Superior Court of Justice
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – ANOUSHIRAVAN MONJEZI
Maya Sengupta-Murray, for the Crown
Mitch Engel, for the accused, Anoushiravan Monjezi
HEARD: December 1-5, 8-9, 2025
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Subject to a publication ban that applies to any information that could identify the complainant, pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code)
VERMETTE J.
1The accused, Anoushiravan Monjezi, was charged with four offences: 1
a. sexual assault on L.C.C. on or about March 1, 2022, in Toronto, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code ; 2
b. attempt to choke L.C.C. with the intent to enable or assist himself to commit a sexual assault, on or about March 1, 2022, in Toronto, contrary to subsection 246 (a) of the Criminal Code ;
c. sexual assault on L.C.C. on or about March 5, 2022, in Toronto, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code ; and
d. uttering a threat to cause bodily harm to L.C.C., on or about March 5, 2022, in Toronto, contrary to subsection 264.1(1) (a) of the Criminal Code .
2On January 30, 2026, I found Mr. Monjezi not guilty on all counts with reasons to follow. These are my reasons.
A. EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
3The Crown called two witnesses: L.C.C. and J.K. The evidence also included an Agreed Statement of Facts which attached a number of photographs. The defence did not call any evidence.
4The following is a summary of the witnesses' evidence.
1. Evidence of L.C.C.
5Ms. C. is the owner of a beauty salon in Toronto which she opened in 2003. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. C. had four or five employees, and they offered manicures, pedicures, facials and massages. Over time, Ms. C. reduced her staff. By 2022, Ms. C. was running the salon by herself, offering only massages.
6Mr. Monjezi was Ms. C.'s customer for more than 15 years. Ms. C. knew him as "Mike". Mr. Monjezi did not always attend the salon regularly. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he started going more often and saw Ms. C. approximately every two to three weeks.
a. Events of March 1, 2022
7On Tuesday, March 1, 2022, Mr. Monjezi called Ms. C. because he wanted to come to the salon. Ms. C. told him that she had a customer. Mr. Monjezi kept on calling and asked her to call him if her customer left early. After her customer left at around 5:30 p.m., Ms. C. texted Mr. Monjezi to let him know. He said that he was going to come. He came around 6 p.m. and had a one-hour massage. Afterwards, he left the salon.
8Mr. Monjezi came back to the salon between 7 and 7:30 p.m. He knocked on the internal door leading to the massage rooms. When Ms. C. opened the door, he pushed her inside. Ms. C. told Mr. Monjezi that she was closed. He put his hand on her mouth and his arm around her waist and pushed her further inside.
9Mr. Monjezi then dragged Ms. C. into the room by her hair. He took a knife out of one of his pockets and put it on a chair in the room. He took his clothes off and ordered Ms. C. to take off her clothes. She complied because she was afraid. He put his body on top of Ms. C. and tried to penetrate her with his penis. He tried to put his penis inside her. He put his hands around Ms. C.'s neck and started choking her. Ms. C. had difficulty breathing.
10Ms. C. moved her body back and forth, left and right, for a while to prevent Mr. Monjezi to penetrate her with his penis. At some point, Mr. Monjezi turned her over and said: "Let me fuck your ass." He tried to penetrate Ms. C. anally. She moved back and forth again to prevent that.
11At some point, Mr. Monjezi got tired and sat on the chair where he had put the knife. He sat either on the knife or next to it, but he did not touch the knife. He told Ms. C. to give him a blow job. She refused. He told her to go to the fridge and get some water. She complied. When she came back, he ordered her to perform a massage. She performed a short massage.
12When Mr. Monjezi tried to put Ms. C.'s head on his lap, she felt dizzy and slid on the floor. She had difficulty breathing. At that time, she was completely naked. Ms. C. told Mr. Monjezi that she had a problem with her heart. Mr. Monjezi then put his clothes on and left.
13Ms. C. testified that when she slid on the floor, Mr. Monjezi tried to lift her up several times, but he did not succeed as she was not able to stand.
