R. v. N.C., 2026 ONSC 4461
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
N.C.
Defendant
Agata Mapelli, for the Crown
Frank Addario and William Thompson, for the Defendant
HEARD: June 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, 2026
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Overview
1N.C. is charged with one count of sexual assault in relation to his daughter, I.C., alleged to have occurred between November 12, 2014 and October 17, 2020. He is further charged with assault causing bodily harm in relation to I.C. which is alleged to have occurred between November 12, 2014 and September 30, 2023.1
2N.C. is also charged with one count of sexual assault in relation to his other daughter, C.C., alleged to have occurred between October 17, 2019 and March 31, 2024.
3In brief summary, the Crown alleges that N.C. engaged in multiple sexual acts involving both of his daughters. The acts included touching their private areas with his hands and also placing his penis against one daughter’s body while she was in bed. The Crown further alleges that N.C. would often assault his daughter I.C. by bashing her head against the headboard of her bed and the wall.
4The defence position is that the Crown has fallen far short of establishing that N.C. sexually assaulted either daughter or assaulted I.C. in the manner alleged by the complainants. The defence position is that N.C.’s evidence denying the offences should be accepted. He was unshaken in cross-examination. He is entitled to an acquittal.
5The central issue in this trial is straightforward. Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that N.C. sexually assaulted each of his daughters and further has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that N.C. assaulted his daughter, I.C.? From a legal perspective, there is no issue that the evidence of the complainants, if accepted as credible and reliable beyond a reasonable doubt, establishes the offences of sexual assault and assault cause bodily harm. As such, this is a case that turns entirely on the factual assessment of evidence presented.
Fundamental Legal Principles
6I turn next to reviewing the legal principles that guide my assessment of the evidence in this case. First and foremost, N.C. is presumed innocent of the charges set out in the indictment. He has no obligation to prove anything or call evidence. The onus rests entirely on the Crown to prove the charges against him beyond a reasonable doubt.
7Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high legal standard. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice. Rather, it is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence.
8Proof of likely or even probable guilt is not enough to sustain a criminal conviction. Conversely, proof to a level of absolute certainty is also not required as that standard is impossibly high. Ultimately, in order to convict N.C. of an offence, I must be sure that he committed the offence. If I am not sure, I must acquit him of the offence.
9In this case, N.C. elected to testify and denied committing any of the alleged criminal offences. In accordance with the W.D. methodology, if I accept N.C.’s denial, I must find him not guilty. If I do not accept his denial, I must nonetheless consider whether his denial leaves me with a reasonable doubt about his commission of any or all of the offences. Lastly, even if I entirely reject his exculpatory evidence, I must assess the evidence that I do accept to determine whether the Crown has proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.
10In applying the W.D. methodology, I am mindful of the following additional guidance that has been provided by the caselaw. In considering the first two steps of the W.D. analysis, the evidence of the defendant must be considered in the context of the evidence as a whole. In other words, the assessment is not simply whether the defendant’s evidence standing alone and without context is believed or leaves a reasonable doubt; see R. v. Carriere (2001), 2001 CanLII 8609 (ON CA), 159 C.C.C. (3d) 51 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 51, and R. v. Hull, 2006 CanLII 26572 (ON CA).
11As well, the second step of the W.D. analysis is important. Even if the defendant is disbelieved in part, other parts of his testimony may be accepted and may leave me with a reasonable doubt. As well, I may simply conclude that I don’t know whether or not to believe the defendant’s testimony in which case, he is entitled to an acquittal.
12Ultimately, in considering a case such as this where credibility is a key issue, I am not to treat the assessment of the evidence as simply a credibility contest determined in favour of the party whose evidence I prefer. At all times, the issue is whether the Crown’s evidence has proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
13As a final point, I note that if, after considering all of the evidence, I simply do not know who to believe, I must find N.C. not guilty as I will not have been satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Assessment of Testimony
14In this case, I must decide whether the witnesses told the truth and if so, whether their evidence can be relied upon as accurate. In doing so, it is open to me to accept some, none, or all of any witness' evidence.
15Credibility relates to a witness’ veracity. In other words, it is an assessment of whether they are telling the truth in their testimony. Reliability relates to the accuracy of the witness’ testimony which engages a consideration of the witness’ ability to accurately observe, recall and recount an event; see R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56 at para. 41.
16At times, a witness may credibly recount an observation or occurrence. However, that evidence may lack reliability for a number of reasons, including the conditions under which the witness made the observation as well as the impact of information received by the witness after an event. An incredible witness’s evidence cannot be relied on. However, the converse is not automatically true as credibility is not a proxy for reliability. A credible witness may, nonetheless, give unreliable evidence; see R. v. Morrissey (1995), 1995 CanLII 3498 (ON CA), 22 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.) at p. 526.
