How to Defend Against Sexual Assault Charges

Sexual assaults can involve adults or children as the complaining parties. If you are charged with a sexual offence, you need to contact me. Sexual assaults are tricky to defend and they require experienced counsel who knows how to cross-examine witnesses effectively. Cross-examination is a skill that comes naturally to me and when you combine that with impeccable preparation, you are in excellent hands. Below you will find a few examples of the many sexual assault cases that I have successfully defended. Few sexual assault cases resolve by way of guilty plea and so these examples are trial results.

My Experience Defending Sexual Assaults:

There are many more sexual assault cases that I have successfully defended but have not included here. In my ten years in private practice, I have only lost two sexual assault cases and both were cases involving an employer inappropriately touching an employee. Neither client went to jail and one of the clients escaped without a criminal record. These are difficult cases, hire an experienced lawyer.

2016 Sexual Offences
2 out of 2 cases resulted in no criminal record.
1 conditional discharge.
1 absolute discharge.
R. v. C. - Voyeurism
Factual Background: Client had attended at a clothing retailer. He went into the change-room and waited for females to go into the adjacent change-room, at which time he would place his cell phone underneath the stall in an attempt to take video of the females changing. He was charged with voyeurism.

Strategy: I arranged for my client to attend private counselling which he took extremely seriously, and before attending court he had seen the counsellor over thirty times. He was also assessed by a forensic psychiatrist who found him to be extremely regretful over his actions and was motivated to change. These reports were provided to the Crown, as well as character reference letters.

Decision/Outcome: The Crown ultimately agreed to a conditional discharge if my client pled guilty. The judge was impressed by all of the reports and granted the client a conditional discharge. The Crown's initial position had been 6-9 months in jail.
R. v. B. - Indecent Act
Factual Background: Client was heavily intoxicated and exposed himself to other people who took pictures of him doing so and contacted the police. Client had no memory of even being at the place where the incident took place due to his level of intoxication and only remembered being at the police station.

Strategy: I had the client participate in counselling not only for his apparent alcohol problem, but also for other personal issues that he was experiencing. Additionally I had him formally assessed to prove that he was not a risk to the public.

Decision/Outcome: Client plead guilty; the judge agreed that this was completely out of character for him, and that he had done everything possible to address the issues that gave rise to this. He was given an absolute discharge.
2014-2015 Sexual Offences **9 cases**
All 9 cases resulted in no criminal record
R. v. V. (2015 Brampton) - Sexual Assault
Background: Elderly client was alleged to have inappropriately touched a 15-year-old girl at a bus stop. Client exhibited strange and erratic behaviour both during and after the incident, and during the police's interrogation of him.

Strategy: To demonstrate that this incident was incredibly out of character for my client, and at the request of the Crown to have an assessment performed by a psychiatrist to demonstrate that such an incident was out of character for my client.

Decision/Outcome: Received an absolute discharge after the Court received a report at my request from a forensic psychiatrist, in which it was said that given his age and his impression of what he had learned from this process there was no need for any ongoing monitoring by the court.
R. v. D. (2015 Brampton) - Indecent Act
Factual Background: Client was charged with indecent act after the complainant alleged he exposed himself in his car to her.

Strategy: To convince the Crown that based on the complainant's statement, which did not include any suggestion that he was doing anything with his penis other than it might have been exposed, that the offence of indecent act with which he was charged was not made out. The Crown was reluctant to agree with my assessment, but on balance agreed that if he would sign a peace bond to have no contact with the complainant the charge would be withdrawn.

Decision/Outcome: Charges were withdrawn.
R. v. F. - Indecent Act x2 (2015 Brampton)
Factual Background: Client was charged with two counts of indecent act after multiple incidents with neighbours where she exposed her genital area.

Strategy: To persuade the Crown that there was some misunderstanding, but also that there were some mental health concerns and that this was a case that more properly should be dealt with by mental health diversion, which is what happened.

Decision/Outcome: Client was placed under the care of a psychiatrist. The case was adjourned for six months to allow my client to take the care that was directed. Charges were ultimately withdrawn.
R. v. O. (2013-2015 New Market) - Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference
Factual Background: My client was charged with five separate incidents of improper touching of the daughter of family friends. The Crown was seeking a lengthy custodial sentence.

