Courthouse: Ontario Court of Justice, Hamilton
Counsel: Nicole Arski
Date of Judgment: January 28, 2026
Charges
- Assault involving choking x1
- Forcible confinement x1
Background
Mr. Q was charged with three counts of assault, two counts of assault involving choking, and one count of forcible confinement. The charges arose from three separate incidents involving Mr. Q’s girlfriend and his girlfriend’s father.
In regards to the first incident, it was alleged that Mr. Q and his girlfriend had engaged in a verbal altercation at home and that she had gone upstairs to separate herself from Mr. Q to calm down. At this time, Mr. Q allegedly pulled her leg, causing her to fall and strike her face on a step, resulting in facial bruising.
It was further alleged that on a subsequent date, Mr. Q’s girlfriend had confronted Mr. Q about possible infidelity, and that Mr. Q had gotten angry and climbed on top of her while in bed, choked her to the point of almost losing consciousness.
It is lastly alleged that there was a physical confrontation between Mr. Q and his girlfriend and girlfriend’s father on Mr. Q’s property. Mr. Q had allegedly wrapped an arm around his girlfriend’s neck, preventing her from speaking. When his girlfriend broke free from his grip and ran outside of the house, Mr. Q allegedly followed her and dragged her back inside the house, pushing his girlfriend’s father in the process. Mr. Q then allegedly prevented his girlfriend from leaving, against her wishes.
The Issue
The Crown’s case rested on the credibility and reliability of the two complainants (Mr. Q’s girlfriend and girlfriend’s father) as well as photos taken by Mr. Q’s girlfriend, allegedly showing the injuries she sustained as a result of these incidents. The Crown also called a police officer to testify to injuries she viewed on the complainant after 911 was called.
The Strategy
Mr. Q was represented by counsel Nicole Arski. Counsel conducted a rigorous cross-examination of Mr. Q’s girlfriend, revealing significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s first statement to police and her testimony at trial. The complainant was forced to admit that her memory of the events was changing, that she had failed to disclose important details to police, and that the injury photographs that she had submitted to officers did not match her descriptions of the assaults.
Counsel then questioned the complainant’s father, revealing significant inconsistencies between the accounts of the father and the complainant in describing the event. The complainant’s father was forced to acknowledge that certain parts of his statement to police were exaggerated, highlighting issues with his reliability as a witness.
Counsel then cross-examined the police officer who was called to the scene and had made notes of observing “redness” on the complainant’s neck. Counsel confronted the officer with video footage from the scene, in which no injuries were visible on the complainant’s neck.
Result
Following cross-examination, the Crown asked the Court to dismiss one count of assault against the complainant’s father. The trial then proceeded on the remaining two counts of assault, two counts of choking, and one count of forcible confinement.
The Court found Mr. Q not guilty of all charges. The judge acknowledged that there were many inconsistences within the complainant’s testimony that could not be reconciled, including major inconsistencies as to how the choking occurred, whether the complainant was dragged or carried into the house, and whether Mr. Q had assaulted her father. The judge also found further significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s testimony and her father’s testimony.
The Court accepted that the relationship appeared to be volatile and that at some point in time, the complainant had suffered bruises as captured in the photographs. However, based on the significant inconsistencies in the witness’ testimonies, the judge could not find that the events as described by the witnesses had occurred, or that the photographed injuries were a result of Mr. Q’s conduct. As a result, Mr. Q was found not guilty of all charges.