R. v. Sproat, 2018 ONCJ 721

CITATION: R. v. Sproat , 2018 ONCJ 721 DATE: June 6, 2018 Information Number: 17-3176 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. CINDY SPROAT R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T ********** BEFORE THE HONUOABLE JUSTICE J. STRIBOPOULOS Wednesday, June 6 th , 2018, at BRAMPTON, Ontario ********** INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 486.4(2.1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE BY ORDER OF JUSTICE J. STRIBOPOULOS. APPEARANCES : A. Mount Joy Counsel for the Crown M. Saggi Counsel for Ms. Sproat WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2018

R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T STRIBOPOULOS, J. (Orally) Ms. Sproat elected to be tried before me with respect to two charges, one count of assault, and one count of assault causing bodily harm, contrary, respectively to sections 266 and 267 (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada . The charges relate to the events of February 23, 2017 and involve the alleged victim, L.M. L., a toddler, was just 21 months old at the time. On that date, Ms. Sproat was operating a daycare from her home, at Unit 1104, in the apartment building located at 165 Kennedy Road South in the City of Brampton. L. had been attending Ms. Sproat’s daycare since approximately September of 2016. That morning, L. was left in the care of Ms. Sproat by her father, D.L. Both Mr. M., and his wife, C.M., testified before me. They gave evidence that before being dropped off at Ms.

Sproat’s residence that morning, the only visible injury to their child was a fading yellow bruise on the right side of L.’s forehead just below her hairline. That bruise was the remnant of an injury L. suffered the preceding week, from what her parents understood to be an accidental fall while L. had been in Ms. Sproat’s care on February 16th. Other than that, both parents testified that L. had no other noteworthy injuries anywhere on her body. After she was dropped off, L. suffered a number of further injuries while in Ms. Sproat’s care.

L.’s various injuries were documented in the photographs and medical records that became exhibits at trial. These new injuries included at least three fresh and distinct bruises across the entirety of the toddler’s forehead. They consisted of bruises on the right, to the centre, and on the left side of the forehead. L.’s right eye was also swollen. That swelling developed into a black eye within a couple of days. L. also had two abrasions, on the upper part of her left and right buttocks.

Finally, that evening, while bathing L., her mother noted that L. had a significant bump at the back of her head, beneath the hairline, that was tender to the touch. It was not a live issue at trial that L. suffered the various injuries just described while in Ms. Sproat’s care on February 23rd, 2017. However, what was very much at issue in this proceeding is what caused these injuries. The Crown contends that the injuries were the result of Ms. Sproat repeatedly picking L. up in the hallway outside of her apartment and dropping her onto the carpeted cement floor from a height of between 12 to 18 inches.

On each occasion, L. landed on her bum, before, at different points with each drop, either falling backwards or falling forwards and striking both the back and front of her head. According to the Crown, it was this repeated, deliberate and unjustified dropping of L. that resulted in her injuries. Further, the Crown contends that videotape evidence collected by police from the surveillance cameras that were operating at the apartment building on the date in question shows two important things. First, that late on the afternoon in question, Ms. Sproat was in the hallway outside her apartment with L.

The Crown contends that this recording, in terms of timing, corresponds with the repeated dropping of L. onto the floor as described by two eyewitnesses, neighbours who lived across the hall from Ms. Sproat. The neighbours claimed to observe these assaults through the peephole of the door to their apartment. I note that the parties agree that given that the camera in that hallway was positioned at the opposite end of the hallway from where Ms. Sproat’s apartment is located, it is impossible to discern from that recording what exactly transpired during the relevant period. At best, the recording shows that Ms.

Sproat was in the hallway with L., and the other toddler in her care, during the relevant period. I agree entirely with this assessment of the limitations inherent in the recording from the hallway. Second, the Crown submits that another surveillance camera recording, collected by police during their investigation, reveals a second assault. That recording is from a stairwell that leads to a door that exits to the outside of the building. According to the Crown, that recording shows Ms. Sproat returning to the building after taking L. and the other toddler in her care to the park that morning.

The Crown submits that this recording shows Ms. Sproat assaulting L. in that stairwell. First, by pulling her forcefully by the arm from the stairs onto the landing and, then, by slapping L. in the face. In stark contrast, Ms. Sproat strongly contests these allegations. With respect to the recording from the stairwell, Ms. Sproat acknowledges forcefully pulling L. up to the landing of the stairwell as she climbed the last couple of stairs.

