The Ontario Court of Justice has acquitted a military cook of sexual assault charges, highlighting significant barriers to reporting sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Despite finding the complainant’s account had “the ring of truth,” the court determined the Crown did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in testimony and irreconcilable differences between witness accounts.
The case involved J.T., a regular force member of the Canadian Armed Forces, who was charged with sexually assaulting G.G., then a reservist, at the Normandy Court Kitchen at Garrison Petawawa between March and June 2012.
G.G. alleged that after a morning physical training exercise, J.T. made a sexually explicit comment about wanting to “eat her sweaty (private part) after a ruck march” and then bent her over a counter and simulated sexual intercourse from behind, grabbing her by her hair.
The court noted that the military hierarchy and rigid rank structure at the kitchen created a complex environment described as “essentially rigid, highly-structured, well-organized chaos” where reporting incidents up the chain of command was difficult.
Credibility issues
Despite not believing J.T.’s testimony, which the court found was “completely self-serving,” the judge identified five key issues that created reasonable doubt:
- An inconsistency in G.G.’s testimony about whether J.T. grabbed her by her hair (which was in a bun) or by her head when her hair was shaved
- Contradictions between G.G.’s account and the testimony of C.C. (a civilian kitchen worker)
- Contradictions between G.G.’s account and the testimony of B.V.D. (a Warrant Officer)
- Contradictions between G.G.’s account and the testimony of C.P. (the kitchen manager)
- Reliability issues with S.E.’s testimony (G.G.’s boyfriend at the time)
Reporting barriers
The court’s decision highlighted systemic obstacles to reporting sexual misconduct in the military, citing former Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps’ 2015 report on Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces.
The judge found that “the rigid rank structure, hierarchy and protocol in place in the military in general, and specifically in the Normandy Court Kitchen, resulted in an institutional ignorance of the plight of anyone like G.G. who could be a victim of sexual harassment and sexual assault.”
G.G.’s position as a reservist on a limited-term contract likely made her more vulnerable. The court noted that “reservists on contract were also under pressure to impress their superiors in order to get additional contracts or become members of the regular force” and were “often looked down upon.”
The court acknowledged that reservists like G.G. might fear reporting misconduct due to concerns about contract renewal: “I find that it is likely that she was well aware that if she went forward with her allegations against J.T. in 2012, it is unlikely that anything would have come of them and it is highly likely that she would have suffered reprisals, particularly given her position as a reservist on limited term employment.”
Delayed reporting
G.G. testified that she did not report the incident until 2020, eight years after it allegedly occurred. This came after she was assigned to work under J.T. again and had what she described as a meeting with B.V.D. about not wanting to work with him. After this encounter, G.G. testified that she “went home and tried to kill herself” and was “admitted to a psychiatric facility for eight days.”
She ultimately decided to report what happened to the Military Police because she felt “the military was not protecting her” and “the only way for her to protect herself was to report what happened.”
Military structure factors
The court outlined multiple layers of military structure that complicated the reporting process:
- A rigid chain of command where “it is extremely unusual for lower ranks and civilian employees to speak to members who are of two or more ranks above them unless they are spoken to”
- Multiple commanding units with distinct reporting lines
- Different treatment between regular force members and reservists
- The lack of clear reporting mechanisms for sexual misconduct (the court noted “Op Honour,” a program designed to improve the military’s response to sexual misconduct, wasn’t implemented until 2015)
Reasonable doubt standard
The judge emphasized that “likelihood with respect to these things, however, is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and that “judges are not issued crystal balls with their gown and sash. All we can do is consider the evidence that we hear through the lens of reason and common sense.”
In concluding the judgment, the court stated: “Thus, despite the fact that I do not believe J.T., nor am I not left in doubt by his evidence, I have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. J.T. is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and he is found not guilty.”
For more information, see R. v. J.T., 2025 ONCJ 244 (CanLII).
