Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 22-11403448

Date: 2025-11-03

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

His Majesty the King

and

Don Meredith (Accused)

Counsel:

Francois Dulude and Rad Khorshid, for the Crown

Paul Lewandowski, for the Accused

Heard: December 2-6, 9-13, 2024; January 27; May 12-16, 22-23, 2025; oral decision given October 29, 2025

Publication Ban

Subject to any further Order by a court of competent jurisdiction, an Order has been made in this proceeding directing that the identity of the complainant and any information that could disclose such identity shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Reasons for Decision

Somji J.

I. Overview

[1] The accused Don Meredith is charged with sexual assault and criminal harassment of the complainant I.C between September 2013 and March 2014. During the period of the alleged offences, Mr. Meredith was a sitting Canadian Senator and I.C was his executive assistant.

[2] I.C. alleges that during the six-month period that she worked for Mr. Meredith, he routinely hugged, kissed, and touched her buttocks and breasts at the Senate office. In addition, she describes four incidents that occurred outside the office. One incident occurred during a work trip to Toronto in November 2013. She alleges Mr. Meredith came up to her hotel room, started kissing and touching her under clothing, and then stopped when she asked him if he had ever cheated on his wife. I.C. alleges that on this same day, there was a second incident. She went out for dinner with Mr. and Ms. Meredith, and during the dinner, Mr. Meredith stretched his legs under the table and fondled I.C.'s legs. I.C. alleges there was a third incident during a virtual meeting when Mr. Meredith asked her to take her top off. I.C. describes a fourth incident in late November 2013 when Mr. Meredith asked her to drop off documents at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa. When she went to his hotel room, she alleges he exposed his penis to her. Mr. Meredith denies all the allegations.

[3] I.C. alleges that Mr. Meredith made various remarks to her during her employment that made her feel she was at risk of losing her job. The Crown argues that the alleged sexual misconduct when coupled with inappropriate remarks caused I.C. to fear for her psychological safety resulting in criminal harassment. Mr. Meredith denies making the statements. While Mr. Meredith acknowledges that he provided I.C. job-related directives, he denies he ever threatened her physical or psychological safety.

[4] The trial commenced on December 2, 2024. In addition to I.C., the Crown called two witnesses: C.S. a colleague of I.C. at the time and R.F., a Senate security guard. There were multiple trial adjournments due to I.C.'s inability to continue with her testimony. It was not always clear if her difficulties were due to the stressful nature of the proceedings or because her mother was ill. At one point, the trial was adjourned for several months so I.C. could be with her mom while she was in palliative care.

[5] Defence called Mr. Meredith and his wife Ms. Meredith as witnesses.

[6] The issue at trial is whether the Crown has proven the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt. All legislative references are to the Criminal Code unless otherwise stated.

II. Applicable Legal Principles

[7] The test in a criminal trial is not which side, Crown or defence, I believe more but whether the Crown has proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

[8] In this case, the accused is charged with sexual assault and criminal harassment. The requisite elements of these offences are addressed below.

[9] The accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until the Crown has proven each of the elements of the offence(s) charged beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden does not shift.

[10] The accused has testified in this case. In determining whether the elements of the offences have been established, I must consider the credibility and reliability of the witness evidence against the totality of the evidence and in accordance with the legal framework set out in R v W(D), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. Below, I set out the principles from W (D).

[11] The law is clear that I cannot decide the case by determining which conflicting version of events is preferred. I must consider the evidence of the complainant and the accused in the context of the whole of the evidence.

[12] In determining the accused's guilt or innocence with respect to all charges, I must assess the credibility and reliability of the witnesses before me. Credibility deals with the honesty or veracity of a witness's testimony. In other words, is the witness trying to tell the truth?

[13] Reliability has to do with the accuracy of a witness's testimony, more precisely whether the witness was able to observe, recall and recount events accurately? A witness who is not credible cannot give reliable evidence. However, a witness who is credible might still give unreliable evidence because of frailties in their ability to accurately observe, recall and recount events accurately: R v HC, 2009 ONCA 56 at para 41; R v DB, 2021 ONSC 8448 at para 16.

[14] During a witness's testimony, inconsistencies may arise. A trial judge need not resolve every inconsistency in a witness's evidence, particularly where the core of their allegations is unaffected by the inconsistency: R v RA, 2017 ONCA 714 at paras 45; aff'd 2018 SCC 13; R v DB at paras 16-23. On the other hand, where an inconsistency involves something material about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken, the inconsistency may demonstrate a carelessness with the truth about which the trier of fact should be concerned: R v AM, 2014 ONCA 769 at para 13.

[15] Demeanor is a proper consideration in the evaluation of a witness's credibility but must not be treated as a controlling factor in assessing the credibility and reliability of a witness's evidence: R v OM, 2014 ONCA 503 at paras 33-35; R v EH, 2020 ONCA 405 at para 91.

[16] Ultimately, a judge must demonstrate that they have turned their mind to the relevant factors that go to the believability of the evidence in the factual context of the case, including truthfulness and accuracy concerns: R v GF, 2021 SCC 20 at para 82.

III. Admissions

[17] At the outset of trial, defence admitted dates, jurisdiction, and identity of Mr. Meredith as the person charged. Defence also made the following relevant admissions:

1. Mr. Meredith was a Senator for the Senate of Canada between December 18, 2010, and May 19, 2017.

2. On June 17, 2014, the Toronto Star published an article relating to Mr. Meredith and another individual (not I.C.).

3. On March 9, 2017, the Senate Ethics Committee released an Inquiry Report relating to Mr. Meredith and the same individual.

IV. Analysis

A. The Offences

[18] Mr. Meredith is charged with the following sexual offences contrary to s. 271:

• Count 2: sexual assault between September 1, 2013, and March 15, 2014
• Count 3: sexual assault on or about November 10, 2013
• Count 4: sexual assault between November 15, 2013, and December 15, 2013

[19] The requisite elements of the offence of sexual assault are as follows:

a. Touching which is met by the direct or indirect application of force on another person;

b. That the touching is of a sexual nature;

c. That there was an intention to touch; and

d. The accused knew the complainant was not consenting or was reckless or willfully blind as to the absence of consent.

R v GF, 2021 SCC 20 at para 25.

[20] In this case, if I find the touching occurred as described by the complainant, it is not disputed that the touching was of a sexual nature and non-consensual.

[21] In addition, Mr. Meredith is charged with criminal harassment of the complainant between September 1, 2013, and March 15, 2014, contrary to s. 264(3) (Count 1). The charge states that Mr. Meredith harassed or was reckless as to whether he harassed the complainant and engaged in threatening conduct directed at the complainant and which caused her to reasonably fear for her personal safety.

[22] The Crown must prove the following elements to establish criminal harassment pursuant s. 264(1):

a. The accused engaged in conduct set out in ss. 264(2)(a) to (d). To paraphrase, this conduct includes:

• (a) repeatedly following a person;
• (b) repeatedly communicating with them;
• (c) besetting or watching their home or workplace; or
• (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the complainant.

b. The victim was harassed.

c. The accused knew that the victim was harassed or was reckless or willfully blind as to whether she was harassed.

d. The conduct caused the victim to fear for her safety or the safety of others.

e. The victims' fear was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.

[23] The Crown argues that the sexual touching coupled with Mr. Meredith's controlling and demeaning remarks and conduct caused I.C. to fear for her emotional and psychological well-being. The Crown argues that the term "safety" in s. 264 is broad enough to include more than just physical safety and includes psychological safety: R v Goodwin, 1997 CanLII 3717 (BCCA) at paras 13-17. In addition to the incidents of sexual touching, the Crown argues that Mr. Meredith made demeaning remarks like telling I.C. to wear a traditional costume, used pet names like "baby", suggested to I.C. how to dress, monitored her movements, directed I.C. to make travel arrangements when she was not authorized to do so, and threatened her that if she stabbed him in the back, he would stab her in the back. This conduct caused I.C. to fear losing her job and impacted her psychological safety resulting in criminal harassment.

[24] Defence takes the position that even if this Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct occurred as the complainant described, the elements of criminal harassment are not met. At no time did Mr. Meredith ever threaten to physically harm the complainant. Even if I were to accept that he said to I.C. "if you stab me in the back, I will stab you right back" the context of the comment must be examined which, on I.C.'s own evidence, was to a threat to dismiss her if she leaked information about him to the press. Defence argues that this would have been a reasonable directive by any employer and cannot constitute harassment. Furthermore, I.C. never testified that she physically feared for her safety. Rather, she feared that if she reported Mr. Meredith's conduct, she was at risk of losing her job or suffering reputational harm and this does not constitute fear for one's physical safety. Finally, even if I.C. was fearful of Mr. Meredith, her fear was not reasonable.

[25] This case turns on the credibility of the witnesses. Below I review the evidence related to each of the alleged sexual assaults and the conduct contributing to criminal harassment. While I focus primarily on the accounts provided by the complainant and the accused, I refer to the testimony of the other witnesses where relevant.

