Our client was new to Ottawa. He met the complainant on a dating application. A few days later, they met for a first date at a nearby restaurant. They made plans to meet the next day for a second date. After they had to cancel the second date, the complainant invited our client up to her apartment shortly before midnight. According to our client, they had consensual sex, she invited him to stay the night, and they never spoke again because he had met someone else shortly afterwards. According to the complainant, our client sexually assaulted her.
The next day, the complainant went to a hospital and completed a sexual assault evidence kit. She then made a post on social media, claiming that she had told our client that she had a “three-date rule” (whereby she only has sexual relations on or after the third date) on their first date and had told him about the rule again when texting him the invitation to her apartment. However, when she called 911 several months later and was interviewed by police, she claimed that she had told our client that she had a “five-date rule” on their first date and had told him about the rule again in her apartment.
Our client was charged with sexual assault. At trial, defence counsel cross-examined the complainant. There was no text message about any “number-of-dates” rule. Under cross-examination, she admitted that she had deliberately lied to the police, increasing her “number-of-dates rule” from three dates to five dates in order to make her version more believable. When she was confronted with a transcript of her police interview, in which she insisted to the officer that she was telling the truth and had not changed any details in order to make her version more believable, the complainant said that this evidence should not be used against her because she thought that the recording had been turned off at that point in the interview. Our client also testified in his own defence, denying that he was ever told about a “number-of-dates rule” and insisting that their sexual encounter had been entirely consensual. After hearing all the evidence, the trial judge found that the complainant was not telling the truth and that our client had told the truth.
RESULT: Our client was found not guilty of the charge.