r v. ANTHONY JONES, 2022 QCCQ 8456

R. c. Jones 2022 QCCQ 8456 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD LOCALITY OF GRANBY "Criminal and Penal Division" No.: 460-01-037459-207 DATE: November 8, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE SERGE CHAMPOUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HIS MAJESTY THE KING Prosecutor v.

ANTHONY JONES Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Anthony Jones is charged with assaulting Ashley Karen Hadlock on May 18, 2020, in Stanbridge East. [ 2 ] He denies the facts completely, alleging that she was the one to assault him instead. [ 3 ] SOME FACTS [ 4 ] Anthony Jones and Ashley Karen Hadlock (hereinafter Ashley Hadlock) are parents to their young son, X, who was 2 years old in May 2020.

They separated shortly after X’s birth and, at least in appearance, but more on that later, their relationship is rather unhealthy. They share custody of the child and many exchanges must take place, forcing them to speak or see each other regularly. [ 5 ] The charge is in connection with X’s exchange in Stanbridge East on May 18, 2020.

At the time, they had agreed that Ashley Hadlock would bring X at noon to the parking lot of a corner store located near the accused’s residence so that he could begin his custodial time. [ 6 ] Prior to this exchange, the parties had exchanged text messages. [1] In them, the accused specifically asked his son’s mother not to drive in front of his home to reach the agreed upon location. The tone of the messages is not cordial. [ 7 ] Ashley Hadlock was there about 20 minutes before the stated time.

She had taken her new spouse’s pick-up truck, which she had never before used for the exchanges. [ 8 ] Since she was the first on site, she had to wait for the accused. Anticipating potential problems, she claims, she turned on the recording application on her cellular telephone, to be ready for any unfortunate events that might unfold during the upcoming meeting with the accused. [ 9 ] The accused arrived on foot at the stated time, maybe even a bit early.

He appeared irritated by the fact that Ashley Hadlock was driving her new spouse’s vehicle. [ 10 ] According to her, when he arrived, the accused began to talk about lawyers. She did not pay it much attention and went near the back door of the truck to open it and give the accused access to X. The accused pushed her away and took the child. He hit her in the face, took the child, and spit inside the vehicle. He then began to walk away while insulting Ms. Hadlock. [ 11 ] Ashley Hadlock admits that while he was doing so, she was also speaking to the accused in an aggressive tone.

She told him she would call the police. She indicated moreover that as he was walking away, Anthony Jones tripped on a sidewalk and fell with the child in his arms. Luckily, the child was not hurt. [ 12 ] She then went back into the truck and cried before calling her mother and then the police, who came to meet her near where the events had unfolded. [ 13 ] The police officers told her that Anthony Jones had also filed a complaint against her and asked her to follow them to the Dunham Sûreté du Québec police station. She went. At that time, or shortly thereafter, she handed them the recording she had made.

This recording was filed as exhibit P-3.

[ 14 ] Anthony Jones testified in defence. He explained that Ashley Hadlock had cheated on him, even during the pregnancy, which later led to their breaking up. [ 15 ] He states, however, that after the separation, and at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence, they had some kind of an ongoing relationship. For example, he explained that she regularly slept over at his home, when the child was present. Also, in his view, May 18 was the first time that X was brought to the parking lot of the corner store or any other neutral location.

It appears that before that, exchanges took place at his home, or Ms. Hadlock’s home. He did not explain, however, what prompted the exchanges to henceforth take place in a “neutral” location. [ 16 ] It is therefore because he still had feelings for Ashley Hadlock that he was angry when he realized that she had brought his son to him in her new boyfriend’s vehicle. [ 17 ] They had agreed that he would take X at that location, and he arrived on foot.

The child liked walking the distance from the corner store to his home, which was about 15 to 20 houses away. [ 18 ] He therefore claims that he was angry to note that Ms. Hadlock had someone else in her life. He admits to spitting inside the vehicle when he took his son from it, as Ashley Hadlock claims. He did so out of anger. [ 19 ] He claims that he took his son in his arms and turned to leave, but that Ashley Hadlock pushed him as he was walking away. He fell to his knees, with his son in his arms. This angered him. He says that he immediately called the police to file a complaint against Ms.

Hadlock. [ 20 ] He was aware that she was recording their whole encounter. He states that he never hit or scratched Ms. Hadlock in any way.

On this subject, he adds that it is impossible for him to be the one who made the scratch she displayed on her back because he has been biting his nails for a very long time and cannot make such marks. [ 21 ] He acknowledges, however, that he yelled, even shouted at Ashley Hadlock that day, but not that he attacked her physically. [ 22 ] I will revisit other details of the evidence below. [ 23 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 24 ] The evidence presented by the prosecution and that presented by the defence is contradictory.

