Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after three-day trial in the Ontario Superior Court, Toronto. R.H.Y. was approached by a real estate agent to sell his business property and purchase a new one in a different area. The agent and R.H.Y. met at the Granite Club and then continued to meet for showings but spent many hours together privately talking about life and personal matters. R.H.Y. opened up to the complainant (agent), once after a showing of his property, that he was divorcing and going through a hard time. The two spoke for some time. The complainant sent an email that was very kind and offering to help R.H.Y. anyway she could even non-business related. The two arranged to meet the next night at his home around 6 p.m. to sign a listing extension agreement and to view his home. The complainant offered to help sell his home even though she had no experience in residential real estate. This was a personal move on the complainant\u2019s part either to generate more business for herself or to develop a closer relationship with R.H.Y. R.H.Y. took her email, all their personal discussions, and then offer to help, as a personal interest in himself. The two met at his home and started to have wine while signing the document and having a tour of the home. The two eventually had more wine and tequila. The two sat, talked, and drank together. The complainant alleges that she \u201cblacked out\u201d and woke up around 2:00 a.m. the next morning in a state of distress believing something had happened to her. The complainant turned on her phone and discovered that her husband had messaged and called on numerous occasions and called police filing a missing persons report. The complainant left the home in her car and while on her drive home called her husband. They spoke on the phone. During the call, the police ordered her to stop driving as she was somewhat intoxicated, and the police located her and when located, she alleged she was drugged by R.H.Y. and likely sexually assaulted. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison were retained to defend R.H.Y. Joseph Neuberger obtained the security camera footage from the client\u2019s residence. After reviewing the statements of the complainant, the security camera video was a crucial piece of defence evidence. Further, through the defence investigation, important messages between the complainant and R.H.Y. were obtained by Joseph Neuberger that cumulatively supported a defence narrative that the complainant, if not romantically interested in R.H.Y., was at least interested in him beyond a purely business relationship. A 276\/278 motion was brought by the defence to admit the messages and the video footage. The motion was successful. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant and contradicted her allegations with the forensic evidence of the lack drugs in her system (the police conducted a search of the client\u2019s home 5 hours after the alleged incident with no results for any type of date rape drugs) and the toxicology also showed negative results for drugs. The toxicology noted high readings of alcohol in the complainant\u2019s system, but in cross-examination, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish the complainant was a social drinker with tolerance to alcohol and because of the false narrative of the complainant; the complainant failed to admit any effects of the alcohol consumed with R.H.Y. undermining her evidence of experiencing a blackout or unconsciousness. Continued cross-examination focused in a detailed manner on the voluntary steps taken by the complainant to engender a relationship with R.H.Y. and on the night in question, had full responsibility for her own actions including drinking and staying with R.H.Y. because she was enjoying his company. The complainant in cross-examination would not admit that after three alleged glasses of wine and three shots of tequila was \u201cloosening up\u201d and was conversational. The complainant maintained that she had no onset of any intoxication and went blank on memory with no onset any illness or other symptoms. The defence theory and motive to fabricate was put to the complainant. She was asked in detail about her interest in R.H.Y.; that she had discussed with him her own desire to divorce and that R.H.Y. was a wealthy man, going through his own divorce and that ultimately, she was attracted to R.H.Y. The complainant detailed in cross-examination that when she awoke from her \u201cblackout\u201d she was in his bedroom, confused and panicked. She got her clothes together and essentially ran out of the house and drove off \u201cas fast as she could\u201d. When the video was played for the complainant in cross-examination, the complainant refused to admit that her version of her waking up, being panicked, and leaving the home as fast as possible, was starkly different than the security video. R.H.Y. testified. His evidence was coherent, consistent, and believed. After closing submissions, the Judge found that the complainant\u2019s version of events could not be believed even on a balance of probability and in contrast, the evidence of R.H.Y. was believable. Thus, Mr. R.H.Y. was found not guilty of sexual assault.<\/p>\n
This case is another example of the importance of detailed defence investigation of the case; extensive preparation of the client\u2019s defence narrative and cross-examination of the complainant to uncover a false allegation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","success_category":[118,119],"class_list":["post-30068","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\/30068","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=30068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"success_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nrlawyers.com\/6ixDev-v2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/success_category?post=30068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}