CITATION: R. v. Brown, 2026 ONSC 3650

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-30000169-0000

DATE: 20260623

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

JAHMAL JUSTIN BROWN

Defendant

Adriana Moser, for the Crown

Chris Nagel, for the Defendant

HEARD: March 25-27, 30, 2026

C. Weiler J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OVERVIEW

1Mr. Brown was charged with a number of offences relating to a September 29, 2023 incident involving the complainant, N.N., at his friend Michelle’s apartment in Toronto. The charges are aggravated assault (s. 268(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), assault cause bodily harm (s. 267(b)), assault with a weapon (s. 267(a)), unlawful confinement (s. 279(2)), sexual assault (s. 271), and threatening to cause death (s. 264.1(1)(a)).

2N.N. alleged that she was duped into attending Michelle’s apartment under the pretense of visiting with a friend who had recently been released from prison. She claimed that moments after she arrived at Michelle’s, Mr. Brown suddenly appeared with his girlfriend. She testified that over the course of many hours in the apartment, Mr. Brown repeatedly poured boiling water on her, burned her with a torch lighter, forcibly confined her, beat her and kicked her, bruising her face and breaking her ribs, shaved her head, sexually assaulted her and threatened her.

3Mr. Brown testified in his defence. He denied any plan to lure N.N. to Michelle’s. He admitted that after an altercation between N.N. and his girlfriend, he threw or poured boiling water on N.N. three or four times, amounting to aggravated assault. Those burns caused N.N.’s second degree burns and left her with permanent scarring. Mr. Brown vehemently denied committing any other offences.

4The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Brown committed the other offences. N.N. and Mr. Brown were the only witnesses.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE LED AT TRIAL

Agreed Facts and Admissions

5The Crown and Defence agreed on the following relating to N.N.’s injuries and medical care from her medical records:

• On October 3, 2023, N.N. went to the emergency department at Michael Garron Hospital at 11:53 p.m., and checked in under the name “Jane Doe”. She later revealed her true name to hospital staff.
• N.N. remained at the hospital and was assessed and treated in the emergency department until she checked out at 6:31 p.m., on October 4, 2023.
• N.N. was diagnosed with the following injuries: second degree burns on her right shoulder and neck, right forearm, left cheek and jawline; seven rib fractures; a concussion; fluid buildup around her left lung; fluid or mucus in her breathing passages; neck injuries, including pain, hoarseness, and difficulty breathing and swallowing; soft-tissue injuries, including bruising and abrasions to her face, neck and multiple parts of her upper body.

6While at the hospital, nurses photographed N.N.’s injuries. The photos were admitted on consent.

7Mr. Brown admitted to causing the burns on N.N.’s shoulder, neck and face by throwing or pouring boiling water on her. The cause of the burn on N.N.’s right forearm is in dispute. Mr. Brown testified that he poured boiling water on N.N.’s arm; whereas, N.N. testified that he held a torch lighter to her arm.

8The Crown and the defence agreed that N.N. and Mr. Brown knew each other. N.N. and Mr. Brown each testified that they met through a mutual friend in the latter half of 2019 and that their association continued into 2020, when Mr. Brown was arrested and spent several months in custody.

N.N.’s Evidence

9N.N. testified that she and Mr. Brown had a romantic relationship. They dated and lived together. They were introduced sometime in the summer or fall of 2019, and started dating within a couple of weeks. N.N. rented a room in an apartment on Bleecker Street. Mr. Brown began living with her there. In cross-examination, N.N. acknowledged that they sold drugs together, including crystal meth. Their relationship continued until approximately May 2020. Mr. Brown was on bail and was arrested for breaching the conditions of that bail in May 2020. N.N. could not remember exactly when the relationship ended. She said they broke up sometime after Mr. Brown had been in custody because he started threatening her when she was unable to get him out of jail.

10Sometime between 2021 and 2023, Mr. Brown sent N.N. a number of recorded voice notes through Facebook. N.N. found the voice notes threatening. In one voice note, Mr. Brown said: “Yo, whoever’s recording this for me right now, tell the YZ’s I just said green light on this girl, bro…You ran off with all my shit, all my money, and you think you’re a sick girl? I’m gonna see you soon, bro. When I see you, bro, we’re going to have a nice conversation. Trust me.” N.N. interpreted that message as Mr. Brown indicating he was going to beat her up. The voice notes suggested that N.N. had some of Mr. Brown’s property and money and that he wanted it back. N.N. denied keeping $20,000 of Mr. Brown’s money. She said that when Mr. Brown was arrested, they were living together and she had his property. Later, when she was arrested in June 2020, the police confiscated everything she had belonging to Mr. Brown. There was only $300 left, which she e-transferred to his “baby mother” – the mother of his son.

11The next time N.N. saw Mr. Brown was on September 29, 2023. That day, she received a text message from Michelle’s phone. The text suggested N.N.’s friend Patrick, who had recently been released from prison, was using Michelle’s phone to reach out to N.N. The message said to come over to Michelle’s. N.N. went to Michelle’s apartment at Broadview and Danforth at around 2:30 or 3:00 a.m., expecting to see Michelle and Patrick. Patrick was not there.

12After N.N. spoke to Michelle for a few minutes, Mr. Brown abruptly entered the unit with his girlfriend and one or two others. At first N.N. said that he “kicked” or “booted” the door, but in cross-examination she clarified that he entered “aggressively”, causing the door to slam against the wall. Mr. Brown came in and kicked her in the face. His girlfriend grabbed N.N. by the hair and threw her on the ground. They took N.N.’s jacket, shoes and phone and they both started kicking her with full force while she was on the floor. Both Mr. Brown and his girlfriend were wearing Timberland boots. N.N. recalled Mr. Brown saying: that she “wasn’t going anywhere”; asking did she “really think he wasn’t going to find” her; and calling her a “Rat”. N.N. recalled that two other males entered either with Mr. Brown or shortly afterward.

13Mr. Brown’s girlfriend also called N.N. a “Rat” and asked her “where is his money?”

14Mr. Brown put on a pot of hot water on the stove and told N.N. to sit on the couch. He punched her in the face and asked why she had “ratted him out”. She denied doing so and he poured the hot water on her shoulder. She was in a lot of pain. She was trying to move away from Mr. Brown but she couldn’t leave. Mr. Bown kept asking her the same question over and over, and she kept responding that she didn’t “rat him out” and did not know how he had been arrested.

