ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO: CR-12-50000283
DATE: 20130326
B E T W E E N:
Her Majesty the Queen
Plaintiff
- and -
Sylvia Zoleta
Defendant
Jennifer Strasberg,
for the Crown
William Markle Q.C. & Alex Munoz,
for the Accused
HEARD: March 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 2013
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GOLDSTEIN J.:
[1] The Accused is charged as follows:
Sexual assault between February 1, 2005 and March 31, 2005 contrary to s. 271(1)(a) of the Criminal Code;
Touching a person under the age of 14 for a sexual purpose between February 1, 2005 and March 31, 2005 contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code;
Invitation to touching by a person under the age of 14 for a sexual purpose between February 1, 2005 and March 31, 2005 contrary to s. 152 of the Criminal Code.
THE EVIDENCE
[2] The Crown alleges that the Accused sexually assaulted Y.P., who was 10 years old at the time of the alleged assaults. In 2004-2005 Y.P. was a student at S2[…] School in the grade 5 class of Mr. M.. In 2005-2006 Y.P. was a student at S2[…] School in the Grade 6 class of Ms. F.1. The Accused was a vocal music teacher at the school during those two years.
The Alleged Assaults
[3] Y.P. described a series of sexual assaults committed on him during the 2004-2005 school year when Mr. M. was his homeroom teacher. He said that he was overweight and had few friends. As a result, he would frequently be rambunctious in class in order to make himself more popular. He described himself as a class clown. This behaviour would generate detentions from his teachers. Y.P. testified the Accused would give him after-school detentions.
[4] In 2004-2005 the Accused was his music teacher. He recalled her as Mrs. P. In examination in chief he said that he could not recall the exact days that he had vocal music in Grade 5 but that it was every other day. In cross-examination Y.P. testified that he had vocal music three times per week. It was his evidence that vocal music commenced sometime around December of 2004 and continued to March or April of 2005. He did not see the Accused again at the school after April 2005. He had no memory of the Accused teaching him in vocal music during his Grade 6 year, 2005-2006.
[5] Y.P. testified that during January 2005 the Accused gave him detentions with other children. Later, in February, when they were alone during detentions, the Accused asked him during such a detention if he wanted to be a special friend. Special friends, she explained, do special things together. Special friends cannot tell anyone about these special things. Y.P. testified that he and the Accused pinky swore that they would not tell anyone.
[6] Y.P. testified that the assaults took place on eight occasions in the music room in the school. The assaults took place in February and March of 2005. When describing the assaults he stated that they happened each Monday, Friday, and Wednesday when they were occurring. The assaults commenced with rubbing his ear and kissing. The assaults progressed to the touching of his penis and her vagina both over and underneath their clothes, caressing of the Accused’s breasts, and to oral sex. On the seventh occasion they attempted to have sexual intercourse but he was too nervous to maintain an erection. The 8th and final assault, as he described it, involved the insertion of fingers and a ruler into his anus. He said that the assault caused pain and that he never came back for a further detention. He described these assaults as taking place while he and the accused were in various states of undress. During three or four of the assaults she would be in just her underwear. Y.P. stated that two of the assaults took place at the piano bench. He said that the Accused was kneeling in front of him and performing oral sex on him. He also testified that he performed oral sex on the Accused. In cross-examination, it was suggested to Y.P. that he had told the police that she was completely naked but he indicated that he remembered saying that she was in just her underwear. The assaults took place during after-school detentions and never lasted more than 30 minutes.
[7] Y.P. said that he continued to go to class after the assaults, but that vocal music classes stopped during April of 2005. He could not recall seeing the Accused at school after that point. In fact, I find by way of admissions filed as well as by other evidence that the Accused continued to teach vocal music to Y.P.’s Grade 5 class until June 2005, and that she taught vocal music to him in the 2005-2006 school year as well.
[8] Y.P. testified that in later years he saw the Accused on two occasions and that it was very difficult for him. He was working part-time at N[…] and saw her at the end of the aisle. He says that he was stunned and needed to take a break. He also testified that he saw her at Tim Horton’s on Islington Avenue while he was with his then girlfriend, J.D.S.1.
[9] Y.P. testified that he never told his parents about the assaults. He did try to tell his parents, he says, by claiming that the music teacher was picking on him. He told his girlfriend J.D.S.1 and his friend C.O. about the assaults.
