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 is continuing her cross examination of the fourth complainant in the sexual assault trial of Canadian businessman Frank Stronach.
On Thursday, a Toronto courtroom heard that the woman, now in her 60s, was a university student who had worked for Stronach’s company in the summer of 1983.
The woman told court that she got the job because her father had known Stronach. Near the end of the summer, Stronach asked her to go out for dinner, she said.
During that evening, Stronach invited her to see the view from his apartment at Harbourfront, the woman said. She said she felt quite uncomfortable about the invitation, but thought she should go since he had taken her out to dinner and got her a job.
Once in the apartment, while she was standing at the window looking at the view, Stronach came up from behind, put his arms around her and started fondling her breasts, the woman told court.
She said somehow from there she ended up in the bedroom face down on the bed. The woman said she wasn’t completely naked but Stronach pulled her trousers down, probably to her thighs.
She said Stronach, standing behind her, then raped her.
The 93-year-old founder of auto-parts giant Magna International faces a total of 12 charges, including sexual assault and forcible confinement. Two of the counts, rape and attempted rape, are considered historical charges as they were abolished when the Criminal Code was amended in 1983 to create the offence of sexual assault.
Stronach has denied the allegations and has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Later on Thursday afternoon, Shemesh began her cross examination of the woman.
Stronach’s lawyer focused on the complainant’s past police statements and a preparatory meeting she had with Crown attorneys for the case on Jan. 20, 2026.
That meeting has become an issue in the case. Shemesh, before the trial began, said she would be asking for the charges against her client to be stayed, arguing that some of the complainants may have been coached during preparatory meetings with the Crown.
During cross examination, Shemesh zeroed in on the phrase “I would have” that the woman had used repeatedly in relaying her story in a June 2024 statement with police.
Shemesh said the woman had never used that phrase during her court testimony on Thursday, though the woman said she thought she used it once during her testimony.
Shemesh suggested it was during that preparatory meeting that the woman learned that “I would have” is not the best phrase to utilize in the court proceeding.
The woman said at no point during that meeting was she ever told how she “should put things.” She said she hadn’t specifically avoided the use of that phrase during her court testimony.
Shemesh also raised how the topic of “omissions” came up in the preparatory meeting. For example, the woman said the Crown told her in that meeting that it was an omission that she didn’t know how she had got to the bedroom in the condo unit.
“So that’s something that is brought to your attention, that there are omissions here, and we need to discuss those omissions,” Shemesh said.
“There was no discussion about the omissions at all,” the woman said. “[The Crown] said, ‘this is an omission.’ And then that was it.”
Shemesh also asked the woman if she agreed there were “portions of time and space that are lost to you.”
The woman agreed, but said there are two categories of problems with memory.
“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.”
The woman did agree, however that she didn’t have a clear recollection of how she got to the bedroom that night, the room itself, if she had any discussions with Stronach or how she was behaving that evening.
