WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1,172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
R.G.
Before Justice S. Robichaud
Heard on December 18, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on December 19, 2025
Reya Dhandari..................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Andrew Furgiuele.................................................................. counsel for the accused R.G.
ROBICHAUD J.:
I. Introduction
1For the reasons that follow, I find Mr. G. not guilty of the offences charged.
2While the burden of proof rests with the Crown to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, this case presents an evidentiary record that not only fails to meet that standard but, in important respects, points in the opposite direction.
3On the evidence before me, I am persuaded that the allegations cannot be true.
4I reject the complainant’s evidence on the core allegations in its entirety. When the totality of the evidence is assessed, it is virtually impossible that the events she described occurred.
5The Court of Appeal in R. v. Mullins‑Johnson, 2007 ONCA 720, confirmed that a criminal trial is not a forum for declarations of factual innocence. At paragraph 23, the Court adopted the observation of The Lamer Commission of Inquiry Pertaining to the Cases of: Ronald Dalton, Gregory Parsons, Randy Druken, that the function of a criminal trial is:
[T]o determine whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, the accused is guilty. If not, the accused is found not guilty. There is no finding of factual innocence since it would not fall within the ambit or purpose of criminal law.
6However, this principle does not preclude a trial judge from making clear findings about the reliability and truthfulness of the evidence. Where the record demonstrates that allegations are unsupported, unreliable, or false, it is the Court’s duty to say so. The fact that the criminal process results in a binary verdict does not prevent a judge from explaining the factual basis for that result.
7In my view, it would be an abdication of the Court’s judicial responsibility, and intellectually dishonest, to temper or obscure necessary factual findings merely because they may extend beyond the narrow legal distinction between guilt and not guilty. Just as a conviction may rest on overwhelming evidence of culpability, an acquittal may rest on overwhelming evidence that points away from culpability.
8In circumstances such as these, where the criminal trial may be the only forum in which the allegations are subjected to rigorous scrutiny, the Court must state its factual conclusions plainly and without qualification.
II. Legal Issues
A. The burden and standard of proof.
9The accused is presumed innocent on each count unless and until the Crown proves the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.i This presumption of innocence is guaranteed by section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The burden of proof never shifts and remains with the Crown.
10Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably linked to the presumption of innocence. The law does not lightly brand someone a criminal. A reasonable doubt is one based on reason and common sense, and is logically derived from the evidence or the absence of evidence. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt and is not based on sympathy or prejudice.ii
11Likely or probable guilt is insufficient to meet the criminal standard, but proof to an absolute certainty is not required. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt lies much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities.
12The accused bears no burden to prove any fact or to call evidence supporting an inference of innocence or a finding of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt may arise from the evidence or from a lack of evidence.iii
13The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies to the final determination of guilt or innocence based on the totality of the evidence. It is not applied piecemeal to individual items or categories of evidence.iv
B. Principles governing child witness evidence (W.(R.), A.M., D.D.).
14This case rests entirely on the evidence of M.R., who was 12 years old at the time of the alleged events and remains a young person today. Her evidence forms the sole foundation of the Crown’s case. It is therefore essential to approach her testimony in accordance with the principles that govern the assessment of child witnesses.
15It is well established that the evidence of child witnesses must be approached in a common-sense manner, considering the age of the witness and the fact that children experience the world differently than adults. Although children may not be able to recount precise details such as the when and where of an event with exactitude, “this does not mean that they have misconceived what happened to them and who did it.”: R. v. B.(G.), 1990 CanLII 7308 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30, at p. 55.
16In R. v. W.(R.), 1992 CanLII 56 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122 at paragraph 26, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that credibility assessments must reflect the mental development, understanding, and communicative abilities of the individual witness. The Court cautioned against rigid distinctions between “adult” and “child” standards. Instead, every witness must be evaluated as an individual. The Supreme Court further observed that when a person testifies about events that occurred during childhood, inconsistencies on peripheral matters, particularly relating to timing or location, must be considered in light of the witness’s age at the time of the events.
17The Court of Appeal has reaffirmed these principles. In R. v. A.M., 2014 ONCA 769 at paragraph 9, the Court stated that “[f]irst, every witness, irrespective of age, is an individual whose credibility and evidence should be assessed according to criteria appropriate to his or her mental development, understanding and ability to communicate,” citing W.(R.). More recently, in R. v. D.D., 2022 ONCA 786 at paragraph 4, the Court reiterated that a child’s evidence must be approached on a common‑sense basis that reflects the way children experience and recall events.