B. Evidence Regarding I.C.'s Employment at the Senate

[26] I.C. is 52 years of age. She was born and raised in Montreal. At the age of 17, she joined the Canadian Armed Forces. As part of her military service, she worked for 10 years in airport security. Thereafter, she worked in communications for a foundation in Montreal. In August 2010, she commenced her employment with the Senate working as an executive assistant for Senator A. However, when it became public that that she was in a relationship with Senator A, she had to change employment as Senate polices do not permit a Parliamentary officer to be in an intimate relationship with their employee. The relationship garnered considerable media coverage.

[27] In March 2013, I.C. went to work on a six-month contact in Senate administration preparing reports. I.C. testified that she did not like her contract position as the work was like what she had done working for airport authorities. She wanted to stay in the Senate environment and to work for a Senator. At the time there were almost no full-time positions available. In September 2013, she accepted a six-week contract as Mr. Meredith's executive assistant to replace someone on leave. She had seen and spoken to Mr. Meredith once at a Senate event.

[28] At the time, assistants such as herself were not unionized and were effectively, at pleasure appointments. I.C. explained that when you were employed by a Senator, Human Resources ("HR") would inform you at the time you signed your contract that the Senator could end the position at any time without notification or reasons.

[29] I.C. commenced working for Mr. Meredith in September 2013. At the time, Mr. Meredith was in Toronto because the Senate was not sitting. She met him briefly for one day when he came to Ottawa for an event with the Prime Minister. When the House and Senate started to sit in mid-October (delayed that year), Mr. Meredith returned and worked physically from his Senate office in Ottawa.

[30] Mr. Meredith's Senate offices were in the Victoria Building in rooms 402 and 403 located almost directly across the elevators. Room 402 was his private office which contained a desk, seating area with couch, working table, and a private bathroom ("inner office"). There were two doors, one to the hallway which he used exclusively and a second interior door that opened into room 403 ("outer office"). Room 403 was where I.C. had her office and where there was also a small kitchen, wardrobe area, and a guest waiting area. Staff and guests used the door to room 403. At the time, there was no official policy on open/closed doors, but she understood that Mr. Meredith preferred to have the door to room 403 locked when no one was present because of the confidentiality of documents. When she went to his inner office for meetings, he would ask her to close the door behind her.

C. Alleged Sexual Assaults and Harassing Comments at the Office

i. Complainant's Account

[31] I.C. testified that the first sexual assault occurred towards the end of October. She went to the inner office to have Mr. Meredith sign some documents. They sat at the round working table. When she finished and went to go to her office, he stood up and took her by the forearm and kissed her on the mouth. She was surprised and shocked. It made her nervous, but she thought to herself that she would not be there for long.

[32] The next day, Mr. Meredith arrived at the office and asked for his daily hug. He would say things like "where is my hug, sweetie?" She did not say anything but got up and went over to give him a hug. She did not want to contradict him because she wanted to keep her job. I.C. testified that this practice of asking for daily hugs continued over the following weeks.

[33] I.C. testified that on the following day, Mr. Meredith told her to come to the inner office to have lunch with him. They sat at the round table. Before they started to eat, he stopped her, held her hand, and suggested they say a prayer for thanks. After she finished her lunch and went to leave, he got up, took her into his arms, and kissed her as he had done the first time.

[34] I.C. reported another assault that occurred in the inner office. After Mr. Meredith signed documents, he asked her to come towards him and when she did, he kissed her. On this occasion he touched her on the breasts and buttocks. He told her to "freshen up" before leaving the office. I.C. testified that similar touching would occur on other occasions when she went to have him sign documents. He would touch her on her breast, her forearms, and her buttocks. The incidents occurred quickly. He would often compliment her telling her she was an asset to his office.

[35] I.C. testified to other acts of touching that would occur in the kitchen of the outer office. When Mr. Meredith would leave for the day, he had a habit of taking his cup or glass to the kitchen. One time when she was in the kitchen, he kissed her on the mouth and touched her both over and under her blouse. These incidents in the kitchen started in early November. She could not indicate how often they occurred or how she came to be in the kitchen with him each time.

[36] I.C. testified that from the outset Mr. Meredith was monitoring her whereabouts. When she was not at her desk, she had to tell him where she was including if she was in the bathroom or at the photocopier. When he once saw her speak to another Senator, he inquired about their conversation.

[37] When asked how she felt after these incidents commenced, I.C. replied that she felt trapped and demeaned. She lost her self-confidence and self-respect. She was scared and afraid to say anything to anyone because of the precariousness of her employment situation. She felt that if she did anything to annoy him, he could instantly terminate her employment. At the time, she was already getting over another highly publicized event involving Senator A which had contributed to her having to find another post. She was concerned that if she spoke up, she would be further stigmatized. She was aware that there were few, if any, available positions for her as an executive assistant. She explained that the "Hill," referring to Parliament's location, is a small world where everyone knows everyone else. She was concerned that if she complained, HR would not put her name forward as a candidate to work for another Senator. Consequently, she did not dare to say anything.

[38] When asked further why she was afraid, I.C. testified that Mr. Meredith was a tall man, and she found him physically imposing. Because she was a smaller woman, she was intimidated by his size. She explained that when confronted by someone bigger and stronger, her reflex is to freeze and feel stuck on the spot.

[39] I.C. testified that she was also afraid of Mr. Meredith because of what she had heard from other colleagues. When she commenced her employment contract with Mr. Meredith, two colleagues came by her office and introduced themselves to her. They made certain comments about Mr. Meredith to the effect of:

• Watch out
• He's not someone who is going to be nice with his assistants
• We often heard yelling and loud arguments
• And if I needed a place outside of the office to go to, I could go their offices

[40] In cross-examination, the complainant confirmed that the aggregate of what the other assistants told her was that they had heard yelling and arguments, that Mr. Meredith was not nice to his assistants, that if they needed a safe location she could go to their offices.

[41] The complainant testified that on/around the same time, a security guard whose name she could not recall came by her office. He was an older gentleman with a mustache. He told her he was surprised to see a new person sitting in the assistant's chair. He told her words to the effect of: If you need anything at all because he had heard loud voices and if I did not feel safe, I could use the panic button under my desk and he would know what was happening. I.C. did not know the security officer's name.

[42] I.C. acknowledged that she knew another security officer by the name of Mr. Fuller. He would regularly come by the office as part of his shift, sometimes as much as 5-10 times a day. She recalls that in February 2014, Mr. Fuller came by the office. She was stressed and crying and told him she was "at the end of her rope." I.C. testified that there was one point during this period when she just wanted to die.

[43] The Crown called Robert Fuller as a witness. Mr. Fuller has worked as a security guard at Parliament Hill for 21 years. From 2013-2014, he worked at the Senate Protective Service. His job was to watch over the front entrances and to patrol the interior of the Senate offices multiple times a day, including the Victoria Building. He first met I.C. when she worked for Senator A. He would see her daily and say hi. Their interactions remained the same when she moved to work for Mr. Meredith. However, he felt her demeanor changed. She was less bubbly and quieter. He also observed that the outer office doors were closed more often.

[44] Mr. Fuller acknowledged that he has memory issues resulting from a diagnosis of MS. He also took a medical leave for four years in 2019. He admits times and dates are difficult for him to remember. It was clear from Mr. Fuller's testimony that he is a dedicated Parliamentary employee and feels a strong responsibility to protect those around him. His evidence, while well intended, contradicts I.C.'s own evidence.

[45] Mr. Fuller testified that he had one conversation with I.C. that shocked him because she told him that Mr. Meredith "grabbed a handful of her vagina." The conversation occurred in her office or in the hallway, and she was crying. Mr. Fuller reported the information to his own higher authorities in an email but was told to mind his own business. He also encouraged I.C. to report the information. He could not recall the date and even acknowledged it might have been after she left Mr. Meredith's employ which would be inconsistent with it occurring at her office.

[46] What is significant, however, is that at no time during her own testimony did I.C. ever testify that Mr. Meredith touched her vagina. Furthermore, I.C. admitted that she never told anyone about the sexual touching at the time it was occurring, including the security guard, because of fear of losing her job. At most, she told Mr. Fuller she was anxious and wanted to leave her job. In this regard, Mr. Fuller recalled a second conversation that took place after I.C. left Mr. Meredith's employ but he could not recall the date. In that conversation, he states she spoke about taking her own life.

[47] Mr. Fuller testified that I.C. changed while working for Mr. Meredith. She was quieter, appeared afraid, hurried, and changed her dress. He testified that when I.C. was working for Senator A she was sharply dressed, but when she started working for Mr. Meredith, she stopped taking care of herself, dressed more conservatively, and wore pants more often.

