SEXUAL OFFENCES

R v. B.S.

Result: Not Guilty. No Criminal Record.

B.S. and his younger brother were accused of sexually assaulting their younger sister for approximately 5 years in the 1970’s. The allegations were made in 2015 after the complainant had been estranged from the family for decades. If convicted, B.S. was facing a lengthy jail sentence. B.S. and his brother unequivocally denied the charges and pled not guilty.

The complainant made incredible allegations of years-long abuse including gang rapes in which she was strung up to the ceiling by bedsheets by her brothers and multiple unidentified individuals. The allegations amounted to over 1500 sexual assaults in a small house shared by 8 siblings, parents, grandmother and foster children. Remarkably, none of the many other people residing in the house witnessed a single act of sexual assault.

During the course of the investigation, the complainant gave a number of statements and subsequently testified at a preliminary inquiry. Over the course of 4 days, Cory cross-examined the complainant on her ever-changing versions of events and provable fabrications. On one significant allegation, Cory had had the complainant admit to committing perjury by intentionally lying under oath at the preliminary inquiry.

At the conclusion of cross-examination, the Crown Prosecutor asked the judge to dismiss all of the charges against B.S. and his brother.

This was the best possible outcome for the client.


R v. N.A.

Result: Not Guilty. No Criminal Record.

N.A. was accused by his two teenage daughters of sexually assaulting them for over a decade. As a result of the allegations, N.A. faced a number of serious charges that if proven, would have resulted in a lengthy period of incarceration. N.A. denied all wrongdoing and pled not guilty.

At trial, Cory meticulously cross-examined each of the complainants and exposed significant inconsistencies in each of their versions of events. Cory was able to show the trial judge that the complaint’s versions of events were both internally and externally inconsistent to the point of being simply unbelievable. N.A. maintained his innocence and testified in his own defence.

Cory argued that the complainants fabricated the sexual assaults to get back at their estranged father for no longer being in their life. At the conclusion of the trial, N.A. was found not guilty which was the best outcome for the client.


R v. E.A.

Result: Not guilty. No Criminal Record.

E.A. was accused by his wife of sexually assaulting her multiple times. She alleged that days after moving to Canada to be with E.A., whom she had met on an online dating site, his behavior suddenly changed and he kept her a as a prisoner in their matrimonial home. She alleged that he refused to let her have contact with the outside world, including speaking with her own family. She further alleged that on the few occasions she was allowed out of the house in his presence, he forced her to walk behind him with her head down. E.A. denied all wrongdoing and pled not guilty.

At trial, Cory cross-examined the complainant for two days. In doing so, he made use of phone records, FaceTime records, photographs, video, secret recordings, previous statements and medical records. Over the course of two days, Cory exposed significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s version of events and the evidence put forward by defence. Cory’s client maintained his innocence and testified in his own defence.

Cory argued that the complainant was committing immigration fraud and fabricated the allegations to support her attempt to remain in Canada and start a new life, without E.A. At the conclusion of the trial, E.A. was found not guilty which was the best outcome.


R v. A.A

Result: Not Guilty. No Criminal Record. Costs Recovered.

A.A. was accused of sexually assaulting a five-year-old girl who lived with her family in the basement suite. The allegations were made by the complainant to her mother at the exact moment she was getting in trouble for leaving the basement suite without permission. It was alleged, that with five people in the home, A.A. snuck the young child into his bedroom while her brother was feet away watching television. A.A. maintained his innocence and pled not guilty.

At trial, multiple witnesses were called by the Crown including a doctor who conducted a medical examination shortly after the sexual assault was alleged to have happened. Cory cross-examined the witness to create a timeline of events that significantly contradicted the complainant’s version. During cross-examination of the doctor, she conceded that her medical findings from her examination of the complainant were inaccurate. A.A. maintained his innocence and testified in his own defence.

Cory argued that based on the timeline of events coupled with the inaccurate medical evidence, the sexual assault was simply impossible. At the conclusion of the trial, A.A. was found not guilty. This was the best possible outcome.

During the trial, Cory was also successful in arguing for Costs (repayment for legal fees) as a result of the government failing to provide an interpreter. It is incredibly rare to successfully recover legal fees in criminal proceedings.


R v. S.T.

Result: Not Guilty. No Criminal Record.

S.T. was accused of sexually assaulting a woman he met at a bar. It was alleged that after a night of drinking and dancing at a downtown bar, the complainant invited S.T. back to her apartment to hang out. While at the apartment, the two continued to drink, had sexual intercourse and fell asleep. The next morning, S.T. left the house after exchanging phone numbers with the complainant. Over the next week, the complainant made numerous attempts to contact S.T. who did not respond. Three weeks after the two spent the night together, the complainant told police that the sexual intercourse was not consensual. S.T. maintained the act was consensual and pled not guilty.

At trial, Cory cross-examined the complainant on her previous inconsistent statement and her many texts and phone calls to S.T. At the end of Cory’s cross-examination, the Crown withdrew the charge which was the best outcome at trial.


