Ontario Criminal


Troubling complainant only went to police after difficulties in obtaining sole custody

Trial of accused for one count of assault and for two counts of sexual assault. Complainant was accused’s wife. Assault was alleged to have occurred on April 30, 2009 after parties’ adopted child hit complainant. Sexual assaults were alleged to have occurred on January 31 and October 10, 2010. Incidents were reported to police in early January 2011 and accused was charged shortly thereafter. Accused denied all allegations against him. Parties met in July 1998 and they became engaged in July 1999. They married in August 2001 and they eventually moved to home in neighbourhood where their neighbours were extremely friendly. For two years after they married complainant unsuccessfully tried to get pregnant. Parties adopted six-year old boy and adoption was finalized in March 2010. They then had to adjust to addition of child to their lives, which resulted in stress. Complainant developed intense friendship with male neighbour and accused left matrimonial home on November 11, 2010 as he realized that his marriage was finished. She went to police in January 2011 after she was unable to obtain sole custody order. Accused acquitted of all offences. Case turned almost exclusively on credibility of accused and complainant. Court had reasonable doubt that accused assaulted complainant and it accepted that he was trying to calm her down after child hit her. Regarding first sexual assault accused’s evidence that it did not happen was accepted. Court also believed accused’s testimony about second sexual assault. Complainant’s evidence was problematic, particularly since she provided three versions of this incident. It was also troubling that complainant only went to police after she ran into difficulties when she applied for sole custody.

R. v. L. (R.) (Feb. 27, 2013, Ont. S.C.J., E. Ria Tzimas J., File No. 1603/11) 105 W.C.B. (2d) 12.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?