[48] It is unusual that a security guard would pay such close attention to an employee's manner of dress and change of dress. Even if his observations are accurate, however, I find they are of little assistance and contradict I.C.'s own evidence. There is no evidence from I.C. that she neglected her appearance while working for Mr. Meredith. Contrary to Mr. Fuller's suggestion, she testified that she wore skirts and dresses more often than pants because on one occasion Mr. Meredith had told her he didn't like seeing her in pants. Furthermore, as highlighted in cross-examination, Mr. Fuller was not aware of what other issues could have been influencing changes in I.C. at the time she went to work for Mr. Meredith including the media coverage about her relationship with Senator A, that she was suffering from an illness at the time (breast cancer), and that she was concerned about her pension and benefits.

ii. Accused's Account

[49] Mr. Meredith is 60 years of age. He was appointed to the Senate of Canada in December 2010 and served as a Senator for 6 ½ years resigning in May 2017. He was the fourth African Canadian to serve as a Senator. He testified that he was federally appointed to this position by the Conservative Party of Canada. Mr. Meredith obtained post-secondary degrees at various colleges and Ryerson University. I understand from the evidence presented that he is also a Reverand within his community.

[50] Mr. Meredith testified that HR proposed I.C as a six-week replacement for someone on leave, and he accepted the proposal. I.C. came to work for him as his executive assistant at the end of August/early September 2013. Her duties included managing the office, his correspondence, his day-to-day activities, and his work on various legislative committees. While he also had a legislative assistant, I.C. effectively ran the office.

[51] Mr. Meredith testified that he did not kiss or touch I.C. on the forearms, breasts, or buttocks. He denied that he ever engaged in a morning ritual of hugs and touches as described by the complainant. He testified that he did not call I.C. "baby," "sweetie," or any other pet name.

[52] Mr. Meredith did not take issue with the general description and diagram of his Senate offices. With respect to the doors, he explained that there were two doors to the office, one used by the public and one used exclusively by him to enter the interior office. There were no Senate policies on opening and closing doors. Sometimes they closed the door to the outer office if there was a lot of disruption from people walking back and forth near the elevator. He had his own door to the hallway open most of the time and his interior door between the two offices would be open or closed as and when necessary, by him or staff.

[53] Mr. Meredith acknowledged in his testimony that he knew Mr. Fuller as a security guard. They would have discussions about hockey teams like the Leafs or Canadiens. He had conversations with all the staff. He does not recall having any issues with Mr. Fuller.

D. Alleged Sexual Assault in Toronto November 2013

i. Complainant's Account

[54] Mr. Meredith organized an annual event in Toronto for Remembrance Day to commemorate Black veterans who served in the war. In 2013, I.C. went to Toronto to assist with the event. She described two incidents of sexual touching.

[55] According to I.C., Mr. Meredith picked her up from the Toronto airport and they drove to her hotel downtown. When they got there, he insisted on coming out of the car during her hotel check in and on helping her take her bag to her room. She testified that he followed her into the hotel room and stretched out on the bed with his head near the headboard or wall. He asked her to come and sit by him which she did out of habit and fear. Mr. Meredith then started to touch her over her clothing and kiss her. She testified she was wearing jeans and a sweater, but in cross-examination she stated she was wearing black pants and a shirt. She believes this kissing and touching lasted 5-10 minutes and he kissed her with his tongue.

[56] I.C. testified that this was one of the rare times where she took control of the situation. She asked Mr. Meredith, "Why are you doing this to me?" and "Is this the first time you are being unfaithful to your wife?" He replied that he had already done this once that and she had to understand he was a man. I.C. knew they had an interview and a visit at his youth center scheduled. She looked at her watch and told him we do not have a lot of time and that she wanted to change out of her travel clothes. He replied "okay," but she noted that his tone changed and he was not pleased. He told her to hurry and that he would see her downstairs.

[57] In cross-examination, defence suggested to I.C. that in her previous 2018 statement she told the police that she was able to end the interaction between her and Mr. Meredith by feigning that she was ill with a gastro issue and telling Mr. Meredith she had her period. After a series of questions and answers, she explained that she had not told the police that is what she said to Mr. Meredith but rather that these were the excuses running through her mind should the interaction go further.

[58] I.C. testified that after this incident, she and Mr. Meredith went for an interview and then travelled to a youth center that Mr. Meredith had opened to help young people. After the youth center visit, they went to a restaurant and Ms. Meredith joined them. Ms. Meredith sat opposite her and Mr. Meredith sat to Ms. Meredith's right. According to I.C., Mr. Meredith rubbed his leg against hers under the table during the dinner. She did not count the number of times he did this or for how long. While she was able to interact with Ms. Meredith, she felt distracted and uncomfortable. After dinner, she wanted to take a taxi back to her hotel, but Ms. Meredith suggested that her husband accompany her in his car to the hotel. When they got to his hotel, Mr. Meredith asked I.C. if he should come up, and she said no and that his wife was waiting at home for him. He kissed her, and she got out of the car.

[59] The following day, I.C. attended the Remembrance Day event. She was anxious for the day to end and later took a taxi to the airport with another Senator who had attended the event. She did not see Mr. Meredith the following week as there was a Parliamentary break. When she and her colleague F.S. later met with Mr. Meredith for a debrief about the event, he told them he was not satisfied with how the event went including the quality of the speech and photos taken. He told them both that he expected them to improve their performance otherwise it would be grounds for dismissal.

ii. Accused's Account

[60] Mr. Meredith provided a different account of the events in Toronto. This was the second year he had organized a Remembrance Day ceremony to honour African Canadian Veterans who served in the war. The event was organized at Ryerson University, now Toronto Metropolitan University. He had a connection with the university because he had gone to school there and knew the president at the time. Parliament did not sit for the Remembrance Day week. I.C. was responsible for assisting with the event.

[61] In 2010, Mr. Meredith and some other faith leaders started a youth center in the Greater Toronto Area to help young people develop computer and other skills. At the time, he had his office at the youth center. On the day before the Remembrance Day event, he was in Toronto at his office. I.C. flew into Pearson Airport. He arranged a limousine service to pick up I.C. and bring her to the youth center where he was situated. They then toured the youth center and drove downtown to the Delta Chelsea Hotel situated close to Ryerson University and where I.C. was staying. I.C. had made the travel arrangements herself. He testified that there was no interview scheduled for that day, but there was a planning meeting at Ryerson University.

[62] Mr. Meredith acknowledged that when they arrived at the hotel, he offered to take I.C.'s luggage to her room and she agreed. However, he maintains that he did not enter her hotel room and remained in the hallway. He denies he touched and kissed her or that they had any discussion about his wife. They did not have a lot of time as they were scheduled to meet his wife and the event organizers at Ryerson University. After I.C. dropped off her bag, they drove to the university and he parked there. His wife was already there. They discussed various issues such as food, placement of wreaths, etc. in preparation for the event the following day.

[63] Following the meeting, Mr. Meredith, his wife, and I.C. walked back to the Delta Chelsea Hotel where they had a meal. They walked to avoid having to park again. He recalls they ate at a restaurant in the lobby, but he could not recall the name. He was seated by his wife and I.C. was seated across from his wife. They spoke largely about the event but also chatted socially. He did not recall I.C. displaying any unusual behaviour. He denies that he played footsies with I.C. or that he brushed his leg against her leg in a sexual manner. His legs were beside his wife's legs. Following their meal, I.C. returned to her room, and he and his wife walked back to Ryerson and drove home.

iii. Ms. Meredith's Account

[64] Michelle Meredith is 60 years of age. She has been married to Mr. Meredith for over 35 years. They have two adult children. They live in Toronto. Ms. Meredith has a Bachelors in Sociology and a Master's in Education. She commenced working with special needs children with a school board over 30 years ago and continues to work in this field. She also assists Mr. Meredith with a landscaping business that he has been operating for the last 10 years. During the period of the alleged events, she was teaching and would also volunteer at the youth center.

[65] Ms. Meredith testified that she first met I.C. in Parliament during an event and then again formally in her husband's Senate office. She would continue to see I.C. at the office often because she also sat on some committees and associations such as the Parliamentary Spouses' Association. For these meetings, she would come to Ottawa and stay downtown with her husband at the Chateau Laurier or the Lord Elgin Hotel. Her interactions with I.C. were social, and they would exchange pleasantries and information about their children, health, etc.

[66] Ms. Meredith recalls meeting I.C. on Friday November 8th and again on November 9th during the Remembrance Day event hosted at Ryerson University to commemorate Black veterans. She believed it was the third year they were hosting the event and noted it was a very important event in their community. On the Friday, they had a planning meeting at Ryerson University. She arrived first followed by Mr. Meredith and I.C. She believes the meeting occurred sometime between 3 and 5 pm. They looked at the space and discussed logistics. After the meeting, they decided to get something to eat at a café which she believes was at or near the Delta Chelsea Hotel. During the meal they talked mostly about the event, but also chit chatted socially. Ms. Meredith recalls she spoke to I.C. about their children and French lessons Ms. Meredith was taking. She acknowledges she was speaking more than I.C. as she was continuing to try to get to know her. Ms. Meredith also spoke with her husband. She believes the meal may have lasted one and a half hours. She could not recall the name of the restaurant, but it was like a Marche's. No alcohol was consumed.