15N.N. struggled to give a chronological account of what happened after the initial beating and the first time Mr. Brown poured boiling water on her. She was in and out of consciousness several times throughout the ordeal both from her injuries and the pain. She described the following other events while in the apartment:

• N.N. woke up sitting on a chair after she had lost consciousness on the floor. While on the chair, Mr. Brown asked for a female to bring him an electric razor. He then shaved off N.N.’s chin-length hair. After N.N.’s memory was refreshed from her police statement, she recalled that Mr. Brown had everyone watch him shave her hair and threw chunks of her hair at her.
• While she was seated on the chair, Mr. Brown also burned N.N.’s right arm with a mini torch lighter. He held the lighter on her skin for 5-6 seconds. She was crying and in a lot of pain. To cope with the pain, N.N. asked Michelle, who had been doing fentanyl, if Michelle could blow some fentanyl smoke in N.N.’s face. Michelle did so.
• There was a couch blocking the front door. N.N. could not recall who put it there.
• N.N. came to, after having been passed out for a while, and Michelle was overdosing on the floor outside the bathroom. The couch in front of the door had to be moved and there was a scramble to get Narcan for Michelle. N.N. remembered people running out the door, and Mr. Brown running down the hall and coming back. N.N. believes Mr. Brown’s girlfriend remained with her.
• Mr. Brown continued kicking N.N., calling her a “Rat” and telling her that she was not leaving. He also threatened her, saying he could get rid of her “easily” and he could put her in the trunk of a car, drive her up north and “no one would know what happened” to her. N.N. recalled Mr. Brown threatening her like this multiple times.
• After Michelle’s overdose and after Mr. Brown asked his girlfriend to leave, he asked N.N. to sit on the couch and started acting nicely toward her. By “nice”, N.N. said “he wasn’t cussing or kicking me or just trying to beat me up anymore”. Mr. Brown pulled N.N.’s shirt down and grabbed her breasts. He said, “Why do I make him do these kinds of things”. He bit her breast and asked, “if I was still his”. He demanded a blow job. N.N. refused. He went back to the kitchen to boil water. N.N. was scared and in a lot of pain. He took N.N. into the bathroom, and threw boiling water in her face. He threatened to pour more water on her unless she gave him a hand job and dripped a little bit of water on her shoulder. She was crying. He took down his pants and underwear, told her to “grab his dick” and give him a “hand job”. She just did it. Mr. Brown ejaculated in the sink. N.N.’s shirt was off during this incident, but she could not recall how it had been removed.
• After the incident in the bathroom, Mr. Brown and N.N. went back to the couch. Mr. Brown was talking to her nicely and gave N.N. her phone back so that she could turn in an assignment for an online self-study course by “Coursera” on “time management” that she was taking. The assignment had been completed but N.N. just needed to go on the website and press, “send”. Mr. Brown watched her do this and then took the phone back. He also gave N.N. a cigarette. He said, “Why do you always make me do this?”

16The last time N.N. saw Mr. Brown in the apartment, he said he was going to go out to “get some things” for her, possibly alcohol. He instructed N.N. to stay there and not to leave. She lost consciousness after he left and does not recall for how long. When N.N. woke up, only Michelle was there and she was still passed out, or appeared to be sleeping. N.N. clothed herself in a shirt, trackpants and shoes she found in the apartment; her own shoes and jacket had been taken and her pants were soaking wet. She ran out, down the stairs which exited out the back of the building and tried to hop the fence. Unable to get over the fence, she went around the building, ran down Broadview and knocked on a stranger’s door. They gave her water and called her a taxi. The taxi refused to take N.N. further when she said she had no money to pay until she reached her friend’s house. N.N. ended up taking the bus to get to her friend’s house.

17N.N. stayed at her friend’s house between September 30 and October 3, 2023. She was in a lot of pain but did not want to go to the hospital because Mr. Brown had told her “not to leave” Michelle’s or he would find N.N. again. To treat the pain, N.N. self-medicated with alcohol, Percocet and crystal meth. She only went to the hospital when the pain became unbearable. She could not sit up, breathe, lay down or walk. Her burns were starting to peel and bubble. N.N. signed in at the hospital as “Jane Doe”, afraid that Mr. Brown might look for her there. She left after receiving some treatment and painkillers for pain, but before she had been discharged. She “freaked out” because she had later shared her real name with the nurses and was concerned that might enable Mr. Brown to find her.

18N.N. has permanent scarring on the left side of her face, her neck, her right shoulder, down her back and on her right arm from being burned by Mr. Brown.

19A few months after the incident, N.N. learned that Mr. Brown would be released from jail. She broke down and disclosed the incident to her probation officer. N.N.’s probation officer contacted the police. It took N.N. two attempts before she gave a statement to the police on June 6, 2024. The first time she was supposed to meet with her probation officer and the police, she “freaked out” and did not show up. The second time she went to the police station but did not go inside. Finally, she called the detective, arranged a time to meet with him and gave a statement.

Mr. Brown’s Evidence

20Mr. Brown is 32 years old and grew up on Bleecker Street in Toronto. He dropped out of high school in grade 12. He was raised by a single mother who struggled financially. His father was not part of his life. Mr. Brown started selling marijuana when he was 13 or 14 years old. At some point, he began selling harder drugs such as crystal meth and cocaine. He has a 6-year-old son with autism. Mr. Brown has a criminal record.

21Mr. Brown had only a business relationship with N.N. She was a known crystal meth dealer in November 2019. They started doing business together right away. Mr. Brown denied ever dating N.N. or living with her. He did keep “stuff” at N.N.’s place, such as laptops or things he collected from addicts as payment for drugs. When he was selling drugs on N.N.’s street, he might “take a nap in [her] living room for an hour or two” but did not “crash” there. Given that they sold a lot of drugs together, Mr. Brown and N.N. had a “little bit of a friendship” but no dating or sexual relationship.

22Mr. Brown said that things turned sour with N.N. before he went to jail in May 2020 because she was “stealing stuff” and “hiding things” from him. After Mr. Brown went to jail, she owed him over $20,000. While working with N.N. in 2019 and 2020, he had been “putting money away” for his son. His money and items he received as payment for drugs were stored at N.N.’s. When he was in custody, Mr. Brown tried to call N.N., asking her to return his property or to send money to his “baby mother” who was living in a shelter, trying to get housing and did not have enough money for his autistic son’s basic needs. N.N. started ignoring him and blocking his calls.