However, she testified that her only motivation was the well-being of the other toddler in her care, who had managed to reach the narrow landing at the top of the stairs on his own and was facing the imminent threat of a heavy metal door being swung open upon him by someone exiting through that door. She explained that that door has no window, so that someone opening it would not have seen the little boy standing helplessly on the other side of it. Ms. Sproat also denied striking L. in the face once she pulled her to the top of the landing.

Rather, she maintained that what the Crown claims is her striking L. in the face is simply her pulling at L.’s coat.

In terms of the events later that day, in the hallway outside of her residence, Ms. Sproat gave a very different account then that of theneighbours, Ms. Currie and Mr. Sonne. She steadfastly denied the claim that she repeatedly picked L. up and then dropped her onto thecarpeted cement floor. Rather, she testified that L. was running down the hall, holding her hand, that L. tripped and fell flat on her face. According to Ms. Sproat, L. did not put her hands out to help break her fall.

Then, after helping her come to her feet, L. took another stepor two before she tripped again and once more fell flat on her face without putting her hands out to break her fall. According to Ms. Sproat, it was these accidental falls by L. that resulted in her injuries, not any assault. With respect to the abrasions on L.’s buttocks, Ms. Sproat testified that earlier in the day, when they were at the park, she had gone downthe slide with L. between her legs. Ms. Sproat described her and L. flying off the end of the slide, catching air, and landing forcefully on their bums on the frozen ground. Ms.

Sproat candidly acknowledged being unable to explain the bump to the back of L.’s head that was described by Ms. M. That said,she did testify that L. was very clumsy, and that she fell all of the time. With respect to L.’s clumsiness, Ms. Sproat’s evidence was corroborated to an extent by Mr. M. During cross-examination, he agreed that L. would sometimes run faster than she should, not pay attention, and occasionallyfall. She was also a bit of a daredevil, climbing on furniture and sometimes falling and injuring herself.

With the factual issues at the centre of this case briefly summarized, I turn to my analysis of the evidence. Although trite, it is important to remember that the Crown bears the burden of proving each of the charges against Ms. Sproat beyond areasonable doubt. The accused, Ms. Sproat, bears no burden in this proceeding. To the contrary, she is entitled to an acquittal if theCrown fails to discharge its burden in relation to either of the charges levelled against her. Recognizing the importance of never shifting the burden of proof to an accused person, given that Ms.

Sproat testified in her owndefence, I propose to follow the analytical framework suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v W.(D.), (SCC),[1991] 1 SCR 742. To begin, quite obviously, if I believe Ms. Sproat, I am required to find her not guilty. On her account, although she may have used force to manage L. in that stairwell, heractions in that regard were entirely justified in the circumstances. Similarly, on her version of events, there was no assault in thehallway, just a toddler tripping and falling. An unfortunate accident, but no crime.

Alternatively, even if, after carefully considering her evidence, I do not believe Ms. Sproat, I must still consider whether her evidence, along with all of the other evidence in this case, leaves me in a state of reasonabledoubt. If it does, then I must obviously find her not guilty. Finally, even if I entirely reject Ms. Sproat’s evidence and it does not leave me with a reasonable doubt, I must still go on to considerwhether or not on the whole of the evidence that I do accept, that I am satisfied of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to eachof the two charges. Turning then to Ms.

Sproat’s evidence. I watched and listened carefully to Ms. Sproat as she testified. Much more importantly, I havecarefully reviewed and considered the substance of her evidence. In the end, I simply do not believe her, nor does her evidence eitheralone, or in conjunction with the other evidence in this case, leave me in a state of reasonable doubt. I will briefly explain why. At times, at least, Ms. Sproat testified vividly to many details and then, when pressed with facts that she found uncomfortable, claimed “Ihave a terrible memory”.

During cross-examination she clearly became frustrated with the process of being questioned. She respondedwith apparent annoyance and answered at such times with “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember”. Although it is hard to reconcile thesubstance of such answers with her vivid recollection of details that were in her favour, more troubling were the flashes of apparentfrustration that were manifest when these answers were given. Putting aside her demeanour as a witness, there are significant difficultieswith the substance of Ms. Sproat’s evidence.

In direct examination, she claimed she could not pick up a toddler because of a lifelong condition with her hips. She explained that wasan issue for her at her previous employment. As a result, she was relieved to leave that position and open her own daycare. She claimedthat she could not even pick up L., a toddler, to lift her to the change table to change her diaper. She did this on the ground, or with L.standing up.