Music at S2[…] School
[10] In 2004-2005 vocal music classes took place in Room 231 at S2[…] School. There was one music room. There may have been a different room used for music during 2005-2006. Instrumental and vocal music were taught in the same room. According to the school’s staff assignment list for 2004-2005, Mr. F.2 taught instrumental music on Mondays and Wednesdays. Ms. P. taught vocal music on Mondays. The Accused taught vocal music on Wednesdays and Fridays. According to the school’s staff assignment list for 2005-2006, Mr. F.2 taught instrumental music on Tuesdays and Thursday mornings, Ms. P. taught vocal music on Mondays, and the Accused taught vocal music on Wednesdays and Fridays. M.R.1, the principal of S2[…] School at the time, testified that the children learned vocal music from kindergarten to Grade 6, and instrumental music in Grades 7 and 8.
[11] Provincial report cards, class lists, and the Accused’s handwritten schedule indicate that Y.P. was in Mr. M.'s Grade 5 class in 2004-2005 and that the Accused taught vocal music to that class on Wednesdays from 9:15 am to 9:45 am. Those documents indicate that Y.P. was in Ms. F.1's Grade 6 class in 2005-2006 and that the Accused taught vocal music to that class on Wednesdays from 10:50 am to 11:20 am. The Accused was responsible for the comments on the music portion of Y.P.’s report cards.
[12] A series of photographs taken while the room was under construction during a later year shows that the room faces to the west and that there are blinds on the windows. The room faces the driveway into the school. There is a walkway some 10 to 20 feet from the window, with grass between the walkway and the building. There is one door leading into the music room, with a window at eye level. The door is on the east wall, to the south of the room. It would have been possible to peer into the room through the window in the door. When doing so, a person would look to the west. It would be possible for a person to see the southwest and northwest corners of the room. It would not be possible for a person looking through the window to see into the northeast corner of the room.
[13] Y.P. and the Accused gave slightly different versions about the set-up of the room. Y.P. testified that the piano was in the northwest corner of the room, with a blackboard along the north and east walls and the teacher’s desk in the northeast corner of the room. The northeast corner is the corner where a person looking through the window in the door could not see. The Accused testified that the piano was actually in the northeast corner of the room, and that the teacher’s desk was along the north wall. The Accused and Y.P. agreed that student chairs were in the centre of the room facing the blackboard on the east wall, and that there were no desks in the room. The Accused and Y.P. agreed that percussion instruments were stored in the southwest corner of the room.
[14] There was some conflicting testimony about whether the door into the room locked from the inside or the outside. Y.P. testified that he assumed that the door was locked because students who came late to class had to knock on the door and wait for it to be opened from the inside. He also testified that the room could be locked from the inside with a key. He assumed that the door was locked during the assaults because nobody came in. The Accused testified that the door locked just from the outside. M.R.1, the principal of S2[…] School, testified that he could not recall exactly but he believed that the door could be opened from the inside even if locked from the outside. He testified that he has never seen a door that could be locked from the inside, for obvious fire safety reasons. A series of photographs of the door and the doorknobs shows that there is a keyhole on the outside knob. There is no keyhole on the inside knob. I have little difficulty concluding that the door into the music room could be locked from the outside but not the inside.
The Accused’s Employment at S2[…] School
[15] A formal admission that the Accused was employed by the Toronto Catholic District School Board as a vocal music teacher at S2[…] School between September 1, 2004 and June 30, 2006 was filed as an exhibit.
[16] I find as a fact, based on other documents filed in evidence as well as the evidence of the Accused as confirmed by M.R.1, that the Accused taught vocal music to Y.P. on Wednesdays during the 2004-2005 school year. I also find that the Accused was Y.P.’s vocal music teacher during the 2005-2006 school year. I further find that the Accused taught vocal music from September to June of each school year.
Detentions at S2[…] School
[17] On the issue of detentions, M.R.1 testified that it was up to individual teachers to determine what was appropriate. He encouraged the staff to call parents to let them know why a detention had been imposed. As far as he was aware, the Accused followed that practice. He did not recall a response from Y.P.’s parents complaining about the Accused. He agreed with the suggestion put to him in cross-examination that Y.P.’s parents were around and made their opinions known. He specifically recalled conversations with Y.P.’s parents.
The Corroborating Evidence
[18] J.D.S.1 was Y.P.’s girlfriend. J.D.S.1 confirmed that he and Y.P. met while he was in high school. He confided in her that he had been molested by his music teacher when he was young. He recounted the N[…] incident to her, and told her that he had nightmares, flashbacks, and panic attacks. Y.P. also described bleeding and scarring. Although Y.P. did not specifically describe the assaults as having taken place in his anal area, J.D.S.1 drew that inference based on his descriptions. She did not tell anyone, as she felt that she had no right to do that. Y.P. confided few details to C.O., other than the fact that the assaults had taken place. He was obviously troubled by them.