23Mr. Brown admitted that his efforts to get money back from N.N. included sending her voice notes that were recorded by someone over the phone while he was in jail.

24Mr. Brown was released in 2021. He had someone else place a call to N.N. for him. They spoke for two to three minutes and she hung up on him. He said it “cheesed me” in the moment. That was the last time they spoke before September 29, 2023.

25On September 29, 2023, Mr. Brown was still really upset about the money N.N. owed him. That day, he went to Michelle’s apartment to sell drugs around 2:00 p.m. He had a keyfob for the building. He dropped off half a kilogram of cocaine at a first-floor apartment. He then went upstairs to Michelle’s third-floor apartment to bring her 1 oz of fentanyl (worth $600) and half a brick of crystal meth (worth $2,500). He described Michelle as a good friend whom he had known since high school. She was the kind of person who made sure that he had money to feed his son, and who would check on his mom for him while he was in prison.

26When he arrived at Michelle’s, Mr. Brown knocked on the door and N.N. answered. He was confused to see her there. N.N. greeted him saying, “Hey Meeks”, Mr. Brown’s nickname. He responded, “Hi, what are you saying?” Referring to the $20,000 chain he was wearing, N.N. said, “I like your chain. I hear you’re doing very well for yourself. I kind of miss you”. He said, “Stop talking like that with my girl” because his girlfriend Alyeah was there with him. N.N. responded, “Nah, I still miss you”. Alyeah was angry because he introduced N.N. to her by her nickname, and referred to Alyeah as, “my girl”. Alyeah said, “Stop introducing me as your girl, I’m your wife.”

27Alyeah quickly realized that N.N. was the person who owed Mr. Brown money. She started attacking N.N. Alyeah and N.N. started fighting. During their fight, N.N. made some comments about Mr. Brown’s son, which Mr. Brown recounted as, “she doesn’t care that she owes me money for my retarded kid”. This made Mr. Brown angry. He grabbed the pot of water that was already boiling on the stove for hot dogs or macaroni, picked it up and threw it at N.N.

28The pot was about three quarters full. Mr. Brown did not throw all of the hot water on N.N. at once. He described throwing it at her three or four times:

• The first time, it hit N.N.’s face. She reacted like anyone who was burned would react, “screaming” and saying, “that burns”.
• The second time, about a minute later, Mr. Brown was still angry. He “blacked out” in the sense that his anger overtook him, and he threw more water on N.N. He “dashed” water on her; he did not pay attention to where. She was “just screaming”. He said that he probably hit her shoulder this time.
• The third time, after another minute, Mr. Brown “poured” water on N.N.’s arm. N.N. started swearing at him.
• Mr. Brown thinks that he threw water on N.N. a fourth time, although he cannot be sure.

29Mr. Brown confirmed that N.N. was screaming and crying each time he put boiling water on her. After he poured the water on N.N., Mr. Brown said he didn’t feel anything. Later, he said that he felt badly about what he had done to N.N. In court, he repeatedly described how throwing boiling water on N.N. was “disgusting behaviour” and said that he was “disgusted” with himself. He did not plan to do that. He said that it was something he should not have done and acknowledged that he hurt N.N. in a way that’s not going to heal. He continues to be “kind of mad” at N.N. for taking his money.

30Mr. Brown said that shortly after pouring the water on N.N., three male friends entered the apartment and began getting high. Michelle smoked some of the fentanyl that he had brought her. Michelle overdosed within about five minutes of N.N. being burned.

31Mr. Brown described how he panicked and started “tripping out”. He asked the others in the apartment to get Narcan for Michelle. He felt badly because he had supplied Michelle with the fentanyl and Michelle was a “really good friend”. Mr. Brown was also fearful that if his friends called for an ambulance, as they said they would, the police would also come and he would be arrested for throwing the hot water on N.N., supplying the fentanyl to Michelle, or both. He did not want to go back to jail. He left abruptly with Alyeah and went home.

32Mr. Brown denied:

• Punching or kicking N.N.;
• Shaving N.N.’s head with electric clippers;
• Wearing Timberland boots as N.N. described;
• Burning N.N.’s arm with a lighter;
• Asking N.N. for sex, a blowjob or forcing her to touch his penis;
• Touching N.N.’s breasts or biting her nipples;
• Ever being in the bathroom with N.N.;
• Threatening N.N. in the apartment (he admitted to threatening her over voice note); or
• Putting a couch in front of the door, telling N.N. that she could not leave, or making N.N. feel like she couldn’t leave.

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

33The Crown bears the burden of proving Mr. Brown’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Brown comes before the court with the presumption of innocence; he has a clean slate. The presumption of innocence is only discharged if the Crown proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown must prove the essential elements of each of the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Brown does not have to prove anything. I must assess the evidence as a whole and decide whether, based on all of the evidence, the Crown has proven Mr. Brown’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 at para. 36.

34A reasonable doubt is based on “reason and common sense” that logically arises from the evidence, or the absence of evidence. It is neither “imaginary” nor “frivolous”. It does not involve proof to an absolute certainty but it is much closer to proof of absolute certainty than it is to proof of probable or likely guilt: R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144 at para. 242; Lifchus, at para. 36. I can find Mr. Brown guilty only if I am sure that he committed the offences alleged.

35In this case, Mr. Brown admitted to committing the offence of aggravated assault. He denied committing the offences of assault cause bodily harm, assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, sexual assault and threatening. In assessing whether the Crown has proven Mr. Brown’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to these other offences, I must follow the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 at 759:

i) If I believe Mr. Brown’s testimony that he did not commit the remaining offences, I must find him not guilty;

ii) Even if I do not believe Mr. Brown’s testimony, if it leaves me with a reasonable doubt about whether he committed the remaining offences, I must find him not guilty; and

iii) Even if Mr. Brown’s testimony does not leave me with any reasonable doubt, I may only find him guilty if, based on the evidence that I do accept, I am satisfied that all the elements of the remaining offences have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This approach ensures that my analysis of the evidence does not devolve into a credibility contest between the complainant and the accused and it ensures that the presumption of innocence and the Crown’s burden of establishing the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt operate properly. See also: R. v. Y.(C.L.), 2008 SCC 2, 2008 SCC2, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 5 at para. 8.