In this situation, all the evidence must be examined in light of the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.) , [2] which developed a three-part test that must be applied. This test is as follows: 1. If the accused’s version is believed and it is exculpatory, the accused must benefit therefrom and be acquitted 2. Even if the accused’s version is not entirely believed, but it raises a reasonable doubt, the accused must again benefit therefrom and be acquitted. 3.

Only if the first two steps do not allow the analysis to be completed is it appropriate to see whether the evidence as a whole establishes the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Only then can the accused be convicted. [ 25 ] Therefore, the first question that must be answered is whether I can believe the accused’s version. [ 26 ] His version and testimony appear problematic on many levels. Let me explain. [ 27 ] From a strictly logical point of view, it appears strange that the accused would be so angry to notice that the mother of his child had someone in her life.

He admits that he was very angry about this situation. In fact, he was so angry that he spit inside the vehicle belonging to Ashley Hadlock’s boyfriend. [ 28 ] Yet, at the same time, he admits to also starting a relationship with another woman, which, in principle, should indicate that he is rather detached from Ms. Hadlock. Moreover, in the text messages filed, [3] he already indicates his wish that she not drive in front of his house, without explaining why. [ 29 ] At Court, however, he testified that it was because of the wishes of his new spouse, who wanted to avoid having to see Ashley Hadlock.

Accordingly, it appears that the new spouse must be aware that Ms. Hadlock drives in front of Anthony Jones’s home, that it must have happened before, and that she was unhappy about it. [ 30 ] Why be so angry that Ms. Hadlock is getting on with her life when he is doing the same? [ 31 ] This issue of prohibiting her from driving in front of his home is also contradicted by other elements of his testimony. Indeed, he says that May 18 was the first time that the exchange took place at the corner store, contrary to Ms. Hadlock’s testimony.

If it was the first time, I understand that she must not have simply “driven” in front of his home very often because she lives in Waterloo, about 45 minutes away, and because, in any event, according to his testimony, she slept over at his home instead, while the child was there. [ 32 ] Once again, this allegation is strange. How is it possible that both the accused’s new spouse and Ashley Hadlock go to his house without the other knowing about it?

In practice, this seems hard to believe. [ 33 ] Furthermore, if the relationship between the accused and Ashley Hadlock is so positive that they still see each other, the tone of the text message exchange [4] does not reflect it at all, nor does the tone of the recording, [5] and in such a context, the very fact that Ms. Hadlock started recording the exchange of the child before it happened is rather surprising. In fact, the accused admits knowing that Ms.

Hadlock records when they exchange the child, which, once again, appears inconsistent with a relationship, one so serious that his ex- spouse regularly sleeps at his home.

[ 34 ] On this subject, it is noteworthy that the complainant was not asked any questions about the fact that she still slept over, at the very least, on occasion, at the accused’s home or about the fact that this exchange of the child at the corner store was the first one.

From a credibility standpoint, this is a problem. [6] [ 35 ] Above and beyond these reasons not to believe the accused, one aspect in particular stands out. [ 36 ] During his testimony, Anthony Jones claimed that after he was pushed to the ground, he immediately took his phone to call 911, even though, as he said, he knew that Ashley Hadlock was recording. If that were the case, we should necessarily hear indications of this in the recording that was filed. [ 37 ] On the contrary, however, it is obvious that the accused is not on the telephone.

Ashley Hadlock says that she will call the police and the accused asks her why. It is clear that he is not, at that point, speaking with a 911 officer, for example. This argument is therefore clearly without merit, and the accused’s recital is inaccurate. [ 38 ] Principally for the reasons above, I do not accept his version, which does not raise a doubt in my mind. [ 39 ] The evidence as a whole indicates that Ashley Hadlock was a victim of violence. She was punched and pushed by the accused.

She has visible markings on her back, which certainly appear fresh. [ 40 ] The fact that the accused cannot have scratched Ms. Hadlock because his nails are not long enough changes nothing. This mark does not appear to be a scratch, but rather a scrape. [ 41 ] Ashley Hadlock says that the accused grabbed her to get her away from the child when she was near the truck and that he pushed her. Is this when she injured herself on the vehicle or on another object?

That is very likely the case. [ 42 ] In any event, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused hit her in the face at that point and FOR THESE REASONS , he is GUILTY of the offence alleged. __________________________________ Serge Champoux, J.C.Q. Mtre Karyne Goulet Counsel for the prosecution Mtre Jocelyn Belisle Counsel for the accused Date of hearing: September 20, 2022