WARNING: This article contains graphic details heard in court that may not be suitable for some readers.
A former area resident took the stand in a Barrie courtroom Tuesday to detail allegations of sexual assault against her former husband while the couple lived in their shared home in Innisfil.
The case stems from three separate but similar incidents the allegedly happened between 2012 and 2014, when the woman testified her former husband entered their bedroom in the middle of the night and forced himself on her while she slept.
She says that on each occasion he then anally penetrated her.
“He forced himself on me,” the complainant said of her ex-husband’s actions on three separate occasions more than a decade ago. “It was not pleasurable — it was forced anal sex.
“I was (pushed) almost off the bed. I kept inching away, I kept moving," she testified.
Asked by Crown attorney Lindsay Weis if the encounters were consensual, the woman was quick to reply, “No, absolutely not.”
The proceedings, which are taking before Superior Court Madame Justice Susan Healey, are subject to a publication ban that could reveal the identity of the complainant. As such, her former husband’s identity is also subject to the same publication ban, which is standard in sexual-assault cases.
The woman testified her husband’s abusive, drunken and controlling nature began on their wedding night and continued until they mutually agreed to part in 2016.
“(The marriage) was over long before that,” she said of their decision to separate.
They divorced about a year later and she no longer lives in the Barrie area.
Weis took the woman, now 45, through what she says was a loveless marriage in which her now former husband showed little or no interest in her, nor in helping her raise their three children, who are now teenagers.
When her ex-husband communicated a desire to move near her new home in 2021, it prompted her to report the allegations to police, court heard.
“I was freaked out,” the woman said when she heard of a possible move by her ex-husband to her new home in Hanover, “I couldn’t bury (my memory of the sexual assaults) anymore.”
The ex-husband is representing himself in court, but criminal lawyer Hubert Gonzalez was appointed to cross-examine the man's ex-wife. Court rules prohibit cross-examining by former spouses/partners in cases of domestic assault and Gonzalez was excused from proceedings soon after completing his cross-examination.
But not before several testy exchanges between him and the alleged victim.
The woman, who was otherwise composed throughout her testimony, became visibly upset when Gonzalez asked her about the first of three allegations.
“I don’t like this,” she said of Gonzalez’s questioning, before Healey called a short break so court support staff could help her continue with her testimony.
Upon returning, the woman maintained that her then-husband forced himself on her, then grabbed her by her shoulder, preventing her from escaping his grasp.
“I’m going to suggest to you that if any sex occurred that it was consensual,” said Gonzalez, not long after her return to the stand.
“I don’t agree,” she responded.
Both the Crown and Gonzalez questioned the woman about her new partner, a relationship that began soon after splitting with the father of her children. That man, with whom she is still in a relationship, has multiple criminal convictions, including one for sexual exploitation against his daughter.
Gonzalez attempted to paint a picture that the woman’s allegations only surfaced after her ex-husband became aware of the man’s past and withdrew his previously agreed consent to him being in the presence of the children they share.
The woman conceded that she was untruthful at first in hiding her new boyfriend’s reason for not being around – he was serving a jail sentence on the sexual exploitation charge – but that she was only prevented from informing her ex-husband because of his refusal to co-operate with her.
“He didn’t want to know,” she said of her attempt to inform the children’s father of her boyfriend’s imprisonment and the nature of his criminal convictions.
The defence’s case, made through Gonzalez’s cross-examination of the alleged victim, is two-fold: that any sex that may have taken place between the former couple was consensual, and that the allegations were only made after the ex-husband became aware of his ex-wife’s new boyfriend’s criminal history. His impending release from prison prompted her ex-husband to withdraw consent for his children to be in the man’s presence, which in turn prompted the woman to bring forward the allegations of sexual assault.
Gonzalez also entered into evidence several emails between the couple that straddled the time they were still together and when the separated around August 2016. They portrayed a tone at odds with her earlier testimony, as the emails were cordial and often loving, including one where the man sent his then-wife a short note and YouTube clip of a music video of the song Die a Happy Man by American country star Thomas Rhett.
“That is misleading,” the woman testified, comparing the digital communication that took place between the still-married couple at the time to how people often portray themselves in much better light on social media.
The complainant’s friend was called to the stand by the Crown later Tuesday. She described how her friend revealed to her in 2019 that her former husband had sexually assaulted her.
The friend said the revelation came while helping the complainant move and that she accompanied her to the police station in 2021 to help her lodge a formal criminal complaint.
With Gonzalez gone from the courtroom, the ex-husband was now acting as his own lawyer, but declined to cross-examine his ex-wife's friend. He also offered no evidence in his own defence.
The trial continues Wednesday with Healey’s charge to the jury, followed by closing submission from both the Crown and the defence.
The case is expected to be in the hands of the jury by Thursday.
