R. v. Ryan, 2014 ONCJ 732

COURT FILE No.: Brampton13-4013 DATE: April 9, 2014 Citation: R. v. Ryan , 2014 ONCJ 732 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE Central West Region BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — todd ryan Before Justice Richard H.K. Schwarzl Heard on March 24 and 25, 2014 Reasons released on April 9, 2014 Ms. C. Sibian............................................................................................................ for the Crown Ms. S. Pemberton................................................................................................... for the Accused SCHWARZL, J.: 1.0: INTRODUCTION [ 1 .] The Accused, Mr.

Todd Ryan, stands charged that he assaulted his girlfriend, Ms. Rachel Young, by striking her in the face while the two were walking together in Mississauga during the early morning hours of April 1, 2013. A trial was held during which the main issue was the credibility of the principal witnesses being the Accused and the complainant. 2.0: THE EVIDENCE 2.1: Rachel Young [ 2 .] In April 2013 Rachel Young was a 15 year old high school student. As of April 1 (which was Easter Monday) she had been dating the 18 year old Accused for about seven months. Ms.

Young’s parents were aware she was in a dating relationship but did not her boyfriend’s name or age. Ms. Young was concerned about her parents’ reaction if they knew about the Accused. Ms. Young said that her parents are strict Christians and disciplinarians who she believed would not approve of the Accused. [ 3 .] Around 1 a.m. of April 1, Ms. Young snuck out of her house to meet another boy, Arsalan Amin, who drove her to a fast food restaurant. A short time later their car was pulled over by the police who learned that Mr. Amin was only 15 and unlicensed. Ms.

Young was traumatized by the encounter with the police. She was worried about what her friends and family might think if they learned she had been stopped by the police. The police allowed Ms. Young to leave provided she was with someone to care for her. [ 4 .] Ms. Young texted the Accused and asked that he escort her home. Despite the hour, the Accused rode his bicycle to the scene and walked part way home. Ms. Young was crying and upset about her experience. The Accused comforted her in her distress by hugging and kissing her but according to Ms.

Young the Accused was also withdrawn and obviously angry that she had gone out with another boy. She said that they the Accused asked her if she thought they should break up for a while. She became upset at the suggestion and begged him not to leave her. He then changed his mind and suggested that their relationship continue. As they walked Ms. Young told the Accused that she was not going directly home but was going to meet her girlfriends, Kyra and Rafia, whom she had called prior to being picked up by the Accused.

[ 5 .] Ms. Young testified that as she and the Accused walked together, the Accused threw down his bicycle and became very angry with her. She said the Accused told her that she shouldn’t have gone with Arslan and demanded to know what she did with him. Ms. Young testified that the Accused repeatedly called Arslan a “fucking dumb-ass.” She also said that being pulled over wasn’t her fault; it was Arslan’s. She said that the Accused was jealous because she had told him earlier in the night that she couldn’t go out, but did anyway and with another boy.

She agreed that in the past she had been jealous of the Accused when he spent time with her friends. [ 6 .] Ms. Young then said that the Accused approached her. She thought he was going to hug her but instead he struck her in the face with either his elbow or his forearm. The blow knocked her to the ground, caused her to lose her breath, and caused obvious injuries around her right eyebrow and bruising around and under her right eye. Ms. Young said that she has played a lot of rough sports but has never been hit like that before. She said that the Accused picked up his bicycle and left her there. [ 7 .] Ms.

Young testified that after she stood up, she met her friend Kyra a few minutes later who cried when she saw Ms. Young’s face. Ms. Young asked Kyra to help her cover for the Accused because she did not want the Accused to get into trouble. She and Kyra planned to explain that the injuries were the result of a soccer accident having occurred when the two girls were playing together. Ms. Young then went home after deciding to do her best to conceal the fresh injuries to her face. [ 8 .] Ms. Young testified that the Accused texted her and apologized for his actions.