17When assessing credibility, there is no magic formula that applies in determining whether a witness is telling the truth. Instead, the witness' evidence is considered by using a common-sense approach that is not tainted by myth, stereotype, sympathy, prejudice or ungrounded assumption.
18There are many factors that may be relevant in determining credibility. Some of the key factors include whether the witness' evidence is internally consistent, whether it is externally consistent with evidence from other witnesses or exhibits, whether the witness has a bias or motive to give evidence that is more favourable to one side or the other, whether inconsistencies in the evidence are about important or minor matters, what explanations are given for any inconsistencies, and whether the inconsistencies suggest that the witness is lying.
19The evidence of a young or child witness is not inherently incredible or unreliable simply by virtue of the witness’ age. A young witness can be as credible and/or as reliable as any adult witness. However, the traditional tools used to measure the credibility and reliability of an adult witness’ evidence must be modified or contextualized to account for differences in the manner that children perceive and relate experiences. For example, contradictions or inconsistencies on peripheral matters may not attract the same degree of concern with a child witness as they might with an adult witness. Similarly, the absence of details regarding things like time and place may also not attract the same degree of concern, see R. v. B.G., [1990] SCR 30 at p. 54-55 and R. v. W.R., 1992 CanLII 56 (SCC), [1992] SCJ No. 56 at para 24 and 25. See also, R. v. A.M., 2014 ONCA 769 and R. v. D.F., 2023 ONCA 584 at para. 57 per Hourigan J.A., dissenting, affirmed at 2024 SCC 14. That said, inconsistency on a main or central feature of an incident may suggest a carelessness with the truth that supports a significant concern with the witness’ evidence, see R. v. M.G. (1994), 1994 CanLII 8733 (ON CA), 93 C.C.C. 3d 347 (Ont. C.A.).
20As well, there is no inviolable rule on how victims of sexual assault or trauma will behave after being abused. There is no presumption regarding how or when someone who has been abused will or ought to disclose the abuse. Delayed disclosure standing alone does not detract from a complainant’s credibility. As such, issues of credibility should not be decided on the basis of pre-conceived notions about how someone who has been sexually assaulted should act, see R. v. D.D., 2000 SCC 43 at para. 65.
21Similarly, there is no set pattern for the commission of sexual offences against children. These types of offences take place under many different circumstances. The caselaw over the years has shown that sexual offences against children are often committed in situations where others are present and/or where there is a high probability of detection or observation. Indeed, some might even suggest that the commission of offences in such circumstances might be intentionally geared towards creating a foundation for plausible deniability of the offence.
22Ultimately, while the case law is clear that a degree of sensitivity and fairness is required in assessing the evidence of children, the case law is also clear that this should not result in a diluted standard of proof. What is required is an approach that avoids stereotypical assumptions about the evidence of children while maintaining the standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, see R. v. W.R. at para 25.
The Evidence at Trial
(a) Family Background
23N.C. is an ophthalmologist and eye surgeon by training and education. He is now 47 years of age. N.C. and T.C. were married in July 2008. They met in Philadelphia when N.C. was completing his internship. They moved back to Canada in 2011. N.C. and T.C. have four children, now aged between 6 and 15 years.
24From 2011 until 2014, the family resided at a home in Etobicoke. In 2014 they moved to Oakville where they lived until 2020. A family cottage was purchased in 2020 during the pandemic and the family lived there for almost a year while renovations were undertaken on a new home in King City. While the family lived at the cottage, N.C. would often stay in the GTA for work and then stay at the cottage with the family on weekends. He would arrive on Thursday night or Friday morning and then return to the city on either Sunday or Monday, depending on his work schedule.
25The family had a traditional division of labour. N.C. worked long hours building his medical practice. His then wife, T.C. was mainly responsible for childcare and running the home, though she also worked at N.C.’s medical practice. On occasion, N.C. would help out with childcare tasks such as naps and baths, though he was not the regular or main caregiver.
26At Christmas time 2023, N.C. decided to take a solo trip to Peru. His marriage was not going well at the time and he hoped the trip would help him gain focus and insight. N.C. and T.C. were arguing a lot and had had a big argument in the presence of I.C. When he returned from Peru, he determined that the marriage was over. At the time, he was staying in a separate bedroom of the house. This bedroom had its own bathroom and exit to outside, essentially like a guest suite.
27The couple separated on February 29, 2024. The separation did not go as planned, as T.C. learned of the plans to separate by happenstance when she saw copies of his text messages that had been backed up on iCloud. N.C. moved out of the home on that date and family court proceedings were commenced shortly thereafter.
28N.C. recalled that an urgent family court motion was filed for April 16, 2024. The motion was never heard and N.C. was soon thereafter arrested on these charges.
29N.C. has not seen any of his children since March 20, 2024.
(b) The Complainant I.C.
30I.C. is now 15 years of age. She is a high school student. Her main evidence in chief was tendered through s. 715.1 of the Code and consists of a statement she made to police on April 25, 2024, when she would have been 13 years of age.
