Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket (York Region) | Charges withdrawn 21 July 2026
In short: Our client was charged with sexual assault (s. 271) and criminal harassment (s. 264(2)) and faced a Crown position of jail, a DNA order and sex offender registration. The defence obtained late disclosure from an earlier police investigation in which the complainant had been the arrested party, and used it to demonstrate a documented motive to fabricate. The Crown reassessed its reasonable prospect of conviction and withdrew both charges on 21 July 2026 on a 12-month peace bond under s. 810 of the Criminal Code. No conviction, no criminal record, no DNA order and no sex offender registration.
Case at a glance
| Charges | Sexual assault (s. 271); criminal harassment by repeated communication (s. 264(2)) |
| Court | Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, York Region, Ontario |
| Crown position | Proceed summarily as charged; jail plus probation, DNA order, SOIRA registration, weapons prohibition |
| Outcome | Both charges withdrawn; 12-month s. 810 peace bond, $1,000 non-deposit, no surety |
| Duration | September 2025 to July 2026 |
| Counsel | Jake Shen, Barrister & Solicitor |
Why did the Crown withdraw the sexual assault charge?
The Crown withdrew because the defence demonstrated a motive to fabricate that it could not answer at trial. A Crown is required to assess, on a continuing basis, whether there remains a reasonable prospect of conviction. Once the defence had assembled the following from the Crown’s own disclosure, that assessment changed.
- The allegations surfaced only after the complainant was told she was arrestable. An officer advised her in April 2025 that she faced arrest for uttering threats and criminal harassment. She approached police the following month, and gave the statement grounding these charges in August 2025 — for events said to have occurred more than two years earlier.
- Her own account of the relationship undercut the allegation. In her recorded statement she described the relationship as consensual from the outset and tied to an arrangement over work — an account difficult to reconcile with the offence as charged.
- She had a concrete personal incentive. The defence position, put to the Crown, was that the complainant’s immigration circumstances gave her a direct and documented interest in the outcome of her relationship with our client, and in how that relationship was characterised to police.
- Her stated fear sat against her own conduct. She told police she feared our client and wanted no trouble, yet the record showed her initiating contact with his family — and she had herself entered into a peace bond, an acknowledgment that her conduct could cause reasonable fear.
- She declined a broader search of her phone. Advised by counsel that incriminating material could expose her to charges, she withheld consent to a wider search.
We put this analysis to the Crown directly rather than holding it for trial. The Crown reconsidered, and both charges were withdrawn.
How did the defence obtain the evidence?
None of it was in the initial disclosure package. Our client had gone to police himself in September 2024 to complain of harassment; the complainant in this prosecution was the arrested party in that earlier occurrence. That history — and the phone extraction taken from her under warrant — had to be pried out.
We served an initial disclosure request the day we were retained and followed it with three further written requests over eight weeks — naming the custodial statement, the officers’ notes, the search warrant and information to obtain, the complete phone extraction, the peace bond, the consent-to-search form and the screenshot translations. Disclosure arrived in six further tranches over five months. The last, in March 2026, produced the extraction and thirty-eight message screenshots, many captured by investigators in July 2024 — roughly twenty months before they reached the defence.
We also challenged the accuracy of the Crown’s Spanish translations at the judicial pre-trial, and the matter was set down for five days with interpreters, two of them reserved for applications under ss. 276 and 278.
Frequently asked questions
Can sexual assault charges be withdrawn in Ontario?
Yes. A Crown must withdraw a charge where there is no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction, or where prosecution is not in the public interest. Withdrawal is not an acquittal, and it is not a plea — the charge simply ends. It most often follows defence work that changes the Crown’s assessment of the evidence.
What is a section 810 peace bond?
A s. 810 peace bond is a court order to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, usually for 12 months, on conditions such as no contact and no weapons. It is not a conviction and produces no criminal record. It is frequently the vehicle by which a serious charge is resolved without a finding of guilt.
Does a withdrawn charge leave a criminal record?
No. A withdrawal produces no conviction and no criminal record. A record of the charge may persist in police databases and can be addressed separately through destruction or purge requests.
Why does disclosure matter so much in a sexual assault case?
Because the Crown’s case and the defence’s case are usually built from the same material. Where a complainant has a prior history with police — particularly as a suspect — that history is often the single most significant source of evidence going to credibility and motive, and it rarely arrives without being asked for repeatedly and in writing.
About Jake Shen
Jake Shen is an Ontario criminal defence lawyer representing clients facing criminal charges in Toronto, the Greater Toronto Area, and communities throughout Ontario. To view the complete list of cities and jurisdictions he serves, please visit our Ontario Criminal Defence Service Areas page.
Note. Names and identifying details have been changed or omitted, and the complainant’s identity is protected by a publication ban. Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any other case — every prosecution turns on its own evidence. Nothing in this document is legal advice.