ANALYSIS

Do I accept Mr. Brown’s evidence or do I find that it raises a reasonable doubt?

36I accept Mr. Brown’s evidence that he poured boiling water on N.N. four times. However, I do not accept his evidence about how he did that, nor do I accept his evidence about how long he was at the Broadview apartment or the rest of his interactions with N.N. while there. There are three main reasons why I reject Mr. Brown’s evidence on these points and find that it does not raise a reasonable doubt about whether he committed the remaining offences.

37First, when I consider Mr. Brown’s evidence, both on its own, and in the context of the case as a whole, I find it implausible. The following aspects of his evidence did not make sense:

• That N.N. remained in place while he poured boiling water on her: Mr. Brown’s description of how he poured the water on N.N. defies belief. He described pouring or throwing boiling water on N.N. three to four times, with about a minute in between. Mr. Brown said that N.N. was “just sitting there”, denying that she had stolen any of his money and asking, “Why are you doing this?” It is not plausible that an unrestrained N.N. remained seated and stationary in between the four occasions that Mr. Brown poured the boiling water on her, only verbally defending herself.
• Mr. Brown’s evidence on how he “poured the water” on N.N.’s arm: According to Mr. Brown, he did not hold onto N.N.’s arm, nor did she move her arm away when he started to pour water on her. She just said, “ah, ah” and “her arm was just right there”, it was “already out” as he slowly poured the water onto her. It is simply nonsensical that anyone being scalded with boiling water would not pull back, recoil or try to move away from the person repeatedly scalding them.
• Mr. Brown’s evidence that N.N. was free to go at any time: Mr. Brown testified that he never held N.N. down or told her she could not leave Michelle’s apartment. He said, “I wasn’t holding her hostage.” When asked if N.N. could have run out and he would have let her leave, Mr. Brown responded, “Of course. Why would I run after her, so what? She run into the streets screaming and somebody calls the police and I get arrested?” His nonchalance about whether N.N. could leave and report him right away in cross-examination is hard to reconcile with his testimony in-chief that half of the reason that he left abruptly when his good friend Michelle overdosed was the fact that if the police came, they would see what he had done to N.N., who knew his “government name” and he would be arrested. I find it implausible that Mr. Brown did not care whether N.N. left the apartment and went to the police in light of his later explanation for his own departure – that he was afraid that police would accompany first responders called and he would be arrested for supplying the drugs to Michelle, or for what he did to N.N.

38Second, Mr. Brown’s evidence was internally inconsistent. I note the following contradictions in his testimony:

• Mr. Brown’s denial that there was any romantic or dating relationship with N.N. was at odds with his evidence about his prior dealings with N.N. In examination in-chief, Mr. Brown said, “I was never dating N.N. Me and Ms. N. were never together. It was only a business.” Mr. Brown’s initial reference to “never together” suggests he uses that term in the colloquial sense to refer to a romantic relationship. However, later he appeared to contradict himself when he said in-chief, “When me and Ms. N.N. were together, we were making drugs, selling drugs, I was putting money away for my son”. Further, Mr. Brown testified that N.N. said “I miss you” during their initial greeting at the apartment. He responded, “yo stop talking like that with my girl”, suggesting this was somehow inappropriate or would make his girlfriend jealous. It would not make sense for N.N.’s statement of “I miss you” to pose difficulties for Mr. Brown’s girlfriend if his prior association with her was strictly business. Finally, Mr. Brown admitted that he bought N.N. some designer bags and wigs. When questioned whether he bought such things for other business associates, Mr. Brown responded, “Yes, I do and I buy girls that I have sex with bags too.” The Crown’s question had nothing to do with sex, but Mr. Brown’s volunteering of that information suggested that he made an association between buying designer bags and sex. The bottom line is that Mr. Brown’s protestations about never having a romantic or dating relationship with N.N. were at odds with other aspects of his evidence.
• Mr. Brown gave inconsistent evidence about the state of his relationship with N.N. before he went to jail in 2020. Initially, he said that his relationship with her was going sour before he went to jail because N.N. was “stealing stuff from me and hiding things from me.” Moments later he said that when he went to jail they were on “really good terms. She like owed me a little bit of money, but then when I went to jail like she owed me a lot of money.”
• Mr. Brown gave inconsistent evidence about why he was angry with N.N. Initially, he said he was angry with N.N. because of the $20,000 he said she stole from him. He repeatedly asserted that the $20,000 was money that was badly needed for his baby mother and son when he went to prison in 2020. Later, when portions of the voice notes he sent to N.N. were played for him in cross-examination, he supplied a different reason for the extent of his anger. He said he threatened N.N. in the final message because, “I was angry, I was upset…because she’s rolling around with somebody that’s trying to take over my program, that’s trying to take my drugs and steal my stuff and take over my neighbourhood when I was running my neighbourhood.” This answer suggested Mr. Brown was angry with N.N. for more reasons than simply the money she owed him.
• Mr. Brown gave inconsistent evidence about when he obtained the $20,000 chain that he described wearing on September 29, 2023. Mr. Brown claimed that he was so angry at N.N. in 2023 because the $20,000 she stole from in 2020 him was money that was needed for his baby mother and infant son. The Crown cross-examined him about why he did not sell his $20,000 chain if he needed money for his child back in 2020. Initially, Mr. Brown explained that he did not sell his chain then, “Because I was in jail. My mom didn’t have my chain, my people didn’t have my chain…I never had my chain those times.” The next day, Mr. Brown gave a different explanation. He said, “I told you I couldn’t sell my chain because my mom had my chain. I had that chain before I even talked to N.N. My dire situation…was this happened when me and Ms. N stopped talking”. Later in cross-examination, he said, “My chain was not around when this happened. At the end of the day, yes, I came in…with a $20,000 chain. That doesn’t mean that I had a $20,000 chain then and when I – and if I did…” Mr. Brown’s inconsistent evidence about the $20,000 chain is significant. If he owned the chain in 2020, it would undercut his explanation for why he was angry with N.N. – her stealing his property and leaving nothing but $300 for his baby mother and son in 2020.

