WARNING: This story references sexual assault allegations and may affect those who have experienced sexual violence or know someone affected by it.
Defence lawyer Leora Shemesh continues her cross-examination of the fourth complainant in the sexual assault trial of Canadian businessman Frank Stronach.
Details of the 1983 Allegation
In a Toronto courtroom on Thursday, the woman, now in her 60s, testified that she worked as a university student for Stronach’s company during the summer of 1983. She secured the position through her father’s acquaintance with Stronach.
Near the summer’s end, Stronach invited her to dinner. During the evening, he suggested viewing the cityscape from his Harbourfront apartment. The complainant described feeling uncomfortable but obliged, given the dinner and her job connection.
While she stood at the window, Stronach approached from behind, embraced her, and fondled her breasts, she stated. She recounted ending up face down on the bedroom bed, partially clothed with her trousers pulled to her thighs. Stronach then raped her from behind, according to her testimony.
Charges and Plea
The 93-year-old founder of auto-parts giant Magna International faces 12 charges, including sexual assault and forcible confinement. Two counts—rape and attempted rape—stem from historical offences abolished in 1983 when the Criminal Code introduced sexual assault provisions.
Stronach denies the allegations and has entered not guilty pleas to all charges.
Cross-Examination Highlights
Shemesh initiated cross-examination Thursday afternoon, scrutinizing the complainant’s prior police statements and a January 20, 2026, preparatory meeting with Crown attorneys.
The defence has raised concerns over potential coaching during such meetings, prompting earlier arguments to stay the charges.
Shemesh highlighted the complainant’s frequent use of “I would have” in her June 2024 police statement, absent from Thursday’s testimony except possibly once. She suggested the preparatory meeting influenced avoidance of the phrase for court.
The complainant denied any instructions on phrasing, stating, “At no point during that meeting was I ever told how I should put things.” She added she had not deliberately avoided the expression.
Shemesh also addressed “omissions” raised in the meeting, such as the complainant’s uncertainty about reaching the bedroom. “So that’s something that is brought to your attention, that there are omissions here, and we need to discuss those omissions,” Shemesh remarked.
“There was no discussion about the omissions at all,” the complainant replied. “[The Crown] said, ‘this is an omission.’ And then that was it.”
Shemesh queried gaps in the complainant’s recollection of time, the bedroom, conversations with Stronach, or her behavior that night. The complainant acknowledged memory lapses, distinguishing between faded long-term memories and those blocked by trauma.
“One is memory where it was a long time ago. And there are other problems of memory where they’re very painful memories, and really, your mind blocks them out,” she explained.