14After Mr. Monjezi left, Ms. C. slowly moved her body on the floor to the refrigerator in the corridor. She drank some cold water and lied down on the floor in the corridor for at least 30 minutes. She then got dressed and went home.
b. Events of March 2 and 3, 2022
15After what had happened, Ms. C. thought that Mr. Monjezi would be afraid to come back to her salon. The following day, she went to the salon. She cleaned everything and put the knife in a plastic bag. She kept the knife in her salon.
16Later that day, Ms. C. saw the building's property manager, J.K., in the parking lot. She told him that she had a customer who was very dangerous and she was not able to stop him from coming. During this conversation, they did not discuss specific incidents.
17On Thursday, March 3, 2022, Mr. Monjezi came back to Ms. C.'s salon. At that time, there were two customers present: one in the massage room and one waiting in the lobby. Ms. C. told Mr. Monjezi that she was busy and that he had to make an appointment. He left.
c. Events of March 5, 2022
18On Saturday, March 5, 2022, Mr. Monjezi came back to Ms. C.'s salon between 5 and 6 p.m. He entered into the lobby. Ms. C. could not see on the monitor who had entered into the salon, so she opened the door to the lobby. When she saw that it was Mr. Monjezi, she told him that she was closed. He told her that he wanted a massage.
19Mr. Monjezi then took off his clothes and put them on a hanger. He ordered Ms. C. to take off her clothes and she did. He touched her with his hands in the area of her vagina. Ms. C. then performed a massage on Mr. Monjezi.
20Mr. Monjezi was facing down for parts of the massage and up for other parts of the massage. He turned over approximately five or six times during the massage. Mr. Monjezi did not touch Ms. C. with his hands below her waist when he was turned over. However, he put his tongue in her vagina.
21The massage lasted more than two hours. After two hours, Mr. Monjezi was tired and half asleep. Ms. C. asked him if she could go out to get some water. Mr. Monjezi said: "Okay." Ms. C. then went to the back door of the salon and texted Mr. K. to ask him to come and help her with the customer she had in the salon.
22Mr. K. came up right away. Ms. C. did not tell him about anything that had happened, but she told him: "This guy's here." Mr. K. knocked on the door, opened it and said to Mr. Monjezi that he wanted to speak to him and that he had a question. Mr. K. told him that the building had a policy prohibiting male customers and asked him to leave. Mr. Monjezi said: "Okay", put his clothes on and left.
23When Ms. C. gave her statement to the police, she said that Mr. Monjezi put his clothes on and ran away after Mr. K. came to her salon. At trial, Ms. C. maintained that after Mr. K. arrived, Mr. Monjezi chose to stay until the end of the session, approximately 20 minutes later, and that he left only after she said that her work was done.
24Ms. C.'s evidence is that Mr. Monjezi had paid $300.00 earlier for a three-hour massage. The price of a three-hour massage is $180.00, but Mr. Monjezi gave her a $20.00 tip for each hour. According to Ms. C., a three-hour massage was supposed to last from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Ms. C. then said that Mr. Monjezi had paid $300.00 for a two-hour massage.
25According to Ms. C., she did not have a discussion with Mr. K. on March 5, 2022 about what had happened. She just told him that she was scared of Mr. Monjezi. She later said that she showed him the knife. After Mr. K. left the salon, Ms. C. said that Mr. Monjezi told her: "If you go to the police, I'll kill you."
26Ms. C. also said during her testimony that at the end of the session, Mr. Monjezi put her head against the door, pulled her hair and masturbated behind her. He then wanted to put his tongue in her vagina. When Ms. C. stated this, she had already testified that she had gone to get water and to text Mr. K. after approximately two hours of massaging Mr. Monjezi.
27During her cross-examination, Ms. C. stated that before this last incident, Mr. Monjezi had already put his tongue in her vagina. She also confirmed that this incident happened at the end of the session, after Mr. K. had already arrived.
28Ms. C. testified that she exchanged text messages with Mr. K. later that evening. However, Ms. C. was clearly confused about this because the exhibit that was marked at trial shows that the other party in the text exchange was not Mr. K., but someone else.
d. Report to police on March 6, 2022
29On Sunday, March 6, 2022, Ms. C. called the police with Mr. K. at some point in the afternoon. She did not call the police in the morning because she could not reach Mr. K. Before calling the police, she met with Mr. K. in the building's parking lot and told him some details about what had happened with Mr. Monjezi on March 1 and March 5.
