Accuser ‘shaken but not shocked’ as Toronto professor acquitted of sex assault charges



University of Toronto professor Andrew Payne entering a courthouse in Toronto, Sept. 3, 2013. Payne has been acquitted of sexual assault.
TORONTO — An Ontario Court judge has acquitted a University of Toronto professor of sexually assaulting a young woman in her home more than three years ago — a verdict that has left the complainant “shaken but not shocked.”

The case of James Andrew Payne, a senior lecturer in the faculty of architecture, landscape and design, hinged on two competing accounts of what occurred one December night in 2011, when Mr. Payne and the then 21-year-old woman ran into each other on a west-end Toronto street. Her name is shielded by a publication ban.

She testified in a Toronto courtroom that he followed her into her house without permission, removed some of her clothing, jumped on top of her and grabbed at her as she pleaded with him to stop; he told the court she invited him up and was receptive to his advances. He testified that when she said she was too drunk to proceed, he felt relieved because he had a girlfriend, and he left.

In her ruling Tuesday Justice Geraldine Sparrow she she thought Mr. Payne’s evidence had a “rehearsed ring to it,” but she also called the woman’s testimony “somewhat troublesome” in three areas.

First, that she told police she was drunk that night, but then denied being drunk in court; second, she failed to tell investigators that she knew she had not closed the door to her house properly behind her — an omission she called “not insignificant”; and third, she submitted to police an account of the night’s events, as written by a friend, without reviewing it properly and later said it contained information that was not true.

“I do not disbelieve the complainant,” Judge Sparrow told the court. “As stated, she was clear and consistent in most of her testimony … but his unshaken testimony, viewed in the light of certain flaws in her evidence outlined above, leaves me in a state of reasonable doubt on the issue of whether or not there was consent of sexual contact.”

Mr. Payne, who is in his fifties and has stepped away from his teaching duties, declined to comment. He faces another allegation of sexual assault, brought forward by a woman after this case was publicized in the media.

“This was the result we had expected all along,” said Steven Stauffer, Mr. Payne’s lawyer. “We didn’t know it would take this long to get there, but we were confident this is where we would end up.”

He said they expect the same result from the second trial, which is due to begin at the end of April.

Reached for comment, the complainant wrote in an email: “I’m shaken but not shocked. I’ve survived a sexual assault and four difficult years battling the case in court. I feel like I can do anything now. It’s clear to me that we work with a legal system and not a justice system. I’m happy it’s now over, it’s time for me to move on and heal the wounds this process has left me.”

National Post




Commentary by the Ottawa Mens Centre

Male Sharia Applies in Canada is what this decisions says. Judges typically all end up applying extreme feminist reasoning that "the victim" as long the victim is Female should be believed.

Across Canada Judges engage in "justification" or what is known as "the illegal legal process of justification" which means, females have an assumption of credibility and Judges have an obligation to "infer" that anything a woman alleges will result in negative credibility findings for any male accused which is probably why James Ander Payne declined to testify.

Judges are notorious for rejecting any exculpatory evidence of witnesses who might cast a concern regarding the credibility of a "complainant" when the complainant is female.

Across Ontario, Judges find men "guilty" for improper purposes that reflect the Government's extreme feminist agenda that includes giving custody of children to women even when they have incredible records for violence and obvious anger and or mental health issues.

Judges like the Dishonourable Monique Metivier grant orders for Mothers "ExParte" without service or notice upon a father and equally dishonourable judges like Robert Maranger, Jennifer Belishen, Maria Linhares Desousa and even Paul Kane can't help themselves from protecting "the Rats" of the Judiciary like Timothy Minnema a former CAS lawyer who blatantly fabricate evidences and or ignores fabrication of evidence by CAS lawyers or females, to assist the most violent and dis-credible females.

Our case law on credibility is fraught with serious problems that in practice encourages and promotes violence and false allegations by women towards men because at the end of the day, the most violent and or "untrustworthy" of females know, that "they always believe the woman".

While our Judges treat the courts as a political machine, it will promote violence and false allegations towards men for obvious reasons that are generally connected to a large financial reward.

Ottawa Mens Centre


"That "rehearsed ring" Justice Sparrow refers to is a new "creative" way that Judges use to use as a "justification" for making negative credibility findings against men who are accused of crimes by women and when, they have no other "reason" they can come up with for making credibility findings for a female, against a male, to satisfy what is called "sufficiency of reasons" to allow "appellate review".


The idea is to find a man not guilty but to destroy his reputation while protecting blatant false allegations despite, a lack of credibility of the complainant.


Typically Dishonourable Judges use "omission" to avoid saying anything about the lack of credibility that was proven during the trial.


Expect to read more about this issue in the future as our courts become increasingly clogged with false allegations that are given a feminist sugar coating that destroys the publics confidence in the administration of Justice in Ontario.

Ottawa Mens Centre