Jump to Navigation

Toronto Sex Assault Criminal Defence Lawyer

Mississauga, Brampton and Newmarket Sexual Assault Lawyer

Sex crime accusations have the potential to ruin lives. A conviction can mean prison time, but it also carries life-long consequences. You may be required to register as a sex offender, and you may be required to report all your movements regularly. Sex offender status can prevent you from getting a job and could block you from travelling outside Canadian borders. More information on the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA), The National Sex Offender Registry and the Ontario Sex Offender Registry is available here.

Beyond that, the stigma that attaches to those accused of sex crimes can forever change the way others view you. For all of these reasons, it is critical that you have a skilled, knowledgeable sex crime defence lawyer on your side. I have more than 30 years of experience defending against sex crime charges. I believe strongly that everyone deserves a defence, and I will work hard to build the strongest possible case on your behalf.

To arrange a free initial consultation with a Toronto sexual assault defence lawyer, please call 416-651-2299 or toll free 1-888-399-3164. You can also contact my law firm online.

Toronto Lawyer Defending Against All Sex Crime Charges

I have the experience and knowledge to defend you against even the most serious offences, including:

Sexual Interference, Invitation to Sexual Touching, Sexual Exploitation

Both sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching are very serious charges:

  • Sexual interference is the crime of touching with a part of the body or an object any part of the body of a person under the age of 16 years for a sexual purpose.
  • Invitation to sexual touching is the crime of inviting, counselling or inciting a person under the age of 16 years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of his or her body or with an object the body of any other person including the person under the age of 16 years.

A related offence is the crime of sexual exploitation committed by anyone who is in a position of trust or authority toward a young person, or who is in a relationship of dependency or an exploitive relationship with the young person, defined as a person who is 16 years of age or more but under the age of 18 years, and who commits sexual interference or invitation to sexual touching.

The Criminal Code of Canada was recently amended to provide for higher minimum penalties with respect to the offences of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and sexual exploitation. If you have been charged with any of these crimes, it is absolutely critical that you seek only the most experienced of criminal defence lawyers.

Penalties for Sexual Interference, Invitation to Sexual Touching or Sexual Exploitation

The penalty that must be imposed upon a person convicted of any of these offences is a minimum of 90 days in jail and a maximum of 2 years less a day in jail if the Crown prosecutor elects to proceed summarily and a minimum of one year in jail and a maximum of 14 years in jail if the Crown prosecutor elects to proceed by indictment. A conviction for sexual exploitation is likely to attract a sentence higher than the minimum due to the breach of trust element and the exploitive nature of the offence.

I have more than 30 years of experience defending clients against allegations of sex crimes such as sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and sexual exploitation. I provide my clients with the kind of strong, intelligent defence needed to protect their rights and freedom.

Call me for a consultation. You can reach me at 416-651-2299 or toll free at 1-888-399-3164. You can also contact my law firm online.

Child Luring

The offence of luring a child for a sexual purpose is committed when an accused, by means of telecommunication, communicates with

a. a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of 18 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of certain designated offences with respect to that person (such as a child pornography offence) or

b. a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of 16 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of certain designated offences with respect to that person (such as sexual interference , invitation to sexual touching and sexual assault) or

c. a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of 14 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of child abduction.

Penalties for Child Luring

i. a maximum term of imprisonment of not more than 14 years and a minimum term of imprisonment of one year if the Crown proceeds by indictment;

ii. a maximum term of imprisonment of not more than two years less a day and a minimum term of imprisonment of 6 months if the Crown proceeds summarily.

Beyond that, the stigma that attaches to those accused of the luring of children over the internet can forever change the way others view you. For all of these reasons, it is critical that you have a skilled and knowledgeable defence lawyer on your side. I have more than 30 years of experience defending against the most serious charges. I believe strongly that everyone deserves a defence, and I will work hard to build the strongest possible defence on your behalf.