R v. C. R.

Result: Charges Withdrawn. No Criminal Record.

C.R. was charged with sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching as a result of allegations made by a 15-year-old girl. It was alleged that C.R. met the complainant on a dating site and began talking online. The complainant told C.R. that she was 18 and recently graduated high school. After talking online for several weeks, the complainant snuck out of her house, met C.R. and engaged in multiple sex acts. The complainant’s parents realized she was missing and contacted the police. After searching through the complainant’s internet history, police were able to contact C.R. who admitted to being with the complainant but then dropping her off at a different location. After the complainant was eventually located, she told police of the sexual activity and C.R. was charged with multiple offences.

After receiving disclosure, including the complainant’s messages to C.R. in which she repeatedly lied about her age, Cory thoroughly investigated the complainant’s online behaviour including ongoing misrepresentations of her age. As a result of what Cory was able to find online, coupled with the issues found in the disclosure, the Crown agreed that there was no likelihood of conviction and withdrew the charges.


R v. K.A.

Result: Charges Withdrawn. No Criminal Record.

K.A. was charged with sexually assaulting a woman in his vehicle while parked outside a shopping centre. It was alleged that K.A. met the complainant earlier in the day and made plans to meet at the mall. After meeting later in the day, the two decided to share a cigarette in K.A.’s vehicle while parked in the mall’s main parking lot. It was alleged that while inside the vehicle, K.A. made a number of sexual advances that were rebuffed by the complainant. It was further alleged that K.A. refused to allow the complainant to exit the vehicle, groped her and held her by her neck. K.A. maintained his innocence and pled not guilty.

During the course of the investigation, the complainant gave inconsistent statements to two different police officers and her close friend with whom she met minutes after the alleged sexual assault. Cory met with the Crown and laid out all of the inconsistencies in the complainant’s version of events. Cory also provided text messages sent to K.A. that the complainant failed to disclose. As a result, the Crown agreed that there was no likelihood of conviction and withdrew the charges.


R v T.W.

Result: Charges Withdrawn. No Criminal Record.

T.W. was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching. It was alleged that T.W. was in an ongoing sexual relationship with the complainant starting when she was 14 years old. Police were notified of the relationship by a nurse after the complainant and T.W. attended for a medical appointment to confirm the complainant’s pregnancy. Subsequent DNA evidence showed that T.W. was the father of the child. T.W. maintained that he had done nothing wrong and the complainant’s family supported the relationship.

T.W. and the complainant both came to Canada as refugees from Ethiopia. Based on a previous case, Cory was aware that individuals coming to Canada from Ethiopia are often assigned a birthdate while in refugee camps because of a lack of proper paperwork and Ethiopia’s use of a calendar distinct from that used in Canada. As a result, birthdates on immigration documentation given to refugees are not always an accurate reflection of their real age.

Cory met with the complainant’s family and members of the Ethiopian community in an effort to determine the complainant’s actual age. Based on conversions from the Ethiopian calendar to the Canadian calendar, it appeared the complainant was of legal age to consent to sexual activity with T.W. As a result of Cory’s investigation, the Crown agreed that they would be unable to prove the complainant was under age and withdrew the charges.


R v. G.W

Result: Charges Withdrawn. No Criminal Record.

G.W. was charged with sexually assaulting a co-worker. After weeks of flirting at work, the complainant invited G.W. to her apartment to hang out. While at the apartment, the two ate dinner, drank alcohol and watched a movie on her couch. At one point, the complainant told G.W. that they would be more comfortable if they watched the movie in her bed. After laying next to each other and consuming more alcohol, the complainant alleged that she fell asleep and woke to G.W. touching her under her pants. G.W.’s position was that the complainant engaged him in sexual activity and continued to do so until she suddenly jumped out of bed and left the apartment without saying anything.

The matter proceeded to a preliminary inquiry where Cory cross-examined the complainant on her version of events. As a result of admissions the complainant made under cross-examination, the Crown withdrew the charges shortly after the preliminary inquiry. This was the best possible outcome.


R v. S.K.

Result: Charges Withdrawn. No Criminal Record.

S.K. was charged with sexual assault after a security guard alleged that he fondled her buttocks after she attempted to stop him and his friends from entering a parkade. The incident occurred during the Stampede and alcohol was a significant factor. The complainant alleged that she attempted to stop a group of young men who were heavily intoxicated from entering a condominium parkade as they didn’t have the required key card. One of the men walked by her and allegedly grabbed her buttocks for an extended period of time. Police were called and the security guard pointed out S.K. as the person who grabbed her buttocks. As a result of the brief incident, S.K. was charged with sexual assault.

S.K. was a young professional and a criminal conviction for sexual assault would destroy his career. After reviewing the disclosure and speaking with defence witnesses, it was evident that S.K. slapped the security guard’s buttocks as a joke and not in a sexual manner. After providing the Crown with the defence version of events, the charges against S.K. were withdrawn after he made a charitable donation. This favourable resolution left S.K. with no criminal record for the incident.