Strategy: We conducted a preliminary hearing in which the complainant was cross-examined at length about her memory and about the lack of opportunity for this to have happened because she says the incidents occurred when there were between twenty to thirty people in the house where these incidents supposedly occurred. I had interviewed some of the other children that were around the same age or older as the complainant, and they were all of the belief that there would not have been an opportunity for this to have happened. I cross-examined the complainant about the lack of opportunity, and she had no explanation for how this could have happened with so many people around.

Decision/Outcome: A trial date was set, and at the start of the trial the accused was arraigned. The Crown called no evidence, and my client was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. B.M. - Indecent Act
Factual Background: Client was charged with indecent act after he had received a massage from a registered massage therapist.

Strategy: I was able to persuade the Crown that the complainant in all likelihood had misinterpreted and overreacted to the actions of the client. The client agreed to attend counselling and following the counselling sessions the charges were withdrawn.

Decision/Outcome: charges were withdrawn
R. v. L.Y. - Indecent Act
Factual Background: My client had a medial condition that resulted in him having an inability to control his bladder. A truck driver thought that he was exposing himself in his vehicle.

Strategy: I convinced the Crown that the truck driver had misinterpreted my client's actions, and he was granted diversion.

Decision/Outcome: charges withdrawn
R. v. C.D. - Indecent Act
Factual Background: Mr. D. was alleged to have been exposing himself while watching a pornographic video in his car outside of an adult video shop, which police observed and charged him with indecent act.

Strategy: I persuaded the Crown that based on the observations made by the police, it was open to infer that either my client was committing an indecent act or he was simply sitting in his car with his hands in his lap watching a video on his phone. Mr. D agreed to attend for counselling, both individually and with his wife.

Decision/Outcome: Following his attendance at counselling, charges were withdrawn
R. v. B.R. - Indecent Act and Mischief
Factual Background: Mr R. had some issues that were more indicative of the need for counselling than punishment.

Strategy: The issues that were addressed by the counsellor made it clear that the neighbours misinterpreted Mr. R's intentions.

Decision/Outcome: After completing several months of counselling, the Crown entered a stay of proceedings.
R. v. I.M. - Sexual Assault
Factual Background: This was a complicated situation involving the client, the complainant, and the complainant's husband.

Strategy: I was able to arrange for independent legal advice for the complainant. Her counsel then advised the Crown that her version of events was not complete and when the police officer asked her if her actions had been consensual, she did not answer with the degree of certainty that she ought to have. After independent counsel spoke with her, she made it clear that she wanted no part of the criminal prosecution and that her actions on the night in question had in fact been with her consent.

Decision/Outcome: Crown withdrew the charges.
2013 and older cases
R. v. S. (Brampton Court, May 2013)
Factual Background: Client and his neighbour and neighbour's husband were socializing at client's house, when neighbour's husband suggested they watch porn. Following this there was a series of altercations between the neighbour and her husband, the husband left, and the neighbour and client stayed in the house together. Following that night, neighbour clearly regretted her actions and called police, client was charged with forcible confinement, sexual assault, assault, and mischief.

Strategy: To prove that the neighbour was not telling the whole truth and was simply regretful of her actions, and that anything that had happened between client and the neighbour was consensual. Also, to prove that there was DNA evidence on the neighbour not of my client.

Decision/Outcome: All charges were withdrawn.
R. v. R. (Brampton Court, September 2012)
Factual Background: Client was found looking into the windows of homes in a neighbouring area, with a cell phone is his hand. Client confessed he had been looking into windows in hopes of seeing someone naked, of which he would take pictures to fuel his pornography addiction.

Strategy: To convince the Crown and judge that this incident was a direct result of my client's addiction to pornography and mental strains in his life, including confidence issues and intimacy issues emerging from his childhood, and personal and financial strains. Additionally, to prove that my client was deeply remorseful for his actions and working towards bettering himself, by providing reports from a psychologist and showing evidence he had been seeing a social worker for an extended period of time in order to rehabilitate himself.

Decision/Outcome: Client ultimately pled guilty to voyeurism, and received a conditional discharge and probation for 9 months.
R. v. D. (Brampton Superior Court, February 2012)
Factual Background: Client was charged with gang sexual assault after he and a friend met a woman at a local bar and returned to her residence, upon which they had a sexual encounter with her. The woman later complained that she had been raped by both individuals. The client had stolen some of the woman's personal items and had urinated in her fridge.

