A Toronto Police officer has been found not guilty of sexual assault after a judge ruled that inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony “meaningfully challenged” her credibility and reliability, casting doubt on the issue of consent.

Const. Vincenzo Bonazza had pleaded not guilty to one count of sexual assault in relation to the 2008 incident. The complainant reported him in 2015, and a charge was laid one year later following an investigation by Ontario’s police watchdog, the Special Investigations Unit.

In her lengthy decision Monday morning, Justice Anne London-Weinstein said she could not be sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, on the issue of consent during the sexual encounter.

“We live in a culture where a phrase like ‘Netflix and chill’ is understood to be a cultural euphemism for sex. I understand why the complainant may have feared she would not be believed because she had a glass of wine with the accused, or because she watched a movie with him in her home,” she said.

“If I were to assume consent based on that type of evidence, I would be committing an error in reasoning by relying on stereotypes about how women are expected to behave in order to have their evidence regarding consent accepted.”

Rather, the judge found it was the woman’s wariness during cross-examination, which included sometimes asking to see transcripts before responding, and her “evolving evidence” to fill in perceived gaps in memory, that affected the complainant’s credibility and reliability.

The complainant — identified by the judge only as C.T. in her decision — was an actress at the time the incident occurred about 10 years ago.

C.T. testified at Bonazza’s trial in February that she did not think anyone would believe her if she came forward with her allegation of being raped by a Toronto cop. But after becoming a police officer herself, years later in another jurisdiction, and working on a sexual assault case, she decided to come forward with the allegation.

“Now I can write that a Toronto cop raped me, no problem, but I couldn’t write that then,” she previously testified.

C.T. and Bonazza met in the summer of 2008, after she had been in contact with Toronto police upon filing a criminal harassment complaint against an ex-boyfriend.

After the ex-boyfriend was charged and released from custody, the woman thought she saw him driving in her neighbourhood. She approached a marked Toronto police vehicle nearby, where Bonazza and another officer were parked, to ask if they could run the licence plate of the car she believed her ex-boyfriend was driving.

The officers said they could not run the license plate, but that initial encounter led to further communication with Bonazza which included, C.T. claimed, a surprise phone call from Bonazza a few days later, although she did not recall having given him her phone number.

Bonazza, who was married at the time, said he asked for her phone number and she gave it to him. The officer said he used police databases to “run her file” and “conduct a history” of her. He later called her to say that he had “read her file” on her complaint with her ex-boyfriend, despite the fact that he was not involved in the investigation.

On the night of the alleged assault, not long after their initial meeting, C.T. testified that the officer came to her home without notice to bring her sushi and watch a film in which she had a role. She told the court she did not believe that it was a romantic get-together and that she was not interested in Bonazza, who was wearing plain clothes.

C.T. alleges he told her that she was “the kind of girl where if I kiss you right now, you’d be totally cool with it,” she testified, and said he began kissing her and unbuttoned her pants.

When Bonazza didn’t stop, despite her body language and her clearly telling him his touching was unwanted, she began to fear for her safety, she said. She then submitted to intercourse and oral sex against her will, she said, out of fear.

“The complainant in this case impressed me as someone who very much wanted to get things right in regard to the accuracy of her evidence,” London-Weinstein said in her decision.

However, C.T.’s “express desire to get it right,” led the judge to conclude that two issues — her weariness during cross-examination and her “evolving evidence” — affected the complainant’s credibility and reliability.

“Weariness or defensiveness in and of itself would not necessarily prevent me from assessing credibility and reliability,” the judge said, elaborating that, “Her refusal to commit to a suggestion until she had seen her prior evidence on the point hampered my ability to assess her independent memory of events.”

With regards to gaps in memory, the judge cited a few incidents including the question of where or whether Bonazza ejaculated during the sexual encounter, or if she mentioned liking sushi, as instances in which she believed the complainant substituted “what she thought must have happened in the absence of an actively held memory.”

London-Weinstein said she disbelieved some Bonazza’s testimony as well, and found him to be evasive. She said the fact that both parties were police officers did not play a part in her analysis of their credibility.

However, she could not be sure beyond a reasonable that the sexual activity was not consensual.

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

Bonazza and the Crown attorney declined comment after the verdict.

The complainant was not in court for the decision.

With files from Wendy Gillis and the Canadian Press