BRAMPTON, ON – An Ontario Superior Court judge has found a man guilty of sexual assault, uttering threats, and arson, rejecting his defence that he was in a state of automatism due to extreme intoxication and had no memory of his actions1. Justice Lemay delivered the verdict on September 8, 2025, concluding a lengthy and complex trial that examined two violent incidents that occurred in May and June of 2019. The man, identified only as L.L. due to a publication ban protecting the identity of the complainant, was acquitted of four other charges, including breaking and entering and escaping lawful custody.
The case centered on the turbulent relationship between L.L. and the complainant, K.D., which was strained by L.L.’s significant substance abuse issues involving alcohol and cocaine. The charges stemmed from two separate weekends, a month apart, each marked by heavy substance use and aggression. The court heard detailed testimony from the complainant, the accused, mutual friends, police officers, and three expert witnesses, including a fire investigator, a toxicologist, and a forensic psychiatrist.
The first incident unfolded on the evening of May 18, 2019, during a barbecue at the home K.D. shared with her father and two young children. L.L. began drinking heavily in the afternoon, consuming a significant amount of whisky, beer, cocaine, Buckley’s cold medicine, and some of K.D.’s prescription Clonazepam. After their friends, C.S. and C.D., left for the evening, L.L.’s behaviour escalated. K.D. recorded videos on her cellphone, admitted as evidence, showing L.L. angrily demanding more whisky, spraying her with whipped cream, and throwing flowers at her. The situation worsened when L.L. locked K.D. out of her own home. He eventually let her back in but then took her car keys and drove off, breaking a rear window in the vehicle before returning twenty minutes later, enraged that K.D. had called his mother. During a physical struggle in the kitchen, L.L. smashed K.D.’s cellphone.
A friend, C.S., was called to intervene and managed to calm L.L. down, taking him to his own nearby home. C.S. told L.L. to relax inside while he had a cigarette in the garage. Minutes later, C.S. discovered L.L. was gone. In the interim, K.D. had locked up her house and gone to bed with her children. She was later awoken by the sound of L.L. inside the house. She testified she knew it was him from the distinctive sound of his “slush pants” and knew he had gained entry through a basement window he was aware could be opened.
What followed formed the basis for the most serious charges from that night. K.D. testified that L.L. came to her bedroom, grabbed her by the throat, and threatened her and her children. Over the next couple of hours, his mood oscillated between rage and apology. K.D. told the court she decided to be submissive out of fear for her children. Eventually, L.L. cornered her and threatened to kill her and her children unless she performed oral sex on him. Fearing for their lives, she complied. The next day, K.D. photographed bruising on her neck and arm, which she showed to L.L., who claimed to have no memory of the events but apologized.
The second incident occurred a month later, on the night of June 15, 2019. The couple had recently broken up, but L.L. was invited to a joint birthday party for K.D. and their friend C.S. Upon arrival, L.L. consumed cocaine and beer. After about an hour and a half, he tried to drive away while intoxicated, but friends attempted to stop him. He evaded them by hiding in bushes and getting into his car from the passenger side. He returned to the party between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. and tried unsuccessfully to convince K.D. to leave with him. After he left again, he returned a third time around 11:30 p.m., banging on a door and demanding entry. He stormed through the house looking for K.D., who was hiding, before being escorted out by C.S.
Later that night, emergency services were dispatched to K.D.’s residence, which was on fire. The Crown’s expert fire investigator, Ryan Locke, testified that he found three separate and distinct points of origin for the fires, concluding they were intentionally set by a human agent. One fire was started in a pile of clothes in the laundry room, another in a storage area under the basement stairs, and a third by deliberately holding a flame to plastic curtains in the living room until they melted. The court found that L.L. had the motive and the opportunity, having previously entered the home through the basement window and having threatened to burn the house down during the May incident. Crucially, around the time the fire started, L.L. sent a text message to K.D. that read, “should of just talked to me.” L.L. was spotted at the fire scene and arrested. He was placed in the back of a police cruiser, from which he managed to escape by kicking out a window. He was apprehended again hours later.
The central issue at trial was L.L.’s claim of automatism. The defence argued that his extreme, self-induced intoxication from a cocktail of substances rendered him incapable of forming the necessary criminal intent for his actions. L.L. testified that he had no memory of breaking into K.D.’s home in May, threatening her, or the sexual assault. He likewise claimed no recollection of breaking into her home in June and setting it on fire. The Crown challenged this, arguing his memory loss was feigned. To bolster its case, the Crown called P.M., a woman L.L. was in a relationship with after the incidents, who testified that L.L. had confessed to her that he remembered setting the fire. However, Justice Lemay unequivocally rejected P.M.’s evidence, finding it neither credible nor reliable. The judge noted P.M. had a clear motive to fabricate her testimony after her own relationship with L.L. ended in criminal charges, and that she admitted to inventing key details of her story, such as the use of a gasoline can.
Despite rejecting P.M.’s testimony, Justice Lemay ultimately found L.L. guilty of the most serious offences. Regarding the May sexual assault and threats, the judge determined that L.L.’s actions demonstrated goal-oriented behaviour that was inconsistent with a true state of automatism. His ability to go upstairs, demand oral sex, and direct K.D. to another room showed a mind that was in control of the body’s actions. For the June arson, the judge found the evidence of intent was overwhelming. The setting of three separate fires, the deliberate effort required to burn the fire-retardant curtains, and the sending of coherent, incriminating text messages all pointed to a person who knew what they were doing and intended the consequences.
L.L. was found not guilty of breaking and entering with intent in May, as the judge found it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to commit a further crime at the specific moment he entered the house. He was also acquitted of escaping lawful custody. While his initial arrest was valid, the court found that police had breached his Charter rights by failing to promptly inform him that he was being detained for arson in addition to other matters. Citing case law, Justice Lemay ruled this constitutional breach meant his custody was not lawful for the purposes of the specific charge.
Verdicts of not guilty were also entered on two counts of uttering threats and assault, which the Crown had conceded were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt prior to closing arguments. The case now proceeds to sentencing.
Read more crime stories here.