31In this statement, I.C. gave the following evidence:
a. She lives with her mother and three siblings. She is the oldest sibling. She has a younger sister and two younger brothers.
b. She recalled that when she was six or seven years old, the defendant would bang her head against the backboard of the bed or the wall behind the bed. She did not know why this would happen, but recalled that he smelled like alcohol and he would just come into her bedroom at night and do it. It generally happened in the dark.
c. On one occasion around New Year’s Eve at the family cottage in Peterborough, he came into the basement bedroom where she was sleeping. He turned on the light and spoke with her, which was not a common occurrence. He was telling her that being an older sibling was a responsibility. She could smell alcohol on his breath and asked him whether he was drunk. This appeared to irritate him. He placed his hand and her bed covers over her nose and mouth and started to bang her head on the wall. Since the lights were on, she could see what was happening reflected in the mirror across from the bed. He was telling her to “shut up” and “be quiet”. She could not recall how the incident ended nor could she recall how or when her father left the bedroom.
d. She remembered watching this unfold in the mirror and explained “I was really scared, and – like – I think that’s when I realized that this stuff that I thought had been happening was actually real because usually when he did something like that he would come into my room and the lights were off and he would just start banging my head.” She went on to explain how the incident in Peterborough made the other incidents “feel more real” because she was able to see the incident in the mirror. She explained that the incidents happened regularly. They started when the family was living in Oakville and even occurred when the family was on vacation, though not as frequently.
e. I.C. explained that the head banging incidents continued until September 2023, at which time she told her mother that she wanted to sleep in her mother’s room at night. At that time, the defendant was no longer sleeping in the same room as I.C.’s mother and he therefore no longer had the opportunity to enter the room to bang her head. She also explained that depending on what surface her head was banged against, she would receive bruises and, at times, there would be blood. She noticed the bruises by looking at herself using two mirrors. She noticed the blood when she felt wetness on her head using her fingers. When she looked at her fingers, she noticed that they were “just covered in red.” No one else noticed the bleeding because it was covered by her hair.
f. On April 16, 2024, shortly before giving her statement to police, I.C. was at school related track and field meet where all of a sudden, she developed a splitting headache. She explained that the pain in her head was “right in the same spot that I have all these problems from my head being banged.” She saw a medic at the meet and was taken out of competition until her headache subsided. The next day she went to the emergency room of a hospital where doctors performed a scan and administered some neurological testing. She explained that the scan was normal, but she did not pass the neurological testing, so she was transferred by ambulance to Sick Kids Hospital. She explained that once at Sick Kids, she was given pain medication, and doctors attempted a spinal tap but were unsuccessful after four attempts. Following her release from Sick Kids, I.C. was referred to the Boomerang Clinic for follow up. By then, her headache had cleared, but doctors wanted to rule out a slow bleed because of the history of trauma. She was referred for an MRI exam.
g. According to I.C., she advised a nurse at Cortellucci Hospital that she had a history of head injuries caused by her father hitting her head. The nurse advised the doctor who also asked I.C. what had happened but I.C. did not “tell her everything.” The doctor at Sick Kids was aware of the history when she was transferred there and asked her about it. She told the Sick Kids doctor “the same thing.” I.C. explained that the doctors were trying to determine whether the presenting head pain was a bleed that had just activated or a blood vessel that burst because “it’s already weak in that area.”
h. I.C. also described a sexual assault that occurred when she was approximately four or five and living in the Oakville house. She explained that during either a nap time or bedtime, her father came into the room and sat on the bed. He started to unzip his pants and asked her to touch his penis. She replied, “You know – this isn’t a good idea. I don’t want to do it. I don’t want to do this.” She then remembered her father sitting on top of her and starting to bang her head. She explained that around that time, she recalled being in school and a teacher engaged the students in a “hula-hoop” assignment aimed at teaching about personal space. She understood from this assignment that a zone of personal space existed around her and no one could come within that space without her permission. I.C. recalled that that at the time she expected her father to congratulate her for not letting him get into her personal space. Instead, he banged her head on the wall or headboard.
i. I.C. also related incidents where she touched her father’s penis. She could not specifically recall the first incident, she just remembered that it was something that happened. She explained that she could not recall how the incident started, though she recalled touching his “privates” and then washing her hands afterwards. She recalled that her father was standing next to the bed while she was sitting on the bed. He pulled his pants and underwear down to his knee level. He had told her beforehand what to do and she then touched his penis by placing her hand around it.
j. I.C. related other incidents at age six or seven where she would be taking a nap and her father would come into the bedroom and get into bed with her while reading a book called “Gino the Duck.” She explained that he would take his pants off and put his private parts in between her legs. At the time, she did not appreciate exactly what was happening, but she decided to “play detective” and deduced that it was his penis because both of his hands were on top of the bed and it was “really wet” and therefore did not feel like a foot. She explained that he would move back and forth when his penis was between her legs close to her privates.