He also passed along a message from another friend asking if Ms. Young had been arrested. [ 9 .] The next day, April 2, Ms. Young put on lots of concealing makeup and wore sunglasses to school. Ms. Young did not tell either of her parents what had happened. Ms. Young is a member of the school soccer team. When she went to soccer practice her couch and guidance counsellor, Ms. Klassen, noticed the marks and took Ms. Young to a private place where they talked. Ms. Young told Ms. Klassen what the Accused had done to her. Ms. Klassen called the authorities, which upset Ms. Young greatly because Ms.

Young did not want to get the Accused into trouble and felt that she could deal with it herself. [ 10 .] After telling Ms. Klassen and upon learning that the teacher would call the authorities, Ms. Young warned the Accused that it was likely the police were going to be involved. She said that she and the Accused contrived it together and that she then asked her friend Kyra to go along with the story and that it was the Accused’s idea to delete his text messages. She disagreed that she made up the story and told the Accused to delete his texts. [ 11 .] After school on April 2, the police came to Ms.

Young’s house as a result of what Ms. Klassen had reported. Ms. Young told an officer that the injury was caused by a sporting accident with her friend Kyra. The officer arranged for Ms. Young to attend the police station to give a video recorded statement. As a result of the police attendance, Ms. Young’s parents found about the Accused. [ 12 .] On April 3, Ms. Young was interviewed by P.C. Zuk at the police station. The interview was almost three hours long. Pursuant to

section 715.1 of the Criminal Code , the video and its 75-page transcript were made trial exhibits. For most of the interview Ms. Young stated that her injuries were sports-related caused by colliding with another player, which the officer clearly did not believe and he was determined to get what he considered the truth. Near the end of the interview Ms. Young told P.C. Zuk about being struck in the face by the Accused. As the interview developed to the point where she described the alleged assault Ms.

Young said a number of relevant things including: • “I told my guidance counsellor I’m scared of him” • “I’m not scared. This is just a big situation for nothing” • “I can deal with this myself” • “I’m going to stay with him” • “Our relationship is no one else’s business” • “What does Todd get if he tells the truth?” • “He picked me up, dropped me off, and I went home and he went home” • “I am telling the truth. He didn’t hit me. I’m not going to make a statement”

• “I'm not going to say anything” • “He and I talked earlier today and I'm going to stick with that” • “I told Ms. Klassen the truth” • “I just don’t want to think about it” • “I don’t want him to know that I spoke to the police about this” • “If I tell the truth he will be angry” • “Todd told me we would be interviewed separately” • “You're trying to get me to tell you the truth” • “He cares for me” • “I can't do the right thing” • “I got into the car and I understand why Todd was angry” • “The other player came in for a goal.

I went to save the ball and I hit my face on the ground” • “He deleted texts” • “She [Kyra] told me if she had to tell the cops she wasn’t going to stick with the soccer story anymore and she’s going to tell the truth. I told her “You can't say anything” She’s my best friend” • “She knows what really happened. She can't hurt me like he could” • “I am scared of him that he’s going to find out what I told you” • “I am afraid he will make me unable to say anything again” • “What if he knows I said something? Just physically, socially he – I don’t know – I'm just scared” • “What if he hurts himself?

He says that he needs me” • “I think my friend will tell the truth” [ 13 .] After describing the assault and her injuries to P.C. Zuk, Ms. Young said other relevant things including: • “He told me to tell you the sports story. He wanted me to say that I am not going to say anything without him here” • “He’s a lot stronger than he knows he is” • “If he finds out that I said anything…” • “He doesn’t like me having guy friends” [ 14 .] Ms. Young said that she found the interview intimidating but that she never felt bullied. [ 15 .] Although Ms. Young agreed that she had misled P.C. Ord and P.C.

