← More Recent Successes success stories

P.L. was found not guilty of two counts of Sexual Assault after a three-day trial, Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket courthouse. He and the complainant were university students who met in class. The two went on several dates and had a wonderful time together. The two dated, and on one evening, P.L. invited the complainant to his place. While at P.L.’s apartment, the complainant and P.L. talked, watched TV and eventually as the evening progressed, the complainant changed into a lingerie.  The two engaged in consensual sexual acts. The next day, the complainant messaged P.L. on Instagram and asked P.L. if she could come over to his place. The two of them listened to music and watched movies again. They engaged in consensual sexual acts. The complainant stayed overnight at P.L.’s place. In the morning, the two of them completed university assignments. The complainant asked P.L. if he wanted to meet her mother. P.L. answered that he was not planning to do that. After that, he proceeded to talk on the phone with another female. The complainant got upset and left P.L.’s place. A couple of days later, P.L. broke up with the complainant over social media posts. The complainant sent several messages to P.L. about how angry she was about his posts and told him to take the posts down. P.L. didn’t take the posts down and the complainant attended a police station to provide a statement alleging sexual assault that allegedly occurred on two occasions. P.L. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya obtained from the client provide all messages between him and the complainant. Mariya brought a s.276/278 application to have the messages admitted at  trial particularly relevant to motive to fabricate and consent. The application was successful. At trial, Mariya cross examined the complainant who admitted that she failed to disclose during her statement key pieces of information that did not fit her narrative of being sexually assaulted.  In addition, Mariya established that the complainant misled the police and the Court about having never wanted to attend P.L.’s place the second time. When confronted with the messages, the complainant’s false assertion was exposed significantly undermining her credibility.  The complainant made it clear in her evidence at trial that she did not want to attend his apartment the second time. The messages directly contradicted this and refused to explain why she misled the police and the Court. The client testified and provided direct and detailed evidence of their evenings together including consent to sexual activity.  Although P.L. handled the relationship poorly including breaking up with the complainant through social media, he was young and not on trial for hurtful conduct but for sex assault.  Mariya provided detailed written and oral submissions carefully outlining the series of inconsistencies and frank lies told by the complainant.  P.L.’s evidence was organically logical and believable.  P.L. was found not guilty of all the charges.