[67] Ms. Meredith testified that her husband sat beside her and I.C. in front of her because she recalls that she and I.C. were talking eye to eye. She did not notice anything unusual about I.C.'s demeanor. I.C. was friendly. They had a good conversation. She did not notice anything unusual happening physically among them including that her husband was playing footsies with I.C. She testifies that it would have been hard for him to do that because his body would have had to move and their legs were beside each other. Whenever they sit together, their legs touch and they have been doing this for three decades. In cross-examination she acknowledged it could have been possible that he touched her legs, but believed that if anything like that had occurred, she would have been aware of it. She described her husband as 6'2" and herself as 5'2".

[68] Ms. Meredith recalled meeting I.C. again on December 5, 2013, for a staff appreciation lunch. Ms. Meredith explained that she had been to other staff appreciation lunches. She acknowledged that executive assistants spend significant time supporting a Senator and effectively running the Senate office. Mr. Meredith, I.C., and her had lunch together at the Parliamentary restaurant in Ottawa. She would eat there sometimes and would have staff book it for her because you can only eat there if you are Parliamentarian or invited by one. She was able to recall the date of the appreciation lunch because she still had it on her electronic calendar. A snapshot of Ms. Meredith's calendar for November and December 2013 were filed as exhibits.

[69] Ms. Meredith also testified about the emails she and her husband used at the time. She communicated to her husband and I.C. using her Sympatico email. A copy of an email was shown to her, and she agreed michelle.meredith@sympatico.ca was her email address.

[70] Ms. Meredith recalls her husband having two Senate emails accounts which she vaguely remembers as "Meredith2" and "Don.Meredith." One email account was used exclusively by staff and the other was a general email ending in sen.parliament.ca. Mr. Meredith also had a personal Sympatico email attached to the Toronto area. Ms. Meredith understood that staff had access to both of Mr. Meredith's Senate email accounts. She recalled that Mr. Meredith had a previous staffer named Julie who would often send responses on Mr. Meredith's email account on his behalf or behest, but she could not say which email was attributed to which purpose. She knew this from being present in the Senate office and hearing her husband give such instructions. She acknowledged that different staff, however, would operate differently.

[71] Ms. Meredith recalled a breakfast meeting she and her husband attended and where they met with former American President Barack Obama. The meeting was in Washington, D.C. I.C. made their travel arrangements. I.C. talked to her about travel arrangements. Ms. Meredith had set up an Aeroplan account that they would use to collect points for their travel.

[72] In cross-examination, Ms. Meredith testified that she only became aware of the sexual touching allegations in September or October 2022 when her husband informed her that he had been charged.

E. Alleged Sexual Assault at the Chateau Laurier Ottawa November 2013

i. Complainant's Account

[73] I.C. described another sexual assault that occurred at the Chateau Laurier Hotel in Ottawa at the end of November 2013. On this day, there was a meeting scheduled with some people outside the Senate mid-afternoon. She had prepared some documents for Mr. Meredith to review, and he asked her to bring them to his hotel room. I.C. was panicked. She did not understand why he wanted her to go to his hotel room if the meeting was scheduled in their building at the office. She suggested that he come to the office a little earlier and look at them, but he insisted that she bring them to his room and then they would have lunch together at the Chateau Laurier.

[74] I.C. testified that when she knocked on his hotel room door, she was surprised to see Mr. Meredith dressed only in his pajama bottoms. He grabbed her by the arm quickly and pulled her into his room. He asked her if anyone had seen her. He told her to take her coat off and come sit on the bed where he stretched out. He started to kiss her and put his hand inside her dress. At one point, he took his penis out of his pajamas. His penis was erect. She did not touch it nor was she asked to touch it. She was disgusted at herself. She just closed her eyes and then the interaction stopped. Mr. Meredith told her he would get ready and to meet him downstairs in the restaurant. She grabbed her coat and went to the bathroom downstairs where she was struggling to take some hair mousse off her dress which she believed was on the bed. They ate a breakfast buffet together. She walked back to the office but could not recall if it was with or without him. She was ashamed of herself for letting him touch her both on this occasion and earlier in Toronto.

[75] In cross-examination, I.C. admitted that she made a mistake in her examination in chief, and consistent with her earlier statement, Mr. Meredith was wearing a t-shirt at the time she arrived at the hotel. She also acknowledged, she had confused the word "diner" in English and French, but the meal they had was a breakfast/lunch type of meal.

ii. Mr. Meredith's Account

[76] Mr. Meredith's residence was in Richmond Hill, Ontario, but he would come to Ottawa several days a week particularly Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, when the Senate was sitting. He acknowledged that during these periods, he would stay at the Chateau Laurier, Lord Elgin, or the Marriott Hotels. I.C. would book his hotels in advance.

[77] Mr. Meredith testified that there was a Monday in the fall of 2013 where he was running late for a meeting. He recalls it was an early meeting scheduled for 9:30 am related to a committee on constitutional affairs. He asked I.C. to bring some documents for the meeting to his hotel room as he was running late. He acknowledged that she came up to his hotel room, but he was fully dressed at the time. They sat at the table in his hotel room and discussed the documents. She was there for approximately 10 to 15 minutes. He testified that at no time did he touch or kiss I.C. nor did he expose his penis to her. He then attended the meeting at East Block.

[78] Mr. Meredith denied that he and I.C. had any kind of meal at the Chateau Laurier. He was in a rush to attend the meeting. In addition, he testified that there was only one time in Ottawa that he dined with I.C. and that was with his wife during a staff appreciation lunch at the Parliamentary restaurant. His evidence was corroborated by Ms. Meredith.

[79] In cross-examination, the Crown showed Mr. Meredith the Minutes for Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs held on November 7, 21, and 27, 2013, and February 5, 2013, at Rm 257 East Block (collectively "Meeting Minutes"). Mr. Meredith acknowledged that his name was not on the Meeting Minutes as having attended.

[80] The Meeting Minutes were not shown to I.C. nor did she ever provide any clarification of what specific meeting Mr. Meredith was scheduled to attend that day.

F. Evidence Regarding a Skype Call

[81] I.C. testified that just before Christmas 2013, Mr. Meredith asked her if they could have a skype communication and she accepted. She did not know what the purpose of the call was. Her daughter was home at the time, so she did not want to be on the call for long. When they connected, she saw he was in his hotel room. He asked her to make herself comfortable and asked if she would take off her top. She stated that she had to cut the call short because her daughter was on the other side of the wall of her room. He did not insist further and that put an end to the call. That was the only video call they ever had.

[82] Mr. Meredith denies the call occurred or that he communicated with I.C. using Skype.

G. Comment About Wearing a Traditional Costume

i. Complainant's Account

[83] In addition to the sexual touching, I.C. alleges that Mr. Meredith made inappropriate comments to her at the office. For example, in December 2013, her colleague C.S. was organizing an event for the Caribbean Parliamentary Friendship Group for Mr. Meredith. She was at the meeting to see what, if any, role she would have in organizing the event. During the meeting, Mr. Meredith stated words to the effect of: it would be appealing if she and C.S. wore a traditional costume worn by Caribbean women. I.C. states that she understood from having seen photos that this would involve a large headdress with a bikini like top and long skirt. She did not explain where she had seen such photos and why she believed this was what Mr. Meredith was referring to. She testified that she felt like a "piece of meat" and was embarrassed in front of her colleague, but did not say anything. She believes C.S. made a comment to Mr. Meridith that the comment was inappropriate.

ii. C.S.' Account

[84] C.S. has been working in Parliament since 2012. At the beginning she was on various short-term contracts. In December 2013, she was working two days a week for one senator and another two days a week for Mr. Meredith, with a swing day working for both. Her office was situated with another colleague F.S. but close to Mr. Meredith's offices.

[85] C.S. testified that when she met I.C. in/around December 2013, she found her to be professional but reserved. In December 2013, she went to a meeting with I.C. and Mr. Meredith about organizing a public event with the Caribbean Canada Parliamentary Friendship Group. During the meeting, Mr. Meredith said words to the effect of "you would look really good in one of those Brazilian costumes." I.C. said "okay" and C.S. understood that she was willing to wear a traditional dress. C.S., on the other hand, replied that she did not think this was an appropriate request from a Senator and told I.C. hold on, you don't know what you are agreeing to as those costumes are quite scant. When asked in cross-examination why she believes Mr. Meredith was referring to Brazilian costumes when they were discussing a Caribbean event, C.S. stated that she just remembers them talking about a Brazilian costume and a reference to Mardi Gras.

iii. Mr. Meredith's Account

[86] Mr. Meredith was born in Jamaica. Following his appointment to the Senate, he became the Co-chair of CARICOM Group, an affiliation of 15 Caribbean countries including Jamaica. In the fall of 2013, he was looking to organize a meeting/event for the CARICOM Group at Parliament. He met with I.C. and C.S. to brainstorm ideas. They discussed the menu and whether to invite musicians. He denies that he ever stated to I.C. and C.S. that he would like to see them in "one of those Brazilian costumes" or that there was any discussion about Mardi Gras. He pointed out that CARICOM is an affiliation of Caribbean nations and their traditional dresses have nothing to with Brazilian costumes.