[19] The first person in authority to whom Y.P. revealed the assaults was M.R.2, one of his high school teachers. M.R.2 testified that she taught Y.P. in her anthropology/ psychology/ sociology class. He was a quiet student who was not disruptive. The students were assigned an independent study project. Y.P. chose the topic of child abuse from a list of topics that she provided. Y.P. himself testified that he chose the topic of child abuse because he wanted to understand what had happened to him. He asked M.R.2 if he could present one on one as he was uncomfortable. M.R.2 consulted with her department head and then agreed. Y.P. was aware that M.R.2 was required to report alleged abuse to a supervisor. Y.P. and M.R.2 both testified that he showed a PowerPoint presentation to her. The presentation contained no personal information but at the end he revealed to her that he had been a victim of child sexual abuse.
[20] M.R.2 testified that Y.P. was visibly shaken and upset when he told her that he had been assaulted. He did not provide details. The next day she took him to see the Vice Principal of the school, T.V.. T.V. testified that when M.R.2 brought Y.P. into his office, he was distressed, crying, and shaking. He vomited into a garbage pail. J.D.S.1 came to the school, as did Y.P.’s parents, who were called. The police were also called, as is required. The police took a statement from Y.P., and, later, using a photo line-up, Y.P. identified the Accused as his Grade 5 music teacher.
The Testimony of the Accused
[21] The Accused testified that she immigrated from the Philippines to Canada in 1998. She Received a Bachelor of Music degree from the University of The Philippines, and, upon graduation, taught music at various schools. She also gave private piano and voice lessons. Upon immigrating to Canada she worked as a music teacher for the Toronto District Catholic School Board. Her musical and educational qualifications were recognized. She worked continually for the Toronto Catholic School Board until these charges were laid.
[22] In 2004 the Accused was assigned to S2[…] School and S1[…] School as a vocal music teacher. She split her time between the schools. S2[…] School and S1[…] School are very close, approximately one to two kilometers apart from each other. She taught at S2[…] School for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years.
[23] The Accused produced a hand-written schedule from 2004-2005 for S2[…] School. It indicated that she was in that school on Wednesdays and Fridays. It also indicated that she taught vocal music to Mr. M.'s Grade 5 class from 9:15 am to 9:45 am one day per week. That day was Wednesday. Y.P. was in Mr. M.'s Grade 5 class during the 2004-2005 school year.
[24] The Accused also produced a hand-written schedule from 2005-2006 for S2[…] School. That schedule indicated that she taught vocal music to Ms. F.1's Grade 6 class from 10:50 to 11:20 am on one day per week. That day was also Wednesday. Y.P. was in Ms. F.1's Grade 6 class during the 2005-2006 school year.
[25] The Crown did not seriously challenge the authenticity of these two hand-written schedules. The schedules were confirmed in important material respects by M.R.1, the principal of the school at the time, as well as by staff lists produced by the school. M.R.1 confirmed that music teachers would create their own schedules in consultation with homeroom teachers. He did not have an independent recollection of the Accused’s schedule, but was aware that she would have been in the school two days per week. I find that the hand-written schedules are authentic. M.R.1 could not recall the Accused being released during the 2004-2005 or 2005-2006 school year, or going on extended sick leave, or on administrative leave.
[26] The Accused testified that she began teaching vocal music in September of each school year, once the classes were sorted out. She continued teaching vocal music until the end of the school year in June. She testified that she taught continually in both 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.
[27] The Accused said that in class the children called her Mrs. Zoleta, never Mrs. P., as Y.P. testified.
[28] In 2004-2005, the Accused taught Y.P. vocal music on Wednesdays for 30 minutes. She recalled him as a noisy, average kid. She denied that there was any physical contact with Y.P., and certainly no sexual contact. She denied kissing him, letting him rub her breasts and vagina, touching his penis, and having oral sex with him. She denied being naked or partially clothed in the classroom. She denied attempting to have sexual intercourse. She denied inserting a finger or a ruler into his anus.
[29] The Accused testified that she and Y.P. were not alone together. If she were going to give a detention, she would do it during recess or lunch. She would make the child write lines such as “I will behave in class”. Y.P. testified that he received detentions where he was required to write lines. The Accused testified that she never gave after-school detentions on Wednesdays and Fridays. She said it was her practice to leave the school at 3:30 pm when the bell rang. She had no memory of placing a telephone call to Y.P.’s parents about his behaviour. She had no memory of any conversation with Y.P.’s parents about it. Initially she testified that Y.P. was noisy but not disruptive. She described disruptive behaviour. When confronted in cross-examination with a report card that indicated Y.P. was disruptive in music class, she agreed that he was.
The Reply Evidence
[30] After the Accused testified, R.P., Y.P.’s father, testified in reply. He recalled in February 2005 that he received a telephone call from S2[…] School from a female teacher who identified herself as Y.P.’s music teacher. She complained that Y.P. was bad and disruptive. He did not recall the details of the call. He did recall phone calls from Mr. M. and a French teacher. He never met the music teacher. When Y.P. came home on the day R.P. received the phone call he physically disciplined Y.P. In cross-examination, R.P. agreed that Y.P. received a lot of after-school detentions. He agreed that his wife received most of the phone calls from the school regarding Y.P.’s behaviour. He was not sure with which teachers Y.P. served those detentions. R.P.’s wife was upset that R.P. had physically disciplined Y.P. and called the Children’s Aid Society. Y.P. also recalled the involvement of the Children’s Aid Society when he testified. In cross-examination, R.P. did agree that he went to the school and spoke to M.R.1, the principal, about Y.P. He also agreed in cross-examination that on February 21 and February 24 he spoke to M.R.1 about A.P., Y.P.’s brother.
ANALYSIS
[31] I apply the following important principles:
• The Crown bears the burden of proving that the accused is guilty of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown must prove the essential element of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt;
• Proof to a mathematical certainty is not required, and is virtually impossible to achieve: R. v. Lifchus 1997 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320. The Crown is not required to achieve proof to a mathematical certainty;
• As there are three counts on the indictment, the evidence in relation to each count must be considered as it relates to each count in order to assess whether the Crown has proven that count beyond a reasonable doubt;
• A criminal case is not a credibility contest: as I will explore in more detail, if I believe the Accused or I am left in a state of reasonable doubt as a result of her testimony, I must acquit;
• When assessing the credibility and reliability of the evidence of a witness, I may believe some, none, or all of what that witness has to say;
• As I will review in greater detail, a judge may distinguish between credibility and reliability. A witness may be honest but mistaken;
• The demeanor of a witness, while undoubtedly crucial to a trier of fact, can be misleading: R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72, [2012] S.C.C. No. 72, 290 C.C.C. (3d) 404. (See also R. v. Levert, 2001 8606 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 3097, 159 C.C.C. (3d) 71 (Ont.C.A.) regarding demeanor and post-offence conduct);
• A trial judge may measure the evidence of a witness as against the totality of the factual matrix, as Doherty J.A. commented in R. v. (D.)J.J.R. (2006) 2006 40088 (ON CA), 215 C.C.C. (3d) 252 (Ont.C.A.):
The trial judge rejected totally the appellant’s denial because stacked beside [the complainant’s] evidence and the evidence concerning the diary, the appellant’s evidence, despite the absence of any obvious flaws in it, did not leave the trial judge with a reasonable doubt. An outright rejection of an accused’s evidence based on a considered and reasoned acceptance beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of conflicting credible evidence is as much an explanation for the rejection of an accused’s evidence as is a rejection based on a problem identified with the way the accused testified or the substance of the accused’s evidence.
[32] In R. v. W.(D.), 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 the Supreme Court of Canada set out the formula to be used by a trier of fact in dealing with credibility where an accused person has testified:
28 Ideally, appropriate instructions on the issue of credibility should be given, not only during the main charge, but on any recharge. A trial judge might well instruct the jury on the question of credibility along these lines:
First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.
Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.
Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.
Do I believe the Accused? Even if I do not believe her, does her evidence leave me in a state of reasonable doubt?
[33] This is a case that largely turns on credibility and reliability. The limitations of using demeanour evidence in the witness box are well illustrated by this case. Y.P. and the Accused both testified in a compelling manner. In cross-examination, neither was significantly shaken. Both were believable. One is lying, exaggerating, or mistaken. A criminal trial is not like baseball, where the tie goes to the runner. A criminal trial is also not a credibility contest. It is important that a trial judge does not apply a different standard to assessing the credibility of Crown and defence witnesses. The demeanour of either Y.P. or the Accused cannot resolve issues of credibility or reliability. I turn to objective or extrinsic factors to assess the credibility of the Accused. I also assess her credibility in light of the overall factual matrix.