k. Generally, I.C. had underwear on during the incidents, but she recalled that there were times when her father “probably” pulled down her underwear. She recalled one incident where she noticed that her underwear was on wrong when she got out of bed. Incidents like this would happen almost every time he napped with her. In one incident her cat was present in the bed and a photo was taken by the defendant wherein I.C. is “pretending” to be asleep.
l. I.C. described her father’s penis as being like a water balloon, similar to the balloons that are turned into animals, like a balloon dog. She explained that after her nap, she noted that she was “sticky and wet” but assumed it was water or “pee.” She would clean herself up with wet wipes afterwards.
m. I.C. explained that she never told anyone about the incidents where her father put his penis between her legs. The incidents ended when she stopped taking naps around the age of eight. The incidents made her feel dirty and she was ashamed.
n. I.C. also discussed an incident involving her sister C.C. She explained that when her father returned from a trip to Peru, he was living in his bedroom area of the home, which had an attached bathroom. On one occasion, I.C. was in her father’s bathroom while her father was bathing C.C. I.C. was sitting on the toilet facing the shower. She observed her father using his fingers, and his middle finger in particular, to wash her sister’s private area. She thought that it was “super inappropriate and weird” for him to do so and also noted that while doing this, his face was really close to her sister’s privates. I.C. decided to bring a towel over to signal the end of the shower and her father became irate stating, “I’m not done showering her.” I.C. also explained that she noted similar conduct when her father washed her little brother. He placed his face really close to his privates and used his finger to clean him.
32In cross-examination, I.C. explained that her father was not “present” in a meaningful way when she was growing up. While he would be with the family at home or on vacation, he would often be off on his own sleeping or doing something. She distinctly recalled the feeling of her father being present but not meaningfully participating in events. She explained that she “badly wanted” his presence. She denied that her negative view of her father affected her recollection of events and explained that she was also angry at her mother, particularly because her mother let herself be treated poorly by her father. She agreed that she was present for a significant argument that roughly coincided with the end of the marriage and agreed that he was the aggressor in the argument. That said, she would not definitively agree that her father was at fault.
33She confirmed that she discovered texts between her father and his friends wherein he revealed plans to end the marriage and get a divorce, though she explained that the more disturbing aspects of the text messages were the comments her father made about parental alienation and plans to go to a strip club.
34When asked about the initial incident involving her father’s penis, I.C. explained that it happened around the time she was four years of age in junior kindergarten. She confirmed that at the time of this incident, she perceived it as a test and expected that her father would praise her for saying no. She explained that she based this perception in part on the lesson taught at school about personal space. She denied that this was a fairly complicated thought process that she had come up with after the fact when giving her statement to police.
35When questioned about “playing detective” to determine what body part was touching her leg when her father was in bed with her at nap time, I.C. denied that this was simply made up after the fact. She was also cross-examined on her evidence relating to the wet and sticky substance she felt on her leg on one or two occasions after her father was in bed with her. She denied that she was attempting to imply that he ejaculated on her and insisted that she was simply describing what she felt.
36I.C. was challenged in relation to evidence of the discovery of blood from her head injury. She explained that she saw “some red” on her fingers and went on to explain that her fingertip was covered in a thin layer of blood. When asked whether she would have laid her head on the pillow to go back to sleep, I.C. explained that her head could have been on the pillow, on the mattress or simply hanging off the bed. She then explained that she did not specifically remember the incident, only the blood on her fingertip.
37When asked about her observation of her father washing her brother in the shower, I.C. explained that it was similar to how he washed C.C. She distinctly remembered him bringing his face really close to her brother’s private parts. That said, she also explained that she did not remember the incident well. In relation to her observations of her father washing her sister, C.C., I.C. explained that it was “weird” and “uncomfortable” and noted that he spent a long time washing her genitals.
38I.C. also agreed that her sister C.C. at some point told her what had been done to her. I.C. agreed that she told her sister that similar things that had been done to her, but she could not recall any specifics of the discussion.
(c) The Complainant C.C.
39C.C. is now 9 years of age. She is a grade school student. Her main evidence in chief was tendered through s. 715.1 of the Code and consists of a statement she made to police on April 19, 2024, when she would have been 7 years of age.