Strategy: The client had to admit and plead guilty to the theft of the personal items and the mischief charge for urinating in her fridge, because there was overwhelming evidence that he had done both of these, and if he did not admit to those, he would have lost credibility when testifying on the charge of sexual assault. At trial for the sexual assault, I was able to cross-examine the complainant's best friend in such a manner that resulted in her advising the court that in her opinion, there had been no sexual assault, and that her friend had simply made this up, out of feelings of regret. I was also able to discredit the complainant and demonstrate that her version not only did not make sense but that her memory was full of "convenient" gaps and blank moments.

Decision/Outcome: The client was found not guilty of the sexual assault. Sentencing on the charges he pled guilty to had been adjourned while we waited for the decision on the trial. He then received a suspended sentence and probation for the theft and mischief charge. He had originally been facing a sentence of 3 years on the sexual assault. At sentencing for the theft and mischief, the Crown sought a sentence of 30 days in jail.
R. v. T. (Brampton Court, July 2010)
Factual Background: Following a Peel Regional Police undercover investigation through the Yahoo! Chat and Yahoo! Messenger services, my client was charged with internet luring. Upon his arrest, a search warrant was issued for his residence, during which large amounts of marijuana were discovered, resulting in my client being charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Strategy: To ensure that my client took the situation seriously, and that he got counseling both from his family doctor and a recommended counselor. I also collected a packet of character references for my client, and effectively demonstrated to the judge that my client was now a valued employee at his place of work.

Decision/Outcome: Although the Crown was seeking one year in jail, I was able to provide the judge with previous decisions and convince him of some extenuating circumstances; client received a sentence of only 45 days to be served on weekends.
R. V. M. (Brampton Sup. Court, March 2010)
Factual Background: Client charged with a sexual assault on his girlfriend’s friend on a night when everyone had been drinking heavily. The complainant herself was so drunk she did not remember what she had done.

The Strategy: Cross-examine the complainant extensively to show a severe lack of credibility and reliability so that the Crown would realize they had no prospect of conviction.

Decision/Outcome: Following a judicial pre-trial in Superior Court, the Crown withdrew the charges.
R. v. S.(Toronto Ct., February 2010)
Factual Background: The client was charged with sexually assaulting two women that he worked with. They alleged that he had touched them inappropriately on several occasions at the work place and that he was often making inappropriate sexual remarks. The client had previously been found guilty of assaulting a co-worker at the same work location. The client was a supervisor to the people who were making the complaint.

The Strategy: It was our theory that these women did not like the client and were making these complaints knowing that he would get fired because of the previous incident. We would try to show that their statements did not make sense and that this was a fabrication.

Decision/Outcome: Just before the trial started, the Crown advised me that she would be calling as a witness the girl who had previously complained. The client had pled guilty to that incident and so her testimony made the chances of success remote. The Crown then offered probation if the client pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault. If the client were found guilty of a sexual assault while being in a supervisory capacity, he would have faced a minimum jail sentence. The Crown and I met with a Judge in chambers and the Judge agreed that probation was appropriate and the case was completed.
R. v. I. (Brampton Ct., December 2009)
Factual Background: The client was charged with masturbating in his car. It was alleged that while he had his penis exposed, he called a woman over and “asked her for directions”. She freaked out, wrote down the licence plate number of his vehicle and called the police. After his arrest, the client admitted to police that it was him.

The Strategy: The client, for employment purposes, needed to avoid a criminal record. I had a “risk assessment” done by a Psychiatrist from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. The opinion of the doctor was that the client was of “low risk” to re-offend. I instructed the client to attend for counselling and get in as many sessions as possible. He attended weekly sessions with the counsellor and took the counselling very seriously.

Decision/Outcome : I showed that report to the Crown Attorney. She was impressed with the report and with the counselling that he had done. She agreed that the client could plead guilty to a charge of Mischief and receive a Conditional Discharge. The Judge agreed and the client avoided a criminal record.
R. v. B. (Orangeville Ct., November 2009)
Factual Background: The client was charged with having sexual intercourse with his sister when she was 6 years old and he was 13 years old. The client was 22 years old at the time of arrest.

