a reluctant complainant who had done nothing to initiate the allegations against the respondent and was testifying only because
she had been subpoenaed. On her evidence, the police initiated
the sexual assault investigation and carried it forward to trial.
 The complainant was vigorously cross-examined. In that
cross-examination, the defence alleged that the complainant
had fabricated the allegations, and that the respondent had not
searched her at all in the vehicle. During cross-examination,
counsel suggested to the complainant various reasons she might
have to fabricate the allegations.
 The complainant’s evidence that she did not complain
about the respondent’s conduct at the police station, and that it
was the police who initiated the sexual assault investigation in
response to her comment that she had been searched three times,
was consistent with and therefore tended to confirm her trial evidence to the effect that she was a disinterested, reluctant complainant with no real interest in the outcome of the trial. If the
trial judge accepted that the complainant did not initiate the allegation and was disinterested in pursuing it, that finding could
reasonably make her evidence describing the events in the police
car more credible. Also, if the trial judge accepted that the complainant had not been the one to make the sexual allegation and
had not pursued that allegation, the defence suggestion that she
had fabricated the allegation would have no force.
 In my view, the evidence of the complainant’s interaction
with the police at the station, including what she said to Constable Flint, was relevant to a proper assessment of her credibility. It was therefore admissible even if it was a prior consistent
 I agree with my colleague’s proposed disposition.
Weinbaum et al. v. Weidberg et al.; Makow et al.,
[Indexed as: Weinbaum v. Weidberg]
2017 ONSC 1040
Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, Nordheimer,
Stewart and Labrosse JJ. March 6, 2017
Limitations — Contractual limitation period — Section 18 of Limitations Act, 2002 not superseding principle that contractual limitation
provision can preclude claim for contribution and indemnity — Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B, s. 18.