40In her statement to police, C.C. gave the following evidence:
a. At the age of three or four, she recalled sitting on her father’s lap on a brown couch at the house in Oakville. Her father placed his hand overtop of her clothed privates and moved his fingers left and right, while everyone was watching tv. Sometimes, he would cover one hand with the other hand. This became a habit and he would do it many times when she sat on his lap, though not when they were on vacation. It also became a habit for her, and she would do it to herself. She recalled her father doing this often, until she was six or six and a half years old. It would last for five minutes and her father would say nothing while doing it. On occasion he would put his hand on her back under her shirt and would rub her back. She disclosed this touching to her mother while at the cottage when her mother spoke to C.C. about C.C. touching herself. The last incident of this type occurred at her paternal grandparents’ home. She explained that on this occasion, her grandmother Ravee, who she described as “pappa’s mom” touched her in the same way, “wiping my privates like this.” She also explained that on this occasion, her father touched her privates while she was on his lap, moving his finger from left to right. No one present noticed as they were all making eye contact.
b. She also described a sleepover incident, where she slept in her father’s bed in a separate room. This occurred after her father returned from a trip to Peru and she would have been approximately six or six and a half years old at the time. She recounted that during this incident, her father grabbed her by the arm and was hugging her tightly and placed a leg over her legs in a manner she described as a sandwich. He also started using his finger to do something to her stomach area around her belly button.
c. She recalled a similar incident where her father lifted her up and placed her on the counter in order to help her brush her teeth. She described how her father touched her belly button area over top of her clothing.
d. C.C. described an incident in the shower where her father wiped her private parts three times using his fingers and soap. She recalled that her private parts had “white stuff” coming out of them. She also explained that she would usually wash herself. No one was in the bathroom at the time, though her sister and brother were in the adjacent bedroom.
41In cross-examination, C.C. was unable to recall many details of the various events she spoke of in the police statement, including the events surrounding the taking of the police statement. Throughout the entirely fair and sensitive cross-examination, C.C.’s most frequent response was “I don’t remember.”
42That said, she confirmed that her father would touch her “privates” over her clothing when family was present but no one ever noticed. She maintained that her father taught her how to touch herself. She also explained that she did not like the way her father hugged her on one occasion because it was a tight hug.
43While she could not remember specific details of the shower incident, she recalled that her father wiped her privates three times using his fingers and soap. She did not recall anyone being present during the shower incident.
44C.C. denied speaking with her sister about the events, though she agreed that she “might have” told her sister that their father taught her how to touch herself. She denied that her sister I.C. told her what had been done to her.
(d) Agreed Facts
45Two agreed statements of facts were tendered through the cooperative efforts of counsel. The first relates to medical evidence in relation to I.C. and C.C. and stipulates the following:
a. On April 16, 2024, I.C. was at a track and field event when she experienced a sudden headache, blurred vision, dizziness and vomiting.
b. On April 17, 2024, she went to the emergency room at Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital. Staff performed a head CT scan, the results of which were normal. There was no sign of injury or abnormality to her head or spine.
c. On April 23 and 29, 2024, I.C. went to Boomerang Health for follow up. She reported that her symptoms had resolved. She told the doctor that she had experienced mild headaches in September 2023, but none between December 2023 and April 16, 2024.
d. On June 16, 2024, I.C. went to the Hospital for Sick Children. An MRI was performed and the test results were normal. There was no sign of injury or abnormality to her head or spine.
e. There is no other evidence that I.C. had a head or brain injury.
f. On May 7, 2024, I.C. was examined by the Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault Program at Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital. There were no signs of injury or areas of concern. The genital findings could not confirm or rule out the possibility of sexual abuse.
g. On May 8, 2024, C.C. was examined by the Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault Program at Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital. There were no signs of injury or areas of concern. The genital findings could not confirm or rule out the possibility of sexual abuse.
46The second agreed statement of fact relates to the sequence of investigative interviews. It stipulates as follows:
a. On March 24, 2024, I.C. and her mother T.C. attended at a York Regional Police station. D.C. Dabuzinskas spoke with I.C. who reported that in 2020 – 2021 around New Year’s she was at her family cottage in Peterborough when her father got angry at her, put his hand on her mouth and hit her head against the headboard of the bed.
b. On April 12, 2024, I.C., C.C. and their brothers were interviewed by a CAS intake worker.
c. On April 18, 2024, P.C. Dillon of the OPP in Peterborough conducted a phone interview with I.C. P.C. Dillon noted that I.C. reported that the incident at the cottage happened around New Year’s/Christmas time in 2021 when she was 10-11 years old. I.C. recalled that similar incidents occurred but did not remember many details of the other times.
d. On April 19, 2024, York Regional Police attended at the Choudhry home in response to a 911 call by T.C. who reported a sexual assault regarding C.C. They then attended at the police station and C.C. gave the statement now tendered as her evidence in chief.
e. On April 25, 2024, I.C. provided the statement now tendered as her evidence in chief.
(e) The Defendant’s Testimony
47The defendant denied ever sexually assaulting either daughter. He also denied assaulting I.C. and causing her bodily harm. Specifically, he denied ever teaching C.C. how to masturbate or ever touching her genitals over her clothing as she described, though he agreed that she would have sat in his lap on many occasions and that he would have rubbed her back at times. He also agreed that on occasion he would help C.C. with bathing though he denied ever touching her genital area with his bare fingers. He explained that he would use a “poof” and soap to bathe her.