H. Mr. Meredith's Trip to Washington

i. Complainant's Account

[87] In January 2014, I.C. and Mr. Meredith disagreed on his authorization to travel to Washington. Then American President Barack Obama had invited Mr. Meredith to attend a National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. Mr. Meredith asked I.C. to organize the trip. According to I.C., the invitation was directed to Mr. Meredith under his title as "Reverand" and not "Senator." I.C. testified that Mr. Meredith asked her to modify the title to "Honourable" but it was unclear on what document.

[88] I.C. understood that the Whip's office had to authorize all travel and contacted them to obtain authorization. I.C. testified they refused. Ms. McGregor, the executive assistant to the Whip at the time, told her that there would be consequences if Mr. Meredith went on the trip. When I.C. discussed this with Mr. Meredith, she claims he told her, "I am not paying you to tell me what to do, I am paying you to do what I tell you to do." When she explained that the refusal was not coming from her but the Whip's office, I.C. claims he replied, "don't listen to that big fat white ass bitch." The situation caused I.C. considerable stress because she felt she was defying the Whip's orders and possibly doing something that she was not permitted under Senate rules.

[89] In cross-examination, I.C. acknowledged that Mr. Meredith was the first Jamaican appointed as a Senator and that it was important for him to attend a breakfast organized by the first Black President of the United States. She also acknowledged that he was responsible for his own travel budget. She agreed that Mr. Meredith told her that he did not agree with Ms. McGregor or the Whip's position that they had to authorize his travel. She also acknowledged that she did not know if the Whip's directives were correct. She acknowledged she understood his remark to mean that he was telling her he did not hire her to do what the Whip tells you.

ii. Mr. Meredith's Account

[90] Mr. Meredith held a different view about his attendance at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. He acknowledged that President Obama was a person he greatly admired and this was an important an event for him and his wife to attend. He understood there was a protocol around Senate travel, particularly if the house was sitting. He understood that you had to inform the Whip's office if you were going to be away particularly if there was a vote forthcoming at the Senate and you were needed. He acknowledges that he asked I.C. to make the travel arrangements. He also recalled that the Whip's office was informed. Initially, he could not recall if he had received an answer from them, but acknowledged it was possible that he did.

[91] Mr. Meredith admitted that even if the Whip had not authorized him to go, he wished to go and did in fact go. He did not believe he needed authorization from the Whip or Ms. McGregor to attend the presidential breakfast. He denied that he forced I.C. to book a trip or berated her. She booked the trip as he had asked.

[92] During cross-examination, the Crown showed Mr. Meredith a newspaper article from March 24, 2014, to refresh his memory on whether he had received an answer or not from the Whip's office regarding his travel. Mr. Meredith reviewed it for the purposes of refreshing his memory, but it did not change his evidence regarding this event.

I. The February 2014 Email Chain

i. I.C.'s Account

[93] The events relating to these charges date back to 2013-2014. The police contacted I.C. in 2017. I.C. provided the police with an initial statement in January 2018. Approximately three years later in April 2021, I.C provided the police with another statement. Mr. Meredith was charged in 2022 and the criminal trial commenced in December 2024. After I.C. had completed her examination in chief and commenced her cross-examination, the trial was further adjourned to allow I.C. to spend time with her mother who was ill. During the 10-year period leading up to the criminal trial and following a five-year police investigation, I.C. never produced any emails or correspondence related to the time she was working with Mr. Meredith.

[94] However, in May 2025 when the trial resumed, the Crown sought to introduce an email that I.C. produced for the police on December 19, 2024, while the trial had recessed. I.C. testified that during the recess, she was cleaning up her past email accounts. She did a search for "Meredith" and located one email chain from February 2, 2014, in her Hotmail account. The email chain relates to Mr. and Ms. Meredith's travel to Washington for the presidential breakfast.

[95] On February 2, 2014, at 17:07, I.C. sent an email to both Mr. Meredith and his wife. The email is sent to Mr. Meridith's email address, "Meredith, Don" and to Ms. Meredith at her email address "michelle.meredith@sympatico.ca." The subject of the email is "Check In." In the email, I.C. states:

Senator,

Since you are travelling to the United States, I am not able to check you in online. Please keep all boarding passes in hand for further claim.

[96] Above this email, there is another communication between only I.C. and Mr. Meredith. This second email is sent to another of Mr. Meredith's email accounts "Meredith2, Don". It is dated Sunday February 2, 2014, at 5:12 pm. The subject of the email is "TR: Check-In." It has no further content. I.C. testified that in this second email she was forwarding the previous email sent to Mr. Meredith and his wife to ensure that Mr. Meredith received the information on both of his email accounts.

[97] I.C. testified that Mr. Meredith sent her a reply email. The reply email is from his Meredith2, Don email address and is dated February 2, 2014, 5:27 PM. The reply email states, "Thanks Baby." It is followed by Mr. Meredith's name and Parliamentary contact information.

[98] I.C. acknowledged that there was a Senate policy that employees could not forward work emails to their personal emails but explained that this is the only one she ever forwarded to herself. She acknowledged she could not say if there were other emails between 17:07 and 5:27 pm from the Merediths. She testified she sent this email to herself back in February 2014 because at the time she was stressed and wanted to have something to substantiate her concerns. However, she acknowledges that she never shared the email with anyone for over 10 years.

[99] In cross-examination, I.C. acknowledged that Mr. Meredith has two email accounts: one email that members of the public use to contact him and a second email address that was used exclusively to communicate with staff. When counsel put to I.C. in cross-examination that she would have had access to Mr. Meredith's email accounts as his executive assistant, she denied that she did. She believes that her colleague F.S. had access to Mr. Meredith's emails, and he was the staff person responsible for sorting through Mr. Meredith's email. On the contrary, she understood that Mr. Meredith had access to her emails because he had her password.

ii. Mr. Meredith's Account

[100] Mr. Meredith denies that he ever used the term "baby" in speaking to I.C. In cross-examination, he testified that he reserves this expression for his wife. He testified that he never sent a reply email to I.C. stating "Thanks Baby" and that he had never seen the email until it was presented in court. Mr. Meredith confirmed that he had two Senate email accounts, one of which was for the public to write to him and the second was for his communications with staff but which he might also use to communicate with his wife. Mr. Meredith testified that I.C. had access to both of his email accounts and it was a critical part of her position to manage invitations, etc. As his EA, she could read, delete, write, and send emails. He did instruct her to send emails on his behalf.

[101] Furthermore, Mr. Meredith testified that when I.C. resigned from her position with him, there was a form that had to be filled out called a Senate Network Account Password Reset Form. Defence filed a copy of the form dated March 17, 2014, in relation to I.C. as an exhibit. However, I do not put much weight on this form as it is not entirely clear from the instructions how a reset of I.C.'s network account password relates to her ability to access Mr. Meredith's emails. I.C. did not sign the form, and she was not examined on it.

J. Remark "If You Stab Me in the Back, I Will Stab You Right Back"

i. Complainant's Account

[102] I.C testified that in February 2014, she had a meeting with Mr. Meredith in the inner office with the door closed. At the time, journalists were publishing articles about Senators' expenses and the Auditor General was also examining the issue. Mr. Meredith directed her not to disclose information. One morning he asked her to come to his office. He then stated, if more information comes out, I will know where it came from and "if you stab me in the back, I will stab you right back." She understood from the comment that if she spoke to journalists about the expenses' issue, she would lose her job. In cross-examination, she stated she did not believe the alleged threat referred to her discussions with colleagues.

[103] I.C. acknowledged that she did not understand the phrase to mean that Mr. Meredith was going to put an actual knife in her back. She described it as a threat that left her feeling "disenfranchised." She understood the conversation related to information about Mr. Meredith's senate expenses being leaked to the media and the sources of this information. I.C. also acknowledged that by February 2014, there had been various news stories about investigations into Senators' expenses including a story about Senator Duffy.

