. Danson asked R.S. to forward photographs and videos on her phone which she had received from her father. While the exact nature of the photographs and videos is unclear, they may have provided some independent corroboration of R.S.'s testimony. However, although R.S. testified that she sent them, D.C. Danson never received them.

[80] I am not prepared to conclude that R.S. was lying about forwarding the material because D.C. Danson did not receive them. There may be many reasons why an attempt to transmit them was unsuccessful. Unfortunately, and inexplicably, D.C. Danson never followed up on her request for the material.

(vii) The "Apology" Message

[81] As outlined earlier, I find that the apology message was authored by R.S., although not in relation to her sexual abuse allegations. While R.S. denied authoring the message, she was asked about it in the context of her allegations of sexual abuse and never asked whether she had written it earlier in relation to a different matter. In these circumstances, R.S.'s denial of having written it is understandable. I am satisfied that her denial of having done so, while inaccurate, was not a deliberate falsehood.

(viii) Conclusion

[82] I have considered and ultimately rejected several reasons the defence submitted R.S.'s evidence should not be accepted. However, the burden of proof is on the Crown and I caution myself that there is no onus on the defence to demonstrate that R.S.'s evidence was not credible or reliable and the defence's failure to do so does not mean that her evidence must be accepted.

[83] R.S.'s overall account was plausible and consistent with respect to salient matters. She was responsive to questions during her testimony and readily acknowledged errors in her account when they were pointed out to her. She made no attempt to downplay evidence that put her in a negative light. Overall, I find that she was a credible witness and I accept her evidence. Based on that evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that M.T. committed the offences set out in the indictment.

IV. Disposition

[84] M.T. is found guilty on Counts 1, 2 and 3.

Justice A. Schreck

Released: August 29, 2025

Footnotes

[^1]: An application by the Crown to adduce evidence of prior discreditable conduct was heard in advance of trial by another judge of this court and dismissed.

[^2]: Whether there was any further contact is in dispute, as explained later in these reasons.

[^3]: The specific address of the school was identified but is not mentioned here to protect the privacy of the witnesses.