48He denied ever placing his penis between I.C.’s legs or ever asking I.C. to touch his penis. He denied ever ejaculating or doing anything to cause I.C.’s legs to become wet and sticky. He agreed that on occasion he would nap with her but this was nothing out of the ordinary.
49He also denied ever smashing I.C.’s head against a wall or headboard of the bed. He acknowledged that I.C. complained of headaches from time to time and that she developed a bald spot on her scalp. He denied not taking adequate steps to investigate the headaches and bald spot because he was the cause of the injuries.
50N.C. explained that his wife, T.C., was not reluctant to speak to him about any issue with the children. She never raised the issue of him teaching C.C. how to masturbate. She also never mentioned seeing blood on any clothing or bedding.
51N.C. explained that in the months leading up to the marriage breakdown, his relationship with I.C. was strained and became more distant. I.C. was present for some arguments between him and T.C. When the separation related text messages were discovered both I.C. and T.C. were very angry with him. He explained that around this time, I.C. was staying in the main bedroom with T.C.
52N.C. also explained that when the family lived in Oakville, the house was set up with interior nanny-cams that recorded events in all the children’s bedrooms, the kitchen, family room and basement play area. The cameras were connected to a Google Nest account and both parents had access to the cameras. The system in use would also send notifications to both parents whenever the cameras were offline or when something appeared on the cameras. Some sample notifications were tendered into evidence. As well, the camera recording could be reviewed and saved. N.C. kept a few recordings to memorialize childhood events such as the loss of a tooth. T.C. was aware that the cameras were recording as were the children.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
53I turn next to my analysis of the evidence in this case, starting with my overall findings.
54Having considered N.C.’s evidence as a whole and in context with all the evidence, I accept his core denials of having committed the offences. In some specific instances where I am unable to make definitive factual findings, N.C.’s evidence nonetheless leaves me with reasonable doubt as to what happened.
55I find that I.C.’s evidence raises both credibility and reliability concerns. She is a smart and articulate witness who clearly wants the court to believe that she has been the victim of sexual and physical abuse. However, she often presented as argumentative and positional in cross-examination. Her evidence was marked by some significant inconsistencies and improbabilities. On the whole, I am unable to accept her evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Put another way, when I consider her evidence as a whole and in context, I am not sure she is telling the truth about what happened. It is possible that she is, but a possibility is not sufficient in a criminal case.
56I find that C.C.’s evidence raises significant reliability concerns. I strongly suspect that she has re-visited and re-interpreted otherwise regular events in her mind and has re-cast them as sexualized interactions. While I accept that she now believes that she was sexually assaulted by her father, the significant reliability concerns with her evidence also prevent a finding on the criminal standard of proof.
57In addition, I consider the absence of evidence and in particular the absence of evidence from the defendant’s former wife and mother of the complainants. The absence of evidence from her prevents me from assessing the context in which the allegations were revealed, the presence or absence of potential tainting and the challenge to the defendant’s evidence advanced in cross-examination relating to the presence of video cameras in the bedroom and other areas of the home. The factual context of this case suggests that these allegations came to light during the breakdown of the defendant’s marriage. The evidence raises the spectre of tainting and interference by the mother. While I do not make any definitive findings in this regard, the absence of her evidence adds to reasonable doubt. Though, I will add that the result in this case would not be different even if I ignored this absence of evidence.
58I turn next to a more detailed analysis.
59N.C. gave his evidence in a straightforward, reasonable and ultimately believable fashion. He accepted responsibility for the messy way the marriage came to an end. He was candid about the fact that he was not entirely present during the marriage given his busy practice. He was candid about the approach he took with the children once he returned from Peru and understood that his marriage would soon end. He was candid about holding C.C. in his lap and rubbing her back, washing C.C. in the shower, and napping with I.C. This is not an instance where N.C. sought to unrealistically distance himself from everyday events which underpinned the factual allegations made by the complainants.
60As well, I accept his evidence in relation to the presence of the cameras in the children’s bedroom, and in particular his evidence that his spouse and the other of the children had access to the camera recordings and also received notifications of movement within the bedroom. While I accept as a general proposition that sexual assaults, particularly sexual assaults against children, can and often are committed in a brazen fashion, in the circumstances of this case I find that N.C.’s alleged misconduct would have been readily discoverable, if in fact he had been doing what I.C. says he was doing.
61Most importantly, his evidence was untouched in cross-examination. This is not an instance where cross-examination revealed material contradictions or improbabilities in his evidence. He was not impeached on any significant issue. His explanation for why there were cameras in the house made sense. I am not prepared to find that the manner in which certain clips were preserved tells against his credibility. I accept that some clips were simply kept as they showed “life moments”, like the loss of a tooth and the arrival of the “tooth fairy”. I accept his evidence that his former wife knew of the cameras as did the children. I am not prepared to infer or find anything untoward by virtue of the fact that he could not recall how or when the cameras were eventually removed. More specifically, I reject the suggestion that his use of the cameras was somehow aimed at creating a defence years in advance of any allegations.
