Greg's Case — Assault & Mischief — Dismissed

Between
Her Majesty the Queen, and
Greg L.

[2000] O.J. No. 5811

Ontario Court of Justice
Oshawa, Ontario
Judge Regis

Dismissed:  16 November 2000
(10 paras.)

¶ 1     REGIS J. (orally):  In this matter, Mr. Greg L. was charged with assault. He's charged with assaulting Sigmund C. on the 18th of October, 1999, in the City of Oshawa. The Crown's case consisted of the evidence of Mr. Sigmund C. As well during the cross-examination of Mr. Sigmund C., Exhibit Number One was filed, and Exhibit Number One is an agreement involving the City of Oshawa with respect to the business which was about to be established, a bed and breakfast business, which was about to be established at that location.

¶ 2     The evidence essentially is that Mr. Greg L. and Mr. Sigmund C. — Mr. C. testified in-chief that the two gentlemen had a relationship which lasted about 11 years, and that in the course of that relationship, they had an understanding to establish a bed and breakfast business, that a property was purchased. It was purchased in the name of Mr. C's parents. Neither Mr. C's, nor Mr. Greg L's name appear on title. He indicated that it was approximately one year before this incident that Mr. Greg L. had left. He only had brief contact with him in Christmas of '98. There was no discussion of the business, or the property.

¶ 3     He says that on about mid-morning on October 18th while he and his new partner, Mr. Dave S., were in the process of seeing some clients leave the business, that Mr. Greg L. appeared in the front hall and started waving some papers, stating that he's coming back, he's moving back in because he had ownership, and a series of events proceeded from there.

¶ 4     This case turns on the credibility of Mr. Sigmund C. and the evidence that he provided. In my view, I do not have to address the issue of property rights here, because on the facts of this case, I do not think it is necessary to do so. As I examined Mr. Sigmund C's evidence, Mr. Sigmund C's evidence, in my view, at the end of cross-examination was essentially in shambles. I am not able to determine, in fact, whether Mr. Sigmund C. was assaulted in the manner that he said.

¶ 5     In his examination in-chief, he described the situation where he was grabbed by the shoulder and thrown back up the stairs. In his examination in-chief, he believed that took place after Mr. Greg L. had gone in and out of the house a third time. He said he ended up on the top stairs' landing, no injuries, he was just sore, but in cross-examination, he seemed to have waffled and went back and forth about that in cross-examination. He thought that it might have been after the second time, and then later on, he went back to the third time, and he described that Mr. Greg L. had thrown the — had broken the door on the fourth time, and then went back and forth like that.

¶ 6      He was unsure whether Mr. Greg L. had any items in his hand at the time it happened. He said that he was watching him move things in and out of the car, but at one point, he couldn't tell if, in fact, there were items that had been placed on that landing before, or some time later on. He didn't know whether he had luggage in both hands, or in one hand. He kept using language, "I believe, I don't remember," and so on.

¶ 7     I noted during the cross-examination at some point, that Mr. Sigmund C. could not be telling the Court the truth. When he was asked if he was grabbed, if Mr. Greg L. grabbed him while he was facing him, or from the back, he couldn't remember that. It seems to me that that doesn't make sense. You would know something like that. You would remember that. At one point, when he was cross-examined about the part about when he was at the top of the stairs, why didn't he stay up there because it might have been a safer thing to do, and it was suggested that what he said didn't happen, his answer was, "I'm sorry, I don't understand the question." That made no sense. The question was very simple. It seems to me that he ought to have understood it.

¶ 8     I found him to be very evasive at times. At one point in cross-examination, he said that "when we had passed each other going up and down the stairs", we never heard that in-chief, and so on. As I've already indicated, in cross-examination he said that he believed that the planter was thrown the fourth time. I note that this was only said in cross-examination. He couldn't remember if Mr. Greg L. said anything before he grabbed him, and so on. It seems to me that these are things that Mr. Sigmund C. should have remembered.

¶ 9     With respect to the statement that he gave to the police, it was pointed out that he didn't say that he was thrown on the landing. His answer was, "It's funny, everything is a blank," and he went on to explain that in his state of excitement and shock, that he didn't fully understand how to write the statement. I do not accept that. It seems to me that if you're asked to recount what happened, and a man of Mr. Sigmund C's intelligence ... I didn't get any information about his background, but he presented himself as an intelligent person who was articulate ... and it seems to me that at times when it was convenient to him, he chose not to understand some simple questions. It seems to me that if events had taken place the way he said, he would have included that in his statement to the police, as well.

¶ 10     In my view, Mr. Sigmund C's evidence is not credible. I'm sure something happened. As suggested by the tone of the cross-examination, there may have been contact, as well, but I do not believe it's a contact that Mr. C. said existed. In my view, the Crown has not proved its case. I do not accept Mr. Sigmund C's evidence, and Mr. Greg L. is found not guilty.

BACK TO GREG'S CASE