30The police came to Ms. C.'s salon at about 5 or 6 p.m. They stayed there until about 9 p.m. to do their investigation. Ms. C. gave the knife to the police and told them about the events of March 1 and March 5, 2022.
31When the police left Ms. C.'s salon at about 9 p.m., they drove her to the police station so that she could provide a statement. While she was in the car with the police officers, Ms. C. decided not to give a statement and asked to be taken home instead. She gave a statement the next day.
32On March 9, 2022, Ms. C. gave another statement to the police. At that time, she told the police about Mr. Monjezi's second visit on March 1, 2022.
33At trial, for the first time, Ms. C. testified that Mr. Monjezi had attacked her before March 2022, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among other things, she stated that Mr. Monjezi had put his hands inside her vagina and that he had choked her. She said that she had not disclosed this before because she was afraid and that it was too painful.
34Ms. C. did not go see a doctor after the incident on March 1, 2022, and neither did she after the incident on March 5, 2022.
2. Evidence of J.K.
35J.K. is the property manager of the building where Ms. C.'s salon is located.
36In order to have Mr. K. attend to give evidence at trial, I had to issue a material witness warrant because he had refused to take a subpoena that a police officer was attempting to serve on him. When Mr. K. came to court, he denied ever receiving a subpoena and he denied ever seeing a police officer come to see him. Later in his testimony, Mr. K. said that he might have heard a knock on his door, but he would not have known who it was.
37During his cross-examination, Mr. K. admitted that he had been evading service of the subpoena as he did not want to come to court. His answers to the questions that were asked of him on this point were evasive, inconsistent and not believable.
38Mr. K. resides in the building for which he is the property manager. In addition to being the property manager of the building where he lives, he has a full-time job. He leaves very early in the morning and comes back late at night.
39Mr. K. has known Ms. C. since approximately 2003 or 2004. He said that he may see her twice a week and they usually just say "hello". Ms. C. does not talk to him that much and they have very little interaction.
40Mr. K.'s memory of the events of March 2022 was not very good and he was not very clear as to what happened on March 5 as opposed to March 6, 2022. His evidence was often confusing.
41Mr. K. testified that two or three weeks before he called the police with Ms. C. on March 6, 2022, Ms. C. mentioned to Mr. K. that she had a problem with a customer. The customer in question had been coming to her salon regularly and had been acting inappropriately and using foul language.
42On March 5, 2022, Ms. C. texted Mr. K. to ask him to come and help her with a customer. That was the first time that Ms. C. had texted Mr. K. Mr. K. found Ms. C.'s message disturbing.
43Approximately three minutes after receiving the text message, Mr. K. went to see Ms. C. in her salon to make sure that she was okay. The front door and the back door were locked. Mr. K. got inside the salon after Ms. C. let him in. When Mr. K. arrived, the customer was getting dressed. Mr. K. spoke to the customer and the customer left the premises calmly.
44After the customer left, Ms. C. told Mr. K. that she had been abused. She said that the customer had choked her and pulled her hair. Mr. K. told her that she had to decide what she wanted to do.
45The next day, Ms. C. saw Mr. K. coming into the building and she reached out. Mr. K. does not remember when that occurred during the day. Mr. K. went to speak to Ms. C. That is when Ms. C. told him in more detail what had happened.
46Ms. C. told Mr. K. that the customer had come numerous times, but his behaviour had become erratic and unpredictable. She said that he was violent. Ms. C. was distraught, a little bit emotional, and she seemed afraid and wanted help. Ms. C. told Mr. K. that she had a knife to show to the police.
47Mr. K. asked Ms. C. what she wanted to do. She did not know. Mr. K. told her that he thought that they should call the police and make a report. Mr. K. then called the police because Ms. C. was not in a state to call.
48Constables later came to Ms. C.'s salon and took further notes. Mr. K. wanted to support Ms. C. while the police were there as this can be very intimidating.
