← More Recent Successes success stories

Client acquitted of five counts of Assault, two counts of Sexual Assault, and two counts of Uttering Threats mid-trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The Complainant alleged that she was a new immigrant to Canada with her one-year-old child. She was married to S.A. who sponsored her visa to immigrate to Canada. After landing, she alleged that within one week, S.A. started subjecting her and their child to cruelty. On the first occasion, the Complainant alleged that there was an argument in relation to dowry. S.A. allegedly got angry that the Complainant did not bring more gold from India. This is when he allegedly twisted her hands while she was holding her son. She claimed that S.A. twisted her hand to get a gold bangle out of her hand. On the second occasion, there was an argument in relation to their son. The Complainant claimed that S.A. used to hate their child, however, on this occasion, he took the child on a walk.  Once back, there was an argument in relation to the clothing that the child was wearing. The Complainant alleged that S.A. slapped the Complainant on her face and threatened to kill her and their child if she went to the police. On the third occasion, it was alleged that the Complainant’s parents had sent a present to their house. S.A. allegedly threw the gift in the garbage. This upset the Complainant who initiated an argument with S.A. She claimed that S.A. became angry and started pushing the Complainant out of the house. S.A. allegedly pushed the Complainant while she was holding their son in her hands. On the fourth occasion, the Complainant alleged that one night, S.A., asked the Complainant to the living room. He allegedly kissed the Complainant and began touching her breasts. When she told him no, he pushed her on the couch. The Complainant claimed that she refused to engage sexually with him, but S.A. mounted her and forced oral sex on her. He then sexually assaulted her by penetrating her vagina. On the next occasion, the Complainant alleged that there was an argument with S.A. over the type of toy car their son should get. The Complainant alleged that S.A. started pushing the Complainant which led her to fall on the floor. He then stood over her and punched her face which left a black eye and bleeding from her nose. On the next occasion the Complainant alleged that she was pushed repeatedly until she fell on a suitcase which left a mark on her leg. On the last occasion, the Complainant alleged that she was sexually assaulted in her vagina in front of their child. She claimed that she wanted to go to the park. However, S.A. demanded sexual intercourse before taking them anywhere. The Complainant alleged that S.A. pushed her on the bed, kept their child on the floor, mounted her, and penetrated her with his penis. During the assault, her slapped her face while their child cried on the floor. Yuvika Johri from Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained. Yuvika reviewed the disclosure carefully and discovered that the Complainant had previously been arrested for assaulting S.A. She waited until her charges were withdrawn to lay these allegations against S.A. It became clear that the Complainant had a motive to fabricate and these charges were being brought as revenge for her own arrest. Yuvika Johri also compiled items such as pictures and videos which raised serious concerns about the allegations made by the Complainant. A s.276/278 application was prepared. However, prior to trial, the Complainant travelled to India claiming medical issues in relation to her parents. Due to shortage of interpreters at the courthouse, the trial was adjourned to a later date. When the trial was scheduled for the second time, the Complainant travelled back to Toronto and testified in person. During cross examination, the Complainant testified that she was in Canada all along. Upon being confronted with her email to the officer in charge claiming to be in India, the Complainant changed her evidence that she was in India all along and was not in Canada. The matter could not be concluded within the time scheduled for the trial so further trial dates were secured. Once again, the Complainant left for India with no return ticket to Canada. She refused to provide her Toronto address to the police claiming safety reasons. The Crown brought a remote testimony application to allow the Complainant to testify from India. Yuvika Johri cross examined the officer in charge for two hours. She was able to show the court that the complainant had gone on an indefinite vacation while being the main witness in a serious criminal case who was in the middle of a cross examination. Yuvika Johri was able to show that her non-attendance impacted the defence’s ability to make full answer and defence. The crown’s application was dismissed and because of the Complainant’s non-attendance and prejudice to the defence, an acquittal was entered on all counts against S.A.