Judge 'Gobsmacked' as Crown Faces Reprimand in Stronach Sex Assault Trial
In a dramatic turn at the judge-alone Frank Stronach sex assault trial, Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy admitted she was "gobsmacked" by events unfolding in her courtroom. The shock stemmed from a witness who apologized for lying on the stand and a Crown prosecutor who knew of the falsehood but took no action to correct it, sparking a stern judicial reprimand.
Unfolding of the Controversial Testimony
The incident centered on the fourth complainant in the trial, who testified that she was raped by Stronach in his waterfront condo in 1983 while working as a university summer student at his head office. During questioning, Crown attorney Jelena Vlacic asked if the witness knew any other alleged victims involved in the proceedings. Stronach, the 93-year-old billionaire founder and former CEO of Magna International, has pleaded not guilty to 12 charges involving seven women.
The witness initially stated she knew of Jane Boon, who wrote an article for the Globe and Mail, but claimed she did not have a subscription and had not read it. Boon's op-ed from June 2024 detailed her experience as a co-op student at Magna, alleging Stronach invited her to dinner and then insisted she accompany him to a guest house after she had too much to drink. Boon is now suing Stronach for over $4 million, with his defense dismissing the accusations as an after-the-fact attempt to leverage other allegations.
Revelation of Falsehood and Judicial Reaction
Under cross-examination by defense lawyer Leora Shemesh, the witness admitted she had indeed read Boon's article, contradicting her earlier statement. The next morning, the witness addressed the court to apologize for not telling the truth, revealing that the Crown was aware she had read the article and they had discussed it at length.
Justice Molloy, known for being tough but generally easy-going, then turned to Vlacic, expressing clear frustration. "You knew she was not telling the truth and you did nothing. I think you need to reflect on that," Molloy stated. She emphasized that it is not what she expects from the Crown when a witness is obviously lying, highlighting the ethical responsibility to correct the record promptly.
Crown's Defense and Further Judicial Criticism
When court reconvened, Vlacic explained she had spent the lunch hour "agonizing" over her failure to ask directly if the witness had read the article, fearing the woman would lie. She assumed cross-examination would set the record straight. However, Molloy dismissed this justification, noting that a whole day passed without action, and the witness's apology left her stunned.
Molloy suggested alternative actions Vlacic could have taken, such as excusing the witness and raising the issue with the judge or informing the defense. "You have to be above the fray," Molloy advised, stressing the need for reliability in future proceedings. This is not the first time prosecutors have faced criticism in this case; the defense has accused the Crown of tainting evidence through witness prep meetings and plans to argue for an abuse of process motion.
Implications for the Trial
The reprimand adds to the tension in the high-profile trial, with the fifth complainant expected to testify next week. As the legal proceedings continue, the incident underscores the critical role of ethical conduct in the justice system, particularly in sensitive cases involving serious allegations. The outcome may influence broader discussions on prosecutorial accountability and witness credibility in criminal trials.
