Frank Stronach’s lawyers seek mistrial after victim’s lawyer allegedly tried to ‘extract money’
- Frank Stronach, an autoparts billionaire, faces a mistrial request in his sexual assault case after being found guilty of historical offenses against two women.
- A lawyer for one victim allegedly contacted Stronach's lawyer post-verdict seeking nearly $1 million without formal litigation, presenting a different crime narrative than the victim's court testimony.
- Judge Anne Molloy expressed concerns over inconsistencies between the victim’s testimony and the new claims, considering calling the lawyer as a witness due to the unusual circumstances.
- The judge emphasized the need to hear directly from the victim before deciding on a mistrial, noting that conflicting statements could necessitate one; the hearing is ongoing.
Lawyers for autoparts billionaire Frank Stronach are in Ontario Superior Court this morning seeking a mistrial in his ongoing sexual assault trial, in which he has already been found guilty in relation to historical crimes against two women.
“These are unusual circumstances,” said Judge Anne Molloy, who found Stronach guilty last month.
At issue is a shocking new claim that a lawyer for one of the victims contacted Stronach’s lawyer Leora Shemesh two weeks after the verdicts to, as she told Molloy this morning, “extract money,” without going through the formal process of litigation. He even sketched out the details of what he would accept, nearly a million dollars based on $275,000 damages, $25,000 in legal fees, and interest since the early 1980s.
Shemesh said there is a risk of a miscarriage of justice in the case because the narrative of the crime provided by this lawyer, Shale Wagman, is different than what the complainant A.S. testified in court. Judge Molloy said she agreed with this concern about risk, and that there are significant inconsistencies.
“Wouldn’t he have read my decision?” Molloy said, rhetorically, and discussed potentially calling Wagman as a witness to see whether he was actually operating under his client’s instructions, and whether A.S. actually told him the details of the crime that he related to Shemesh, which contradict her evidence earlier this year. Molloy called the situation “bizarre.”
“I agree, it’s quite unusual, because as your honour knows, she could have waited until October (to discuss a financial settlement), because there’s no statute of limitations (on sexual assault),” Shemesh said.
In her reasons, Molloy wrote about finding A.S. to be “a compelling, believable, and truthful witness,” who exhibited an “extreme fairness,” sometimes seeming to be “cross-examining herself, wondering if she was giving ‘mixed messages.’” But she also described misgivings about her reliability, but decided they were “explained to my satisfaction. They do not shake my confidence that the event she described did happen, just the way she described it.”
A.S. was a waitress who had been fired from a bar Stronach owned. The sexual assault for which Molloy has already found him guilty was a groping in his apartment after a dinner meeting to discuss her employment. It was among the more minor of the crimes initially alleged.
“I’m reluctant to declare a mistrial without hearing from her,” Molloy said today. But she was clear that if the witness told her lawyer one thing, and the court another, and Molloy relied on her testimony to find Stronach guilty, then a mistrial would have to follow.
The hearing continues.