39Third, Mr. Brown’s testimony was contradicted by other independent evidence. For example, Mr. Brown’s description of the fight he said occurred between N.N. and his girlfriend was inconsistent with the extent of N.N.’s injuries. In-chief, Mr. Brown provided little detail about the fight other than that his girlfriend started attacking N.N. and they “are getting into a fight”, during which N.N. said, “she doesn’t care that she owes me money for my retarded kid.” When asked to describe the fight in cross-examination, Mr. Brown said, “My girl started punching her in the face” and N.N. was “fighting my girl, defending herself, she’s not just going to stand there and get beat up.” He said that N.N. and his girlfriend were punching each other, kicking each other and just fighting. By the time he grabbed the boiling water, the fight was basically done and “my girl is kind of on the floor basically, like N.N. was, kind of basically winning the fight” and his girlfriend was injured. Mr. Brown’s evidence about the fight and, especially with how it ended in his girlfriend being the injured party is at odds with N.N.’s documented injuries, which included seven rib fractures, a concussion, fluid build up on her lungs and breathing passages and neck injuries.

40Mr. Brown’s evidence was also contradicted in part by the voice notes that he admitted were messages recorded by someone and sent to N.N. while he was in custody. Mr. Brown admitted that he was angry with N.N. when he sent the voice notes, but with the exception of the final message, he denied that they were threatening. His evidence is at odds with an objective reading of the following messages and contradicted by their content, context and angry tone:

• “Yo, where’s my money, fam? Fam, I’m just gonna give the mandem the green light to come for you, fam. I want my money, bro…Yo, whoever’s recording this for me right now, tell the YZ’s I just said green light on this girl, bro. 1214, bro….I know you’re at George Street…I’m gonna see you soon, bro. When I see you, bro, we’re gonna have a nice conversation. Trust me.”
• “It’s okay, man. I’ll see you later, yo. I don’t even have time for you right now, yo….I’m going out for the day. You ratted on me, robbed me for everything….Like, you’re just a goof, fam. Like one day, fam, somethings gonna happen to you, and it’s gonna be karma bro.”
• “My nigga, keep talking my fucking name, you goof. You’re a weird kid, fam. Don’t worry, man, we’re all gonna go out and have a nice dinner and eat some steak and lobster. You know I like seafood. You like Seafood? I love seafood. I love fishes. You like fishes?”

41Mr. Brown acknowledged that he was threatening N.N. in a final message. That message talked about how Mr. Brown knew that N.N. and someone else were running his program or “hood” and making money off of his “product” even though she put no money in “the pot”, and he said, “when I see you you already know what time it is”. He explained that this message meant: “When I see you [N.N.] it’s on and popping”.

42The voice notes also contradicted Mr. Brown’s evidence about gifts he had bought for N.N. Initially, he testified that he purchased a couple of designer bags and wigs for N.N. and “that’s it”. He described these as bonuses for N.N.’s successful drug sales. He denied buying N.N. a bike or other items. When he was confronted with voice notes in which he said, “My nigga, how much shit have I bought you? Gucci glasses. I bought you Gucci this. I buy you this, that…and the third, …Buy you…bikes that are worth 5K”, he acknowledged giving N.N. these other gifts. He claimed that he had forgotten about the bike purchase and explained that the bike wasn’t bought from a store; rather, someone traded it to him as payment for drugs.

Discreditable conduct evidence

43The voice notes played by the Crown are other discreditable conduct. Their threatening nature paints Mr. Brown in a bad light and raises the risk of improper propensity reasoning. The Crown brought no formal application and there was no voir dire relating to this presumptively inadmissible evidence. The defence conceded the voice notes were admissible and relied on the voice notes to support the defence theory that Mr. Brown was upset with N.N. over money she owed him in 2020 that was needed for his baby mother.

44Although their admissibility was conceded, I must still be careful about the use I make of the voice notes. I do not rely on them for propensity purposes, but rather, as evidence that undermines Mr. Brown’s credibility, as described above, and as relevant and material to Mr. Brown’s motive or animus toward N.N.: R. v. J.H., 2020 ONCA 165 at paras. 52-55; R. v. Kostuk, 2025 ONCA 195, paras. 38-39, 41-42. In my view, the voice notes were relevant and necessary to understand the state of the relationship between Mr. Brown and N.N. leading up to September 29-30, 2023. I find that the voice notes have probative value that exceeds any prejudicial effect, given that this is a judge alone trial and there is minimal risk of moral or reasoning prejudice.

45Mr. Brown’s counsel led evidence of his criminal record in examination in-chief as well as other uncharged discreditable conduct. Mr. Brown freely and candidly referred to himself as a drug dealer and a criminal. I am mindful that I am entitled to rely on Mr. Brown’s criminal record solely for the purpose of assessing his credibility and not for any prohibited propensity reasoning purpose. Mr. Brown’s criminal record includes convictions for failing to attend court (2016, 2019), escape lawful custody, failure to comply with recognizance (2016, 2019), obstruct peace officer (gave a false name, 2019), fail to comply with release order (Ottawa 2023), two counts of assault cause bodily harm and uttering threats. He agreed that his convictions for failure to comply with court orders involved lying to the Court on multiple occasions. Mr. Brown testified that these offences occurred when he was younger and that he knows better now. I attribute very limited weight to Mr. Brown’s prior convictions in my assessment of his credibility.

Tailoring

46In cross-examination, the Crown suggested that Mr. Brown only admitted to things for which there was independent proof. For example, she suggested that he only admitted to pouring the boiling water on N.N. because of the photographs of N.N.’s burns in evidence, and that he only admitted to calling N.N. a “Rat” because of the voice note on which he called her a “Rat”. The defence submitted in closing that these suggestions amounted to an assertion that Mr. Brown tailored his evidence either to the disclosure or the evidence adduced at trial.