Zuk, concealed her relationship from her parents, and that she had convinced her friend Kyra to lie for her and the Accused, she maintained that she was telling the truth that the Accused had beaten her and caused the injuries. 2.2: Agreed Statement of Fact re Rafia Khan [ 16 .] The agreed statement of fact was made in relation to Rafia Khan, friend of the complainant : (

a) Ms. Khan observed two marks on Ms. Young’s face at around 2:30 a.m. on April 1, 2013. One mark was seen on Young’s forehead and the other under her right eye; (

b) Ms. Young’s right eye was red and looked like it had been bleeding recently; and (

c) The following day at school, Ms. Khan saw the complainant. The complainant was wearing sunglasses and her lips were puffy. Ms. Khan observed that the marks she had seen on April 1 were covered with makeup.

2.3: Arsalan Amin [ 17 .] On April 1, 2013 Arsalan Amin was 15 years old. Around 1:00 a.m. he took his parents’ car and picked up Rachel Young, who had snuck out of her house. His driving brought him to the attention of the police who pulled the car over. Ms. Young became very upset and called the Accused to come and retrieve her. [ 18 .] Mr. Amin saw the Accused and Ms. Young leave the scene together. They appeared to be calm when they left. [ 19 .] Mr. Amin agreed that he told the police at the time that he saw a slight mark on Ms. Young’s face while they were driving, but didn’t recall any details. 2.4: P.C.

Dyanna Ord [ 20 .] On April 2, 2013 P.C. Dyanna Ord learned from a school official that Rachel Young may have been assaulted. Consequently, P.C. Ord met the complainant at her house after school that day. Ms. Young’s father seemed surprised by the police presence and appeared to have been uninformed by the complainant. [ 21 .] P.C. Ord observed light bruising between Ms. Young’s eyes and under her right eye. Ms. Young wore lots of make up over the injuries causing them to appear faded. [ 22 .] The complainant told P.C.

Ord that she sustained the injuries from a soccer mishap. 2.5: Todd Ryan [ 23 .] The Accused, Todd Ryan, was 18 years old when he dated the complainant for about seven months. The relationship ended when he was arrested for this charge. The complainant never introduced him to her parents and it was clear to him that she did not wish them to know about their relationship. Prior to the charge being laid Mr. Ryan described his relationship with the complainant as a good and loving one. [ 24 .] Around 2:00 a.m. on April 1, 2013 the Accused was sleeping at home when the complainant called and woke him up.

She was asking for help because her friend Arsalan had been stopped by the police for driving without a licence. He agreed to escort her home and rode his bicycle to her. When he arrived, the complainant was upset about the situation. The Accused comforted her by hugging her and walking her. [ 25 .] The Accused said he was not upset or angry with the complainant even though she was out late with another boy. Nor was he upset that the complainant had communicated with him earlier that she couldn’t see him that night. He testified that he didn’t have a problem with Ms. Young being out with Mr.

Amin. [ 26 .] While they were walking together, the Accused said he soothed his girlfriend by telling her that it wasn’t her fault that Arsalan got pulled over. His words appeared to relieve the complainant for a short time, but she then started crying again and did not seem to be acting like her normal self. [ 27 .] The Accused said that as they walked together he asked the complainant if she wanted to take a break from their relationship. She became hysterical and loudly begged him several times not to leave her. He then hugged and kissed her, telling her that they would talk about their relationship later.

When asked in court why he would raise the idea of a break if the relationship was going well, the Accused testified that it seemed like a good idea since she had not seemed herself lately.

[ 28 .] Ms. Young told the Accused that she did not need him to escort her all the way home as she had arranged to meet her friends Rafia and Kyra at an approaching bridge. He offered to walk with her to the meeting place but she said no. He said that was fine. At that point he said they hugged, kissed, said good-night and went their separate ways. [ 29 .] The Accused said that Ms. Young was uninjured when he picked her up and was uninjured when they parted. The Accused said he did not strike or harm the complainant in any way. He did not see any blood on her face.

Although they brought their faces close together it was dark on their walk. [ 30 .] The next morning the Accused texted the complainant to see if she was alright. Her sole reply was that everything was hard at the moment. A short time later, a mutual friend texted the Accused about the events with Arsalan the night before. The Accused texted the complainant about what he had just been asked. The Accused denied sending any apologies to the complainant as he had nothing to apologize for. [ 31 .] At school on April 2, 2013 the Accused said that he did not see the complainant until the end of the day.

