Reliance on Toronto man’s ‘insulting’ misogyny was a ‘miscarriage of justice.’ Sex assault conviction tossed
By Jacques GallantCourts and Justice Reporter
A Toronto judge was wrong to rely on an apartment building superintendent’s misogyny when she convicted him of sexually assaulting a tenant, an appeal court has ruled, ordering a new trial.
The tenant, whose identity is covered by a standard publication ban, had testified that Marcial Manigbas showed up at her unit in November 2022 after she called him to open her storage room so she could store a suitcase and air conditioner. She had declined his offer over the phone to help move the items, but he came into the unit anyway.
The woman testified that Manigbas grabbed her body tightly, with one hand touching her genitals over her clothes, while the other hand moved toward her breast, until she quickly told him to stop.
In her decision convicting Manigbas of sexual assault, Ontario Court Justice Cidalia Faria said she accepted the complainant’s evidence while rejecting Manigbas’ testimony. He denied touching the complainant and told the court he “assumed” the woman needed help disassembling the AC unit because “she is a lady” and would not know what to do or have the required tools. He also said he thought she would make a mess or break something.
“Mr. Manigbas’ evidence was facile in his insistence that (the complainant) was helpless and needed him. He was dismissive of her ability and focused on his ‘professional’ experience,” Faria wrote in paragraph 43 of her decision.
“He was insulting about (the complainant’s) appearance compared to a celebrity. I reject his evidence.”
The higher court judge pointed out that it’s a legal error to mostly or entirely rely on an accused person’s bad character or to apply stereotypical reasoning when determining whether they should be believed.
“Implicit in this paragraph is impermissible moral reasoning that Mr. Manigbas was not credible in his denial of the sexual assault because of his negative views and lack of respect for (the complainant), or that he is the type of misogynist man who would sexually assault her,” Sugunasiri wrote.
In other words: “Even if Mr. Manigbas came across as a misogynist, that does not mean that he must be a sexual assaulter who is not to be believed.”