47I agree with the defence. These suggestions attempt to impugn Mr. Brown’s credibility on the basis that he tailored his evidence to aspects of the Crown’s case for which there existed incontrovertible proof in disclosure or at trial. It was obvious to Mr. Brown what the Crown was getting at, given that when pressed during this questioning he responded that he had never seen his disclosure before trial and that he previously wanted to admit guilt to the aggravated assault. In my view, relying on this reasoning to undermine Mr. Brown’s credibility would be an error of law and I do not do so: R. v. G.V., 2020 ONCA 291, 392 C.C.C. (3d) 14, at paras. 4, 24-26, 41, 45-46; R. v. M.D., 2020 ONCA 290, 392 C.C.C. (3d) 29, at paras. 21-31. Numerous appellate authorities forbid an approach in cross-examination that undermines an accused’s right to disclosure or to participate in their own trial process by turning those rights into a trap. Watt J.A. explained why this type of reasoning is problematic in R. v. Chacon-Perez, 2022 ONCA 3, 159 O.R. (3d) 481 at paras. 114-115:

Lines of questioning and submissions that characterize the testimony of an accused as suspect or unworthy of belief because they have received disclosure of the case for the Crown, or have been present throughout their trial as the case for the Crown unfolded, are problematic. They are problematic because an accused is constitutionally entitled to receive disclosure of the case for the Crown, to know the case to meet, to be present at their trial, and to make full answer and defence to the allegations against them. They are statutorily required to be present at their trial and to see and hear the case for the Crown before they are permitted to respond.

The problems with the lines of questioning, argument or reasoning in issue is that each turns fundamental constitutional rights, statutory obligations or trial procedures into a trap for the accused exacting an evidentiary toll in the process. [Citations omitted.]

48Even though I have rejected Mr. Brown’s evidence, and found that it does not raise a reasonable doubt with respect to the other offences, I must still consider whether the evidence that I do accept satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the offences of assault cause bodily harm, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, sexual assault and threatening death.

Has the Crown proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt?

49The third branch of W.(D.) requires that I be satisfied of the credibility and reliability of N.N.’s evidence.

50N.N. testified in a calm, direct and straightforward manner. She became emotional at points when testifying about the sexual assault and the lasting impact of her burns. N.N. was also a careful witness who was clear about what she could and could not remember from September 29, 2023. N.N. acknowledged that there were many things that she could not remember from that night.

51When challenged in cross-examination, N.N. responded directly with, “that is a lie, sir”, to suggestions that she disagreed with. She also readily admitted to things that painted her in a negative light, such as that she used to supplement her income by selling drugs and she previously abused alcohol and was addicted to crystal meth.

52Defence counsel argued that, aside from Mr. Brown’s acts of pouring boiling water on her repeatedly, N.N.’s evidence of what transpired on September 29-30, 2023 lacked credibility and reliability. The defence suggested that N.N. was motivated to fabricate by augmenting the allegations she made against Mr. Brown in order to ensure that he would remain in custody for a long time because she owed him $20,000. The defence also argued that N.N. was simply too unreliable given her non-chronological narrative of events, her admitted alcohol and drug use both before and after the incident, and significant inconsistencies between her trial testimony and earlier statements. I will address each of these submissions in turn.

Motive to Fabricate

53The defence cross-examined N.N. on the suggestion that she went to the police with allegations beyond the boiling water Mr. Brown poured on her because she had heard that he would be released from custody, owed him $20,000 and had no way to repay him. N.N. forcefully denied those suggestions. She also denied exaggerating what happened on September 29-30, 2023 to make it sound even more serious, to delay Mr. Brown’s release from custody. N.N. responded that she was worried about Mr. Brown being released because of what he had already done to her and she was “very scared”.

54I accept N.N.’s explanation for why she did not go to the police until June 6, 2024. Much of N.N.’s evidence about what led to her report to the police suggested that she was both terrified of Mr. Brown and reluctant to go to the police.

55For example, the agreed statement of facts relating to N.N.’s treatment in hospital supports her evidence that she was terrified of Mr. Brown. She delayed seeking treatment in hospital for her injuries for at least three days out of fear of Mr. Brown finding her, attempting to self-medicate instead. Her hospital records show that when she checked into the hospital on October 3, 2023, she used the name “Jane Doe”. N.N. explained that she did this so that Mr. Brown could not find her. N.N. reluctantly revealed her true identity to the nurses at the hospital. Because she had done so, she left before she was formally discharged, again because she did not want Mr. Brown to find her. Similarly, N.N. appeared reluctant to go to the police. She revealed the incident to her probation officer, and it was her probation officer who made the initial contact with police. Even after her probation officer contacted police, it took N.N. three attempts before she gave police a statement about the incident.

56I accept N.N.’s evidence that she was deeply fearful of Mr. Brown and find the evidence does not support that she had a motive to fabricate additional allegations against him. In doing so, I note that defence has no obligation to prove that N.N. had a motive to lie. Further, my finding that there is no evidence that N.N. had a motive to fabricate is distinct from a proven absence of motive to fabricate. The absence of evidence of a motive to fabricate is but one element that I can consider in assessing N.N.’s credibility, but it is not a decisive one: R. v. Ignacio, 2021 ONCA 69, 400 C.C.C. (3d) 343, at paras. 29, 37-44, 52-59, leave ref’d [2021] S.C.C.A. No. 127.

N.N.’s Memory

57Defence counsel submitted that there were issues with N.N.’s memory that made her evidence unreliable, perhaps as a result of drugs or alcohol that she had consumed on September 29 or 30, 2023. Among other things, the defence pointed to N.N.’s inability to describe the two individuals who entered the unit shortly after Mr. Brown entered and her inability to say what any individual present was wearing (aside from the Timberland boots she said that Mr. Brown and his girlfriend wore).

58The Defence also pointed to N.N.’s inability to describe the events in the apartment in a consistent chronological narrative. For instance, she described being kicked, having hot water poured on her by Mr. Brown and then having her hair shaved. She also described being kicked and then having her head shaved before the hot water was poured on her. Similarly, N.N. testified that Mr. Brown returned her phone so that she could submit her course assignment after the bathroom incident. However, in her police statement, N.N. said this occurred before the bathroom incident.

59N.N. testified that she had consumed crystal meth the day before she went to the Michelle’s apartment around 3:00 a.m. on September 29, 2023. She said that crystal meth kept her awake and did not impact her memory or her perception of what was going on around her. She acknowledged that there were a lot of things she did not remember from that night, particularly since she was going in and out of consciousness. However, N.N. said she had “very vivid memories of what happened that night”, referring to what Mr. Brown had done to her.