Then, during cross-examination, when the Crown began to confront her with the implausibility of this claim, reminding herthat she had left the daycare where she was previously employed, where others could help with the lifting, to open her own daycare athome, where she would have to manage toddlers on her own, she abruptly changed her evidence. She conceded that she could in factpick-up a toddler. She explained that her hip ailment just made this difficult and something she tried to avoid. From the video recordings, it is apparent that L. was the less agile of the two toddlers.

She clearly required more assistance than theother toddler. If that created challenges in managing both children at once, it is understandable how any caregiver could find theexperience exasperating, at least at times. However, Ms. Sproat did not concede ever experiencing feelings of that nature, even thoughthey would be entirely natural. She fought hard in insisting that she never grew frustrated with the children.

When the question was firstasked in direct examination she answered rhetorically, “what is frustrated?” Of course, anyone who has cared for children, especially young children, can appreciate some of the physical and emotional challengesof doing so. The accused’s claim to the contrary does not bode well for her credibility. It is reflective of a pattern that was apparentthroughout much of her evidence. A determined effort not to concede any ground that could support a suggestion that she might havebeen motivated to commit the crimes charged.

Yet, by taking such a determined stance against conceding the obvious, the credibility ofMs. Sproat’s evidence was somewhat undermined.

I am also satisfied that Ms. Sproat was less than forthright with the police during questioning. It is clear that when questioned on the night of her arrest, she essentially denied knowing any of her neighbours. She did so in response to questioning by police as to why neighbours would be accusing her of abusing L. Of course, the evidence makes clear that she knew Ms. Currie well enough to exchange gossipy texts with her about some of the other neighbours on their floor. For their relationship to reach that level, they were clearly friendly. Ms.

Sproat’s statement to the police about not knowing her neighbours was simply not true. It was, in my view, little more than a misguided effort to cast doubt on the allegation that led to her arrest, by suggesting that no neighbour could have accused her of such a thing as her neighbours did not know who she was, and vice versa. This was not true. Ms. Sproat’s effort during cross- examination to explain away this inconsistency was less than convincing. Beyond the various infirmities in Ms. Sproat’s evidence that I just outlined, what is, in my view, most damaging to Ms.

Sproat’s credibility is the video surveillance evidence from the staircase. That evidence, and Ms. Sproat’s somewhat tortured efforts to explain it away, is simply fatal to her credibility with respect to her testimony before this court. A video recording that captures the events that are relevant to the determination of a criminal case can often provide compelling evidence that will prove invaluable in the proper determination of a criminal prosecution. If the recording is of good quality, it serves as a constant, unflinching, unbiased and accurate witness. It often provides the best evidence.

The video recording from inside the stairwell, which is contained on the disk that became Exhibit 10A, and is labeled with the file name “ch12(WEST_DRI)” is of critical importance. This recording was played on several occasions in court, including while Ms. Sproat testified. I have also watched this recording a number of times outside of court. The recording from the stairwell, at 11:06:35, shows Ms. Sproat and the children approaching the exterior door to the building. This would seem to be when they are returning from the park.

The exterior door is glass, and the three of them are therefore visible even though they are still outside. A man approaches the door from inside, apparently to exit. As Ms. Sproat opens the door, L. appears to try to rush in. Ms. Sproat pulls her back somewhat forcefully, in an apparent effort to allow the man to exit before they enter. The man, however, lets Ms. Sproat and the children enter before he exits. As they enter, Ms. Sproat leans back with one arm holding the door open, to allow the man to exit. This allows both children to move inside and towards the stairwell and puts Ms.

Sproat in a position of following behind them. Both toddlers begin climbing the stairs. L. is progressing up the stairs like any toddler would, without any unusual difficulty. Ms. Sproat rushes up from behind her, intercepting her as she is about half-way up the stairs. Ms. Sproat can be seen leaning over L., she grabs her by the torso. Ms. Sproat pulls her up, then seems to push her down, as she does so Ms. Sproat leans in close to L., bringing her face near to L.’s ear. It is possible that she is speaking to L. at this point. Ms.