62Lastly, I reject the submission that his comments upon return from Peru to the effect that he regretted “all the things” he had done were implicitly a confession to the offences before the court. The context in which these comments were made does not support that submission. This was a person coming to grips with the end of a marriage and not someone confessing to abusing his children.
63On the whole, his evidence made sense. It was not, as the Crown suggests, convenient and self-serving. His evidence, viewed in context with the whole of the evidence, entitles him to an acquittal.
64I turn next to I.C.’s evidence. I note that she is an obviously smart and articulate young person. She gave her evidence with conviction and certitude. That said, I find that there are several issues with her evidence that, when taken together, undermine her credibility.
65First, I find that during cross-examination she adopted an aggressive, argumentative and, at times, hostile demeanour. She responded to several questions by parroting back “Well I suggest to you…” She objected to picayune aspects of many questions, even though the detail was irrelevant or not actually a point of disagreement. The tone and content of her answers suggested an element of adversarial advocacy. Her responses suggested that her goal was to maintain her evidence, thwart the cross-examination and not assist the court in discovering the truth. In making this finding, I am mindful that a witness who is being challenged, particularly a young witness in a sexual assault case, may easily take offence to a challenge and may view the cross-examiner as an extension of the defendant, perhaps justifying or at least softening responses that come across as positional or confrontational. Even allowing for this, her evidence left me with concerns about her credibility and her willingness to actually tell the truth.
66Second, her evidence about the injury to her head stemming from the repeated head bashing incidents raises three separate but significant concerns. First, I.C. was clear that the head bashing resulted in bleeding. In her evidence in chief, she was clear that she saw blood on her fingers after touching the back of her head. When challenged on the fact that no one ever saw blood on bedsheets or clothing, she walked back her evidence and attempted to minimize the amount of blood she saw. She was also argumentative and evasive in explaining this evidence, ultimately claiming that she did not remember the incident itself, only the fact that she had a “light amount” of red on a fingertip pad. Perhaps in response to this evidence, the Crown invited the Court to find the defendant not guilty of the “cause bodily harm” element of the offence. While this was an appropriate concession by the Crown, it confirms a concern with the veracity of I.C.’s evidence on this issue. I find that her evidence about the bleeding was an exaggeration that she attempted to explain away. Her willingness to do so causes concern over her credibility. I also find that her related evidence of the head banging resulting in a bald spot also be an exaggeration. While there appears to be no issue that I.C. developed a bald spot, her mother saw the bald spot, and she was taken for treatment. Apart from I.C. suggesting that the head bashing and the bald spot are connected, there is no evidence suggesting that this is actually the case. When challenged on this issue, I.C. became argumentative and indicated that she “didn’t need a doctor to make the connection.”
67A related issue in terms of the head injury stems from the agreed statement of fact relating to the medical evidence. This agreed statement of fact contradicts elements of I.C.’s evidence on the issue of the injuries. In particular, there is nothing in the agreed facts about a spinal tap being performed on her. The timing of her attendance at Sick Kids hospital in an ambulance is also not accurate. The clear implication of her evidence in chief is that the headache at the time of the track and field event in April 2024 was related to assaults which, on her evidence, ended in September or October 2023. I find that this is an instance where I.C. is attempting to exaggerate what she says happened to her by drawing a connection between the assault and her headache at the track and field event. This evidence raises significant credibility concerns. It also seems highly unlikely that if she disclosed abuse by her father to the nurse, and through the nurse to the doctors, that nothing would have resulted by way of reporting and/or note taking.
68Third, I am concerned about I.C.’s evidence regarding how her visual observations of her father bashing her head at the cottage which she observed in the mirror made the other incidents of head bashing, which happened in the dark, “seem more real.” When pressed on this in cross-examination, I.C. maintained that she was sure that the prior incidents of head bashing had in fact occurred, but they were “just made more real” when she was able to see herself in the mirror. She claimed that seeing herself in the mirror solidified and legitimized what was happening. Viewed in context, her explanation raises credibility concerns and suggests a degree of drama added to enhance her version of events.
69Next, I find her evidence relating to the wet and sticky substance allegedly left on her legs by her father to raise significant credibility concerns. In her initial evidence, she claimed that she believed the wet sticky substance to be either water or “pee.” The clear implication of this evidence was that her father had ejaculated on her legs, at least to some degree. In cross-examination, I.C. was pressed on her state of knowledge of sexual functioning. She confirmed that at the time she gave the statement, she was 13 years old and in Grade 8. She denied having learned of human development in class, replying “I wasn’t paying attention.” When pressed, she explained that she was not paying attention in that class as she did not find it interesting. She maintained that at the time, she did not know that semen is the fluid that comes out of a penis. She testified that the first time she heard the word “semen” was in court, though she had heard of the word “ejaculation” prior to court. She denied that in her evidence in chief she was implying that her father ejaculated, though she maintained that now at trial she could not “conclusively say” that it was ejaculate. I find that this denial and the context of this evidence does not ring true. It calls into question her credibility.
