The accused was charged with four counts of sexual assault, two assault with a weapon charges, uttering threats to cause bodily harm, and wilfully causing unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal, contrary to s 445.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code stemming from a short-lived cohabitational relationship in which his former partner, B.D., described the accused as having anger issues as well as controlling behaviour. There were also charges relating to breach of condition of probation by being within proximity to his former partner and failure to comply with release conditions and probation order by possessing a weapon.
B.D.’s complaints included physical and sexual assault allegations against the accused, as well as his “constant” abuse of her dog, where she claimed he regularly kicked her and caused injuries. She also alleged that J.C. threatened to kill her and her unborn child, which forced charges against the accused due to probation and release orders. B.D. gave testimony regarding multiple occasions of the sexual and physical abuse, threats, abuse to her dog, and violation of court orders. The accused provided his own testimony, answering to the charges.
The Court found the accused’s testimony, as well as other witness testimony that supported it, to be credible and left more than a reasonable doubt of his guilt. The Court was dismissive of the testimony of B.D., determining that it was not credible due to inconsistencies or the inability to remember facts and events despite the judge’s contrary assertion that the accused’s “lack of recall enhances his credibility in my mind” (para.430), with respect to his ability to recall a specific incident. The Court also determined that the accused’s “penchant for angry outbursts” and volatile behaviour did not necessarily amount to a criminal act (para. 436), that his uttering threats was his “dark sense of humour” was “his way of expressing his frustration and upset” (para. 446) and that “reluctant consent is still legal consent” (para. 452) when referring to an incident that resulted in one of the sexual assault charges. According to the judge’s comments in para. 459, it would appear that the Court had decided that B.D.’s accusations were part of a vendetta to keep custody of their child from the accused.
The accused was found not guilty on all charges including the animal cruelty charge which, according to the accused and affirmed by the judge, consisted of “merely a light shoving”, moving the “dog with his leg out of his way” (para. 216).
https://canlii.ca/t/k5wkd