[104] When asked if she ever told anyone about the conversation, I.C. stated she discussed it with her colleague C.S. On that same day, C.S. had come to her office and told her that she had overheard part of the conversation. I.C. was upset and crying. She cannot recall what exactly they discussed. I.C. denied she asked C.S. to eavesdrop on the conversation with Mr. Meredith.

ii. C.S.' Account

[105] C.S. went on sick leave in January, and then later resigned from her job with Mr. Meredith in late February or early March. She recalls that during her notice/transition period, I.C. telephoned her and asked her to come listen in on a meeting she was scheduled to have with Mr. Meredith. I.C. told her that she was afraid. I.C. told her that she would leave the door to the outer office unlocked for her.

[106] C.S. acknowledged that the door outer office door (rm 403) was usually open, but when Mr. Meredith was in a meeting, the outer door and interior doors were closed. She understood this was Mr. Meredith's practice. She had not experienced this in other offices where according to her, outer doors are always left open to allow for such things as mail delivery. C.S. acknowledged, however, that there was no general Senate policy on open/close doors.

[107] C.S. testified that after she received I.C.'s request, she went to room 403 which was closed but unlocked and quietly opened it. No one was in the outer office. She then went to the interior door and put her ear to the door to listen in on the conversation. She heard Mr. Meredith telling I.C. that no one should speak with C.S. and that if anything gets out, he will know who it is. She heard Mr. Meredith say, "if you stab me in the back, I will stab you in yours." She then left. She testified Mr. Meredith was yelling. She later discussed the conversation with I.C.

iii. Mr. Meredith's Account

[108] Mr. Meredith denies he told I.C. any words to the effect of: If you stab me in the back, I will stab you right back. He maintains that he never threatened I.C. physically or in relation to her employment. He was aware at the time that she was under considerable stress because of the media coverage around her relationship with Senator A and another Senate investigation in which I.C. had to participate. I.C. acknowledged in her own testimony that she was at the time participating in an "ethics counsel" inquiry involving Senator A and it related to Senate expenses, not their personal relationship.

[109] Mr. Meredith did not dispute that he provided I.C. work-related directives when he was displeased, particularly as it related to her interactions with Ms. McGregor.

K. Circumstances and Meetings Leading Up to I.C.'s Resignation

[110] I.C. maintained that she did raise concerns about Mr. Meredith's conduct at the time of her employment, but did not disclose the sexual assaults. She discussed her discomfort with working with Mr. Meredith with her colleague C.S., with Raina Bernier at HR, with Ms. McGregor, and with Acting HR Director Darshan Singh. She testified that through Ms. McGregor's assistance, she was able to find a contract with another senator and resigned on March 14, 2014.

[111] In January 2014, C.S. received a call from the complainant. C.S. was at the hospital at the time and was unable to pick up. When she later returned the call, she described I.C. as hyperventilating and panicked. Based on their discussion, C.S. called the Whip's office. While it is unknown what specifically was discussed, it is clear from the evidence that it did not relate to any disclosures of sexual touching. C.S. testified that I.C. only spoke to her about the alleged sexual touching in 2016, following the release of a media article in 2015 about Mr. Meredith and another individual.

[112] After C.S. resigned, she stayed in touch with I.C. by text. She understood that both her colleagues I.C. and F.S. where forbidden to see her but that they would nonetheless continue to communicate by text. She understood that C.S. was stressed and expressing thoughts of suicidal ideation. C.S. was concerned about I.C. and at one point, went to speak to Acting HR Director Mr. Singh of her own accord. Based on their conversation, C.S. informed the complainant that she would have to speak to HR in person herself. C.S. does not refer to any further meetings between herself, I.C. and Mr. Singh during her testimony.

[113] In cross-examination, C.S. acknowledged that she kept a file folder on events related to Mr. Meredith. The focus was on the inappropriate use of Senate funds and harassment issues.

[114] I.C. testified that she initially met with an HR Representative Raina Bernier to sign her six-week contract with Mr. Meredith. In October 2014, she was told that her contract would be extended but it was not clear for how long. After the Toronto trip, I.C. asked to meet with HR. She told Ms. Bernier she was looking for a full-time position elsewhere and that she was not at ease working in Mr. Meredith's office. When asked why, she stated that she and Mr. Meredith had "incompatible personalities."

[115] I.C also asked if there was a harassment policy. Ms. Bernier provided it to her, and she reviewed it. However, Ms. Bernier told her that if she kept a copy of the policy, then Ms. Bernier would have to inform Mr. Meredith. Consequently, I.C. returned the policy to her. Ms. Bernier also told her if you use the harassment policy to lodge a complaint, then she would have to immediately inform Mr. Meredith. I.C. then asked Ms. Bernier if there was a way she could speak to HR privately, but was told HR is not for employees, and their job was to fill seats for Senators. I.C. testified she felt worse after the meeting because she understood that if she were to speak to HR about Mr. Meredith's conduct, it would require lodging a complaint. She was worried that other Senators would then ask HR questions about her as a prospective employee, and it would adversely impact her chance of obtaining another position.

[116] In cross-examination, I.C. acknowledged that she never tried to see if the harassment policy was on the website. She denied she ever looked at the policy at the time she was asked to leave her employment with Senator A. She maintained that she understood that if she wanted a copy of the harassment policy, Mr. Meredith would have to be informed. She maintained that she understood she could deal with the issue directly with Mr. Meredith or lodge a complaint.

[117] I.C. stated that her employment came to an end on March 14, 2014. When asked how it came to an end, she stated that after speaking with C.S., C.S. took steps to inform certain people of what was going on, including the Whip's office, the leader's office, and the speaker's office.

[118] I.C. testified she had two meetings with the Acting HR Director Mr. Singh in the presence of C.S. She was unsure if the meeting was in December 2013 or in 2014. She said she informed Mr. Singh about certain events but not the assaults she experienced. When asked in cross-examination how she described her concerns about Mr. Meredith, she replied she described it as "general behaviour management" of Senators. She did not elaborate on the meaning of this or what specific complaints she made about Mr. Meredith at the time. I.C. testified that C.S. answered most of the questions during the meeting with Mr. Singh. After the meeting, Mr. Singh said he would speak with Mr. Meredith.

[119] I.C. testified that she and C.S. had a second meeting with Mr. Singh but was unsure of the date. She acknowledged it was possible that the second meeting occurred a few weeks after she stopped working for Mr. Meredith in mid-March 2014. At that meeting, Mr. Singh told them that he had spoken to Mr. Meredith who had indicated that he would bring an action for breach of confidentiality against her and C.S for failing to maintain confidentiality.

[120] Finally, while at the Senate, I.C. developed a close relationship with Karma McGregor, the executive assistant to the Whip. This relationship commenced while she was working for Senator A and continued into her period of employment with Mr. Meredith. I.C. testified it was usual to communicate weekly with the Whip's assistant to keep them informed of what was going on with the Senator. However, Mr. Meredith directed her not to communicate with her. One day Ms. McGregor called her and asked I.C. why she was not performing her work the way she used to when in Senator A's office. I.C. replied she was no longer authorized to respond to Ms. McGregor's emails. During the conversation, I.C. broke into tears and said she needed to leave the office, but she did not say why. Ms. McGregor told her she would "take care of it." When Ms. McGregor pressed her why she wanted another post, I.C. replied she felt stuck, trapped, and imprisoned in her own office. Later, Ms. McGregor informed I.C. that she could work for a Senator on a special project, and this is where I.C. went to work in March 2014.

[121] However, one day before I.C. left her employment with Mr. Meredith, she received a call from Ms. McGregor. Ms. McGregor said that the Prime Minister's Office ("PMO") had called her office and wanted to know if I.C. had ever been the victim of a sexual assault. I.C. replied "no." According to I.C., Ms. McGregor said, "I understand your answer." I.C. testified that she did not tell Ms. McGregor what had happened because she felt if the PMO's office knew, it would be the end of her ever having a full-time job in a Senator's office.

[122] I.C. was pressed in cross-examination as to why, if Mr. Meredith was engaging in a daily ritual of hugging and touching her that she would not have returned to her administrative position with the Senate, apply for other jobs, or even go on unemployment insurance. I.C. testified that she wanted to maintain her foot in the Senate and to work specifically as an executive assistant. It was important for her to keep her Senate job, pension, and benefits. Due to her breast cancer, she acknowledged she had increasing medical bills and needed full-time work. When she was initially in her contract positions, she did not have benefits, but eventually this issue was sorted out with HR and she was able to get insurance coverage.

[123] I.C. worked for another Senator from mid-March until September 2014 following which she left the Senate altogether and went to work for a law firm in Montreal. I.C. attributes her move in part to the fact that she feared crossing paths with Mr. Meredith and found the environment to be unbearable. C.S. testified that I.C. would often take the stairs to avoid Mr. Meredith, and she once observed I.C. have a visceral reaction when she smelled Mr. Meredith's cologne. However, I.C. herself described no such incident.

[124] Defence counsel concedes that the law is clear that delayed reporting of a sexual assault does not necessarily mean that the sexual assault did not occur. However, in these circumstances, given that the complainant had the confidence of Ms. McGregor, that she understood Ms. McGregor did not appear to be fond of Mr. Meredith, and that I.C. was desperate to find another full-time position, it is difficult to reconcile why I.C. would not have disclosed the sexual assaults to Ms. McGregor particularly after having received a call from the highest office in government inquiring about such a possibility.