18Most importantly, the evidence of children is not to be treated as evidence that is inherently unreliable or to be treated with special caution. R. v. W.R., supra, at para 142-143.
19Children may not attend to details that adults consider important. Omissions or inaccuracies relating to peripheral matters such as spatial orientation or the precise passage of time are neither surprising nor, in themselves, indicative of unreliability. As W.(R.) illustrates at paragraph 30, a child’s inability to describe the layout of bedrooms in a house was not significant to the assessment of reliability because it related to a peripheral matter.
20These authorities guide my approach to the evidence in this case. I have assessed M.R.’s account in a manner that takes full and careful account of her age, developmental stage, and ability to communicate, without imposing adult expectations on peripheral aspects of her recollection. At the same time, I must determine whether the core elements of her account are reliable when considered in the context of the entire evidentiary record.
III. An Overview of the Evidence
A. The evidence of the complainant, M.R.
21M.R. was 12 years old at the time of the alleged incident. Her evidence was presented through her testimony and through a video‑recorded statement given to police on October 3, 2024, at SVU Room 1, beginning at 13:18 and ending at 14:35. The interview was conducted by Detective Constable Leslie McNaughton. The recording was admitted on consent under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, and during her testimony M.R. confirmed that she reviewed the statement shortly before trial and adopted its contents as accurate.
22M.R. began Grade 7 at DLMS in September 2024. She testified that she felt nervous at the new school and particularly anxious before physical‑education class. She said that before the school year began, neighbourhood peers told her that R.G. “touches boys and girls.” She testified that because of these comments, she was uncomfortable around him and feared he “might do something wrong.” and that her “heart would start bumping the night before”.
23Regarding October 1, 2024, M.R. testified that her bus arrived at approximately 8:15 a.m. She said that upon entering the front area of DLMS, her homeroom teacher, Ms. R., instructed her to walk around the school and use the Grade 7 entrance at the rear. She testified that although other late students entered through the main doors, she followed what she understood to be Ms. R.’s instruction.
24M.R. testified that she walked alone to the rear of DLMS. She stated that no other students were present and that she was “the last one” to arrive. She said she opened the external door and placed “one foot” inside the building when she saw R.G. standing in the vestibule.
25M.R. stated that R.G. told her to “pause,” but she continued walking because she was frightened and “felt he might do something wrong.” She described the entrance area as a two‑door vestibule: an exterior set of doors and an inner set of doors leading into the hallway. She testified that the inner door was closed at the time.
26M.R. alleged that R.G. attempted to hug her and then placed the palms of his hands on her chest, pressing or “squeezing” her chest “really hard.” During the 715.1 interview, she demonstrated several different hand positions. Her gestures in explaining how he touched her were confusing enough that D.C. McNaughton left the room to retrieve a doll to assist her in demonstrating.
27M.R. stated repeatedly that the contact lasted “two minutes” and that she “screamed [her] lungs out,” “as loud as [she] could,” “super, super loud,” for the entire duration. These statements were made clearly and emphatically at the beginning of the interview. When asked to clarify the type of scream, she described a loud, full‑volume scream consistent with “a horror‑movie scream.”:
28When D.C. McNaughton questioned how two minutes of such screaming could go unheard in a school with nearby classrooms, M.R. began adjusting her estimate, at times stating it could have been “one minute,” “maybe a minute,” or that she “forgot.” Nevertheless, she consistently maintained that she screamed loudly and that nobody responded.
29When asked why no one came, M.R. stated at different points that:
- the inner vestibule door was closed.
30teachers “might have been teaching”.
31students “maybe ignored it”.
- she did not know why no one reacted.
At other points she agreed that, in general, such a scream would be heard.
32She testified that when the alleged contact ended, R.G. closed the exterior door, walked inside toward the gym area, and said, “I’m gay” and that he “can’t wait to see you first period tomorrow.” M.R. said she then continued into the school but did not disclose the incident immediately.1
33Later that morning, during a period she described as “free time,” M.R. emailed her parents about the incident. She testified that they instructed her to write down what happened “on the back of [her] book,” and she did so.2
34M.R. also stated, both in her video statement and in her testimony, that she had either witnessed or heard of other inappropriate conduct by R.G., including touching a girl on the lips during gym and pushing another student on the back. She could not provide names for any of the students involved, and her account varied as to whether she observed these incidents or learned of them from classmates.