She said nothing about any injuries at that time. He had no other contact with her that day. [ 32 .] On April 3, 2013 the Accused said the complainant called him before school started and asked to meet him in a private area of the school. He agreed and when they met the complainant told him that a teacher, Ms. Klassen, was making allegations that the Accused was violent and that the police had come to her house the previous evening to ask her about it. While they were talking the Accused noticed a buildup of makeup under her right eye.

When he asked her why her eye looked like that she told him that she took a ball to the face. He testified he found it odd that a ball could have caused such an injury. [ 33 .] The Accused denied inventing the story about the soccer injury and denied collaborating with Ms. Young in fabricating it. He said she did it on her own. He also said she asked him to delete all his messages. He said he didn’t know why she wanted him to but he did it anyway because she appeared riled up over something. The Accused said that Ms.Young pleaded with him to avoid speaking with Ms.

Klassen as the complainant wish to create any drama. [ 34 .] The Accused denied being jealous of Ms. Young, but did say that she was jealous of him and cited a couple of examples. 3.0: POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 3.1: The Defence [ 35 .] The defence submits that there ought to be a reasonable doubt that the Accused caused the injuries to the complainant. The defence submits that the complainant prepared to deceive and lie both by material omissions and by acts of commission. They submit that the complainant simply cannot be trusted.

She lied to at least two police officers, she deceived her parents, and she enlisted her friends to lie for her. The defence submits that the story told to the police on video about the Accused assaulting her was the product of intimidation by the police who, they submit, would not let the complainant go until she told them what they wanted to hear. The defence submits that the Accused was a credible witness who evidence ought to be believed, or at least ought to raise a reasonable doubt.

They argue that the evidence of Arsalan Amin that he saw a mark on the complainant’s face prior to being picked up by the Accused tends to confirm the evidence of the Accused, or at least ought to raise a reasonable doubt. 3.2: The Prosecution [ 36 .] The Crown submits that while the complainant lied, her lie was confined to blaming her injuries on a sports accident. The Crown submits Ms. Young motivated to lie because she loved the Accused and did not want him to get into trouble for assaulting her. They submit the police interview was persistent and determined, but not overbearing.

The Crown submits that the evidence of the complainant is confirmed by the undisputed observations of Rafia Khan. [ 37 .] The Crown submits that the Accused was an unreliable and incredible witness, whose testimony was riddled with internal and external inconsistencies. The Crown submits that the evidence Arsalan Amin regarding a mark on the complainant’s face is so vague as to have little or no weight. 4.0: APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

[38.] The court may believe all, none or some of a witness' evidence: R. v. R.E.M. (2008), 2008 SCC 51 , 235 C.C.C. (3d)290 (S.C.C.) at ¶ 65; R. v. Hunter, [2000] O.J. No. 4089 (C.A.) at ¶ 5; R. v. Abdallah, (ON CA), [1997] O.J. No. 2055(C.A.) at ¶ 4 and 5. The trier of fact is entitled to accept parts of a witness's evidence and reject other parts. Similarly, the trier can accorddifferent weight to different parts of the evidence that it has accepted: R. v. J.H. (2005), (ON CA), 192 C.C.C. (3d) 480(Ont.

C.A.) at ¶ 44. [39.] The vast majority of assault prosecutions turn on the evidence of the two principals - the complainant and the accused: R. v.S.C.M., [1997] O.J. No. 1624 (C.A.) at ¶ 3. However, a verdict of guilty may, in appropriate cases, be safely founded on the evidence ofa single witness, regardless of the offence or offences charged: R. v. A.G. (2000), 2000 SCC 17 , 143 C.C.C. (3d) 46 (S.C.C.);Vetrovec v. The Queen (1982), (SCC), 67 C.C.C. (2d) 1 (S.C.C.). [40.] A determination of guilt or innocence must not, however, devolve into a mere credibility contest between two witnesses.