[125] I find it is unclear from I.C.'s testimony what it was that she disclosed to Ms. McGregor, Ms. Bernier, or Mr. Singh about Mr. Meredith's behaviour. While she was clear that she did not disclose the physical or sexual touching, she did not specify what her other complaints were at these meetings and whether they related to inappropriate remarks or directives by Mr. Meredith. If Mr. Meredith was controlling and tracking I.C.'s every movement, including going to the bathroom, there is no evidence that she ever reported this to HR. When pressed in cross-examination about what she reported, if anything, about the sexual touching, she stated that at most she may have gone so far as to tell Ms. McGregor that Mr. Meredith had touched her forearms. However, I find that if she made such a remark, Ms. McGregor would likely have probed further about the nature, manner, and context of the physical touching.

[126] Ultimately, however, I find the late reporting is of no consequence. The jurisprudence is clear that there are many reasons why people do not report sexual assaults until long after they have occurred and late reporting does not, in and of itself, undermine a person's credibility: R v D.D., 2000 SCC 43, [2000] 2 SCR 275 at para 63; R v Kruk 2024 SCC 7 at para 41. I.C. explained that she was experiencing a high level of stress from the media attention related to her relationship with Senator A, her personal health issues, and her financial struggles as a single mother. I accept her explanation that she did not want to be further stigmatized in the media or "on the Hill" which would jeopardize her opportunities for a full-time position that would allow her to continue working as a Senator's assistant.

[127] Finally, with respect to I.C.'s departure, Mr. Meredith testified that it happened quickly. He did not understand at the time why she resigned and did not reach out to contact her. He had not noticed notice any change in I.C.'s demeanor while working for him. He was aware that I.C. was overwhelmed by personal health issues and her involvement in another Senate proceeding. I.C. would come and tell him if she was ill and stressed by these issues. He thought she was a good employee and did her job as an assistant which is why he extended her contract. He testified that after she left, she wrote him a note and sent it to Toronto. In the note, she told him that she had found a position in another Senator's office and thanked him for that opportunity to work in his office. Regrettably, he did not keep the note.

L. Credibility Findings and the W.D. Analysis

[128] Given Mr. Meredith has testified, I must examine the evidence as a whole under the W.D. framework. The W.D. principles as reformulated in R v J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30, [2008] 2 SCR 152, are as follows:

i. If you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.

ii. If after careful consideration, you are unable to decide who to believe, you must acquit.

iii. If you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

iv. Even if you are not left with a doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.

[129] The sequence of steps in the W.D instruction suggests that the accused's evidence be considered first, and it is not uncommon that trial judges follow this structure in their reasons. However, it is not an error for a judge to analyze the complainant's evidence first which is what I have done in this case in my credibility assessments below: R v Vuradin, 2013 SCC 38 at para 21; R v Carrière, 2001 CanLII 8609 (ON CA), [2001] OJ No 4157 (C.A.) at paras 47-50.

i. The Complainant's Credibility and Reliability

[130] I.C presented as a very fragile witness. There were multiples times during her testimony that she became very emotional and distressed and was unable to continue. As already noted, the trial was interrupted several times due to I.C.'s inability to continue including during cross-examination. However, I.C.'s mother was ill throughout the course of this trial. Consequently, I do not put much weight on her fragile demeanor as a reason to disbelieve her testimony.

[131] I.C. provided testimony over 10 days in court. She provided detailed accounts of the events that transpired. While I appreciate that I.C. was trying to tell the truth, I found her evidence to be unreliable. Her evidence was contradicted by the Crown witnesses C.S. and Mr. Fuller as well as the evidence of Ms. Meredith in the following respects.

[132] One, I.C. testified that she never asked C.S. to eavesdrop on a private conversation she had with Mr. Meredith in his interior office in February 2014 wherein he stated words to the effect of: if you stab me in the back, I will stab you right back. I.C.'s evidence that C.S. just happened to come in and listen in on the conversation significantly contradicts C.S.' account.

[133] C.S. is a long-time Parliamentary employee. She delivered her evidence with considerable confidence. It was clear that C.S. did not care for Mr. Meredith and resigned in the middle of her short contract with him. Notwithstanding her views of Mr. Meredith, I do not find that upon given notice of her resignation, she would have walked into the outer office when it was closed, observed that no one was present, and then surreptitiously of her own volition put her ear to the interior door to eavesdrop on Mr. Meredith's conversations. I accept her evidence that she engaged in this inappropriate and unprofessional conduct because I.C. requested her to and told her she would leave the leave the outer office door unlocked so that she could do so. Consequently, I find that I.C. was not truthful about the entirety of this incident.

[134] Two, I.C. states that she and C.S. went to a joint meeting with Mr. Singh where they informed Mr. Singh what was going on. However, C.S. testified that she only met with Mr. Singh alone and informed I.C. that based on her discussion with him, I.C. would have to go speak with HR herself. Furthermore, when I.C. was pressed about what was discussed in the meeting with Mr. Singh, I found I.C.'s responses to be vague. She testified that C.S. was the one who largely responded to Mr. Singh's questions. The conversation prompted Mr. Singh to speak with Mr. Meredith who told him that he would be bringing a claim of breach of confidentiality against C.S. and I.C. However, C.S. does not testify about any further joint meeting with Mr. Singh. Similarly, C.S. did not testify, as suggested by the complainant, that she went to speak to the Whip, leader, or speaker's office on I.C.'s behalf. She testified she made one call to the Whip's office and attended a meeting with Mr. Singh of her own accord.

[135] Three, the evidence of the security guard Mr. Fuller about what I.C. told him stands in stark contrast with I.C.'s own evidence. Mr. Fuller was unwavering in his testimony that I.C. told him that Mr. Meredith had "grabbed a handful of her vagina" prompting him to immediately report it in an email to his authorities. However, at no time did I.C. testify that she confided details about the alleged sexual assaults to Mr. Fuller. Furthermore, if she did make such a remark to him, it would have been an exaggerated remark as it is entirely inconsistent with her own trial testimony that Mr. Meredith never touched her vagina. While I appreciate that Mr. Fuller has self-professed memory issues because of his illness, it is difficult to reconcile the conflicting evidence between him and I.C.

[136] Counsel for Mr. Meredith also argues that little weight should be based on Mr. Fuller's evidence regarding changes in I.C.'s appearance while working for Mr. Meredith as evidence that corroborates the complainant's claim that Mr. Meredith dictated what she wore. I would agree. What Mr. Fuller means when he says that I.C. dressed more "conservatively" while working for Mr. Meredith is vague and unclear. Furthermore, he suggests that I.C. started to wear pants more often whereas I.C. says Mr. Meredith did not like her to wear pants. The evidence on this issue is contradictory and ultimately, of little assistance.

[137] Four, there are significant contradictions between I.C. and Mr. and Ms. Meredith's account of the Remembrance Day 2013 event in Toronto. I.C. states that Mr. Meredith came to pick her up at the airport, drove her to downtown hotel, insisted on entering her room, and then kissed and touched her for 5-10 minutes. They then went to an interview somewhere downtown, visited his youth center, and met Ms. Meredith for dinner where, in the presence of his wife, he repeatedly rubbed I.C.'s legs under the table.

[138] In contrast, Mr. Meredith testified that he arranged for I.C. to be picked up at the airport and met her at the youth center following which they headed downtown to Ryerson. They visited the youth center and then went downtown to the Delta Chelsea Hotel where I.C. quickly checked in and dropped off her bag. They then went to Ryerson which was close by and he parked his car there. They met with Ms. Meredith and the venue organizers to prepare for the event the following day. As counsel pointed out, the route I.C. proposed would have had Mr. Meredith driving in Toronto traffic from the airport all the way downtown to I.C.'s hotel, then returning north to visit the youth center, and then driving back downtown.

[139] After the meeting, Mr. Meredith testified that the three of them walked over to the Delta Chelsea where I.C. was staying and dined at the restaurant there. He denies that he stretched his legs out under the table in the presence of his wife to fondle I.C.'s legs. Thereafter, he walked back with his wife to Ryerson and they both drove home.

[140] Ms. Meredith corroborated Mr. Meredith's account. I find their accounts to be more reliable than the complainant's account. Mr. Meredith is a graduate of Ryerson. This was the second or third year the event was taking place, and it was an event that both he and his wife were proud of. It is reasonable that they would have wanted to visit the venue the day before the event to confirm details. I find their recall of the sequence of travel and schedule events to be more reliable than the sequence of events described by I.C.