35When asked to identify the students involved in these prior alleged incidents, M.R. said she did not know their names. She stated that the girls were “from another class,” that she “forgot their names,” and that they were no longer at DLMS. At various points she said: “I don’t remember her name,” “I forgot,” “she’s gone,” “I think she left the school,” and “we wouldn’t be able to find them now.”
36During cross‑examination, M.R. confirmed that she heard negative information about R.G. from neighbourhood peers before starting at DLMS and that she was already afraid of gym class prior to October 1. She insisted that Ms. R. had directed her to the rear entrance and that R.G. was supervising that doorway, despite evidence to the contrary. She acknowledged that several classrooms were close to the vestibule but maintained that no one would have heard her screaming because the inner door was closed.
B. The evidence of the principal, “Mr. H.”
37Mr. H. testified that he became the principal of DLMS in March 2024, having previously served in a centrally assigned administrative role. He had no prior dealings with M.R. before the events in question. He described the school’s physical layout, morning supervision structure, entry procedures, and general operational routines in September and October of the 2024–2025 academic year.
38Mr. H. explained that classes at DLMS begin at 8:10 a.m., and that morning supervision runs from 7:55 a.m. to 8:10 a.m. Students may enter through any of five entrances during that period. Although certain doors tend to be used by certain grade groups. For example, the Grade 7 doors located on the north side of the building and there is a general “free‑flow” entry pattern in the morning. When the 8:10 bell rings, supervising staff and students are expected to move toward their classrooms for the start of the instructional day.
39He testified that Door 6, the entryway closest to the Grade 7 hallway, consists of an exterior set of double doors and an interior set of double doors forming a vestibule. He explained that this vestibule is not soundproof. In his experience, a normal‑volume conversation occurring inside the vestibule might not be heard from inside nearby classrooms, but shouting or screaming would be heard clearly, and he would expect staff to respond. Under examination, he created a layout of the entrances to the school. This was entered as Exhibit 3.
40Mr. H. addressed teacher supervision schedules. He testified that the supervision timetable for October 2024 was in place at the start of the school year and had not been amended on October 1. This was as filed as exhibit to the proceedings.
41According to this schedule:
(1) Ms. R. did not have morning supervision duties during the 2024–2025 school year. Her assigned supervision was at lunch, in an outdoor field area.
(2) The Accused, R.G. also had no morning supervision assignments. His duties were scheduled after school, largely connected with dismissal.
(3) October 1, 2024, was a “Day 9” in DLMS’s ten‑day cycle, during which R.G. was scheduled for “planning time” during first period (8:10–9:10 a.m.).
42He explained that “Planning time” or “PT” is self‑directed, but teachers are expected to be engaged in professional work; it does not include supervision duties, nor would teachers be posted at an entry door without an assigned duty.
43Mr. H. testified that in his experience, teachers who do not have assigned entry‑door duties do not “loiter” at the doors after supervision ends. He also testified that when buses arrive late, affected students are expected to enter through the front doors, not by circulating around the exterior of the school building to a secondary entrance.
44He explained that exterior doors at DLMS are manually locked by the custodian shortly after 8:10 a.m. Although it is theoretically possible for a particular door to remain unlocked for a short period depending on the custodian’s sequence, he testified that the routine practice is to secure the building promptly so that all students enter through monitored access points.
45After learning that police were investigating an allegation involving a student, Mr. H. testified that he reviewed supervision records and spoke with staff. He determined that no supervision‑duty switches had occurred on October 1, 2024. According to him, Ms. R. confirmed that she had not been supervising the front entrance that morning and had not directed any late students to use the rear Grade 7 doors. Despite the hearsay nature of this statement, the Court was able to hear from Ms. R. and her evidence is addressed below.
46Mr. H. further testified that DLMS does not have CCTV coverage at the Grade 7 doors. The only exterior‑facing camera is part of a front‑lobby buzzer system with a short digital buffer. By the time he attempted to check it, the data from October 1, 2024, had already been overwritten, making it impossible to retrieve any footage relevant to the events in question.
C. The evidence of teacher “Ms. R.”
47Ms. R. testified that she is a Grade 7 teacher at DLMS, where she has taught since 2018. During the 2024–2025 school year, she was M.R.’s homeroom teacher and taught her several subjects, including language, history, geography, visual arts, and music. She confirmed that M.R. was new to DLMS in September 2024.
48Ms. R. described the location of her classroom, Room 111, near the Grade 7 entrance referred to as Door 6, which consists of a set of exterior double doors leading into a vestibule, followed by an interior set of double doors that lead directly into the Grade 7 hallway.
49She testified that she had no morning supervision duties during the 2024–2025 school year. Her assigned supervision was at lunchtime, in an outdoor area used by Grade 6 students. She explained that morning supervision at DLMS ends at 8:10 a.m., after which teachers are expected to be moving into their classrooms to prepare for the start of the instructional day.
50Ms. R. testified that she was not supervising any doors on the morning of October 1, 2024, and that she would not have been standing at the front entrance at approximately 8:15 a.m. She stated that she did not recall seeing M.R. arrive late that morning and did not remember any unusual behaviour from her at the start of the day.
51Ms. R. also testified about the established procedure for late‑arriving students. When a school bus arrives after the 8:10 a.m. bell, late students are expected to enter through the main front doors and report directly to their homeroom class. She stated clearly that she would never instruct a late student to walk outside around the building to use the rear Grade 7 entrance. She said she has never done so during her years of teaching at DLMS.
52In particular, Ms. R. testified that she did not direct M.R. to use the rear entrance on October 1, 2024. She stated that she was in her classroom, as expected, at or around 8:20 a.m. and had no recollection of any interaction with M.R. at the doors that morning.
53She testified about the audibility of sounds from the vestibule at Door 6. This is a door close to her classroom that she is familiar with.
54She confirmed that the vestibule doors are not soundproof. In her experience, she stated that she can hear normal‑volume conversations coming from the vestibule, depending on where she is located inside her classroom. She testified that she would certainly hear shouting or screaming, even with both sets of doors closed. She stated that if she ever heard a student screaming loudly, she would “absolutely check” to determine what was happening and would expect other staff to react similarly. She testified that she did not hear any screaming on the morning of October 1, 2024.
55Ms. R. further described the typical noise level and routines between 8:10 and 8:20 a.m. After the 8:10 bell, she testified that O Canada is played over the school’s PA system, followed by morning announcements lasting approximately five to ten minutes. She explained that students are expected to remain still during this period and that hallways and classrooms are generally quiet. She testified that she is normally in her classroom preparing for instruction during this interval.
56On cross‑examination, Ms. R. acknowledged that on rare occasions teachers may switch supervision duties if a supply teacher is present, but such switches are not informal and are ordinarily communicated to administration. She confirmed that she did not switch duties on October 1, 2024 and had no reason to be supervising at either the front or rear entrance at that time.
57She also testified that she did not recall any conversation with Mr. H. pertaining to M.R.’s alleged late arrival or any behaviours observed that morning. She explained that although she may not recall every conversation from over a year ago, she had no memory of speaking with administration about the incident at the time.
IV. Analysis of the Complainant’s Evidence
A. Core vs. peripheral inconsistencies
58I have assessed M.R.’s evidence with appropriate sensitivity to her age, while distinguishing core elements of her account from peripheral details. Peripheral matters include minor aspects of orientation, the precise number of steps into the vestibule, and small variations in time references. The core elements concern: (i) whether Ms. R. directed M.R. to the rear Grade 7 doors; (ii) whether R.G. was present at Door 6 supervising that entry; (iii) the nature of the physical contact M.R. described; (iv) the duration and intensity of her screaming; and (v) the absence of any response from teachers or students in nearby classrooms.
59On the core elements, M.R.’s account is internally inconsistent and is contradicted by reliable independent evidence. She maintained that Ms. R. directed her to walk outside around the building to the rear doors. Ms. R. testified that she had no morning supervision, that late students are to enter through the front doors, that she would never direct a late student to walk around to the rear doors, and that she did not so direct M.R. on October 1, 2024. Mr. H. corroborated the morning routine and the absence of any duty for Ms. R. at the front doors that morning.
60M.R. also stated that R.G. was supervising Door 6 when she arrived. Mr. H. testified that R.G. had no morning supervision assignment and was scheduled for planning time during Period 1 on the relevant day. There was no evidence of any duty switch and no independent evidence placing R.G. on supervision at Door 6 at the relevant time.
61As to the physical contact, M.R. gave multiple, mutually inconsistent demonstrations of hand position during her video‑recorded interview. She ultimately described crossed arms and palms pressed against her chest, with a “push” or “squeeze.” The repeated need for a doll to clarify basic hand positioning, combined with the difficulty of reconciling crossed arms with a sustained “squeeze” of the chest, leaves the mechanics of the alleged contact uncertain.
62The gesture demonstrations in the 715.1 video posed significant difficulty. M.R. alternated between depictions of open arms, crossed arms, and palms pressed against her chest. Even with the use of a doll, her explanations did not settle into a plausible description that could be reconciled with a sustained “squeeze.” This instability in the mechanics of the alleged contact fundamentally undermines any confidence in relying on her description.
63The duration and absence of response is also a core issue. M.R. initially and repeatedly asserted a two‑minute contact accompanied by screaming “as loud as [she] could,” “super, super loud,” and “screamed [her] lungs out,” consistent with a full‑volume “horror‑movie” scream. She later adjusted the duration to one minute, maybe a minute, or stated that she forgot, but consistently maintained that she screamed at full volume, and no one responded.
64Mr. H. and Ms. R. testified that the vestibule is not soundproof, that nearby classrooms (including M.R.’s homeroom) are at most a few feet from the interior doors, and that a loud scream at that location and time would be heard and would prompt immediate investigation.
65These inconsistencies implicate core features of the allegation and cannot be explained by peripheral imprecision alone. They materially undermine the reliability of M.R.’s account and her credibility on the complaint alleged.
B. The compounded improbabilities
66The Crown’s theory requires acceptance of several propositions that are each unlikely on the evidence. When multiple improbabilities must be accepted together, their combined effect reduces, rather than enhances, the plausibility of the overall account. A narrative that depends on several independent unlikely contingencies becomes progressively less plausible with each contingency that must be accepted.
67Here, the theory relies on the complainant’s evidence and therefore requires that:
(1) Ms. R. was present at, and directing students at, the front entrance after 8:10 a.m., despite having no morning duty and her clear evidence that she was in her classroom
(2) R.G. was simultaneously at Door 6, also with no assigned duty, contrary to the supervision schedule and Mr. H.’s testimony.
(3) Exterior doors that are ordinarily locked shortly after 8:10 a.m. were sufficiently unsecured to permit M.R. to enter from the rear at around 8:20.
(4) The late‑bus procedure was departed from. Such that M.R., a single late‑arriving student, was directed to the rear doors rather than the front entrance; and,
(5) M.R. screamed at full volume for one to two (or one) minute(s) and no one in nearby classrooms responded.
68While none of these individual propositions is impossible, each is implausible. The Crown’s theory requires that all of them be true at the same time. Even considered separately, each factor is capable of raising doubt; when assessed cumulatively, they form a chain of improbabilities that leads me to conclude that the central allegations are not only unproven, but categorically false.3
C. Interview‑based contamination (influence of officer’s disbelief, suggestion, breaks, etc.)
69The interview must be considered in light of the challenging task faced by Detective Constable McNaughton. She began with an approach that encouraged a free and untainted account. Her initial questions were open ended. She reminded the complainant that it was acceptable not to know an answer. She emphasized that the purpose was to understand what happened and that the complainant should correct any inaccuracies. These early features of the interview reflected a conscientious and child‑appropriate effort to elicit reliable evidence.
70As the interview progressed, the officer encountered elements of the account that were difficult to reconcile with ordinary experience, particularly the allegation of prolonged full‑volume screaming without any response. Faced with an apparent inconsistency of that magnitude, she attempted to clarify the evidence and to understand how such a scenario could have occurred. The tension between supporting a young complainant and ensuring that the account was coherent and reliable created an understandably difficult interviewing environment. Her expressions of confusion and her requests for clarification arose from this tension rather than from any improper motive.