Suchan approach erodes the operation of the presumption of innocence and the assigned standard of persuasion of proof beyond a reasonabledoubt: W.(D.) v. The Queen (1991), (SCC), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397 (S.C.C.) at page 409. [41.] It must therefore be emphasized that mere disbelief of the accused's evidence does not satisfy the burden of persuasion uponthe Crown: see W.(D.) v. The Queen, supra at page 409. In other words, to use disbelief of the accused's evidence as positive proof ofguilt by moving directly from disbelief to a finding of guilt constitutes error: R. v. Dore, (2004), (ON CA), 189C.C.C. (3d) 526 (Ont.

C.A.) at page 527; R. v. S.H., [2001] O.J. No. 118 (C.A.) at ¶ 4-6. The court must not reach its verdict based onmerely choosing between the defence and prosecution evidence. Instead, it is whether on the basis of the evidence as a whole, the trierof fact is left with a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused: R. v. C.L.Y. (2008), 2008 SCC 2 , 227 C.C.C. (3d) 129(S.C.C.); R. v. Austin (2006), (ON CA), 214 C.C.C. (3d) 38 (Ont.

C.A.) at ¶ 19 - 24. [42.] The court must be satisfied on the totality of all the evidence that there is no reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt: R. v.Minuskin (2004), (ON CA), 181 C.C.C. (3d) 542 (Ont. C.A.) at page 550; R. v. Turmel (2004), 2004 BCCA 555, 197 C.C.C. (3d) 425 (B.C. C.A.) at ¶ 9-17; R. v. Dinardo (2008), 2008 SCC 24 , 231 C.C.C. (3d) 177 (S.C.C.) at ¶ 23;R. v. J.H.S. (2008), 2008 SCC 30 , 231 C.C.C. (3d) 302 (S.C.C.); R. v. R.E.M. (2008), 2008 SCC 51 , 235 C.C.C. (3d)290 (S.C.C.) at ¶ 67; and R. v. Wadforth (2009), 2009 ONCA 716 , 247 C.C.C. (3d) 466 (Ont.

C.A.). [43.] The court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on the issue of credibility where the case turns on the evidence of twoconflicting witnesses: R. v. Selles (1997), (ON CA), 116 C.C.C. (3d) 435 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Mina, [1994] O.J. No.1715 (C.A.) (affirmed (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 415). In approaching the issue of credibility, the trier of fact in not onlyentitled to compare the evidence of the accused to the complainant, but has a positive duty to assess the evidence of the accused in lightof the whole of the evidence, including the testimony of the complainant: R. v. Hull, (ON CA), [2006] O.J.

No. 3177(C.A.); R. v. Boffo, [1997] O.J. No. 5156 (C.A.) at ¶ 12. [44.] Resolution of credibility controversies is the daily fare of trial judges. Assessment of credibility is a difficult and delicatesubject, often defying precise and complete verbalization. At bottom, belief of one witness and disbelief of another, in general or on aspecific issue, is an alloy of factors, not a purely intellectual exercise.

The unique position of trial judges to see and hear witnesses, andthe inestimable advantage they enjoy in the result in assessing witnesses' credibility and the reliability of their evidence, cannot besquandered by unrealistic expectations of scientific precision in language used to describe the complex coalescence of impressions thateffuse after watching and listening to witnesses and attempting to reconcile their renditions of critical events: R. v.

Wadforth, supra at ¶66. [45.] An outright rejection of an accused's evidence based on a considered and reasoned acceptance beyond a reasonabledoubt of the truth of conflicting credible evidence is as much an explanation for the rejection of an accused's evidence as is a rejectionbased on a problem identified with the way the accused testified or the substance of the accused's evidence: R. v. J.J.R.D. (2006), (ON CA), 215 C.C.C. (3d) 252 (Ont. C.A.) at ¶ 53 (leave to appeal dismissed [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 69); R. v. R.E.M.,supra, at ¶ 66; R. v. C.F., 2010 ONCA 424 , [2010] O.J. No. 2499 (C.A.) at ¶ 9; R. v.