[141] Furthermore, Ms. Meredith testified that she and Mr. Meredith have been married for 35 years and when they go out together, it is customary that if they sit side by side, they have their legs touch. She testified, and I found her evidence to be persuasive, that she would have noticed if Mr. Meredith were trying to reach his legs diagonally and across from her under the table to touch I.C.'s legs. In addition, notwithstanding that Mr. Meredith is a tall man, he would have had to stretch his legs a considerable distance and without notice from his wife to fondle I.C. in the manner she described.

[142] With respect to Ms. Meredith's evidence that there was nothing unusual about I.C.'s demeanor that evening, the Crown argues that Ms. Meredith would not have been able to discern any change in I.C.'s behaviour as she did not know her. However, Ms. Meredith testified that by this point in time, she would have met I.C. about ten previous times.

[143] Ms. Meredith testified that following dinner, she, and Mr. Meredith walked back to Ryerson to get her car. Mr. Meredith's car was also parked at Ryerson. Whether on his own or I.C.'s version of events, Mr. Meredith had to walk back to Ryerson to pick up his car to drop I.C. off at her hotel as she suggested. If, however, they were already dining at or near the Delta Chelsea Hotel as suggested by the Merediths, which I.C. acknowledged in cross-examination could have been the hotel where she stayed, there would have been no reason for him to drive I.C. to her hotel or for Ms. Meredith to suggest her husband do so which was, in fact, not Ms. Meredith's account of what transpired.

[144] Furthermore, I.C.'s account of what transpired initially at the hotel appears to conflict in part with her earlier 2018 statement. Counsel suggested to I.C. that in her 2018 statement, she discussed with the police that she was able to end the interaction with Mr. Meredith in the hotel room by feigning that she was ill with a gastro issue and by telling Mr. Meredith she had her period whereas during her examination in chief in 2024, she testified that she ended the interaction by confronting Mr. Meredith with infidelity. After some back and forth about the interpretation of her statement taken in French, I.C. explained that what she had told the police was that the gastro issue and having her period were excuses running through her head that she would use if things escalated. When pressed further, I.C. did acknowledge that during her discussion with the police in 2018 she had not specifically mentioned the remark about infidelity. I.C. went on to explain that it was because she had raised it in another statement to the police.

[145] Fifth, I find I.C.'s evidence that she had no access to Mr. Meredith's emails is undermined by the evidence of both Mr. and Ms. Meredith. Despite the late disclosure, I allowed the email chain of February 2, 2014, to be admitted into evidence. However, I attribute little weight to it. There are discrepancies in the email chain which are difficult to understand. For example, in one email the time stamp uses am/pm whereas in the second and reply email the time stamp is a 24-hour clock. The first email commences in French and then is forwarded in English with a subject line that is not "Check in" but "TR: Check-In." The reply email also does not contain the information that was forwarded. While there may be some reasonable explanations for these discrepancies, I am not able to make any findings about who authored this email. Not only was the email provided more than 10 years after the fact and following a five-year police investigation, but the email chain was sent to the police in a format that did not allow the police to examine the metadata which may have assisted the court in determining more precisely from which computer or username the email originated.

[146] More importantly, both Mr. and Ms. Meredith testified about the email accounts that Mr. Meredith held. Mr. Meredith testified that as his executive assistant, I.C. would have had access to his emails and was able to respond to queries on his behalf. Ms. Meredith acknowledged that while different executive assistants operate differently, she had certainly observed Mr. Meredith provide instructions to his other executive assistants as to how to respond to certain queries. I find their evidence to be persuasive and undermines the reliability of I.C.'s claim that she did not have access to Mr. Meridith's email accounts.

[147] The Crown argues that one does not need meta data to find the email is direct evidence of Mr. Meredith calling I.C. "Baby." I respectfully disagree. While metadata is not always necessary, in these circumstances, I find the integrity of the email has been sufficiently challenged by the evidence before me that I am not able to attribute any weight to it in the absence of additional information.

[148] Finally, there is also a contradiction between C.S. and the complainant's evidence regarding the CARICOM meeting. C.S. says that during their meeting, Mr. Meredith referred to Mardi Gras and suggested she and I.C. would look good in a Brazilian costume whereas I.C. recalls Mr. Meredith making a remark about wearing a traditional costume. I.C. did not recall Mr. Meredith stating anything about a Brazilian costume or Mardi Gras but that based on photos she had previously seen, she understood the traditional dress was a large headdress with a bikini top and long skirt. It is unclear what photos I.C. would have examined to conclude that this is the traditional dress of Caribbean women. Mr. Meredith denies making any such remark.

ii. Mr. Meredith's Credibility and Reliability

[149] Mr. Meredith testified in his own defence. I found his evidence to be straightforward and clear. He did not embellish or exaggerate his answers. He testified to the events as he recalled them and was clear when he could not recall certain details. I found his evidence was not shaken on cross-examination. While he did become animated at one point during the cross-examination, I did not find it undermined the quality of his answers.

[150] There were two documents introduced in cross-examination that appeared to contradict Mr. Meredith's account of events, but I do not find they undermine his credibility or the reliability of his evidence. First, for reasons already provided, I am not prepared to put any weight on the email chain with the words "Thanks Baby."

[151] Second, with respect to the Minutes of the Senate Standing Committees, I do not find these documents undermine Mr. Meredith's account of the events at the Chateau Laurier. Both I.C. and Mr. Meredith agree that Mr. Meredith was scheduled to attend some form of meeting that day and that he needed to review documents to prepare for the meeting. Both agree that the incident occurred sometime in November with I.C. suggesting it was in late November.

[152] Both also agree that the incident took place in the morning and/or certainly before noon. Mr. Meredith stated he came in late that Monday morning and was then running late for a meeting which he understood was scheduled for 9:30 at East Block. It was for this reason he asked I.C. to bring the documents. I.C. testified she delivered the documents before noon but the meeting was scheduled for the afternoon in the Victoria Building.

[153] The Meeting Minutes indicates that this committee held a meeting on Wednesday November 7 at 10:36 am, on Thursday November 21 at 10:47 am, and on Thursday November 27 at 4:26 in the afternoon. These dates and times do not accord with Mr. Meredith's evidence that the Chateau Laurier request occurred on a Monday. I.C. did not specify which date of the week the meeting might have occurred.

[154] Mr. Meredith acknowledged that he is not a member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and believed he could have been called upon to attend the committee meeting for someone else. He also testified, and his evidence was not challenged in this regard, that he was a member of several Parliamentary committees and that he attended committee meetings related to Social Affairs, Finance, and Indigenous issues. Mr. Meredith also testified that there are subcommittee meetings held at the East Block. He recalled having participated in at least 4 to 5 meetings in the East Block. Consequently, I find that it is reasonable that after ten years, Mr. Meredith is mistaken about which committee meeting he was scheduled to attend that morning. I do not find the absence of his name on the attendance record in the Minutes of three meetings held by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee means that Mr. Meredith did not attend a meeting of some sort at East Block that morning.

[155] Furthermore, Mr. Meredith's evidence that he did not have breakfast with I.C. at the Chateau Laurier accords with his explanation that he was in a rush that morning. He also testified that the only time he dined with I.C. in Ottawa was at the staff appreciation lunch with his wife in December 2013. On this point, Ms. Meredith corroborated his testimony.

[156] Finally, while I appreciate that Ms. Meredith is Mr. Meredith's spouse and would have an interest in the outcome of this matter, I found her testimony to be clear, credible, and concise. She was called upon to testify about a limited number of events in which she was involved. She did not testify beyond what would have been within her direct knowledge. She did not attempt to paint her husband in a good light. Rather, she simply answered the questions asked of her with respect to the events that transpired. Furthermore, she was able to corroborate her recall of dates and events using a Sympatico calendar that she had retained over these ten years.

V. Conclusion

[157] Upon careful consideration of the evidence as a whole, I accept Mr. Meredith's evidence with respect to the events that transpired in Toronto. I find him not guilty of count 3, sexual assault on/around November 10, 2013.

[158] While Mr. Meredith was not able to precisely account for the meeting he attended, I find his evidence in relation to the Chateau Laurier incident when examined in the context of the whole of the evidence raises a reasonable doubt. Consequently, I find him not guilty of Count 2, sexual assault between November 15, 2013, and December 15, 2013.

[159] With respect to the allegations of sexual touching and inappropriate conduct in the office including the skype call, I find the evidence raises a reasonable doubt. I.C. provided detailed evidence regarding the alleged sexual assaults and conduct at the office. However, for the reasons provided above, I found portions of her evidence were contradicted and unreliable. Mr. Meredith denied that he sexually touched I.C. at the office, that he made threatening or demeaning comments to her, or that he engaged in controlling conduct that would have caused the complainant to fear for her safety. His evidence was not seriously challenged, and I find there is no reasonable basis to reject it. I find his evidence, when considered against the whole of the evidence, raises a reasonable doubt. Consequently, upon application of W.D., the accused is acquitted of counts 1 and 4.

Somji J.

Released: November 3, 2025