← More Sexual & Domestic Assault Wins success stories

After a four-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Kitchener, client found not guilty of Sex Assault, Sexual Interference and Invitation to Sexual Touching. C.J. attended a university party where the invitation was over WeChat to a university group chat. During the party, C.J. met two young ladies, one who attended his university. He was introduced to the complainant, and they spent several hours talking and playing drinking games. At some point the two went to a bedroom and became intimate. The complainant fell asleep after intimacy. C.J. left the bedroom and played a few more games. He felt tired and then left the party but connected with the friend of the complainant before leaving to ensure that if he left, he would not disappoint the complainant. The next day, he got a call from the complainant and her friend who was a university student informing that the complainant alleged she was 15 and he raped her. Immediately he was told that she wanted “compensation”. He met her later in the day and a settlement agreement was written by the complainant, but C.J. refused to sign it and accused her of extorting him. The complainant went immediately after the refusal to pay to police and C.J. was charged. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained with Diana Davison assisting. Joseph Neuberger obtained C.J.’s WeChat history with the complainant’s friend, pictures and other communications including a picture of the settlement agreement. The defence provided disclosure to the Crown. A further statement was taken by the police from the complainant, but the Crown pursued the prosecution even thought the complainant admitted in the statement that it was her idea to seek “compensation”. At trial, extensive cross-examination focused on the circumstances around the complainant who was 15, attending a university party that was labelled by her close friend as a “university drinking party” and her role in pursuing C.J. Messages were put to the complainant and her friend in cross-examination. During high pressure cross-examination over the messages leading to demands for money, the complainant relented and agreed that her and her friend conspired to obtain a financial gain to manipulate a police investigation. This resulted in an admission of a criminal conspiracy. The complainant’s friend testified and it was obvious that she has spoken to the complainant after she was cross-examined by Joseph Neuberger. In order to avoid criminal responsibility for extortion, the friend started to blame the complainant for being the initiator of intimate contact with C.J. and it became obvious that the two had colluded and the evidence was not only unreliable but fabricated. Accordingly, the Crown agreed to a directed verdict of not guilty on all three counts.