{"id":30057,"date":"2024-12-18T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-12-18T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nrlawyers.com\/6ixDev-v2\/success-story\/rex-v-g-n-2024-30057\/"},"modified":"2024-12-18T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2024-12-18T12:00:00","slug":"rex-v-g-n-2024-30057","status":"publish","type":"success_story","link":"https:\/\/nrlawyers.com\/6ixDev-v2\/success-story\/rex-v-g-n-2024-30057\/","title":{"rendered":"Rex v. G.N. (2024)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation after lengthy trial in the Superior Court, Toronto. This was a very sad case with both the complainant and the client at very low points of their lives. The charges wear laid some years after G.N. and the complainant stopped communicating. The complainant had been seeing a therapist who in reviewing her past conduct and relationships, came to influence the complainant that she was exploited by G.N. and any sexual contact they had was thus coerced and not consensual. G.N. and the complainant had met at a time when they both were addicted to drugs and had developed an unhealthy relationship. The complainant came to believe that G.N. took advantage of her as at the time of the commencement of the relationship she was a drug-addicted 16-year-old girl who was working in the sex trade and living in a youth shelter. The two often got together for simply hang out and use drugs which were often provided by him. The complainant alleged that he used the supply of drugs to induce her to have sexual contact with him. There was an age gap as G.N. was much older than the complainant. The Crown alleged that G.N. sexually assaulted the complainant, even though at the time she consented to sexual contact with him. The Crown\u2019s position at trial was that the complainant\u2019s consent was vitiated within the meaning of s. 273.1(2)(c) of the Criminal Code because G.N. was in a position of power over the complainant which he abused to induce her to engage in sexual activity with him. The Crown further alleged that G.N. sexually exploited the complainant within the meaning of s. 153(1) of the Code because he had sexual contact with her when she was a young person, while he was in a relationship with her that was exploitative of her. G.N. retained Joseph Neuberger and Michael Bury of Neuberger &amp; Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. The defence position at trial was that the Crown had not succeeded in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity, that the complainant\u2019s consent was not vitiated because there was a power imbalance between G.N and her, and that G.N. was not in a relationship with the complainant that was exploitative of her. The complainant had used and abused prescription drugs and then became addicted to street drugs while living in the shelter system. She tried powder cocaine first, and then crack. She became an addict, using drugs daily or almost daily, sometimes multiple times a day. She also had an alcohol problem, at times drinking daily. G.N., despite having a medical degree, had not been able to secure residency to complete the requirements of becoming a doctor. He had made several attempts and ultimately became very depressed and similarly turned to drugs to cope with his repeated failures. By the time he and the complainant met, he had no regular income, was living with his parents, and had become addicted to drugs. Following extensive preparations with the entire team at Neuberger &amp; Partners LLP, G.N. testified at trial and it was clear that he had not exploited the complainant in any fashion nor was there any power imbalance. The complainant also testified. Crucially, in cross-examination of the complainant, it was demonstrated that she was not as reliant on the G.N. as the Crown had made her out to be. The complainant was extremely street smart. She had her own source of funds. She controlled communications with G.N. She decided when they would see each other, and she cut him off on several occasions from contact. She in fact believed at the time of their contact, that she was the one manipulating G.N. for him to drive her around Toronto, buy her things including drugs. As demonstrated in a detailed long cross-examination, if anything, she had been exploiting G.N. The age gap was about 16 years and the Crown\u2019s argument was that the combination of age, his education, and his supply of drugs amounted to exploitation. An issue arose as to what level of intent is necessary for exploitation. Did is simply arise from the set of facts or was an intent needed to act upon the factors to \u201cexploit\u201d the other person. Ultimately, the trial judge found that a level of intent was necessary to exploit another person, and in the circumstances of this case, there was insufficient evidence to find beyond a reasonable doubt that G.N. had exploited the complainant. The trial judge noted a number of serious credibility issues with the complainant\u2019s evidence and thus G.N. was found not guilty of Sex Assault and Exploitation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","success_category":[118,119],"class_list":["post-30057","success_story","type-success_story","status-publish","hentry","success_category-all-success-stories","success_category-sexual-assault-domestic-assault-and-other-violent-crimes"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nrlawyers.com\/6ixDev-v2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/success_story\/30057","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nrlawyers.com\/6ixDev-v2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/success_story"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nrlawyers.com\/6ixDev-v2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/success_story"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nrlawyers.com\/6ixDev-v2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30057"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"success_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nrlawyers.com\/6ixDev-v2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/success_category?post=30057"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}