A Canadian billionaire no longer faces a sexual assault conviction after a judge declared a surprise mistrial on Friday.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy made the finding after learning the complainant’s lawyer had attempted to secure money through the defendant’s counsel rather than through formal litigation.
The complainant, a former cocktail waitress identified only as A.S., had worked in a bar owned by the businessman before being fired. Her lawyer was alleged to have contacted the defence to propose a settlement nearing one million dollars.
The defence argued the proposed amount included damages, legal fees, and interest accrued since the early 1980s. It also contended the complainant’s account to her lawyer differed from her courtroom testimony.
One contradiction involved A.S. claiming fear of encountering the accused and that he had smirked at her, which the judge said was inconsistent with sworn evidence.
Molloy agreed there was a risk to the administration of justice. She described the situation as bizarre and considered calling the complainant’s lawyer as a witness to clarify his instructions.
The lawyer has previously been found by the Law Society of Ontario to have engaged in professional misconduct, including abusive communication with opposing counsel and mishandling funds. His licence was briefly suspended.
The businessman remains convicted of indecent assault involving another woman, a legal secretary identified as V.T., with sentencing arguments scheduled for September.
Friday’s ruling leaves him with one conviction stemming from a dozen alleged incidents involving seven complainants.
Molloy, who had found the accused guilty last month, said the circumstances were unusual and that she saw no alternative to declaring a mistrial.
The defence welcomed the outcome, arguing it exposed attempts to exploit the criminal justice system for financial gain.
The judge had previously convicted the businessman of groping A.S. in his apartment following a work-related dinner meeting. A mistrial does not bar future prosecution, leaving that decision to the Crown.
Molloy stated her written reasons for the mistrial would follow.