J.A., 2010 ONCA 491 , [2010]O.J. No. 2902 (C.A.) at ¶ 19 to 23; R. v. J.C., 2013 ONCA 495 at ¶ 7. The trier of fact may reject the evidence of an accused and convictsolely on the basis of accepting the evidence of the complainant, provided that the court also gives the evidence of the defendant a fairassessment and allows for the possibility of being left in reasonable doubt, notwithstanding acceptance of the complainant's evidence: R.v. Jaura, [2006] O.J. No. 4157 (O.C.J.); Law Society of Upper Canada v.

Neinstein (2010), 2010 ONCA 193 , 99 O.R. (3d) 1(C.A.) at ¶ 77. [46.] Where there are significant inconsistencies or contradictions within a complainant's testimony, or when considered againstconflicting evidence in the case, the court must carefully assess the evidence before concluding that guilt has been established: R. v.Stewart (1994), (ON CA), 90 C.C.C. (3d) 242 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Oziel, [1997] O.J. No. 1185 (C.A.) at ¶ 8 and 9; R. v.

Norman (1993), (ON CA), 87 C.C.C. (3d) 153 (Ont. C.A.) at pages 172-4. [47.] Demeanour evidence, while relevant, alone cannot suffice to found a finding of guilt: R. v. K.A. (1999), (ON CA), 137 C.C.C. (3d) 554 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. W.S. (1994), (ON CA), 90 C.C.C. (3d) 242 (Ont. C.A.); R. v.Gostick (1999), (ON CA), 137 C.C.C. (3d) 53 (Ont.

C.A.). [48.] To the extent that credibility assessment demands a search for confirmatory evidence for the testimony of a complainant, suchevidence need not directly implicate the accused or confirm the complainant's evidence in every respect - the evidence should, however,be capable of restoring the trier's faith in the complainant's account: Kehler v. The Queen (2004), 2004 SCC 11 , 181 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.) at pages 5 and 6; R. v. Betker (1997), (ON CA), 115 C.C.C. (3d) 421 (Ont. C.A.) at page 429 (leave toappeal refused [1998] 1 S.C.R. vi, [1997] S.C.C.A. No. 461); R. v.

Michaud (1996), (SCC), 107 C.C.C. (3d) 193(S.C.C.). [49.] The fact that a complainant pursues a complaint cannot be a piece of evidence bolstering his or her credibility, otherwise itcould have the effect of reversing the onus of proof: R. v. A.(G.R.) (1994), (ON CA), 35 C.R. (4th) 340 (Ont. C.A.) at¶ 3. [50.] The existence or absence of a motive by the complainant to fabricate is a relevant factor to be considered: The Queen v. K.G.B.(1993), (SCC), 79 C.C.C. (3d) 257 (S.C.C.) at page 300; R. v. Prasad, [2007] A.J. No. 139 (C.A.) at ¶ 2-8; R. v.M.W.M., [1998] O.J. No. 4847 (C.A.) at ¶ 3; R. v.

Jackson, [1995] O.J. No. 2471 (C.A.) at ¶ 4 and 5. The trier of fact must remainvigilant to the fact that the burden of production and persuasion is upon the prosecution and that an accused need not prove a motive tofabricate on the part of a principal Crown witness: R. v. Batte (2000), (ON CA), 49 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.). Evidence ofa witness' motive to lie is relevant as well to the accused as witness: R. v. Murray (1997), (ON CA), 115 C.C.C. (3d)225 (Ont. C.A.) at ¶ 11-14. 5.0: ANALYSIS [51.] Rafia Khan’s evidence was admitted.

