How to Defend Against Sexual Assault Charges

R. v. M. (2020, Peterborough)

Client was charged with internet luring in relation to a girl who was underage. Client pled guilty for reasons that will remain unmentioned, a forensic assessment was not done and instead I provided case-law to support a sentencing recommendation that I was making for six to nine months in jail, Crown was seeking eighteen months in jail, and the client received a sentence of nine months.

R. v. A. (2019, Woodstock)

Client was charged with a series of sexual assaults involving his stepson’s wife. The incidents were quite bizarre in nature, but there was a forty-year age gap between my client and the complainant. We were fairly certain that the stepson would support the client’s defence, but when we found out that was not the case, I negotiated a plea agreement with the Crown in which the client received a house arrest sentence of six months.

R. v. B. (2019, Brampton)

Client is a massage therapist who was charged with a sexual assault of a patient. Complainant and his wife were cross-examined, it became very clear that they were not telling the truth about a variety of things, complainant’s wife was confronted with text messages that she had sent to my client, wishing him a Merry Christmas after her husband had told her about one of the alleged sexual assaults. Needless to say, this made no sense and the client was found not guilty.

R. v. B. (2018, Milton)

Client was intoxicated and charged with sexual assault on a fourteen-year-old girl outside of a coffee shop. Client received some individual counselling and had a forensic risk assessment done and was ultimately allowed to plead guilty to assault rather than sexual assault and received a period of probation not a jail sentence.

R. v. K. (2017, Brampton)

Client was facing the potential of sexual assault charges, provided the client with advice on giving a statement to police, client provided a statement to police and no charges were laid.

R. v. C. - Voyeurism

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.

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.

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. V. (2015 Brampton) - Sexual Assault

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.

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.

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. F. - Indecent Act x2 (2015 Brampton)

Client was charged with two counts of indecent act after multiple incidents with neighbours where she exposed her genital area.

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.

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. B.M. - Indecent Act

Client was charged with indecent act after he had received a massage from a registered massage therapist.

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.

charges were withdrawn

R. v. C.D. - Indecent Act

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.

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.

Following his attendance at counselling, charges were withdrawn

R. v. I.M. - Sexual Assault

This was a complicated situation involving the client, the complainant, and the complainant's husband.

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.

Crown withdrew the charges.

R. v. S. (Brampton Court, May 2013)

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.

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.

All charges were withdrawn.

R. v. D. (Brampton Superior Court, February 2012)

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.

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.

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. M. (Brampton Sup. Court, March 2010)

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.

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.

Following a judicial pre-trial in Superior Court, the Crown withdrew the charges.

R. v. I. (Brampton Ct., December 2009)

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 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.

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. G. (Brampton Ct., October 2009)

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.

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.

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. B. (Orangeville Ct., November 2009)

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 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.

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. Y.O. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton Ct., 2008

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.

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.

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. G. Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2007

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.

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.

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.