Legal arguments wrap up in Stronach sex assault trial, possible verdict in June

< warm>WARNING: This story references sexual assault allegations and may impress those who feature experient​ ​​​sexual force or know someone affected by it.

Legal arguments in the sexual assault trial of Canadian businessman Frank Stronach wrapped up on Thursday, with a verdict possibly coming in mid-June.

"It's a very difficult decision to write," said Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy. "This is not simple stuff."

Molloy said that she would return to court June 19 with an update on where she's at with her decision, which could include a verdict, or verdict with reasons to follow.

When Stronach's judge-alone trial began in February, the 93-year-old founder of auto-parts giant Magna International faced 12 counts related to seven female complainants, whose allegations included sexual assault and the historical charges of rape and attempted rape.

But throughout the trial, the Crown withdrew a number of charges. Last week, during closing arguments, Molloy said she would not be able to convict Stronach on the charges related to one of the complainants in his sex assault trial. She said her evidence did not rise to the level of "being even remotely reliable."

This means Stronach now faces five counts related to three female complainants.

Stronach, who was in court every day but never took the witness box in his own defence, has denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Earlier Wednesday, Stronach's defence lawyer, Leora Shemesh, argued that poor and incomplete note-taking by police from pretrial meetings with complainants and Crown prosecutors were "unacceptably negligent" and amounted to lost evidence.

She also raised the issue of whether that amounted to an abuse of process and whether some complainants had been improperly coached.

"Valuable, critical pieces of disclosure are gone forever. Statements, discussions, pieces of evidence relevant to the trial are gone not because someone misplaced them or they got lost in a fire or destroyed. It's that the police deliberately chose not to capture what was said," Shemesh told a Toronto courtroom.

Shemesh said the meetings were not recorded using audio or video, that the manner in which there was an attempt to preserve them was "careless" and that police did not capture the entirety of the meetings in written form.

She said, instead, they were left with "small bread crumbs" of what might have been said.

"The notes are deficient, and to use the legal standard, unacceptably negligent," Shemesh said.

She argued that in these types of cases, words, phrases, utterances, newfound memories and information are all relevant to assess the overall credibility and reliability of the complainants.

She questioned whether the Crown pressed the complainants in those meetings and whether that led to new memories or details emerging. She said the deficient police notes made it impossible to know how that information surfaced.

Shemesh pointed to one complainant who said during a preparatory meeting that she should be considered a "witness," not a complainant. Shemesh questioned where the idea came from.

"What we are suggesting ... Is that all of these witnesses didn't come up with new memories all on their own," Shemesh said.

"What the defence was saying at the outset was they were guided. Whether that was done inadvertently, it was done."

Shemesh also argued that, without details of what was said during those meetings, her client was denied a proper cross-examination of the complainants, which she said was also a violation of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Molloy asked Shemesh if she was looking to implement a new standard on how preparatory meetings with witnesses before trial should be recorded in every criminal case.

Shemesh said these meetings don't all need to be recorded using audio or video but that, at least, detailed notes should be taken.

The Canadian billionaire sex assault trial, explained

But Crown prosecutor David Tice countered that the evidence — including testimony from police officers who took part in the preparatory meetings — showed none of the complainants had been probed during their interviews with the Crown.

What the Crown was doing, Tice said, was preparing the complainants for areas of cross-examination they should expect.

Shemesh had also raised the issue that some of the meetings lasted more than an hour, but police took very few notes during that time.

But Tice argued there was nothing nefarious about that, saying much of what was discussed was irrelevant to the case and that such meetings often last that long.

Tice argued there was no "lost evidence" and that the defence had all the information it needed to conduct a proper and thorough cross-examination of the complainants, including video statements containing new information that had emerged.

The allegations against Stronach date back almost 50 years, spanning the period between 1977 and 1990. Two of the initial 12 counts, rape and attempted rape, were considered historical charges, as they were abolished when the Criminal Code was amended in 1983 to create the offence of sexual assault.

All of the initial seven complainants testified in court, offering an emotional account of the sexual offences they say they experienced at the hands of Stronach.

Many of the women told similar stories — meeting Stronach at Rooney's, the Toronto restaurant he used to own, and then accepting an invitation back to his Harbourfront condo. It's there that they allege he sexually assaulted them.

Stronach is set to face another trial in Newmarket involving six complainants after the case was split into two proceedings. 

Senior Reporter

---

---