70Lastly, I find that I.C. exhibited an animus towards her father that undermines credibility. In making this finding, I want to be careful to draw a distinction between an animus stemming from physical and sexual abuse and an animus stemming from other issues. An animus stemming from sexual and physical abuse is understandable. An animus that stems from other issues but manifests itself in complaints of sexual and physical abuse is not. In this case, it is clear that I.C. was angry at her father over the demise of the marriage. She was also present for at least one very serious argument. When questioned about this potential animus, I.C. went to fairly significant lengths to convey that she was also mad at her mother over certain aspects of the end of the marriage. She also refused to blame her father for the demise of the relationship, explaining that she was not privy to what caused the end of the relationship. Having heard this evidence in context, it struck me that I.C. was attempting to diffuse any suggestion that her complaints of sexual and physical abuse against her father were motivated by his conduct as a poor husband. While I cannot make specific factual findings in this regard, this evidence adds to my concerns about her credibility.
71I turn next to C.C.’s evidence. In my view, C.C.’s evidence raises significant reliability issues. While I strongly suspect that she believes the version of events given to the court, there exists an obvious concern that these events have been re-visited and re-evaluated in hindsight and in the aftermath of the dissolution of her parents’ marriage.
72The most obvious example relates to her allegation that her father would touch her private parts through her clothing while holding her in his lap. On her evidence, this happened frequently and openly with many other family members present. Tellingly, C.C. also suggested that one time when she was at her grandmother’s house, her grandmother did the same to her and her brother. While it is not beyond the realm of possibility that C.C. was also sexually assaulted by her grandmother, the far more likely scenario is that she has gone back and re-visited these instances and is recounting them through an inaccurate lens. On this issue, I pause to note that in referencing this incident, she referred to her grandmother as her father’s mother. This manner of reference suggests a degree of distance, possibly motivated by learned or instilled animus.
73A related concern relates to her description of the unwanted hug. At its core, this appears to simply be an instance where she did not like the fact that her father hugged her tightly. That said, the incident appears to have taken on an inappropriate sexualized context in its re-telling. Having considered the evidence on this issue, I find that it is far more likely that this was simply an unwanted hug and not a sexualized incident. I make the same findings in relation to the instances where she alleged that her father used his finger to touch her belly button.
74I also note that C.C. suggests in her evidence that she told her mother at the cottage that her father taught her to touch herself. On the facts before me, it seems odd that if C.C. had in fact told her mother that her father taught her to touch herself, the mother would not have done anything about it including either speaking with the defendant or contacting police or social services. However, given that the mother was not called to give evidence, I cannot make definitive findings in this regard.
75Another final reliability concern relates to C.C.’s inability to recall much of anything during her cross-examination. While I must view the evidence of a 9 year old in a sensitive context, I cannot ignore the fact that her most common answer in cross-examination was, “I don’t remember”. This leaves me with further concerns about her overall reliability, though I accept that she maintained the bare core of her allegations in cross-examination.
76I turn lastly to C.C.’s allegation of touching during the bathing. I note that in her evidence C.C. did not vary or resile from her initial recollection that while being bathed on one occasion, her father touched her private parts three times with his finger, while trying to clean “white stuff” from her privates. I note that the defendant does not deny that he would have bathed his daughter despite her age, though he maintains that he used a “poof” and soap and not just his bare fingers. Considering the evidence as a whole on this issue, I find that this is another instance where there are reliability concerns. While I cannot make definitive factual findings, I am simply not satisfied that the shower incident or incidents happened as C.C. has recounted them. I strongly suspect that this is another incident where a routine parenting task has been re-visited in hindsight.
77On this issue, I note that I.C. described being present and observing this incident. On her evidence, she took steps to stop the incident by handing her father a towel and telling him the bath was done. C.C. does not recall this happening, nor does the defendant. I also note that when I.C. recounted this incident in her evidence in chief she added that she also observed the defendant wash his young son in the same fashion using his fingers. When asked about this portion of her evidence at trial, I.C. maintained that she could not recall the incident involving her younger brother. Again, when viewed in context, this evidence supports a finding that regular parenting events have been revisited and reinterpreted through a negative lens. Ultimately, I am not prepared to find that the defendant used his bare fingers to touch his daughter’s vagina while bathing her.
78Taking all the evidence into consideration, I am not satisfied that the Crown has proven any of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, I find N.C. not guilty on counts 1, 2, and 3 in the indictment.
79N.C. you are free to go.
The Honourable Justice J. Di Luca
Released: July 31, 2026
CITATION: R. v. N.C., 2026 ONSC 4461
COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-91110504-0000
DATE: 20260731
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
N.C.
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Honourable Justice J. Di Luca
Released: July 31, 2026