A Toronto judge was “not persuaded” to change or dismiss any parts of a lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein’s assistant.

In a ruling released Friday, Judge Patrick Monahan dismissed a motion filed by assistant Barbara Schneeweiss and her lawyer, which came in response to the lawsuit alleging that Schneeweiss facilitated two sexual assaults — including forcible oral sex — by Weinstein while working as his assistant in 2000. The alleged victim is identified in court proceedings as Jane Doe.

None of the allegations have been proven in court. Weinstein has previously denied allegations of non-consensual sex through a representative.

Read more:

Toronto court debates whether to change, cut lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein’s assistant

Toronto court to hear motion in lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein and woman who allegedly worked for him

Schneeweiss’ lawyer, Jonathan Rosenstein, argued in court on Monday that Doe hadn’t provided enough detail to respond to her claims, that parts of Doe’s claim were frivolous, vexatious and irrelevant, and that some of her claims should be barred under the 2002 Limitations Act.

“In my view, there is no ambiguity in the Claim,” Monahan wrote. “With respect to the demand for particulars, in my view Doe has pleaded sufficient material facts to permit Schneeweiss to know the case she needs to meet.”

Against the argument of irrelevant information — which Rosenstein had pleaded to be the case for statements about Schneeweiss’ long-term employment with Weinstein and reports about other assistants of his — Monahan laid out his findings of relevance.

“(The) pleading that Schneeweiss continued to work for Weinstein for many years after the assaults is relevant to the claim that Schneeweiss knew of Weinstein’s activities and yet continued her employment with him,” he wrote.

“It is also relevant to the claim that Schneeweiss’s facilitation of the sexual assaults was undertaken with a view to subsequent career advancement.”

The claim about other assistants, he added, was relevant to the claim that Schneeweiss was aware of Weinstein’s “established practices.”

The final argument, that parts of the claim should be barred under the Limitations Act, was also struck down by Monahan due to a 2016 amendment that eliminated the limitation period for proceedings based on sexual assault.

“It is clear that the action commenced against Weinstein is a ‘proceedings based on sexual assault,’ ” Monahan wrote.

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

“Although the claims against Schneeweiss are not for the sexual assaults themselves, they all involve civil liability for actions that relate directly to Weinstein’s sexual assaults on Doe.”

The motion was dismissed with costs.