Between the octogenarian billionaire and his half-century-younger former lover, there would appear little jostling space for agreed truth, reconciliation or financial settlement.

But Superior Court Justice Paul Perell suggested an out-of-court resolution is still a possibility in the sexual-assault civil action, should the disputing sides — ever hardening in their positions — choose to go that route before he renders his reserved decision. Indeed, it sounded very much like a plea from the bench to spare him, and them, an unpleasant judgment.

“However I decide, there’s the prospect of me making some very hard findings against one or both of the litigants in this matter,” Perell said on Wednesday, at the conclusion of a two-day hearing on the motion by Tim Hortons co-founder Ron Joyce to have the $7.5-million lawsuit brought by the accuser tossed out.

“There’s nothing to stop the parties from reaching a settlement and not finding out what my ultimate view of this matter is.”

If that’s where this litigation is possibly headed, just let him know, the judge urged, before his ruling is made public. “I do not want to release my judgment in the event the parties settle their case.”

Though Perell didn’t put it this way, I suspect the judge would be happy to avert a potentially fractious fallout in the midst of an ongoing national conversation about how sexual assault claimants are treated by the judicial system.

The plaintiff in this case has put herself squarely into that emotional debate by framing the alleged incident — Joyce inserting a finger into her vagina, without consent, while she was still sleeping — within the contentious parameters of “rape,” her word, and the dogma of rape mythology that purportedly discourages victims from pursuing justice.

That was certainly the sub-context when the plaintiff resumed her arguments yesterday morning, objecting to the defence portraying her as an “extortionist” hounding an old man who had already paid her $50,000 and forgiven more than $100,000 in loans unpaid — which he, Joyce, is insistent was a settlement to which she’d agreed.

“The most important thing that we have to dispel here is that an agreement had been reached,” said the plaintiff, who represented herself in court after three previous lawyers removed themselves from the case. “Ron Joyce is one of the most successful men in Canada. And guess what? When you come to an arrangement, what do you do? You paper it. You have a nondisclosure. You have minutes of settlement.”

No such documentation exists, she asserted of the disputed payment. In her view, the $50,000 and forgiven loans were a “down payment” on a future settlement, to clear her legal debts and for “therapy.” Which, as Perell had queried earlier, in puzzlement, would mean that Joyce cut his accuser a cheque for funds that would be used to pay lawyers working against him.

Joyce, in cross-examination last year, maintained he wrote the cheque as a gesture of friendship betokening their five-year-long relationship, that it wasn’t shut-up-and-go-away-money. (Joyce firmly denied under cross-examination that there was ever any sexual assault.) That handshake contract did indeed make a threatened — but never formally filed — original $1.2-million lawsuit go away.

“This man has a history of sexual abuse,” the complainant continued, ignoring the judge’s instructions to cease bringing up new alleged evidence not germane to the motion. (Perell denied the woman’s request for a publication ban, but the Star is not naming her as its policy is not to name alleged victims of sexual assault without their consent.) “And I guarantee you that every single one of his previous cases has had a (nondisclosure agreement) and minutes of settlement.”

The plaintiff told Perell she’d turned down a $1-million settlement in 2013. “Why? Because I wanted him held accountable. I wanted him found guilty, I wanted him to stop badmouthing me . . . I wanted it to be punitive so he would stop hurting me.”

“I would like a full trial so that all my evidence can be heard and so that his other victims can feel safe to come forward.

“My life has been a living nightmare. He stole my confidence that morning. He stole my trust in people. He stole my comfort in my own bed, in my own skin. Unfortunately, our criminal justice system has a problem with brushing sexual assault under the rug.”

This lawsuit was brought in 2013, two years after the alleged incident in Joyce’s Burlington home, 17 days after the plaintiff had suggested Royce marry her (he declined), one year after their relationship had become strictly platonic and two weeks after the statute of limitation on a civil action had expired. The filing deadline is a key underpinning of the defence motion to dismiss. Perell can push the limitation requirement if he accepts the complainant’s reasoning that she didn’t even realize, until late in the day, that she had the makings of a civil sex-assault suit, didn’t understand the difference between civil and criminal procedures and was too traumatized to get her case in order.

Court has heard that the plaintiff received $330,000 in 2011 from another ex-lover and previous employer, real estate magnate Hunter Milborne, who stated in a sworn affidavit that the plaintiff had threatened to reveal the extramarital affair years after it had ended. If true, that could still be the basis of an extortion charge. The woman yesterday emphatically denied it. “I don’t know why Mr. Milborne would lie.”

She further accused Joyce’s lawyer and her lawyer — back in 2013 — of collusion over the $50,000 cheque, emphasizing they had gone to high school together.

Perell: “Why would your lawyer collude with Mr. Joyce’s lawyer?”

Plaintiff: “Money.”

Perell: “You have no evidence with respect to any of this. It is an extraordinarily serious allegation.”

While Perell has been unfailingly patient with the lay-lawyer complainant, steering her through the legal rules of procedure, he was not so forbearing with defence lead lawyer Chris Kostopoulos during rebuttal yesterday, at one point expressing annoyance over the inclusion of the Milborne matter. (The complainant had also brought a sexual harassment suit, subsequently dropped, against a fellow employee when she was working as a mortgage broker at Milborne’s company.)

“Hunter Milborne appears on the scene for some particular reason on your side of the case,” Perell observed. “It strikes me that a lot of litigation blood is being spilled about this Hunter Milborne thing and I’m not sure why.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Perell has given no indication when his judgment will be delivered. He did, however, have some parting advice for the complainant, particularly if an out-of-court settlement is reached.

“Get a lawyer.”