← More Recent Successes success stories

WP was charged with sexual assault against his former long-term girlfriend. WP and the complainant dated for five years. WP tried to break off the relationship several times, though he still cared for her deeply. After the final breakup, the complainant left WP a concerning voicemail. WP was so troubled by the message that he went to her home to check on her wellbeing. She let him into her home and he proceeded to comfort her. One thing led to another and WP succumbed to temptation and they had sex. WP immediately realized that he had made a mistake. The next day they talked again and he apologized for giving her mixed messages. He reiterated that he still cared for her but that they just could not be in a relationship together. She pleaded with him to get back together, but he stood his ground. Two weeks later she went to the police and alleged that WP came to her house and anally raped her while her son was outside the bedroom door.

WP retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend himself against these serious charges. WP had all their text messages from the last few years. The first task was for Mr. Assie was argue a 276?278 Application to be permitted to introduce the text messages to undermine the allegations of the complainant. This motion was complex and Diana Davison assisted with the drafting of the Application. After careful and detailed argument, the Application was granted. The text messages were devastating to the complainant’s credibility. With a skillful cross-examination, the complainant’s account of what transpired quickly melted away. The judge had no difficulty acquitting WP and stated in his judgment, “That having been said, the very real possibility – bordering on a probability – does exist that once [the complainant] realized that WP had used her that day, she decided to leverage the Criminal Justice System to ‘punish’ him for what he had done. That interpretation is supported by the manner in which [the complainant] responded to simple questions put to her that ought to have yielded simple and forthright answers. Answers – when they finally did arrive – took the form of protracted responses that consistently reflected the hurt and anger that [the complainant] had been experiencing right up to and including the time of her cross-examination.”