Former WRPS Sgt. Caleb Roy found not guilty of sexual assault
Justice Corrick noted the woman had inconsistencies in her testimony
Former Waterloo Regional Police Sgt. Caleb Roy has been found not guilty of sexual assault of a woman in October, 2010.
The woman's identity has been protected by a publication ban.
"Cases such as these where two people give two opposing versions of an event are the most difficult cases for a trial judge to assess," Justice Katherine Corrick told a virtual courtroom Friday.
No one, other than the two parties, knows for certain what happened that night more than a decade ago, she said.
But after considering the evidence from both sides, Justice Corrick said she was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Roy assaulted the woman.
"I therefore find him not guilty," she said.
Former Waterloo Regional Police Sgt. Caleb Roy was charged with sexual assault after a woman said she accompanied Roy in October 2010 to what she thought would be a night out in Toronto. But instead, she testified, Roy took her to his friend's condominium where Roy pulled her into the bedroom where, she testified, he raped her. Read all of CBC's trial coverage here.
Roy was a 26-year veteran of the force when he was suspended in 2017 pending an investigation from Ontario's police watchdog, the Special Investigations Unit (SIU). A police spokesperson confirmed Friday he is no longer employed with the Waterloo Regional Police Service.
When asked by CBC if he resigned or was terminated, a spokesperson said they "can't speak to employment issues."
The SIU charged Roy in October 2018.
Different views of relationship
Roy pleaded not guilty to the charge and testified that in his mind the two were on a date that night. When his defence lawyer asked Roy if he had assaulted the woman, he said "absolutely not."
Both the Crown attorney and the defence agreed that after the night of the alleged assault, Roy and the woman carried on a relationship. They disagreed, however, about the length and the nature of the relationship.
The Crown argued the woman agreed to a "friends with benefits" arrangement after Roy implied he could help her get a job. She ended the relationship when it became clear he didn't plan to hold up his end of the bargain, said the Crown.
The defence argued the relationship was romantic and that Roy did not imply he could help her get a job, nor did he have the power to do so. The relationship ended when Roy broke things off, said the defence.
Testimony inconsistent, says Justice
"There were parts of both witnesses' evidence that raised concerns for me about the credibility of their evidence," said Justice Corrick.
Crown attorney Katherine Beaudoin pointed out that Roy failed to acknowledge poor judgment and mistakes he'd made during the relationship. Corrick agreed and noted he also minimized his ability to help the woman in her pursuit of getting a job.
"This minimization causes me some concern about Mr. Roy's credibility," said Justice Corrick.
As for the alleged victim, Justice Corrick said she was generally a good witness. She was consistent in her recollection of what happened in the bedroom that night, and she remembered idiosyncratic details about the alleged assault, such as the scratchiness of Roy's sweater and the smell of rum and curry on his breath. The woman was also willing to admit faults and poor judgment over the course of the relationship, unlike Roy, Corrick said.
But Justice Corrick also noted the woman was inconsistent in testifying about some aspects of their relationship, such as the length of time they saw each other and how often. When asked during cross-examination whether she'd given Roy certain gifts, the woman was evasive, said Justice Corrick.
"To be clear, it is not the fact that she had an ongoing relationship with Mr. Roy that has raised my concern about her credibility," said Justice Corrick.
"My concern arises out of the inconsistencies in her evidence about the relationship and the fact that she attempts to minimize it and distance herself from Mr. Roy."
In making her decision, Justice Corrick said she considered the logic and the consistency of both parties' versions of events, along with the statements they'd given on prior occasions.