R. v. Spry, 2026 ONSC 3764

minicounsel

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-19101093-0000

DATE: June 30, 2026

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

DANIEL ANTHONY SPRY Accused

Keith Schultz, for the Crown

Howard Krongold, for the Accused

ABRAMS, J

I. Overview

1The accused is charged with historical sexual offences alleged to have occurred approximately 48 years ago in the context of a cadet program. The charges are indecent assault and gross indecency under the provisions then in force.

2There is no confirmatory evidence. The case depends entirely upon the reliability of the complainant’s account, assessed in light of the accused’s denial and the whole of the evidence.

3The governing framework is R. v. W.(D.). The issue is whether the Crown has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

4The accused’s statement to police is admissible. Its probative value depends on what inferences can reasonably be drawn from its content, its context, and its consistency with the other evidence.

II. The Evidence

A. The Accused

(1) Background

5The accused is 80 years old, retired, and without a criminal record.

6There is no evidence of prior misconduct. While absence of prior misconduct is not determinative, it is capable of supporting the limited inference that the alleged conduct is not part of a demonstrated behavioural pattern.

(2) Military and Employment History

7The accused’s recollection of dates was imperfect. Documentary records established inconsistencies.

8The critical question is what inference should be drawn from those inconsistencies. Two competing inferences are available: that the accused was careless with the truth, or that he was mistaken due to the passage of time.

9I draw the latter inference. The inconsistencies relate to chronology rather than the substance of the allegations. More importantly, when confronted with documentary evidence, the accused did not resist correction. This is more consistent with faulty memory than with fabrication.

(3) Boats and Cadet Activities

10The accused owned boats capable of accommodating overnight stays and acknowledged taking cadets on structured outings.

11This evidence gives rise to two possible inferences. One is that the opportunity existed for the kind of conduct alleged. The other is that the outings were organized and supervised, making such conduct less likely.

12The existence of opportunity, without more, does not advance the Crown’s case beyond a speculative level. Opportunity is a necessary condition for guilt, but not a sufficient one.

13The accused’s evidence that outings were organized with parental permission and multiple cadets supports the competing inference that the setting was not conducive to the alleged conduct. However, because he acknowledged limits in his memory, I do not treat this as conclusive.

(4) Response to Allegations

14The accused denies the allegations and does not recall the complainant being on his boat.

15Importantly, he did not insist that the complainant could not have been present. Instead, he acknowledged that it was possible.

16This gives rise to competing inferences. It could be seen as leaving open the possibility of wrongdoing, or as a candid recognition of memory limits.

17I draw the latter inference. It would be illogical for a person fabricating a denial to concede potential factual predicates that could support the allegation. The more rational inference is that the accused was attempting to be accurate rather than categorical.

(5) Police Statement

18The accused attended voluntarily and provided a statement after being advised of his rights.

19His manner of engagement is significant. He did not minimize his contact with cadets generally. Nor did he attempt to construct a rigid narrative excluding all risk.

20This supports the inference that he was not attempting to tailor his evidence, but rather to respond within the limits of his recollection.

21There is no discernible benefit to the accused in providing a statement if his intention had been to conceal misconduct. This further supports the inference of candour.

B. The Complainant

(1) Cadet Involvement

22I accept that the complainant was a cadet and had some interaction with the accused.

23That finding is supported by the absence of dispute and by the general consistency of this aspect of his evidence with the surrounding circumstances.

(2) Allegations

24The complainant described a boating trip involving alcohol, card playing, and escalating sexualized conduct.

25His account, if accepted, would establish the offences. The issue is not plausibility in the abstract, but reliability in fact.

(3) Inconsistencies and Evolving Memory

26There are material inconsistencies between the complainant’s police statement and his trial testimony.

27These inconsistencies relate to central aspects of the alleged conduct, including how the sexual proposition arose, the nature of the physical interaction, and the sequence of events.

28The question is what inference should be drawn from those inconsistencies.

29One possible inference is that they reflect the normal frailties of long-term memory, particularly in relation to stressful events. Another is that they reflect reconstruction — that is, the filling in of memory gaps with inference or suggestion over time.

30I draw the latter inference. This is because the inconsistencies are not minor or peripheral; they alter the mechanics of the alleged offences. Changes of that nature are less consistent with simple memory decay and more consistent with reconfiguration.

31This inference is reinforced by the complainant’s acknowledgment that his memory has evolved and that some details emerged through therapy.

32While such processes may assist recollection, they also introduce a risk that reconstructed memory may be experienced as genuine recollection.

(4) Internal Coherence

33The complainant’s account also lacks internal coherence in certain respects.

34For example, the progression from a structured training activity to coercive sexual conduct is not anchored by stable, consistent details across versions of the account.

35This gives rise to the inference that the narrative has been assembled over time rather than consistently recalled.

(5) Sincerity and Reliability

36I do not find that the complainant fabricated his evidence.

37However, sincerity does not equate to reliability. A witness may honestly believe an account that is not sufficiently reliable to meet the criminal standard of proof.

III. Positions of the Parties

38The Crown submits that the inconsistencies are explainable and that the complainant’s account should be accepted.

39The defence submits that the inconsistencies undermine reliability and that the accused’s evidence raises a reasonable doubt.

IV. Analysis

A. Governing Principles

40The W. (D.) framework requires an assessment of the evidence as a whole, not a piecemeal comparison of credibility.

41The critical task is to determine whether any reasonable inference consistent with innocence remains.

B. Competing Inferences

42The Crown’s theory depends on drawing an inference of guilt from the complainant’s account despite its inconsistencies.

43The defence position identifies competing inferences consistent with innocence: that the events did not occur as alleged, or that the complainant’s account has been reconstructed over time.

44Where competing inferences are reasonably available on the evidence, and one is consistent with innocence, the Crown cannot meet its burden.

C. Application to the Evidence

45The complainant’s evidence, viewed in isolation, raises serious concerns about reliability.

46When considered alongside the accused’s evidence — including his qualified denials and demonstrated willingness to acknowledge uncertainty — those concerns are not alleviated.

47There is no independent evidence that resolves the competing inferences.

48In these circumstances, I cannot logically exclude the reasonable inference that the allegations are the result of faulty or reconstructed memory.

D. Application of W. (D.)

49First, the accused’s evidence, including his denials and concessions, raises a reasonable doubt.

50Second, even if it did not, the inconsistencies and evolution in the complainant’s evidence independently give rise to a reasonable doubt.

51Third, considering the evidence as a whole, the Crown has not displaced the presumption of innocence.

V. Conclusion

52This case requires the Court to choose between competing inferences drawn from incomplete and imperfect historical evidence.

53The inference of guilt is not the only rational inference available on the record.

54A reasonable inference consistent with innocence remains.

55In those circumstances, the law requires an acquittal.

56The accused is acquitted on both counts.

The Honourable Mr. Justice B. W. Abrams

Released: June 30, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Spry, 2026 ONSC 3764