The Strategy: The client denied having sex with his sister but he did admit to touching her inappropriately and so I needed to convince the Crown to allow him to plead guilty on the basis that he touched her but did not have sex with her. I conducted a pre-trial with a Judge and the Judge was strongly encouraging the Crown to agree to the facts I was suggesting.

Decision/Outcome : The Crown agreed to the less serious facts but still asked the Judge to send the client to jail for 6 months. I told the Judge that based on what the client had admitted, and his age at the time of the offence, probation was appropriate and the Judge agreed.
R. v. G. (Brampton Ct., October 2009)
Factual Background: The client was charged with two different sexual assaults on two different women at two different locations on the same day, but at two different times. He was accused of raping a woman who lived at the same rooming house that he lived at during the afternoon while they were drinking together. He later went to a local bar and went into the women’s washroom and was reaching under the stall at a woman who was using the toilet. He was alleged to have made sexual comments to her. She screamed and he ran out of the bar. He was arrested and denied bail.

The Strategy: It was decided that the Crown would probably not be able to prove either case and so trial dates were set for both. It was our position that the rooming house incident was consensual and not a sexual assault. With respect to the incident at the bar, I provided case law to the Crown to show that in law what he did was not a sexual assault.

Decision/Outcome : The woman who complained about the sexual assault in the rooming house did not show up for trial. The Crown tried to argue for an adjournment of the trail. I opposed that request and told the Judge that it was clear that the woman was not interested in coming to court. The Judge agreed; the adjournment request was denied and the charge was dismissed. With respect to the sexual assault charge at the bar, the Crown reviewed the case law that I provided and agreed that it was not a sexual assault. The client pleaded guilty to the offence of mischief and received a sentence of 1 day in jail.
R. v. H. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton Ct., 2009
Factual Background: Complainant alleged that her brother-in-law had sexually assaulted her by grabbing her and groping her on two separate occasions -- once in her home and once in a public place. Mr. H. insisted he was innocent and denied any inappropriate touching of his brother’s wife.

The Strategy: To show that the complainant had fabricated the whole story in order to discredit the family. She had also accused her mother-in-law and her husband of assault. The marriage was at an end and she wanted revenge.

Decision/Outcome: Approximately 10 minutes into my cross-examination of the complainant, I had caught her in several clear lies and the Crown asked for a break. He then said he would invite the judge to acquit my client if he would sign a peace bond. The client was reluctant to sign the peace bond given how well the cross-examination was going but he agreed to sign and the charges were withdrawn.
R. v. B. (Orangeville Ct., November 2009)
Factual Background: The client was charged with having sexual intercourse with his sister when she was 6 years old and he was 13 years old. The client was 22 years old at the time of arrest.

The Strategy: The client denied having sex with his sister but he did admit to touching her inappropriately and so I needed to convince the Crown to allow him to plead guilty on the basis that he touched her but did not have sex with her. I conducted a pre-trial with a Judge and the Judge was strongly encouraging the Crown to agree to the facts I was suggesting.

Decision/Outcome : The Crown agreed to the less serious facts but still asked the Judge to send the client to jail for 6 months. I told the Judge that based on what the client had admitted, and his age at the time of the offence, probation was appropriate and the Judge agreed.
R. v. R.E. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton Ct., 2008
Factual Background: Mr. R. was charged with sexually assaulting a co-worker after hours at the office. The complainant alleged that Mr. R. had kissed her against her will, forcibly pulled down her pants and tried to rape her. My client admitted that they had made out at the office after hours but insisted that she was a willing participant and that the encounter was completely consensual.

The Strategy: I needed to either get the complainant to admit that she was consenting or show that her testimony regarding no consent was simply not believable.

Decision/Outcome: The judge not only found the client not guilty but went on to say that he believed Mr. R. was innocent! An accused person only needs to raise a reasonable doubt in the judge’s mind in order to be found not guilty; it is very rare for a judge to actually say he believed the accused person to have been innocent. During cross-examination, I got the complainant to admit that she was attracted to my client and that she had made that clear to him. She also admitted that the kissing was mutual and that she never told him that she was not agreeing to what was happening. In fact, she admitted that her actions at the time would have led Mr. R. to believe that she was a willing participant.
R. v. Y.O. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton Ct., 2008
Factual Background: This young man who was 15 years old at the time, was alleged to have pulled down the pants of two other boys, ages 9 and 10. It was further alleged that he grabbed the penis of one of the boys and made several sexually inappropriate comments at the same time. The client denied any wrong-doing.