Sproat is then observed taking L.’s left hand with her right hand, as L. continues up the stairs. Just as L. is reaching the final step before the landing, the other toddler is just arriving at the edge of the landing at the top of the stairs. It is noteworthy that throughout, Ms. Sproat is looking down at L. She never appears to look up at the other toddler or take stock of his location. Her focus is clearly on L. Then, for no apparent reason, as L. is positioned on the final stair before the landing, Ms.

Sproat lifts L. forcefully by her left arm and pulls her up onto the landing, yanking the child’s arm hard and lifting L. into the air. When L. comes down to the ground, her body language suggests she is in pain. It is noteworthy that to this point in the recording, Ms. Sproat has still not looked up towards the position of the other toddler or made any effort to reach out to him. Instead, on the recording, at precisely 11:07:13, while still focused exclusively on L., Ms. Sproat can be seen striking L. with her open left hand, hitting L. on the bottom part of her face. In other words, Ms. Sproat slaps L.

After doing so, Ms. Sproat finally turns her attention towards the door at the top of the landing and she and the two children enter through the swinging metal door.

Ms. Sproat’s testimony simply cannot be reconciled with the recording from the stairwell. That recording betrays that her actions were not motivated by any concern for the other toddler, as she claimed in her evidence. Rather, in that stairwell, Ms. Sproat appears to be acting entirely out of frustration and anger. That hostility appears to begin with L.’s effort to rush into the building when Ms. Sproat first opens the door. It culminates in the yanking of L.’s arm and the quick but deliberate slap to the toddler’s face. Given the irreconcilable conflict between Ms.

Sproat’s evidence about the events in the stairwell and the truth of those events as revealed by a careful review of the video recording, it is apparent Ms. Sproat has been less than forthright in her evidence. For all of these reasons, I entirely reject Ms. Sproat’s evidence. Nor does her evidence serve to leave me in a reasonable doubt. Of course, this does not end my analysis. Based on the remaining evidence, the critical question still to be determined is whether or not I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of Ms. Sproat’s guilt with respect to the two charges.

Based on the video recording from the stairwell, I am satisfied that the Crown has indeed proven the charge of assault in count one. The recording provides incontrovertible evidence that Ms. Sproat assaulted L. in the stairwell by intentionally yanking L. by her arm and then slapping her in the face. There is simply no basis apparent on the video recording from which to conclude, or to have any reasonable doubt, that Ms. Sproat’s actions were justified in that regard. Ms. Sproat was not acting to either protect L. or the other toddler. Her apparent motivation is clear.

These were assaults committed in apparent frustration and in anger. Ms. Sproat is guilty of count one. I will turn now to the charge of assault cause bodily harm, in relation to the events from the hallway on the 11 th floor later that same day. As noted, the video recording from the hallway is of limited probative value in relation to that charge. It will be remembered that Ms. Sproat testified in relation to the events in the hallway and provided an innocent explanation of L. tripping twice and hitting her face. However, I have entirely rejected her evidence.

And, to be clear, my comments in that regard are directed at her evidence in its entirety. For the reasons already detailed, I do not believe her, nor does her evidence raise a reasonable doubt, in relation to either of the charges. As already noted, unlike the events in the stairwell, the video recording from the hallway has limited probative value. Given the camera’s positioning, at the very opposite end of the hallway from where Ms. Sproat’s unit is located, the recording simply does not capture the relevant events. However, there were two eyewitnesses who testified, Ms. Currie and Mr. Sonne.

At the time, they lived together in the unit directly across the hall from Ms. Sproat’s apartment. Ms. Currie testified that on the afternoon of February 23, 2017 the noise that she heard in the hallway caused her to look through the peephole of her front door. She testified that while looking through the peephole, she saw Ms. Currie and the two toddlers she babysat. Ms. Currie testified that she saw Ms. Sproat pick up L., and then drop her to the ground. Initially she thought that L. had wriggled free and that what she observed was simply an accident. She did not notice how the child landed.

Following the first drop she observed, Ms. Currie testified that she saw Ms. Sproat pick L. up again, and deliberately drop her to the floor. This time she noticed that L. landed with her feet out front, on her bum, and that the toddler’s head came forward and struck the ground.

According to Ms. Currie, Ms. Sproat then proceeded to pick L. up yet again, and drop her once more. This time, although the toddler landed on her bum, she fell back and hit the back of her head on the floor. On each occasion, Ms. Currie testified that Ms. Sproat picked L. up by holding her underneath her armpits and lifting her up. L.’s feet were dangling beneath her before Ms. Sproat dropped her. The distance between L.’s feet and the floor was between 12 and 18 inches. Ms. Currie testified that while this was happening she believed Ms. Sproat was saying something like “use your legs”. Throughout, Ms.

