Courthouse: Ontario Court of Justice Hamilton
Counsel: Jordan Peach
Date of Judgment: August 10, 2026
Background
Our client, Mr. T, was charged with assault by choking and assault with a weapon against his former intimate partner, Ms. A. It was alleged that sometime in June or July of 2023, Mr. T became angry with Ms. A, pinned her down on a bed, and strangled her, squeezing her throat to the point of near unconsciousness before releasing her. It was further alleged that during the altercation, Mr. T took Ms. A’s cell phone and threw it, striking her in the chest.
The Issue
The Crown’s case rested almost entirely on the reliability and credibility of Ms. A’s evidence, as no one witnessed the alleged assault itself. The Crown called a second witness, Mr. C, a longtime friend of Ms. A’s, who testified about picking her up after she had left Mr. T’s apartment, but he had no direct knowledge of what had occurred inside. A careful review of the evidence revealed numerous internal inconsistencies in Ms. A’s account, including contradictory explanations for the timing of key events, how and when the relationship with Mr. T ended, and how her injuries were sustained. There were also significant external inconsistencies between Ms. A’s evidence and that of Mr. C on material points, including when and how she was picked up that evening. Additional concerns arose from a delay of several months before Ms. A reported the incident to police, and from her own evidence regarding significant alcohol consumption that night and its potential effect on her ability to accurately observe, recall, and recount the events in question.
The Strategy
Defence counsel Jordan Peach elected to call no evidence and rely instead on a rigorous cross-examination of the Crown’s witnesses to expose the inconsistencies underlying the allegations. Through cross-examination of both Ms. A and Mr. C, defence counsel systematically highlighted the discrepancies between their respective accounts, as well as the internal contradictions within Ms. A’s own testimony regarding the timeline, her injuries, and the circumstances surrounding the end of the relationship. This approach placed squarely before the court the question of whether Ms. A’s evidence, standing alone, could support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Result
The court accepted that portions of Ms. A’s evidence were credible and truthful, particularly regarding the core allegation of choking. However, given the volume of unresolved internal and external inconsistencies in her evidence, the court was left with a reasonable doubt as to Ms. A’s overall reliability. Applying the presumption of innocence and the requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the court held that the Crown had not met its burden. Mr. T was found not guilty, and the charges against him were dismissed.