Internet/Online Offences

I have the experience and legal knowledge to defend clients facing a wide range of Internet sex offences, including:

A successful defence against online sex crime charges depends not only upon your lawyer's knowledge of the law, but also knowledge of how the law intersects with technological issues. In building a defence, I seek out answers to critical questions:

  • Did anyone else have access to the computer or smartphone device?
  • In a child pornography case, how did you come into possession of the images?
  • How and where was the child pornography stored on your device?
  • Were you the target of an undercover operation involving online chat rooms?
  • Were your rights to privacy or your rights as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms violated by the investigating police officers?

By answering these and other questions, I can begin to build a defence that is structured to you and designed to meet the demands of your specific case. If necessary, I will hire the services of an expert forensic computer analyst to assist with your case.

Minimum Jail Sentences

These offences carry minimum penalties which prevent the possibility of the court imposing a community based sentence such as a conditional sentence of house arrest.

A person convicted of any of these offences will also be subject to a mandatory order requiring the convicted person to comply with the provisions of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA). More information on SOIRA, the National Sex Offender Registry and the Ontario Sex Offender Registry is available here.

To arrange a free initial consultation with a Toronto child pornography and internet luring defence lawyer, please call 416-651-2299 or toll free 1-888-399-3164. You can also contact my law firm online.

Aggravated Sexual Assault

Aggravated sexual assault is the crime of sexual assault that also involves the wounding, maiming, disfiguring or the endangering of the life of the complainant. This offence is punishable by a maximum sentence of life in prison.

As you can see, aggravated sexual assault is a very serious crime. If you have been charged with aggravated sexual assault, it is critical that you seek an experienced lawyer in order to help mitigate any potential criminal penalties.

I have more than 30 years of experience defending against the most serious sex crimes charges. I believe strongly that everyone deserves a defence, and I will work hard to build the strongest possible defence on your behalf.

Other Aggravating Factors for Sexual Assault

There are other aggravating factors that can increase how many years in prison you could serve, if convicted. They include:

  • Age of victim: If the complainant is under the age of 16 years, the person convicted of aggravated sexual assault is subject to a maximum sentence of life in prison and to a minimum sentence of five years in prison.
  • Firearms: If a firearm is used in the commission of the aggravated sexual assault, the convicted person will be subject to a maximum sentence of life in prison and a minimum sentence of four years in prison.
  • Criminal organizations: If the aggravated sexual assault is committed while using a firearm and the aggravated sexual assault is committed for the benefit of, at the discretion of, or in association with a criminal organization, the convicted person will be subject to a maximum sentence of life in prison and to a minimum sentence of five years in prison for a first offence and seven years in prison for a second or subsequent offence.

In addition, the requirement that a convicted person be sentenced to a minimum period of time in prison prevents the court from imposing a community-based sentence such as a conditional sentence of house arrest.

To arrange a free initial consultation with a Toronto aggravated sexual assault lawyer, please call 416-651-2299 or toll free at 1-888-399-3164. You can also contact my law firm online.

An Intelligent Approach to Protect Your Rights

In creating a strong defence in sexual assault cases, pre-trial investigation is key. If necessary, I will file a third party records application to have relevant information disclosed, including records from the Children's Aid Society, the psychological history of the alleged victim and any record of previous similar complaints. I seek out any information that could lead to a successful outcome in your case.

Sexual Assault Defined

The Supreme Court of Canada has defined sexual assault as an assault, within any one of the definitions of that concept set out in the Criminal Code of Canada, which is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the integrity of the victim is violated. The test to be applied in determining whether the impugned conduct has the requisite sexual nature is an objective one: viewed in the light of all the circumstances, is the sexual or carnal content of the assault visible to a reasonable observer? The part of the body touched, the nature of the contact, the situation in which it occurred, the words and gestures accompanying the act, and all other circumstances surrounding the conduct, including threats, which may or may not be accompanied by force, will be relevant. The intent or purpose of the person committing the act, to the extent that this may appear from the evidence, may also be a factor in considering whether the conduct is sexual. If the motive of the accused is sexual gratification, to the extent that this may appear from the evidence it may be a factor in determining whether the conduct is sexual. It must be emphasized, however, that the existence of such a motive is simply one of many factors to be considered, the importance of which will vary depending on the circumstances. Implicit in this view of sexual assault is the notion that the offence is one requiring a general intent only.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has found that sexual assault "includes an assault with the intention of having sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent, or an assault made upon a victim for the purpose of sexual gratification." In the case under appeal, the accused broke into the victim's apartment wearing a face mask. The victim was alone and asleep. The accused took hold of her. After a struggle, she managed to escape. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that this amounted to sexual assault since there was an assault of the victim with the intention of having sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent.

More recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal has clarified that in a prosecution for sexual assault, it is not necessary for the Crown to prove that the conduct of the accused was for a sexual purpose. Sexual purpose is not a required element of sexual assault. Sexual purpose is, however, a required element of sexual interference and sexual exploitation.

In summary, sexual assault is an assault committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the complainant is violated. As a general intent offence, sexual assault does not require proof of sexual purpose or sexual gratification on the part of the accused. To establish sexual assault, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally touched the complainant without consent in circumstances of a sexual nature. In contrast to sexual purpose, the intent to be applied in determining whether the conduct is of a sexual nature is objective, in other words, "viewed in the light of all the circumstances, is the sexual or carnal context of the assault visible to a reasonable observer."

The mental element in sexual assault is the intention to touch. Proof of sexual purpose is not required because the "factors which could motivate sexual assault are said to be many and varied. The purpose of the sexual assault enactment is to protect the sexual integrity of all persons, both physical and psychological.

In deciding a charge of sexual assault, the trial Judge must not conflate the issue of touching for a sexual purpose with that of touching in circumstances of a sexual nature. If the touching of the complainant by the accused is found to be not for a sexual purpose, the accused may still be convicted if the touching is found to be in circumstances of a sexual nature. Stated another way, even if a "reasonable observer" would not perceive a sexual purpose in the conduct of the accused, this is not dispositive of whether or not the accused committed sexual assault. If the sexual integrity of the complainant is violated, regardless of the accused's purpose, the accused will be convicted of sexual assault.

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal for Quebec explain the issue stating the following: "When sexual gratification is present, the sexual nature of the assault practically flows from the conduct itself. However, sexual assault is also, and perhaps above all, an act of violence and physical dominance: a violation of the sexual integrity of the victim. Often, sexual desire has little to do with it. Case law establishes that the intention to humiliate the victim and affirm one's own control may be sufficient [to establish the intent for sexual assault]."

Available Defences to a Charge of Sexual Assault

The available defences to a charge of sexual assault include the following:

  • The wrong perpetrator has been charged
  • The act complained of did not occur
  • The act complained of did not, in law, amount to a sexual assault
  • The complainant consented, or the perpetrator had an honest, but mistaken, belief that the complainant was consenting
  • The perpetrator should be found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR Application)

Honest, but Mistaken, Belief in Consent


Consent, or having an honest, but mistaken, belief in consent is not always a defence. Pursuant to Section 150.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, if the complainant was under the age of 16 years, it is not a defence that a complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject matter of the charge if the accused is charged with one or more of the following offences:

These are 2 exceptions that apply with respect to sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, indecent exposure for a sexual purpose and sexual assault. If the complainant was 12 years of age or more but under the age of 14 years, and the accused was less than 2 years older than the complainant, and the accused was not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant, and the complainant was not in a relationship of dependency or an exploitive relationship with respect to the accused, then the accused may raise the defence of consent or honest, but mistaken, belief in consent. Similarly, if the complainant was 14 years of age or more but under the age of 16 years, and the accused was less than 5 years older than the complainant, and the accused was not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant, and the complainant was not in a relationship of dependency or an exploitive relationship with respect to the accused, then the accused may raise the defence of consent or honest, but mistaken, belief in consent.

Also, Section 273.2 provides that it is not a defence to a charge of sexual assault (Section 271), sexual assault with a weapon, using threats or causing bodily harm (Section 272), or aggravated sexual assault (Section 273), that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject matter of the charge, where:

(a) the accused's belief arose from the accused's (i) self-induced intoxication, or (ii) recklessness or wilful blindness; or


(b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.

Mistake of Age

Sections 150.1(4) (5) and(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada provide that an accused cannot raise as a defence a mistaken belief in the age of the complainant unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.