She described two obvious marks on Rachel Young’s face – one on the forehead andanother under her right eye. Young’s right eye was red and appeared to have been bleeding recently. These observations were madeproximate in time and place to where the Accused had been walking alone with the complainant. [52.] The evidence of Arsalan Amin regarding the mark he saw on Ms. Young’s face was so vague as to be insignificant. He waswith Ms. Young for a considerable period of time. Had Ms. Young’s face borne the injuries seen by Ms. Khan, they would have beenequally obvious to Mr. Amin or to anyone else looking at her.

When Amin’s car was stopped by the police, officers dealt with Ms.Young long enough to allow her to arrange for an escort and she was with them until Mr. Ryan arrived. Given the obvious and glaringnature of the injuries, it is reasonable to further conclude that the police officers dealing with Ms. Young when they stopped the carwould have made the same observations that Ms. Khan did. I conclude that the injuries seen by Ms. Khan did not exist prior to Ms.Young being picked up by the Accused. [53.] The injuries witnessed by Ms. Khan would have been obvious to the Accused as well.

He was walking hand in hand with thecomplainant for some time and was hugging and kissing her too. It is inconceivable to me that he would fail to see what Ms. Khanobserved. I find that Ms. Young’s face was injured some time before she and the Accused parted company a short time later. [54.] I found that Mr. Ryan’s evidence was incredible. His evidence that he was not upset by his girlfriend being out late withanother boy is ludicrous. He had been told by his girlfriend earlier that she could not see him that night. She went out with another boywithout telling him.

Common sense dictates that such deceit would cause hurt feelings. Mr. Ryan’s claim he was not upset is alsobelied by his admission that he suggested they break up for a time. There would be no need to make such a suggestion if the relationshipwas a good as he proclaimed. His evidence that he raised the subject because Ms. Young had appeared out of sorts for some time makesno sense whatsoever. [55.] Mr. Ryan’s evidence that he blindly deleted all his emails simply because his girlfriend told him to without any reasonstretches my credulity to the breaking point. There would be no reason for Ms.

Young to tell him to do that unless, as she said, therewere one or more messages that would shed light on the true events that caused her injuries. [56.] I did not believe the Accused that he did not assault the complainant nor did his evidence raise a reasonable doubt when

considering the evidence as a whole. [ 57 .] Having rejected the Accused’s evidence, this does not end the matter. I can only find him guilty if I find that the remaining evidence proves the Accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I find that it does. In addition to fact that I have found that the injuries to Ms. Young’s face were caused while she was alone with the Accused, I accept the evidence of Ms. Young that they were caused when the Accused struck her with his arm because he was angry that she had been out with Arsalan Amin. [ 58 .] I find Ms.

Young lied to the police about the sports injury and convinced her friends to go along with the false story in order to protect the Accused. On the evidence led at this trial, there can be no other rationale explanation. It is obvious from all the evidence that at the time of this crime, Ms. Young was deeply infatuated with, and wholly devoted to, the Accused. She did not tell her parents about him because she was afraid they might prevent her from seeing the Accused.

She concocted the sports injury story together with the for two purposes, the first of which was to provide a defence for the Accused, and the other as an attempt to prevent the police or anybody else from interfering with their relationship. She was prepared to go to great lengths to protect the Accused and her relationship with him but she eventually told the truth. After carefully watching and listening to Ms. Young’s video statement to the police, it is apparent that the officer was dogged with her, but never overwhelming.

The officer carefully and persistently deconstructed and exposed the folly of her initial claim of a sports injury and ultimately allowed Ms. Young to finally reveal the truth of how she was injured. [ 59 .] Upon taking all of the credible evidence into account, I found Ms. Young’s evidence to be wholly reliable and credible and I believe her evidence that the Accused assaulted her.

I am well satisfied that the truth of this matter is that on April 1, 2013 Todd Ryan was upset with his girlfriend Rachel Young for going out late at night with another boy and that he acted upon his upset by striking her without any justification in the face with such force as to create glaring injuries. [ 60 .] For these reasons, I find Todd Ryan guilty of assault. Original signed by The Honourable Justice Richard H. K. Schwarzl _____________________________________ Richard H.K. Schwarzl, Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice