I interviewed Frank Stronach about the criminal sexual offences he’s charged with. This is what it was like.

On July 18, I got a text message from Tore Stautland, the CEO of The News Forum, the television network where I host my show Canadian Justice.  Tore asked if we could set up a meeting to talk about a sensitive interview he was interested in setting up. It turned out, that interview would be with embattled billionaire car parts magnate, Frank Stronach. Like many Canadians, I’d read about the serious criminal charges that had been laid against Mr. Stronach.

Mr. Stronach was arrested on June 7 and charged with 5 offences;

• Complainant 1: July 1980; rape and indecent assault in Toronto

• Complainant 2: February 1986; sexual assault and unlawful confinement in Toronto

• Complainant 3: April 2023; sexual assault in Aurora

  
  

On June 26, Stronach was arrested and charged with eight additional criminal offences;

• Complainant 4: 1977; attempted rape and indecent assault in Toronto;

• Complainant 5: 1983; sexual assault in Toronto;

• Complainant 6: 1988; sexual assault in Toronto;

• Complainant 7: 1990; sexual assault in Scarborough;

• Complainant 8: Some time between 1999 and 2003; sexual assault in Aurora;

• Complainant 9: between Sept 12 2001 and June 30 2002; sexual assault in Aurora

• Complainant 10: February 2024; sexual assault in Gormley.

  
  

When Tore told me that Mr. Stronach was interested in doing an interview, I was floored. While I never practiced criminal law, there seems to be a general sense that criminal defendants have far more to lose than gain by doing this kind of media. There have also been a number of examples where high profile men accused of sexual impropriety or sexual offences attempt these types of interviews with disastrous results; Prince Andrew and R. Kelly come immediately to mind.

I know many people may have misgivings about sitting down with a person charged with such serious criminal offences. I did not. These interviews are a matter of public interest. If a high-profile defendant wishes to speak publicly in his own defence, it is news worthy. Our system also presumes a person is innocent until proven guilty. I do not have firm views on Mr. Stronach, since there is at this point very little to know other than the existence of the charges. I agreed to conduct the interview, on the conditions that there would be no off-limit topics, and that the network confirm they had never and would never take advertising money from Stronach. These conditions were all agreed to.

The interview was set for August 28, at 10 am, at The News Forum Studio in St. Catharine’s, a mid-sized municipality near Niagara Falls.

While I’ve done many interviews (at the time that this was recorded, I’d just finished filming the 300th episode of Canadian Justice), I’d never conducted an interview like this. But as a lawyer I have participated in examinations. To prepare, I contacted the court in Brampton and accessed the list of charges. Most of the names of the complainants were redacted, but three were not, and I did my best to track them down so I could give them the same opportunity for an interview. If I am going to interview the accused, I want to make it possible for the complainants to tell their story as well. However, I was only able to locate one of the complainants, and she did not respond to my inquiries. I understand and respect her desire to protect her privacy.

After reviewing and making notes on the court documents, which are under a publication ban, I reviewed some other interviews where criminal defendants and others sat down to talk to media. I wrote out a question map, and met with a Bay Street litigator do go through my questions and discuss how to structure them. The best approach for these types of interviews is to be open ended and open minded. I also reminded myself to listen intently. It is often the unexpected things an interview subject can say that will lead you down the most interesting path, but to get there, you need to really listen to what they are saying.

I arrived at the studio the morning of August 28, an hour before the scheduled interview time. To my surprise, Stronach and his retinue were already at the studio. After changing and finishing my makeup and hair, I was introduced to Stronach and his team. I chatted with them about the nature of my TV show, and the work I do in addition to the show writing for national papers and doing litigation work with the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

I wanted Stronach and his team to feel at ease so we made small talk as we walked onto the set, where there were two chairs set facing each other with a black backdrop. As Stronach and I were mic’ed up we made small talk about my family and our dogs. Stronach has German Shepherds, and I have Keeshonden, a type of Dutch spitz. I told Stronach I’ve seen him speak at events in the past, although we’ve never met. I mentioned I am familiar with his story building his business, and we talked about how we have both written books (he has written several – I’ve written one, with another in progress). Stronach declined powder, which is not uncommon among our male guests (especially older ones), to the frustration of our on set makeup artist.

For a moment before we started filming, Stronach got quiet and I felt him intently watching me, like he was sizing up what type of job I’d do with this interview – what my questions might be, and whether I would treat him fairly.

And then we began.

My first question to Stronach was an open ended one. Designed to give him the opportunity to broach the difficult subject of the criminal charges on his own terms. I said; “Over the years you’ve given many interviews about your philanthropy, your businesses, and we can come to that. But today you’ve chosen to speak –  why have you decided to talk now.”

But to my great surprise Mr. Stronach did not say anything about the charges. Instead he explained that he wanted to do this interview to talk about Canada’s economy, and his vision of something he calls the “Economic Charter of Rights” and his career building Magna and his various businesses. I listened, but this is not the subject the public has any interest in for an interview with Stronach at this time. And in my view it’s a strange priority to be focused on when facing very serious criminal allegations.

I followed up by asking Mr. Stronach, given his career achievements, how does it feel to now be faced with serious criminal charges, and what can he tell us about the charges. To my utter shock, Stronach replied “I made it quite clear when I agreed to come here that that’s in front of the judge and I can’t talk about those things here.” This was in fact not what we’d agreed. It had been clear in the terms of the interview that there would not be off limit topics, and Stronach had agreed to that. I was not in direct communication with Stronach’s team, but from the network’s perspective the interview would address the criminal charges. Stronach never told us that he would not talk about the charges.