I take the time to find any weaknesses in the Crown's case. For example, if you believed that the act was consensual, I will present the strongest possible argument to support you. In other cases, the credibility of the alleged victim or witnesses can come into question, especially if a history of compulsive lying or false memory syndrome can be shown. If necessary, I will ask for court permission to avoid the "rape shield" laws so I can cross-examine the alleged victim about past sexual history.

You can rely on me to construct a serious defence against these serious allegations.

DNA and Other Forensic Evidence

Forensic evidence, such as DNA evidence, is just one type of evidence that the Crown can try to introduce against a person accused of a crime. The defence can challenge the admissibility of forensic evidence on the basis of relevance, prejudice or that there is a lack of a sufficient scientific foundation to make the evidence reliable and worthy of being admitted, in other words, the forensic evidence is inadmissible because it is based on "junk science".

Over the years, there have been several types of forensic evidence that have been rejected by the courts in the United States and, to a lesser extent, Canada, including voice print identification, comparative bullet lead analysis and several indicators of arson dependent on visual cues.

Likewise, there are various other types of forensic evidence which are possibly unreliable, such as microscopic hair comparison, and "pattern comparison" evidence such as bite marks, tire marks and handwriting.

Even in cases where the forensic evidence is ruled admissible, the defence can still try to weaken the impact of the evidence by arguing, for example, that the results of the forensic testing were the subject of "motivated perception". In other words, the scientist who did the testing interpreted the results so as to support his or her expectations or the expectations of the police or Crown prosecutors. The defence can argue, or call evidence to show, that the forensic examiner should have first tested the evidence blindly without knowing anything about the case in order to avoid a subconscious bias. Studies have shown that even the opinion of fingerprint analysts can be affected by the analysts' preconceived notions about the case. Also, there is always a risk of a false positive. Moreover, if the laboratory that completed the testing, such as the Centre of Forensic Sciences, is known to have made errors on occasion in the past, the defence can argue that the error rates should also be entered in evidence.

In appropriate cases, and where funds permit, the evidence can be re-tested by an independent laboratory for verification.

A good defence lawyer should know the weaknesses of specific scientific techniques or seek out an appropriate defence consulting expert to learn about and present evidence regarding those weaknesses.

Electing to Have a Preliminary Inquiry

In most cases in which a Defendant is facing indictable charges, or the Crown elects to proceed by indictment, the Defendant will have the right to proceed with a preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice and then a trial in the Superior Court of Justice before a court composed of a Judge sitting with a jury or without a jury. In the past, this level of court was referred to as "High Court".

The completion of a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory. The Defendant has the right to waive the preliminary inquiry and to proceed directly to trial in either the Ontario Court of Justice or the Superior Court of Justice. If the trial is to be completed in the Superior Court of Justice, the waiver of the preliminary inquiry will require the consent of the Crown.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown is required to call some evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, may return a verdict of guilt. This is an easy test for the Crown to meet in the vast majority of cases. Accordingly, it is relatively rare for someone who proceeds with a preliminary inquiry to be discharged with respect to all of the charges which he or she is facing. The real value in having a preliminary inquiry is not in the hope of being entirely discharged, thereby bringing the entire criminal proceedings to an end, but in being able to better prepare the case for trial. The defence lawyer will have an opportunity to cross-examine and test the evidence of the primary Crown witnesses. An experienced and skilled defence lawyer can discover the strengths and weaknesses of the Crown witnesses and commence building an effective defence strategy. A preliminary inquiry is especially valuable for the defence in cases involving young, infirm, unreliable or unsavory Crown witnesses.

Sex Offender Registry

Anyone convicted of sexual assault will be subject to a mandatory order to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA), which will result in his or her name and other personal information being placed in the Ontario National Sex Offender Registry. In addition the convicted person will be required to have his or her name placed on the Ontario Sex Offender Registry. This can seriously affect your ability to obtain employment and the quality of your life. This is another important reason to make sure you are represented by only a qualified and skilled criminal defence lawyer. More Information on the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA), the National Sex Offender Registry and the Ontario Sex Offender Registry is available here.