Currie testified that L. did not yell, or scream, or cry out. Each time that L. hit the ground, Ms. Currie said she heard a “thump” noise. Ms. Currie testified that she was shocked by what she saw. She called her partner, Mr. Sonne, to also look through the peephole, which he then did. As he looked through the peephole, Ms. Currie testified that she continued to hear the same thumping sound from the hall, like the noise she had heard when she witnessed Ms. Sproat dropping L. Mr. Sonne testified that when he looked through the peephole, he too saw Ms. Sproat pick up L. and drop her to the ground.

He saw her do this about three times. On each occasion, Ms. Sproat lifted L. from underneath her armpits, and around her chest. Before being dropped, L.’s feet were dangling beneath her. On each occasion, L. landed on her bottom, with her head falling forward and striking the ground. According to Mr. Sonne, L. fell the same way each time. Although Mr. Sonne testified that Ms. Sproat was saying something as she did this, he could not remember her exact words. It seemed to him, however, as though Ms. Sproat was trying to teach L. something by doing this.

He testified that L. was not crying as this was happening, although he believed she may have been whimpering. Based on what he saw, Mr. Sonne testified that he decided to get dressed and call police. He exited the apartment, he maintained, to go to the superintendent’s office to tell them that the police would be attending and that they may ask for the surveillance footage. Mr. Sonne testified that he believed there were surveillance cameras at both ends of the hallway and that what he observed would have been recorded. Mr. Sonne testified that he called police from the hallway.

Although the surveillance footage from the hallway reveals that Mr. Sonne exited his apartment and entered the elevator shortly before the police arrived, he was clearly not on the phone in the hallway. I note that Ms. Currie testified that after Mr. Sonne looked away from the peephole, he told Ms. Currie he was going to call police, a decision with which she agreed. According to Ms. Currie, Mr. Sonne called police in her presence, while they were both still inside their apartment. Both Ms. Currie and Mr.

Sonne testified that they had an unobstructed view of the hallway, including right down to the floor, through the peephole of their front door. This evidence was corroborated by Constable Ryan, who looked through the peephole of the front door of their apartment on February 24, 2017. The officer testified that while doing so, she was able to see down to the floor, across to the front door of Ms. Sproat’s apartment, and some distance to both the left and the right. Both Ms. Currie and Mr. Sonne expressed regret for not intervening to stop what they witnessed. Ms.

Currie explained that her failure to intervene was motivated by fear. Mr. Sonne, on the other hand, explained his failure to intervene as the result of shock. Defence counsel argues that I should not accept the evidence of Ms. Currie and Mr. Sonne. Mr. Saggi cites a number of reasons for rejecting their testimony. First, he contends that their description of Ms. Sproat lifting and dropping L. is simply not plausible. Given her small stature, Mr. Saggi contends that Ms. Sproat would be incapable of doing what these two witnesses describe, in terms of lifting L. and dropping her from such a height.

Second, Mr. Saggi identifies a number of inconsistencies, both within the testimony of each witness, and as between them, as further reason for rejecting their testimony. Third, Mr. Saggi contends that the witnesses may have been annoyed with the fact that Ms. Sproat was running a daycare from her apartment. Ms. Currie and Mr. Sonne both conceded that noise from children playing in the hallway was a source of annoyance for them. In a similar vein, Mr. Saggi argues that Ms.

Currie was a busy-body who was compiling a list of grievances about other neighbours, and that it is rather possible that her “list” had come to include Ms. Sproat’s childcare business. Finally, Mr. Saggi submits that both Ms. Currie and Mr. Sonne were less than forthright about their relationship with Janine Randall, who apparently has some loose familial connection to Ms. Currie. Since Ms. Sproat was charged, Ms. Randall has apparently posted negative commentary about her on Facebook. That commentary includes reference to the charges that Ms. Sproat is facing and accuses her of being a child abuser.

In the end, given all of these considerations, Mr. Saggi submits that I should be reluctant to act on the evidence of Ms. Currie and Mr. Sonne. In short, he argues that there are simply too many potential problems with their testimony that, when considered together, should give me sufficient reason for pause and therefore result in reasonable doubt. I have carefully considered each of the potential concerns raised by Mr. Saggi. In the end, I accept the evidence of both Ms. Currie and Mr. Sonne. First, I do not believe that what either Ms. Currie or Mr.