60The Crown submitted that N.N. was candid about what she could not remember and was clear about details she did remember. For example, N.N. could not remember how she sustained certain bruises or abrasions, who put the couch in front of the door or when it was there, how her shirt was removed, or what was done with the hammer. However, N.N. could describe being assaulted by Mr. Brown and his girlfriend clearly, where she was when Mr. Brown poured boiling water on her, her head being shaved, Mr. Brown’s threats and where she was in the unit whenever she regained consciousness. The Crown urged me to consider common observations about the memory of victims expressed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. G.M.C., 2022 ONCA 2, 159 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 38. In that case, the Court noted the following observations about memory are grounded in common experience, including:

• Observations made by witnesses in the course of traumatic events can be difficult to recall and to describe accurately at a later date;
• A witness cannot be expected to have a faithful memory of minor incidents that occurred during a traumatic event and the inability to recall a minor or insignificant event does not detract from the witness’s overall reliability or credibility; and
• It his human nature to try to make sense out of bits and pieces of memories about an event, and this may impact the accuracy of a witness’s testimony concerning events.

61Although there were gaps in N.N.’s memory regarding certain details (descriptions of the males who entered or what anyone was wearing), and parts of the chronology, I find these aspects did not undermine the reliability of her evidence. N.N. came across as a careful witness who was clear about what she could and could not remember. Her memory was clear that she could not leave the apartment, Mr. Brown kicked her in the face and ribs, burned her with boiling water and a torch lighter and threatened her. She acknowledged when memories were vague (e.g., when the couch was in front of the apartment door or what happened with a hammer), and when she simply could not remember at all (e.g., when shown images of certain cuts or abrasions on her skin). I accept that N.N. may not have been able to give a chronological narrative of what transpired in the apartment, in part, due to the fact that she was in and out of consciousness from the pain, her injuries, or both.

62I note that many aspects of N.N.’s evidence were confirmed by other independent evidence such as the documentation and photographs of her injuries. Mr. Brown’s evidence also supported the following aspects of N.N.’s evidence:

• Mr. Brown called N.N. a “Rat” while in the apartment. Mr. Brown admitted that he called her a rat because he said N.N. worked with the police and tried to have him sell drugs to an undercover officer.
• Michelle smoked fentanyl and blew some of it in N.N.’s face. Mr. Brown described in detail how Michelle smoked fentanyl on a piece of tinfoil heated by a lighter from underneath.
• Mr. Brown appeared to know everyone in the building. Mr. Brown agreed that he had been to that building a “million times” and frequently sold drugs to its residents, including Michelle.
• There were other people who entered the unit after Mr. Brown and his girlfriend arrived. N.N. believed there were two others who came in who were Mr. Brown’s friends. Mr. Brown said that three of his friends entered Michelle’s apartment and smoked drugs.
• Both Mr. Brown and N.N. described how Michelle overdosed on fentanyl. Mr. Brown agreed with N.N. that this happened when Michelle was close to the washroom but not in it.
• Mr. Brown was involved in the frantic search for Narcan when Michelle overdosed. Mr. Brown testified, he was trying to get Narcan, and also that he was trying to get someone else to get Michelle Narcan.
• Mr. Brown testified that his girlfriend was still in the unit when Michelle overdosed. N.N. said the girlfriend was with her when Mr. Brown was looking for Narcan.

Inconsistencies

63The defence suggested that N.N.’s allegation of sexual assault was neither credible nor reliable because there were significant inconsistencies between her account of the bathroom incident in court and her prior statements relating to that incident. For example, the defence pointed to a number of inconsistencies between N.N.’s testimony and records completed by the nurses when she went to the hospital on October 3, 2023, including the following:

• N.N. testified in court that Mr. Brown pulled down her shirt and bit one of her nipples. However, hospital documentation indicated that the question “Did assailant put mouth on client” was checked off as “unknown.” At first, N.N. said, “I don’t think they asked me that question.” Later she said, “I don’t remember being asked that question.”
• N.N. did not testify about having been strangled by Mr. Brown. However, hospital documentation indicated that that the box “strangled” had been checked off. N.N. agreed at trial that no one tried to strangle her that night.
• N.N. testified that Mr. Brown ejaculated in the sink after forcing her to give him a hand job. The hospital documentation indicated that the question, “Did ejaculation of semen occur during the assault” was answered as “unknown”. N.N. acknowledged that the first time she testified about Mr. Brown ejaculating was in court, and that she did not tell the nurses about that.

64N.N. gave various explanations for what was recorded in the hospital documentation. She recalled telling the nurses about her physical injuries but did not remember having a conversation with them about the sexual assault. She explained that she was in a lot of pain and did not know what they asked. She also said, “I didn’t want to talk about anything to do with the incident in the bathroom with the nurses, I was embarrassed, I didn’t want to speak to them about it and this part I remember them asking me and me saying, ‘I don’t want to talk about it.’” She admitted she supplied other information included on the hospital documentation, including, “I puff fentanyl for pain”. She said that this was the one puff that she asked Michelle to blow in her face for pain.

65N.N.’s evidence about the sexual assault was internally inconsistent and differed from her police statement. Her evidence about the “bathroom incident” evolved. Initially, she said that Mr. Brown pulled down her shirt, grabbed her breasts, bit her breast and asked if she was still “his”. He then demanded a blow job and when she refused, he went to the kitchen for a pot of boiling water. He then took her into the bathroom, threatened her with the boiling water and demanded a hand job. Later N.N. said that after she refused Mr. Brown’s demand for a blow job, he “dripped a little bit” of hot water on her shoulder in the bathroom before she gave him the hand job. Later still, N.N. said that Mr. Brown chucked boiling water in her face when they were in the bathroom because she would not give him a blow job. He then dripped water on her shoulder and decided on the hand job.

66N.N.’s evidence about the bathroom incident also differed from her police statement. In her police statement, N.N. said, “He reminded me that I still belonged to him and…took my top off, bit my nipples”. In her police statement, N.N. said “He threw hot water at me ‘cause he’d ask me a question and be like, are you gonna leave me again?” Later she also told police that Mr. Brown threatened, “if I don’t fuck him, he’s going to drop the water on me, and that’s when he burnt my face.”

67In re-examination, N.N. said that both her evidence in court and her police statement were accurate. Her evidence was that Mr. Brown repeatedly asked her questions about sexual acts and threatened her with water. He did ask if she wanted to “fuck him” and he did ask her to give him a blowjob. It was after she refused the “blow job” that he threw the water in her face.