71Despite the officer’s good‑faith intentions, the manner of clarification sometimes took the form of direct challenges to the plausibility of the narrative, suggestions of alternative explanations, and invitations to ‘start fresh.’ In the context of a child witness, such techniques risk signaling preferred answers.
72The complainant’s subsequent shifts in duration, explanations for the absence of a response, and adjustments to the configuration of the vestibule illustrate how a young witness may become responsive to perceived expectations. This influence can occur even when an officer is acting conscientiously.
73The resulting effect is that aspects of the narrative became intertwined with the dynamics of the interview itself. This is not a finding of fault. It reflects the inherent complexity of interviewing a young complainant about a distressing allegation in circumstances where parts of the account appear improbable. The officer was attempting to carry out a difficult task responsibly. At the same time, the interview conditions contributed to changes in the complainant’s evidence that require the court to approach those portions of the statement with caution, especially as it relates to her deviation from ‘two minutes’ to ‘one minute,’ the former being far less plausible on the evidence.
D. Demeanour Evidence
74Defence counsel submitted that the complainant’s demeanour while testifying, including moments of lightness or giggling, undermined her credibility. Respectfully, I do not accept that submission. Her demeanour appeared unremarkable for a young witness testifying in unfamiliar and stressful circumstances. I did not observe conduct that suggested evasiveness, fabrication, or an intention to mislead.
75While a court may properly consider testimonial demeanour in assessing a witness’s credibility, binding authority has repeatedly cautioned against placing significant weight on demeanour. The Court of Appeal of Ontario has emphasized that demeanour is an inherently unreliable indicator of truthfulness and must therefore be treated with considerable caution. Demeanour can be influenced by many factors unrelated to honesty, including age, stress, cultural background, anxiety, and the artificial nature of courtroom testimony.v
76In this case and as explained in detail above, the concerns with the complainant’s evidence arise not from how she testified but from what she testified. The internal inconsistencies in her account, the evolving nature of key details, the impact of the interview dynamics, and the objective improbabilities demonstrated by the surrounding evidence are the foundation of my findings. Her demeanour does not meaningfully advance or detract from the analysis.
V. Conclusion
77Cases of this kind are difficult for every participant in the justice system. Allegations of sexual misconduct by a teacher against a child engage the responsibilities of police, prosecutors, defence counsel, and the Court with particular intensity. Each plays a distinct and essential role. Nothing in these reasons should be taken as a criticism of any individual or institution involved in the investigation or prosecution of this matter. The materials demonstrate that all participants acted professionally and in good faith.
78At the same time, the Court must decide the case on the evidence.
79Having assessed the complainant’s testimony with the sensitivity appropriate to a young witness, considered the interview dynamics and their effect on the reliability of key features of the account, and weighed the cumulative implausibilities required by the Crown’s theory, and the contradictory viva voce evidence and corresponding exhibits, I am not satisfied that the offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The compounded improbabilities identified in these reasons diminish, rather than strengthen, the plausibility of the allegations advanced.
80It is unfortunate that Mr. G. was required to endure the stress and consequences associated with these allegations. However, it is only in a forum such as this, where evidence is presented, tested, and weighed with care, that a just and proper result can be reached.
81I therefore find the accused, Mr. G. NOT GUILTY on all offences before the court.
A publication ban under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code remains in effect. A copy of these reasons, removing any information that could identify the complainant or other witnesses, shall be provided to counsel for the accused.
Released: December 19, 2025
Justice S. Robichaud
Footnotes
- R. v. Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 at para. 27; R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40 at para. 242.
- R. v. Lifchus, supra, at para. 36 and R. v. Sanichar, 2012 ONCA 117 (Ont. C.A.), at para 46.
- R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 SCR 1000 at para. 28; R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4
- R. v. Menard, 1998 CanLII 790 (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 109.
- The timing of disclosure has no bearing on my credibility findings of the complainant, I mention this only for the purpose of describing the sequence of events and how it ties into other evidence heard at trial. The timing of disclosure of a sexual abuse claim, standing alone, has no probative value. See R. v. D.(D.) [2004] 2. S.C.R. 275
- This letter was not tendered at trial for any purpose and therefore I place no weight on its alleged contents or that she made the report to her parents.
- I recognize that such a conclusion is an uncommon one for a court to reach.
- R. v. O.M., 2014 ONCA 503, at para 34