Client says he inappropriately touched and criminally harassed her
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed an appeal of a massage therapist’s convictions on one count of criminal harassment and two counts of sexual assault by intentionally and inappropriately touching his client during a massage therapy session.
In R. v. Jean, 2025 ONSC 4498, the client filed a complaint regarding her April 2018 massage therapy session with the appellant massage therapist.
At trial, the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant sexually assaulted the client by intentionally and inappropriately touching her breasts and vaginal area during the session. The parties both testified and offered very different versions of what happened that day.
In August 2022, a trial judge convicted the appellant of sexual assault and criminal harassment. She determined that:
- The Crown had proven all the elements of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt
- The client’s version of events established beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant sexually assaulted her during that session
- The appellant’s testimony failed to raise a reasonable doubt that a sexual assault occurred in the context of the massage therapist-client relationship
The appellant appealed his convictions.
Convictions affirmed
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal.
First, the court rejected the argument that the judge failed to reconcile material inconsistencies in the client’s testimony. The court said the judge provided thorough and coherent reasons for reaching her conclusion.
The court ruled that the judge frequently and specifically addressed the alleged inconsistencies between the client’s testimony and other statements.
The defence alleged that the client failed to inform police in her initial statement that she told the appellant to “stop.” The court deferred to the judge’s interpretation of the flow of the client’s testimony and said the judge resolved this alleged inconsistency.
The defence also claimed an inconsistency concerning the client’s ability to see male massage therapists after the incident. The court said the judge analyzed the relevant part of the client’s testimony and logically considered it truthful.
Second, the court disagreed with the argument that the judge applied stricter scrutiny to the appellant’s evidence compared with the client’s. The court held that the judge carefully considered the testimonies of both parties.
The court saw no reason not to defer to the judge’s assessment of the credibility and reliability of the testimonies. The court noted that the judge rejected the appellant’s testimony based on inconsistencies directly linked with the central issue of whether the touching could have been accidental.
Third, the court determined that the judge provided sufficient reasons for finding that the Crown had proven the necessary elements for sexual assault. The court noted that the judge comprehensively analyzed the client’s credibility and reliability and the appellant’s testimony regarding the events on the date of the incident.
The court added that the judge thoroughly explained why she preferred the client’s evidence, found that the appellant had briefly touched the client’s breasts and vagina in a sexual manner without her consent, and rejected the possibility of accidental non-sexual touching.
Lastly, the court acknowledged that it would have also ordered a new trial on the criminal harassment conviction if it had found a new trial necessary for the sexual assault convictions, given that the judge inextricably linked the sexual assault and criminal harassment findings. However, the court noted that this issue was moot.
