Crown Alleges Pattern in Stronach Sex Assault Case as Judge Weighs Evidence
In closing arguments presented Wednesday, Ontario prosecutors alleged that auto parts billionaire Frank Stronach followed a distinct pattern in sexual encounters that led to criminal sexual assault charges against him. The 90-year-old businessman has pleaded not guilty to charges involving multiple women, with the case now focusing on five charges involving three complainants after several charges were dropped during the trial.
The Alleged Pattern of Behavior
Prosecutor Jelena Vlacic outlined what she described as a consistent pattern beginning in the early 1980s when Stronach was approaching 50 years old. According to the Crown's submissions, encounters typically began with dinner or drinks at public locations, either at Rooney's nightspot in midtown Toronto that Stronach owned or at restaurants near his waterfront condominium.
The pattern then allegedly shifted to nearby private locations, most frequently Stronach's own condominium. Prosecutors claim there would be an abrupt change in Stronach's demeanor from professional friendliness to amorous advances without preceding discussion or warning. The complainants reportedly left immediately following the alleged offenses.
Similarities Among Complainants
All alleged incidents involve women who were in their 20s at the time, creating what prosecutors describe as a significant age gap with Stronach. Justice Anne Molloy, who is presiding over the case, acknowledged this pattern stood to reason given the circumstances.
The women shared similar levels of familiarity with Stronach, according to the prosecution. While relationships varied—including both an employee and casual acquaintances—none were described as strangers, intimate partners, or family members. Vlacic argued they occupied "a similar level of distance" from the accused.
Justice Molloy noted this characteristic wasn't particularly distinctive but agreed with prosecutors that similarities need not be "striking" to qualify as corroborating circumstantial evidence.
Legal Questions About Similar Fact Evidence
The central legal question before the court involves the admissibility and weight of "similar fact evidence"—testimony about patterns of behavior that prosecutors argue support the specific allegations. Justice Molloy must determine both whether this evidence is legally admissible and, if so, what force it should carry in her reasoning on each charge.
Prosecutors emphasized that the judge's task isn't simply to tally similarities and discrepancies in a "formulaic" manner. Rather, Vlacic argued that using similar fact evidence as circumstantial corroboration requires a persuasive degree of connection between the pattern evidence and the specific facts charged. While the connection need not be "striking," it must be sufficiently persuasive to support the allegations.
Evolving Case Dynamics
The trial has undergone significant changes since it began in February with 12 charges involving seven women. The Crown abandoned several charges due to concerns about reasonable prospect of conviction, largely stemming from credibility issues with complainants' testimony. On Wednesday, Justice Molloy indicated she couldn't possibly convict Stronach on two charges involving the first woman to testify because her testimony was unreliable, even regarding the year the incident occurred.
With the case now focused on five charges involving three women, some of the alleged similarities have become less compelling, as Justice Molloy noted in her exchanges with the prosecutor. The judge also raised a novel legal question about whether similar fact evidence can "work both ways"—potentially suggesting that if patterns can indicate propensity for bad character, perhaps other similarities might relate to good character.
Justice Molloy acknowledged she had never encountered this specific problem in her years on the bench and was unaware of any relevant case law, but noted the principle that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" might apply. The case continues as the court deliberates these complex evidentiary questions in one of Ontario's most high-profile sexual assault trials.
