Complainant’s lawyer who sparked Frank Stronach’s odd sex assault mistrial blames defence and bad decisions

The lawyer for the female complainant at the centre of the strange sexual assault mistrial for business tycoon Frank Stronach said he feels he was a pawn in the high-profile case against one of Canada’s richest men.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Ontario lawyer Shale Wagman, whose indiscreet discussion with Stronach’s defence lawyer led a judge to overturn her own guilty verdict last month, told National Post he doesn’t think a mistrial was the right call, accused Stronach’s lawyer of “sneakily” getting information from him, and complained the verdict led to his character being attacked.

In retort to Wagman’s claims, Leora Shemesh, who led Stronach’s fiery defence at the lengthy trial, denied being sneaky and said the lawyer’s discussions on his client’s behalf “seemed like a shake down.”

The sharp comments from the lawyers followed Friday’s release of the written reasons — detailed and notably frank — by the judge overseeing Stronach’s trial, revealing her extraordinary internal wrestling over retracting her own guilty finding and declaring a mistrial on one of the sex crimes the billionaire faced.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Anne Molloy faced a rare quandary after she was told of an unusual discussion — “bizarre” she called it in court — that Wagman initiated with Shemesh after Molloy’s guilty verdict against Stronach but before she had sentenced him.

That timing is important because until sentencing, a trial is still in the hands of the trial judge.

After the complicated trial that stretched through three seasons in Toronto this year, Molloy issued her lengthy verdict in June, finding Stronach guilty on two of the 12 sex charges he faced: an indecent assault of a woman in 1977 or 1978 and a sexual assault of a woman in 1983 or 1984.

The original indictment against Stronach had alleged offences against seven different women, but by the end of the trial prosecution lawyers conceded charges relating to four had not been proven and Molloy acquitted him of charges against a fifth.

The complainant in the 1980s incident can be identified only by the initials A.S. because of a court-ordered publication ban.

Before a sentencing hearing, however, court was unexpectedly reconvened last month to hear a surprise motion filed by Shemesh for a mistrial, based on emails she recently exchanged with Wagman.

In open court, lawyers and the judge were guarded about the details of the emails, but in her written reasons, Molloy documents them clearly.

On July 2, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., Shemesh received an emailed letter from Wagman saying he had been retained by A.S. who was seeking civil damages from Stronach. He asked her to forward the letter to Stronach’s civil lawyer, according to Molloy’s written ruling.

Over the next few hours, the two lawyers exchanged a series of emails.

Shemesh asked how much A.S. was seeking. Wagman said $275,000 plus interest at five per cent from the date of the assault plus $10,000 in costs for an amount totalling more than $900,000.

Shemesh replied that her client would want to understand the basis for the claim and pointed out that A.S. had worked for Stronach for six years after the encounter.

Wagman then summarized to her the complaint: That A.S. was traumatized by the events; worked for Stronach under fear; had relationship problems for 40 years afterward the encounter; still lives with the pain; and courts do not blame the victim, according to Molloy’s written reasons.

“If you prefer the statement of claim route, that’s no problem. I just thought to try and settle this would be mutually beneficial,” Wagman wrote, according to the court record. In reply to questions from Shemesh, Wagman added: “She was humiliated when she saw Mr. Stronach at work and he often smirked at her, knowing what had taken place.”

This portrayal was much different from what A.S. had said during her testimony at Stronach’s trial.

In Molloy’s written reasons, the judge noted the rarity and seriousness of the decision she faced.

“Declaring a mistrial is a remedy of last resort,” Molloy wrote.

“One of the most difficult tasks facing any trial judge is making credibility findings. Sexual assault trials are among the most difficult for credibility assessments because there is rarely corroborating evidence or testimony from anyone other than the complainant and the accused, and sometimes just the complainant. When the case involves a historic sexual assault, the task is even more difficult.”

That is precisely why the exchange between Wagman and Shemesh was so troubling for her.

Molloy wrote that she found Stronach guilty because she believed A.S. was telling the truth about her encounter with Stronach during her testimony in court.

“I based that conclusion in large measure on some factors that are now called in question,” Molloy wrote. The new information would require her to make a fresh credibility assessment.

“I am not confident that any future analysis of A.S.’s credibility based on new evidence would be unaffected, at least to some degree, by my previous reasoning. I would like to think I could do that objectively, but it is difficult to say that my previous findings would not affect my assessment, even if unconsciously. More importantly, I am concerned about how a reasonable person would perceive my future decision,” she wrote.

“If I were to find that I still believed her core evidence about the assault, would I be seen as having difficulty admitting that I was wrong?”

Molly said she could not ignore the emails: “I know what it was that persuaded me to find that A.S. was telling the truth, and many of those things are directly contradicted by the emails from Mr. Wagman.”

A.S. claimed at trial that Stronach invited her up to his waterfront apartment to see the view and then kissed and groped her over top of her clothing. She often minimized the harm done to her rather than amping it up, which added to her credibility, Molloy said, because it “is not typical of a person with a motive for financial gain.” During her testimony in court, A.S. said that after the encounter she was hired at Stronach’s large company, Magna International, had a good experience there, and that Stronach was polite and professional when she saw him at work.

Molloy said she wondered whether A.S. should be recalled to the stand, or if Wagman should be called to testify. She decided against either action because it didn’t much matter what they said, Molly wrote, because “all roads lead to a mistrial.”

Wagman said in an interview that he was surprised his emails triggered the hearing and led to a mistrial.

“I never thought this would happen,” he said.

Wagman said he only contacted Shemesh to get in touch with Stronach’s civil lawyer to discuss a proposed lawsuit, after he was contacted by A.S. about suing.

“She wanted damages from Mr. Stronach for what he did to her. I didn’t know the civil lawyer’s name,” Wagman said. When Shemesh responded by asking how much his client wanted he thought she was opening negotiations.

“I thought she was genuinely interested in making a discussion for settlement, because I thought it would assist Mr. Stronach if he settled with the A.S. victim before his sentencing,” Wagman said.

“But she wasn’t interested in trying to settle the case. She was just trying to get information from me, to sneakily try to get this, I guess, mistrial, or just to gather information.”

Wagman said he thinks Molloy was wrong to declare a mistrial.

“I don’t think she should have based a mistrial based on what I said. She could have called A.S. back, but I think A.S. would have confirmed that what I said was what she told me.”

He is unhappy with the backlash.

“My character has been attacked in the press when, in reality, I have helped hundreds if not more people in civil and criminal cases,” he said. “I was the first lawyer in Ontario to successfully act for a female plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against her attacker after the man was found not guilty by a jury.”

Shemesh said the way she sees it, it was a “desperate attempt” to extract money from Stronach. “It is incumbent on all counsel to ensure that they have at least read their client’s narrative given under oath in court before they share a different narrative with counsel,” she said.

Wagman said in hindsight he wishes he had waited until after Stronach’s sentencing. Asked about A.S.’s proposed lawsuit he said, “I’m not sure if she’s still going ahead or not.”

A mistrial does not mean A.S.’s complaint will not still be prosecuted. The Crown may decide to mount a new trial. Stronach still faces another sexual assault trial involving six different complainants in York Region, based on allegations from 1988 to 2024.

At the mistrial hearing, Shemesh also sought a mistrial for Stronach’s remaining conviction — the 1970s indecent assault — but Molloy dismissed it. Stronach is expected back in court in front of Molloy for sentencing arguments on that conviction next month.

Stronach, who turns 94 next month, became a famous business titan and one of the country’s richest men through Magna, a hugely successful auto parts manufacturing company he founded.

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | X: AD_Humphreys