Prohibition Orders - Section 161 of the Criminal Code of Canada

A person who is found guilty of committing a sexual offence, a child pornography offence or an offence involving the Internet luring of a person who is under the age of 16 years also faces the possibility that the court may make an order prohibiting the offender from engaging in activity that may bring the offender in contact with persons under the age of 16 years. This prohibition order is discretionary. The prohibition order may be for life or any shorter period that the court considers desirable. The court may also make the prohibition order subject to conditions or exemptions that the court considers appropriate.

The prohibition order may prohibit the offender from doing any or all of the following:

a) attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a day care centre, school ground, playground or community centre;

(b) seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority toward persons under the age of 16 years;

(c) having any contact - including communicating by any means - with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless the offender does so under the supervision of a person whom the court considers appropriate; or

(d) using the Internet or other digital network unless the offender does so in accordance with conditions set by the court.

Examples of Successful Cases

The following are summaries of a few of my successes:

R. V. B.W.

Charges:

(1) Sexual Assault;
(2) Sexual Interference

The client, B.W., was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference as against a 5 year old little girl who was the daughter of one of the client's friends. The little girl maintained that the client had touched her three times with his tongue in the vaginal area.

When the client was contacted by the police, he eventually agreed to undergo a polygraph examination commonly known as a lie detector test. The entire examination was video recorded. At the conclusion of the examination, the client provided an inculpatory statement to the polygrapher who was a police detective. The client was then advised of his right to counsel and cautioned following which he provided a second inculpatory statement.

The primary issue at the client's trial was the admissibility in evidence of the client's two inculpatory statements.


The detective who had administered the lie detector test to the client had used what is commonly referred to as the Reid technique. The problem with his technique is that it is designed to elicit confessions. It is not designed to elicit the truth. The technique involves building a rapport with the suspect, using false evidence to convince the suspect that the polygraph device is actually capable of determining with precision when someone is lying, minimizing the offence that is the subject of investigation and then becoming more and more aggressive and confrontational with the suspect, while offering the suspect an "opportunity to do the right thing" and assuring the suspect that everything will turn out just fine. The process takes several hours to complete and often results in confessions. The technique sometimes elicits false confessions. The client maintained that both of his inculpatory statements were false.

False confessions are not uncommon, probably because the human mind can only tolerate high levels of stress for a limited period of time. It must be extremely stressful for a suspect to have to keep denying false allegations over and over again for several hours during a police interrogation. Throw into the mix a means for the suspect to ease the stress by agreeing to the suggestions of the police and you have the makings of an environment in which a suspect may very well make a false statement. I've had more than a few clients who have told me that being interrogated by the police was like talking to a brick wall, the police just kept asking the same questions over and over again until they got the answers that they wanted. The statistics in the United States indicate that in one out of every four death row cases in which the accused is eventually proven innocent by D.N.A. evidence, the accused had falsely confessed. This means that regardless of the possible consequences, innocent suspects will sometimes confess to crimes that they have not committed.

Going back to the case of B.W., at the conclusion of his trial, the client was found not guilty of both of the charges which he was facing. The defence obviously succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt with respect to the reliability of the client's two statements. Also, the evidence of the little girl was inconsistent with the evidence given by her mother and had to be treated with caution by the trial Judge in light of her young age and in light of the fact that it was provided on a promise to tell the truth. The little girl was too young to appreciate the significance of swearing an oath or providing a solemn affirmation.

R. V. J.P.

Charges:

(1) Sexual Assault;

(2) Sexual Interference

The client, J.P., who was in his early 20s, was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference as against a complainant who was 15 years of age. The Crown alleged that he had engaged in oral sex with the complainant. The client denied engaging in any sexual activity with the complainant.

At the client's trial, the only witness called by the Crown was the complainant. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had helped the client during the alleged sexual activity by taking down her jeans after the client digitally penetrated her vagina but prior to the client performing oral sex on her. The complainant explained in cross-examination that she had done so because the client "was struggling and it was awkward" and she "wanted to help him out".