Sonne described, in terms of the assaults they claimed to have witnessed, is a physical impossibility. Although Ms. Sproat is of small stature, at just 4’11”, L. was a 20 month old toddler who weighed just 11.2 kilograms, that is slightly less than 25 pounds. Common sense supports a conclusion that someone of Ms. Sproat’s size, could lift and drop L. in the manner described by the two witnesses. The evidence from the stairwell video, when Ms. Sproat is seen forcefully lifting L. up into the air by one arm, clearly betrays that Ms. Sproat is not lacking in strength.

Second, with respect to the inconsistencies described by Mr. Saggi, it is indeed clear that there are both some internal and external inconsistencies concerning the evidence of each of these witnesses. For example, Ms. Currie’s testimony about the sequencing in terms of how L. fell each time at points was confused, and Mr. Sonne’s was clearly mistaken regarding when he called the police. In my view, to the extent that there were some inconsistencies they were all relatively minor.

In short, they are the very sort of inconsistencies one might expect from any honest witness recounting an event that transpired over a year in the past. Third, I reject the suggestion that either Ms. Currie or Mr. Sonne had any motive to fabricate these allegations to be rid of Ms. Sproat and her childcare business. There was no apparent animus between them prior to February 23, 2017. There is no evidence that they had ever filed a complaint about Ms. Sproat and her childcare business with the building management or the municipal authorities. More significantly, the text exchanges between Ms. Currie and Ms.

Sproat in the period preceding these events, which were elicited by the defence during the cross-examination of Ms. Currie, reveal that, if anything, Ms. Currie and Ms. Sproat had a friendly relationship before the date in question. Finally, each of the witnesses did acknowledge knowing Ms. Randall. Each also acknowledged that she might have obtained information about Ms. Sproat being charged from them. In the end, however, I fail to see how this in any way serves to impact on either witness’ credibility. The fact that the witnesses told people what they had seen and that Ms.

Sproat had been arrested and charged, or struggled to remember who they might have told and when, is really of no moment. Ultimately, either taken individually, or collectively, I am not of the view that any of these alleged infirmities impacts adversely on the credibility or reliability of either Ms. Currie or Mr. Sonne.

Finally, I note a couple items of evidence that, in my view, serves to corroborate the evidence of both Ms. Currie and Mr. Sonne, and therefore bolsters their credibility. First, the injuries ultimately suffered by L. are entirely consistent with what they both describe witnessing. The idea that these witnesses somehow became aware of the fact that L. tripped in the hallway and struck her face, as Ms. Sproat claimed, and then decided to make up the assaults that they alleged, seems far-fetched in the extreme.

Importantly, L. had markings on her buttocks that are entirely consistent with her being dropped on her bum, just as each witness described. Second, it is clear that both Ms. Currie and Mr. Sonne believed that there were cameras in the hallway that would capture the assaults that they described. Both testified that Mr. Sonne left the apartment to go tell the superintendent that the police would be attending and might want to see the surveillance footage from the eleventh floor.

Of course, unbeknownst to either of them, there was only a single surveillance camera at the opposite end of the hallway that captured part of the events that afternoon in that hallway. It was incapable of capturing what the witnesses describe seeing out front of their apartment. Nevertheless, common sense suggests that if you were going to make up a false allegation against your neighbour about them assaulting a child the last place that you would allege seeing such an assault is in a location that was subject to video surveillance.

If they were lying, they would have every reason to believe that any video recording would serve to betray their lie, and that consequently the only person who might end up being arrested is them. Ultimately, after carefully considering the evidence of both Ms. Currie and Mr. Sonne, I accept the substance of their testimony without hesitation. That is, that they both witnessed Ms. Sproat repeatedly pick up and drop L. onto the floor from a height of between 12 and 18 inches.

In my view, although this might have been part of a misguided effort to teach L. some sort of lesson, there was no legal justification for Ms. Sproat to apply direct or indirect force to L. in this manner at that time. Ms. Sproat’s actions were intentional. And, as already noted, this assaultive behaviour occasioned injuries to L. that clearly qualify as “bodily harm.” In the end, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Sproat assaulted L. in the hallway that afternoon, and thereby caused her bodily harm. As a result, Ms. Sproat is also found guilty of count 2.

Those are my reasons for judgment. **********