49After the report to the police, Mr. K. did not have further involvement in relation to Ms. C.'s concerns with Mr. Monjezi. At Ms. C.'s request, Mr. K. put in some extra locks and tried to make the salon a little bit safer.
3. Agreed Statement of Facts
50An Agreed Statement of Facts was signed by the parties. It attaches a number of pictures that were taken by a police officer on March 6, 2022. It also includes additional information, including information about the DNA analysis of the knife.
51On March 6, 2022, Ms. C. made an initial report to police in respect of the allegations before the court. While making that report, Ms. C. provided two items to the police: (1) a knife in a sheath; and (2) a pair of grey sweatpants belonging to Mr. Monjezi that he had allegedly left in her salon on March 5, 2022.
52A police officer took swabs of the knife's sheath and handle. Those swabs were submitted to the Centre for Forensic Sciences for analysis. The swabs were analyzed, with the following results:
a. A mixture of DNA was detected on the knife sheath from four contributing sources. Mr. Monjezi cannot be excluded as a contributor to that DNA mixture. It is more than one trillion times more likely that the sample contains Mr. Monjezi's DNA than not.
b. A mixture of DNA was detected on the knife handle from four sources. Mr. Monjezi cannot be excluded as a contributor to that DNA mixture. It is more than 4.9 billion times more likely that the sample contains Mr. Monjezi's DNA than not.
53The picture of the knife shows that it was approximately 28.5 centimetres long, with a blade that was approximately 14.5 centimetres long.
B. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. Position of the Crown
54The Crown submits that the core chain of interactions described by Ms. C. was unchallenged and uncontradicted. The Crown states that an individualized approach to the assessment of Ms. C.'s credibility and reliability is needed and that her evidence must be assessed in the context in which she found herself.
55The Crown points out that Ms. C. was reluctant to contact police and to describe the events. The Crown submits that piecemeal disclosure need not be a fatal blow to the complainant's credibility, and that the evidence of a sexual assault complainant need not be corroborated.
56The Crown states that while corroboration is not required, parts of Ms. C.'s evidence were corroborated. The Crown points to the DNA evidence, the text message that Ms. C. sent to Mr. K. on March 5, 2022, and the evidence of Mr. K.
2. Position of the defence
57The defence's position is that it would be too dangerous to convict Mr. Monjezi on the evidence that was adduced at trial.
58The defence states that Ms. C. was aggressive and defensive in her manner of testifying, and repeatedly asked questions of defence counsel.
59The defence asserts that Mr. K. had a total lack of respect for the whole process and for counsel, and that he clearly lied when asked questions about the subpoena. The defence submits that the court has to be careful about how much weight to give to Mr. K.'s evidence.
60The defence argues that Ms. C. failed to acknowledge a number of obvious inconsistencies, including the inconsistent statements that she made regarding when the knife was used. The defence notes that Ms. C. initially said that the knife was brought by Mr. Monjezi on March 5, 2022 – not March 1, 2022 – but changed her evidence later.
61The defence states that Ms. C.'s evidence was all over the place as to whether anything had happened with Mr. Monjezi before March 1, 2022. The defence points out that Ms. C. told the police that nothing had happened before the events of March 2022, but then claimed at trial that Mr. Monjezi had attacked her before March 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
62The defence stresses the inconsistencies in the evidence as to whether Ms. C. finished the session with Mr. Monjezi on March 5, 2022 after Mr. K. came to her salon. The defence argues that Mr. K.'s evidence is consistent with the position that Mr. Monjezi left right after Mr. K. arrived, while Ms. C.'s evidence is that Mr. Monjezi stayed for approximately 20 more minutes.
63The defence points out that Ms. C. made new accusations at trial, including with respect to Mr. Monjezi putting his tongue in her vagina on March 5, 2022. The defence submits that this new evidence contradicts Ms. C.'s evidence about when the incident ended.
64The defence points to other inconsistencies in Ms. C.'s evidence, including inconsistencies between her evidence at trial and statements that she made to the police.
65The defence submits that the DNA evidence is of no moment in this case because Mr. Monjezi was Ms. C.'s customer for 15 years. The defence also submits that Ms. C.'s evidence was inconsistent as to whether Mr. Monjezi had ever brought a pizza to her salon.