Such admissions from complainants are rare, however, they become more common as the experience of the cross-examining lawyer increases.

More significantly, one piece of evidence was that the complainant had disclosed, in an e-mail to a friend, what had allegedly occurred between her and the client. The complainant had been asked about the content of the e-mail by the Vice-Principal of her school to whom she had stated that everything in the e-mail was true. In cross-examination, she admitted that the e-mail contained allegations which were false. The complainant's explanation for having included the false allegations in the e-mail, and for having stated to the Vice-Principal that everything in the e-mail was true, was not accepted by the trial Judge.

Accordingly, the client was found not guilty.

R. V. N.W.

Charge: Sexual Assault

This was a spectacular win which illustrates the value of completing a preliminary inquiry in sexual assault cases prior to the actual trial.

The complainant alleged that her supervisor at work (the client) had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. She alleged that, during her lunch break, the client forced her to have sexual intercourse with her in his office. She alleged that following the sexual assault, she spent two hours in the washroom crying.

The sexual assault was alleged to have occurred in a factory setting. The factory is equipped with a modern security system which tracks the movements of persons throughout the factory. Employees and security personnel are required to swipe their cards not only when entering or exiting the building, but also when moving from one area of the building to another.

Over a 3 day preliminary inquiry, the complainant was cross-examined with respect to her version of events. She did not do well during the cross-examination. Some of the evidence was as follows:

1. she testified that the client had threatened to change her work shift which would have caused her tremendous difficulty since she was a single parent who was required to drive her children back and forth from school;

2. the client had also filed various complaints against her involving an irregularity with respect to the removal of product from the factory, her alleged romantic involvement with a co-worker, and her repeated tardiness in arriving to work;

3. two weeks after the alleged sexual assault, she had a meeting with a manager regarding the difficulties with her work habits during which she failed to disclose the alleged sexual assault although she was specifically asked whether there had been any physical impropriety by the client;

4. two weeks after that meeting, when she finally disclosed the alleged sexual assault, the manager prepared a memo regarding their meeting in which the manager alleged that the complainant had made a comment suggesting that she was going to get back at the company for what the company was doing to her;

5. she admitted that when she walked into this meeting and saw that her union representative and other persons from Human Resources were in attendance, she thought she was about to be fired;

6. when questioned about her memory, or her lack of memory, she told a peculiar story regarding how she started to eat almonds and that the effect of eating the almonds was to assist her in recovering her memory.

The defence called 3 witnesses from the client's place of employment during the preliminary inquiry. The client had been diligent in obtaining copies of computer generated documents tracking the complainant's movements and his own movements in the factory on the day of the alleged sexual assault. These documents brought into question not only the complainant's allegation that after the sexual assault she spent two hours in the washroom crying, but also whether the client had the opportunity to commit the sexual assault at the alleged time. Some of the employees from the client's place of employment were able to provide evidence verifying the documents produced by the client and one of the employees was also able to produce documents from the complainant's employment file, one of which indicated that the complainant had made a similar allegation in the past against someone else.

At the completion of the 3 day preliminary inquiry, the Crown was persuaded to withdraw the charge against the client since it was evident, based on the evidence presented during the preliminary inquiry, that the Crown did not have a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction against the client. The Crown withdrew the charge to the relief of the client.

R. V. A.R.

Charges:

(1) Sexual Assault;
(2) Forcible Confinement

The client, A.R., was charged with having forcibly confined and raped a 17 year old young woman that he had met at a bar a few weeks earlier. The complainant conceded that she had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with the client at the home of his mother shortly after they had met. She maintained, however, that this was the only time on which she willingly had sexual intercourse with the client.

The complainant testified during the client's trial that on the morning after their first sexual encounter, she found out from the client's mother that he had a wife in another country. The complainant testified that she immediately refused to start a relationship with client. She testified that the client kept calling her and eventually convinced her to go see his new apartment. She testified that when she attended at the client's new apartment, he made sexual advances towards her, and when she rebuffed his advances, he did not allow her to leave and he eventually held her down and raped her on his bed.