Conclusion with respect to sexual assault

68I have no doubt that something transpired in the bathroom with Mr. Brown and N.N., during which boiling water was splashed on N.N.’s face. There are clear images of a jagged burn on N.N.’s face taken in the hospital days later. However, based on the inconsistencies described above, N.N.’s evidence is simply too unreliable for me to determine with certainty what occurred. It may be that N.N.’s inability to consistently describe the bathroom incident is because her memory or perception was affected by Michelle giving her a puff of fentanyl shortly beforehand.

69I can accept that some inconsistencies between N.N.’s evidence and the hospital documentation might be due to her reluctance to speak to the nurses about the bathroom incident because she was in pain and embarrassed. It is clear that N.N. went to the hospital to seek treatment for her injuries and for pain and not out of a desire to create a record for the police. However, N.N.’s description of the sexual assault changed significantly between her police statement and her trial testimony – including which sexual acts were demanded and when boiling water was poured on her face. Based on the changes in N.N.’s description of the bathroom incident, I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Brown sexually assaulted N.N. as she described.

Conclusion with respect to the other offences

70I accept N.N.’s evidence that she could not leave the Broadview apartment for a significant period of time and find that she was forcibly confined by Mr. Brown: R. v. Pritchard, 2008 SCC 59, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 195 at para. 24. N.N. described how during the initial assault, Mr. Brown told her she “wasn’t going anywhere”. N.N. said she was in Michelle’s apartment for many hours, approximately from 3:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. the next day. At some point, there was a couch in front of the door, blocking the only exit. Having been virtually tortured by Mr. Brown’s pouring boiling water on her, it would not make sense for N.N. to willingly remain there. Her evidence that Mr. Brown told her she could not leave, and her subjective feeling that she could not leave after having been subjected to such an assault is understandable. She was beaten, burned and in significant pain. They were in a building familiar to Mr. Brown. N.N. was outnumbered. In addition to Mr. Brown, there were times when four of his friends were present including, Michelle, Mr. Brown’s girlfriend and the two males who entered the unit and were consuming drugs.

71I accept N.N.’s evidence that Mr. Brown kicked and beat her causing her bodily harm. When Mr. Brown first entered the apartment, N.N. described how he and kicked her in the face while she was seated on the couch. A photograph of N.N.’s face shows a large bruise under her eye where he kicked her.

72N.N. also described an initial beating, during which Mr. Brown called her a “rat” and repeatedly kicked her in the chest and body with “full force”, wearing boots while she was on the ground. N.N. testified that the kicking by Mr. Brown caused her ribs to break. She said that his girlfriend also kicked her in the ribs but only in the beginning. By contrast, N.N. said that Mr. Brown continued to kick her while calling her a “rat” and threatening her. N.N.’s evidence that she was kicked in the ribs was supported by the agreed facts about her injuries, which included seven fractured ribs. I have already rejected Mr. Brown’s evidence about the fight between his girlfriend and N.N. as being inconsistent with N.N.’s injuries. Further, I reject the defence submission that Mr. Brown’s girlfriend was responsible for N.N.’s fractured ribs. Given Mr. Brown’s size and apparent strength, I have no doubt that being kicked by him with “full force” caused more than one of N.N.’s seven ribs to break, amounting to assault causing bodily harm.

73I accept N.N.’s evidence that while she was at the apartment, Mr. Brown shaved her head with electric clippers. N.N. described losing consciousness on the floor and waking up on a chair. She said that Mr. Brown asked someone to bring him electric clippers and he shaved her head. When her memory was refreshed from her police statement, N.N. added that Mr. Brown had everyone in the apartment watch as he shaved her head and threw chunks of her hair at her. The defence urges me to reject N.N.’s evidence about Mr. Brown shaving her head given that in her police statement she also said, “And then he got everybody to cut my hair” and also that she told police Michelle’s head was also shaved. I decline to do so. N.N. explained that Michelle had told her about another incident in which Mr. Brown had shaved Michelle’s head. The core of N.N.’s evidence remained unchallenged, namely that her head was shaved by Mr. Brown with electric clippers while she was seated on a chair in the apartment. Further, her evidence is supported by photographs taken by the nurses at the hospital on October 3, which show that she had a newly shorn head with minimal regrowth, consistent with her evidence that her head had been shaved days earlier with clippers. Before being shaved, N.N. said that she had chin-length hair.

74I also accept N.N.’s evidence that Mr. Brown burned her with a torch lighter. N.N. testified that after Mr. Brown shaved her hair and while she was seated on the chair, he burned her arm by holding a mini torch lighter to the skin on her right arm for five to six seconds. Two aspects of the evidence support N.N.’s evidence. First, in describing how Michelle cooked the fentanyl that she smoked, Mr. Brown acknowledged there was a lighter in the apartment.

75Second, photographs taken of N.N. in hospital show a circular burn on N.N.’s arm that is nearly 3 cm wide. There are obvious differences between pictures of the burn N.N. says was caused by the torch lighter and the burns that the parties agree were caused by Mr. Brown putting boiling water on her face, shoulder and neck. The burn on N.N.’s arm has normal-looking skin and no discolouration around it; the perimeter of the burn is clear; and the shape is more clearly defined. By contrast, photographs of the burns N.N.’s face, shoulder and neck show that the burns caused by boiling water are surrounded by larger patches of darker, discoloured skin; and jagged uneven shapes, with thin, poorly defined perimeters. I disagree with the defence submission that expert evidence would be required to determine the cause of the burn on N.N.’s right arm. Based on all of the evidence, including N.N.’s testimony about how her burns were caused and my comparison of the photographs of her burns, I find that Mr. Brown held a torch lighter to N.N.’s right arm for several seconds causing the second degree burns there.

76I accept N.N.’s evidence that Mr. Brown threatened her more than once. N.N. testified that Mr. Brown said he was going to put her in the “trunk of a car” and “drive her up north” to “get rid” of her, or that “nobody would know what happened to her”. She believed that he was threatening to kill her. He said words to this effect with a frightening demeanour several times while she was in the apartment. N.N.’s evidence on this point was not challenged in cross examination.

Conclusion

77For the reasons articulated above, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Brown is guilty of aggravated assault on N.N., assault cause bodily harm, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and threatening (Counts 1-4 and 6). I have a reasonable doubt and find Mr. Brown not guilty of sexually assaulting N.N. (Count 5).

C. Weiler J.

Released: June 23, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Brown, 2026 ONSC 3650