66The defence argues that the delay in reporting in this case does not make sense. The defence states that Ms. C.'s explanations for not disclosing certain things earlier – e.g., that it was too painful – are not satisfactory given that she did disclose other things.
67The defence submits that Ms. C. was loose with the truth and asks that the Court infer that she was lying.
C. DISCUSSION
1. General principles
68Mr. Monjezi is presumed to be innocent, unless and until Crown counsel has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove Mr. Monjezi's guilt of the offences with which he was charged, Crown counsel must prove every essential element of those offences beyond a reasonable doubt.
69Proof of probable or likely guilt is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It would not be safe to convict a person of a criminal offence with only that degree of confidence. In order to convict Mr. Monjezi, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty on the basis of the evidence. If I am not satisfied of that, I must acquit him.
70In this case, there is no "credibility contest" because Mr. Monjezi did not testify. Nevertheless, as is typical in many sexual assault cases, the credibility and reliability of Ms. C.'s evidence is the central issue that I have to determine. In order to convict Mr. Monjezi, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, based on all of the evidence before me, that the events described by Ms. C. happened.
2. Offences
a. Sexual assault
71The actus reus of sexual assault requires the Crown to establish three things: (a) touching; (b) of an objectively sexual nature; (c) to which the complainant did not consent. The first two elements are met whenever there is sexual touching. The key issue in most sexual assault cases is consent.
b. Overcoming resistance by choking
72The actus reus of this offence is that the accused attempted to choke the complainant. The mens rea of this offence requires that at the time of the attempted choking, the accused intended to commit the act and intended to enable or assist himself to commit the offence of sexual assault.
c. Uttering a threat to cause bodily harm
73The essential elements of this offence include:
a. the utterance by the accused of a threat to cause bodily harm to the complainant; and
b. an intent to threaten.
See R. v. McRae , 2013 SCC 68 at para. 8 (" McRae ").
74The first element is made out if a reasonable person fully aware of the circumstances in which the words were uttered would have perceived them to be a threat of bodily harm. The second element is made out if it is shown that the accused intended the words uttered to intimidate or to be taken seriously.
3. Assessment of the evidence
75Based on Ms. C.'s evidence – even when supplemented by the rest of the evidence, I cannot be sure about what happened between her and Mr. Monjezi on March 1 and 5, 2022. The credibility and reliability of Ms. C.'s evidence on the key issues are such that I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the events she described at trial actually happened.
76The following are some of the inconsistencies in Ms. C.'s evidence:
a. Ms. C.'s evidence about being attacked by Mr. Monjezi prior to March 1, 2022 was inconsistent. It was also brought up for the very first time at trial, despite the fact that she gave statements to the police on March 6 and 9, 2022. Ms. C. did not explain why she had not mentioned this earlier. Her attempt to explain the differences in her evidence was not convincing.
b. Ms. C.'s evidence about the records that she kept for her business and how long she kept them was inconsistent, too convenient and not credible. Further, Ms. C.'s evidence about records showing the payments made by Mr. Monjezi was implausible.
c. Ms. C.'s evidence about what she told Mr. K. on March 5, 2022 (after he came up to her salon) and a few days earlier in the parking lot regarding what Mr. Monjezi had done was inconsistent and evasive. She attempted to minimize what she told Mr. K. when this was inconsistent with what Mr. K. testified to.
d. Ms. C.'s evidence on the issue of the payment that she received from Mr. Monjezi for the massage on March 5, 2022 was inconsistent and unclear. At first, she said that there was a conversation about payment and that Mr. Monjezi had paid $300.00 for a three-hour massage, but then she said he had paid $300.00 for a two-hour massage.
e. Ms. C.'s evidence about how much Mr. Monjezi paid her was also unclear and not entirely consistent. Among other things, she said that Mr. Monjezi paid her $60 extra (in addition to his regular $60 per hour), but she also said that he gave her a $20.00 tip for each hour, and she also said the normal price of a massage was $60 per hour.
f. At trial, Ms. C. insisted that Mr. Monjezi did not leave her salon right after Mr. K. arrived and that he chose to stay until the end of the session, approximately 20 minutes later. This is inconsistent with her police statement in which she said that Mr. Monjezi put his clothes on and ran away after Mr. K. came. It is also inconsistent with Mr. K.'s evidence that when he arrived, the customer was already getting dressed and that the customer left calmly.