The complainant left the apartment and met up at a coffee shop with a man who may or may not have been her boyfriend. When her friend displayed his anger at her being late in arriving at the coffee shop, she told him that she had been raped by the client.

The complainant was an interesting young woman. She was a single mother who had given birth to a child two years previously by caesarean section when she was 15 years of age.

The complainant was not a relatively small woman. The client, however, was a relatively small man. In cross-examination, the complainant testified that she was not wearing any underwear at the time of the alleged rape and that her clothing otherwise made it easy for the client to commit the rape. She explained that in the two years following her caesarean section, she was in the habit of not wearing any underwear since the underwear irritated her scar. She denied that she could have purchased some type of underwear that would not have caused her discomfort. Her denial in this regard was suspicious. More significantly, she also denied that there was a second occasion on which she had consensual sexual intercourse with the client on the grass behind her apartment building a few nights before the alleged rape. When I pressed her in cross-examination with respect to this second incident of consensual sexual intercourse, she abruptly stated that she had sex with the client in the stairwell of the fire escape of her apartment building and not on the grass. When I pointed out that she had earlier testified that she had consensual sexual intercourse with the client on only one occasion prior to the alleged rape, she testified that she had forgotten about the second occasion.

As I have already mentioned in connection with the case of R. v. J.P., these types of admissions from complainants are rare, however, they become more common as the experience and advocacy skills of the defence lawyer increase.

After the completion of the complainant's evidence, the trial Judge advised the Crown and I that she would be disposing of the charges against the client by directing the jury to return a verdict of acquittal. In other words, the jury was instructed by the trial Judge that, as a matter of law, the jury was required to return a verdict of not guilty with respect to both of the charges which the client was facing. Accordingly, the client was acquitted.

R. V. H.A. And M.A.

Charge: Sexual Assault

The clients, H.A. and M.A., who are husband and wife, were involved in an immigration consulting business. They were charged with having sexually assaulted a woman who was one of their immigration clients.

The clients and their two children went on a short trip with the complainant and her child. Eventually, the three children were left by themselves in their hotel room while the clients and the complainant went to a nearby restaurant. The complainant had three drinks following which she became nauseous. Shortly before midnight, the clients took the complainant back to their hotel room.

The Crown alleged that a few hours later, the complainant woke up in the same bed with the clients. The clients were lying one on either side of the complainant. The complainant's top and bra had been pulled above her breasts and her breasts were exposed. The complainant claimed that she felt powerless due to the effects of a suspected drug in her system.

The complainant claimed that when she tried to get up, the clients held her down on the bed. The complainant claimed that she eventually returned to her own bed at which time one of the clients crawled into bed beside her. The complainant claimed that the following day, she was told by both clients that if she complained to anyone about what had happened, they would have her deported.

A few months later, the complainant reported the incident to the Toronto Police Service and the clients were charged with sexual assault.

At the clients' trial, the complainant admitted that she decided to report the incident to the Toronto Police Service after she heard about a similar incident. She also admitted that she had filed an application for damages with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. She was also unable to describe a distinct scar that H.A. had on the front of his abdomen despite the fact that she had earlier testified that she had seen him naked.

The clients were both acquitted of the charge which they were facing. Although in this case the clients were facing nasty allegations, I was able to show that the case against the clients was much weaker than the Crown had anticipated.

Disclaimer: Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.

Experience and Legal Knowledge

I have more than 30 years of experience defending against the most serious sex offence charges. I believe strongly that everyone deserves a defence, and I will work hard to build the strongest possible defence on your behalf.

To arrange a free initial consultation with a Toronto sexual assault defence lawyer, please call 416-651-2299 or toll free 1-888-399-3164. You can also contact my law firm online.

Call Toronto Sex Crime Defence Lawyer Anthony De Marco for a Free Consultation

Contact my Toronto, Ontario, sex crime defence law firm today to discuss your sexual assault case. I offer a free 30-minute consultation. For your convenience, I accept Visa and offer payment plans. You can reach me by phone at 416-651-2299 or toll free 1-888-399-3164. You can also contact my law office online.

Successes Click Here
Can We Help You?

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an lawyer-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close
*Experience is Your Best Defence*