Article content continued

Ururyar was convicted last July by Ontario Court Judge Marvin Zuker of sexually assaulting Gray. The two were PhD students at York University — she in sociology, he in political science — at the time of the alleged assault in January of 2015.

The Zuker decision was so scathing and openly contemptuous of Ururyar, and leaned so heavily upon social science readings and academic commentary never raised at trial, that it led directly to his lawyer Mark Halfyard’s chief argument that the veteran judge, now retired, displayed a reasonable apprehension of bias against Ururyar and in favour of Gray.

Halfyard is also seeking a reversal of Zuker’s unusual restitution order that Ururyar pay Gray $8,000, in part to cover her legal costs.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Michael Dambrot is expected to release a decision on June 8.

(I was on vacation and wasn’t in court Tuesday, but have the lawyers’ written arguments on the appeal, transcripts of the six-day trial, sentencing and bail revocation hearing, and thus have read virtually every other word that was said in court in the Ururyar case.)

And much of all that has been well-covered in the press.

But what would it mean if Dambrot were to order a new trial and Gray didn’t participate, as she has hinted she may not?

Presumably, either prosecutors would have to apply to have Gray’s evidence at the first trial read into the record of the second — to my memory, this usually happens only when a witness can’t be found or has died in the intervening period — or decide not to proceed because there would be no reasonable prospect of conviction without the only complainant in the witness stand.