← More Recent Successes success stories

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation after four-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton.  J.  J.K. was accused of inappropriately massaging his stepdaughter on three occasions when she was 17 years of age.  The complainant attended police after an argument with J.K. and J.K. was charged.  Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained.  The complainant provided a statement to police that was video recorded, and her boyfriend provided a statement that at the time of the third alleged massage, the complainant called her and was asking to come to his home, thus supporting her feeling of being uncomfortable and scared. The complainant also had a diary that she allegedly was chronicling the instances of sexual assault.  The argument just prior to the complainant going to police was about J.K. having read her diary and confronting her about the contents.  He had thrown the diary away and the complainant was extremely angry that he invaded her privacy and threw the diary away.  The complainant alleged three instances of inappropriate touching.  J.K. was notified to turn himself in and contrary to advice from his then counsel, he provided a video recorded statement that was voluntary.  The Crown’s case was premised on the statement of the complainant that was admitted into trial evidence under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code because she was under 18 at the time of providing the statement, many aspects of J.K.’s statement that were odd and in the Crown’s theory provided corroborative evidence of the complainant’s version of events, including an admission.  It was a strong prosecution case.  Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison had in-depth detailed meetings with the client, his wife and sourced independent evidence that during the year the complainant stated that the three instances occurred she was under the care of a therapist and a chiropractor for back issues.  The complainant and J.K. both agreed that they had a bonded loving relationship since she was two years of age. He was always supportive, caring and provided well for the family.  At age 11, the complainant wanted to start competitive skiing, and J.K. enrolled her in lessons and a team. He attended her practices, took her skiing, and attended most if not all her competitions.  He was a very good stepfather.  Things according to the complainant changed when she turned 17 and his massages became “weird” and “inappropriate”.  The defence narrative, which was supported through cross-examination of the complainant, was that the complainant suffered from chronic muscle and back issues due to competitive skiing.  J.K. had experience with therapeutic massages and from age 11 gave her massages to help her pain and muscle cramps. In cross-examination the complainant eventually confirmed that these massages were about three to four per season, sometimes in the summer and were extremely helpful.  Further, he had taken her to a sports clinic to help with her injuries.  In addition, during many of the massages the two would talk about personal issues that troubled the complainant related to her biological father and other dynamics in her life. She agreed in cross-examination that the massages were a bridge to a form of talk therapy that was very constructive and helpful to her.  Thus, only when she turned 17, after she stopped skiing competitively, did she allege three instances when he grazed her vagina, and touched her breasts.  He was also alleged to have used some inappropriate language.  In cross-examination of the complainant, after extensive questioning, the complainant admitted that when she was 17 there was considerable tension at the home due to her boyfriend and her group of friends. She eventually admitted to using marijuana, mood changes, losing weight and issues with school.  This caused tension with J.K. as he had high expectations of her and wanted her to succeed in university.  J.K. used these massages at the time to talk to her about these issues. The complainant was challenged on her not disclosing any of these issues including a major blow up about her wanting to quite her job at their cottage so she could be in the city to be with her boyfriend. The complainant admitted that both the mother and J.K. were very upset and this caused more tension during the summer. Toward the end of the summer and the last alleged incident of sexual touching, the complainant was expressing concerns about a family trip and her moving out west for a gap year to go skiing work to be away from bad influences.  The aspects of this issue and the disagreement with J.K. was also never mentioned in her statement to police.   J.K. testified that in fact when discussing her reluctance to go out west for the year, he was giving her a massage to relieve her tension and to try and talk about the issues however, things soured, and a bad argument occurred with J.K. giving her an ultimatum to stop seeing her boyfriend and that she must go out west.  Shortly after this argument and the confrontation about the diary, the complainant went to police.  J.K. testified that he made a mistake looking at her diary but what he read made no sense and he read the diary to see what was going on in her life.  He confronted her about certain contents in her diary that caused him great concern.  This only exacerbated their tension, and he threw away the diary in anger, not to destroy inculpatory evidence.   There were other significant issues raised in cross-examination, but at the end of the trial, Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison drafted detailed writing closing submissions dealing with the statement of the complainant, inconsistencies, the throwing away of the diary and the statement given by J.K.  The defence also put forth a multifaceted motive to fabricate including that the complainant’s social life as under attack.  The judge carefully considered all the evidence, and in the end found that there were compelling aspects to the motive to fabricate and the inconsistencies and lack of disclosing the tensions and arguments with J.K. significantly detracted from the complainant’s credibility and reliability.  J.K. was found not guilty of both sexual abuse charges.