The Strategy: To show the judge that these boys had a motive to fabricate and to illicit a large number of inconsistencies between their versions which would raise a reasonable doubt. The client would not be testifying because his version of events was just not plausible. This made my job all the more difficult because I would have to discredit two young witnesses without providing contradictory testimony.

Decision/Outcome: The client was acquitted of all charges. Not only did the boys contradict themselves during cross-examination but the one boy agreed with me that the other boy not only did not like my client but that he had told lies about him in the past in order to get him in trouble. This second boy also agreed that he would have seen any touching of the other boy’s penis because he was right there and since he did not see it, he did not believe it actually happened. This boy also agreed that all the boys in the neighborhood at that time were playing a game called “Pantzing” where they would pull one another’s pants down. When asked if he thought this was all my client had done and the rest was just made by the other boy to get my client in trouble, he agreed.
R. v. S.A. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton Ct., 2007
Factual Background: Client who was over 40 years old, was charged with a Sexual Assault on a 15-year old girl. She complained that he had taken her into a parking garage where he tried to get her to perform oral sex on him and that he pulled her top down. Client admitted that this had happened but said that she wanted money and he was not prepared to pay because she had previously provided this service without asking for any money.

The Strategy: Get the complainant to admit that there was a previous relationship between her and the client and that she had lied about her age by telling the client she was 19. Then the client would testify and tell the judge that she was a willing participant.

Decision/Outcome: Client was acquitted of all charges. The complainant admitted lying about her age and agreed that she often called my client on his cell phone. She also admitted that she had asked my client for money. Client was believed when he testified that she was a willing participant who had done this before.
R. v. G. Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2007
Factual Background: Mr. G. was charged with incest on both his daughters over a 6 year period when his daughters were between the ages of 6 and 11. Mr. G. was adamant that he was innocent and the Crown was seeking a jail sentence of 10 years in the penitentiary.

The Strategy: I would need to attack the credibility and reliability of both daughters in such a way that would not anger the Judge or make them emotional to the point where they are unable to testify without repeated breaks. I would also need to establish a motive for them both to fabricate and an opportunity for them to do so. I would also need to repeatedly cross-examine the client at my office so that he would be ready to testify in the trial. The trial would take place in front of a Superior Court Judge sitting without a jury because we felt a jury might be too influenced by the allegations.

Decision/Outcome: The client was acquitted of all charges. During my cross-examination of the girls, I was able to get them to admit that they wanted to live together (they had different mothers and were not living together) and that they would do or say anything to make that happen. The one daughter also admitted that she was familiar with the sexual assault complaint process because she had been previously abused by an uncle. She admitted telling her sister how it worked and they both agreed that the one daughter who had been living with her father no longer wanted to do so because he had moved to a place where she had no friends. They both admitted that they believed they would be able to live together after these complaints were made. I was also able to show that there was no opportunity for the assaults to have taken place where the girls said they had. Their versions were not making sense and the girls ultimately admitted that as well. The client did an excellent job when he testified and his evidence was believed.
R. v. Y.S. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton Ct., 2006
Factual Background: This 15-year-old boy was charged with raping his 7-year-old nephew by sticking his penis in his nephew’s anus on 3 separate occasions, once outside at a school and twice at home in the family washroom. The client denied all allegations and said he loved his nephew as his own brother.

The Strategy: No family member could think of a possible motive to fabricate on the part of the young boy and so we had to show that there was no realistic opportunity for the assaults to have taken place. We called all the family members to explain to the judge how small the apartment was and how the girls were always involved in the bathing process and the client would never have been alone in the shower area with his nephew. We then took photos of the school yard where the other assault was supposed to have taken place so that we could show the judge that there were houses all around with a clear view to where the boy said he was when he was raped. And finally, we would need convincing testimony from the client.

Outcome/Decision: Client acquitted of all charges. The judge believed my client and all the family members who made it clear that there was no opportunity for this to have happened in the apartment. The judge also found my cross-examination of the nephew regarding the school assault to be very persuasive. I had the nephew explain the position he was in when his uncle was putting his penis inside his anus and his testimony made no sense; it was physically impossible for the assault to have happened the way he said.
Related to
Sexual Assault Charges