77In addition, there were important inconsistencies in Ms. C.'s evidence regarding: (1) the knife that was allegedly brought by Mr. Monjezi; and (2) the timing of the incident on March 5, 2022 where Mr. Monjezi allegedly put her head against the door, masturbated behind her and attempted to put his tongue in her vagina.
78There were numerous inconsistencies in Ms. C.'s evidence regarding the knife, which makes her evidence on this point highly suspicious. Among other things:
a. Ms. C.'s first statements to the police were to the effect that Mr. Monjezi had brought the knife on March 5, 2022, not on March 1, 2022.
b. In order to explain some of her statements to the police that suggested that Mr. Monjezi had brought the knife on March 5 instead of March 1, Ms. C. stated that she had kept the knife in a bag in the salon after March 1, 2022, and then gave the knife to the police on March 6, 2022. According to Ms. C., when she made her statements to the police, she was trying to explain how she had the knife to give to the police. However, this explanation is not convincing.
c. Ms. C. said that she thought that Mr. Monjezi would not come back to the salon after March 1, 2022, because she thought that he would be afraid of coming back. Despite this, she said that she kept the knife in a plastic bag at her salon, ready to give to the police. This is inconsistent with the idea that she thought that Mr. Monjezi would not come back.
d. Ms. C.'s evidence about whether Mr. Monjezi had brought a pizza to her salon in the past – which could have explained the presence of a knife with Mr. Monjezi's DNA on it – was inconsistent and defensive. At first, she seemed to say that Mr. Monjezi had never brought a pizza and therefore there would be no reason to have a knife. Later, she said that she was not sure if he had ever brought a pizza.
e. Ms. C. gave inconsistent evidence as to whether she told Mr. K. about Mr. Monjezi bringing a knife during their conversation in the parking lot on March 2, 2022. She also testified that she showed the knife to Mr. K. on March 5, 2022, which is inconsistent with other evidence.
79The other important inconsistency relates to Ms. C.'s evidence about the incident on March 5, 2022 where Mr. Monjezi put her head against the door, masturbated behind her and put his tongue in her vagina. Ms. C.'s evidence on this point was confusing and contradictory as to when this happened relative to other events on March 5, and the timeline she described is implausible.
80The change in Ms. C.'s evidence on this point is very concerning. Earlier in her testimony, she had spent some time explaining that she could not go home late because she was taking care of someone who was sick. This was used to explain her evidence that the session ended by about 8 or 8:30 p.m. Later, she described an incident that occurred at the end of the session (after the incident with the door) without any reference to having to go home. This is inconsistent with her earlier evidence.
81With respect to most of the inconsistencies that were pointed out to her, Ms. C. appeared to be more concerned about quickly finding an explanation for the differences in her evidence rather than candidly trying to reconcile the inconsistencies. This affected my assessment of her credibility and reliability.
82In light of the foregoing and the numerous difficulties with Ms. C.'s evidence, it would not be safe to convict Mr. Monjezi based on the evidence before me. I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the events described by Ms. C. actually happened as she testified.
D. CONCLUSION
83I find Mr. Monjezi not guilty on all counts.
Vermette J.
Released: February 17, 2026
Footnotes
- Count 2 (unlawful confinement on March 1, 2022, contrary to subsection 279(2) of the Criminal Code ) and count 6 (unlawful confinement on March 5, 2022, contrary to subsection 279(2) of the Criminal Code ) were stayed prior to trial pursuant to R. v. Kienapple.
- W hile the first count on the indictment charged Mr. Monjezi with committing a sexual assault on L.C.C. with a weapon – a knife – contrary to subsection 272(1) (a) of the Criminal Code , Crown counsel amended the indictment at the commencement of trial to charge Mr. Monjezi with a simple sexual assault, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code .