In that moment I thought of the different options open to me; either end the interview, since this was not what had been agreed upon, or continue to pursue the questions I was interested in to see what I could learn from Stronach’s answers. I chose the second path.

It was worthwhile, because although Stronach kept repeating that he could not talk about the criminal charges, he would still make comments that gave a lot of insight. For example, he said several times that he can “prove” he has never done anything “improper” to a woman. The choice of word “improper” is an interesting one, because it is completely ambiguous, and it also captures a much broader category of conduct.

Perhaps the most interesting exchange was mid way through the interview, where Stronach again repeated that he has never done anything “improper”, and I asked him if he knows any of the women who have made the allegations. He said “look I don’t know, I haven’t been involved, I haven’t got the data. I haven’t got the thing yet. They’re still doing this. So I can’t… you know… I don’t make any remarks.” And then suddenly, “I settled the thing here, for the…” and then he trails off stuttering, and says “I’m not allowed, I cannot talk about it.” This is interesting because the existence of private settlements with any of the women for sexual misconduct had been an ongoing issue as part of a dispute between Mr. Stronach and his family over the family business, and they could also be relevant to the criminal cases. I followed up to ask Mr. Stronach if he’d settled any cases or if any women have made demands for money,  to which Mr. Stronach replied “I will not talk about those things here.”

Another interesting exchange related to Mr. Stronach’s decision to retain a new lawyer. He had previously been represented by Brian Greenspan, but shortly before my interview he retained a new lawyer, Leora Shemesh. I asked him why he made the switch. Stronach at first replied that he has his “own reason” for the change, and that he didn’t want to talk about it, and suggested “that’s not the subject” for the interview. But then said “I want to have a woman lawyer that represents me because allegations are made by women. And I think women will understand women better than a man would.” He said Brian Greenspan “is one of the great lawyers, but I didn’t choose him […] He was chosen by someone else.” When I asked who chose Brian, Mr. Stronach replied suggesting it was someone on the Board Directors of Stronach International.

In another exchange, Stronach said there is something wrong with the law as it relates to the presumption of innocence; “when did those laws come in […] you were always not guilty until you were proven guilty […] the names were not revealed.” In another exchange Stronach appeared to expand on this point, saying “Somebody makes an allegation, 40, 50 years ago […]  what kind of country is that? In most civilized places where you’ve got real democracies that doesn’t happen. You could only get the names revealed after judgments are done.” I asked if he means the names of the accused, and he said yes, the accused and the accusers.

This is all a bit confusing. The charges are not for alleged offences that happened 50 years ago. While some of the allegations date back to 1977 (47 years ago), there are also charges for allegations in the 1980's, 1990's, 2000's, and as recently as 2023 and 2024. The names of the complainants in this case are also subject to a publication ban because this is a policy choice governments have made to encourage victims of sexual offences to report those underreported crimes by protecting their identity. In Canada our system does identify the names of people charged with criminal offences. That is part of the public record and central to holding both the system and its participants accountable in a democracy. Most Canadians would likely object forcefully to keeping the names of people accused of serious crimes confidential, and it is the case in many countries that the accused name is publicly known.

I followed up to ask about the criminal justice system, and Stronach said “I have a concerns that we accuse people […] someone throws out a thing here, xxx, I think that’s not real democracy. I think it was always a person was innocent until proven guilty, so there’s something wrong there too. It does a lot of damage.” I asked him if he thinks whether the principle of being innocent until proven guilty is still true, and he replied “that’s not true, I mean obviously look at where they arrested […] I got a call, I went there. I said fine, investigate. I have no problem. There is something wrong. Do I like it that so much dirt is thrown against me? Of course I don’t like it. But on the other hand, when I look in the mirror I’ve been blessed.”

Throughout the interview, Stronach seemed to somehow connect his vision on profit-sharing with employees and his success in business with these criminal charges, suggesting he is being targeted for his views. “I waited until I had no more responsibilities except to myself and friends […] I knew when I got into specifics of what society would do I would end up with a lot of poison arrows in my back.” I asked if he means he is facing criminal charges because of his prominence in Canadian business and culture. And he replies “Yes I expected that,” then goes on to talk, in something of a non-sequitur, about the tax code. I take Stronach back again to his claim that he is facing “bows and arrows” because of his success, and I ask why he thinks these 10 women might want to hurt him. His response; “this is the tax code.”

In another exchange when Mr. Stronach again says there is “dirt being thrown” at him, and I ask him why it is happening. He said “because people would have to share. They don’t want to share the profits.” I ask him what he means, and if he means there is some other force, not the women who have made complaints against him, that is trying to take him down. He replies with a lengthy monologue about regulation and computers and the permits for his farmers market, and that he has come along to try to disturb that system. I asked him to help me understand then, this connection he is drawing between his vision for the economic charter, for less regulation, and the criminal charges. Because he has been appearing throughout the interview to draw a connection between the two. He then concedes “the criminal charges are something else.”  

The interview when watched in its entirety is long and meandering, with Stronach speaking at length about his views on Canada’s economy and on business. But there are revealing clips, all of which I’ve made available on my TikTok and on the Canadian Justice YouTube channel. You can watch the full unedited interview here: https://youtu.be/3gOM6c9Lalw

Since this interview was recorded at the end of August, Stronach has been charged with 5 new offences related to three additional women, including sexual assault and indecent assault. The charges stem from alleged incidents in Toronto in 1981 and 1983 and in the nearby hamlet of Gormley, Ont., in 1993.

I don’t have views on whether Stronach is guilty or innocent. This is impossible to know from sitting down with him, and from the very limited public information we have at this time. I will certainly be following the criminal case closely.