[34] When analyzed this way, the Accused’s evidence leaves me in a state of reasonable doubt. I make the following observations in coming to this conclusion:
• There is no objective extrinsic evidence that the Accused gave after-school detentions to Y.P. I appreciate that it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible to find such extrinsic evidence. Thus, I must look at the overall context of the evidence in determining whether she gave after-school detentions to Y.P. Y.P. certainly testified that he received such detentions. Y.P. testified that he tried to tell his parents about the assaults by indicating that the music teacher was picking on him. If Y.P. had made such complaints and received a significant number of after-school detentions from the music teacher, one could expect that Y.P.’s parents would be vocal about that. M.R.1 did confirm that Y.P.’s parents were vocal with the school administration, but he did not recall them complaining about the Accused. Stacked against M.R.1’s evidence, and given the significant numbers of detentions that Y.P. received, R.P.’s evidence does not support an inference that he specifically discussed the Accused with M.R.1. I draw the inference that if Y.P. did tell his parents that the Accused was picking on him, it was not significant enough to generate a complaint or comment to M.R.1. I accept, as I relate below, that the Accused probably did call Y.P.’s parents on at least one occasion regarding Y.P.’s behaviour. Given the fact that M.R.1 did recall that Y.P.’s parents made their opinions known but did not recall complaints about the Accused, I find it likely that the accused did not give Y.P. received significant numbers of after-school detentions.
• The documentary evidence supports the Accused’s testimony that she only taught Y.P. music one day per week during 2004-2005, Y.P.’s Grade 5 year. The staff lists and the hand-written schedules are consistent with her testimony.
• The door to the music classroom could only be locked from the outside. If Y.P. was alone in the classroom with the Accused, there would have been no way for her to have locked the door to prevent someone from walking in. As I will relate in more detail below, on Wednesdays during the 2004-2005 school year, the instrumental music teacher, Mr. F.2, was also in the school. Instrumental and vocal music were taught in the same classroom, which means that Mr. F.2 may have walked in at any time. Y.P. also described assaults having taken place at the piano bench, which, on his evidence, took place at the northwest corner of the room. The northwest corner of the room would have been visible to anyone who looked through the window in the classroom door. The possibility of detection would have been so high as to make sexual activity of the kind described by Y.P. phenomenally risky. When stacked up against the overall factual matrix, I find that this extreme riskiness is an objective extrinsic factor that supports the Accused’s testimony.
• The location of the classroom, as I will also describe in more detail, is also an objective extrinsic factor that supports the Accused’s testimony, for the same reason that the locking issue supports the Accused’s testimony: the possibility of detection made for extreme riskiness.
[35] The most apparent inconsistency in the Accused’s evidence had to do with the comment on Y.P.’s report card that he was disruptive. I do not find that the apparent contradiction between the Accused’s initial testimony that Y.P. was noisy but not disruptive, and the comment on his report card that he was disruptive is enough to significantly impact upon her credibility. This was the only real inconsistency put to the Accused. She agreed in cross-examination that Y.P. was disruptive when the report card was put to her. The Accused has had hundreds of students, no doubt, both before and after Y.P. It is believable that he did not make a strong impression either way on her. She said that he was noisy and gave her a hard time, but that most of the students did. This, too, is believable. As well, the inconsistency turned on the use of one word, “disruptive”. The use of that word on a report card is not inconsistent with the overall thrust of her evidence regarding her impressions of Y.P.
[36] Overall, the evidence of the Accused was consistent. Given that consistency, along with the supporting extrinsic factors, her evidence leaves me in a state of reasonable doubt.
Has the Crown proven the Accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
[37] Even though it is not necessary for me to do so, I will address the salient points of the Crown’s case. In any event, it is difficult to separate this aspect of the analysis from the analysis of the Accused’s evidence, because some of the same points apply to both.
[38] The Crown’s case turns largely on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, Y.P. I think it is important for Y.P. to understand that I do not find that he told a deliberate set of elaborate lies, and I accept that he has suffered a serious traumatic event. I do not accept Mr. Markle’s assertion that he has concocted his evidence or that he has a very vivid imagination. His demeanour clearly shows that he is troubled and still suffering from whatever events occurred, and I acknowledge that his difficulties appear to be very real.
[39] Mr. Markle made much of the fact that Y.P. described different details of the alleged assaults at different times and to different people. For example, during his initial interview with the police, Y.P. did not mention the alleged assault with the ruler. That alleged assault would certainly have been the most serious of all. There were other inconsistencies as to the nature of the sexual contact described by Y.P. on different occasions. I disagree with Mr. Markle that these inconsistencies affect his overall credibility. I have little difficulty with the notion that a sexual assault victim, especially one who was a child at the time of the alleged assaults, would tell different things to different people at different occasions and still be telling the truth. It is a common human experience that we are willing to tell some people things that we are not willing to tell others. A victim may well be capable of telling one person some details, but be too embarrassed or ashamed to tell another person other details. I accept that in some cases internal inconsistencies will have an effect on credibility, and in other cases they will not, depending on the nature of the inconsistencies and the overall plausibility of the testimony. In this case, the inconsistencies regarding Y.P.’s testimony that had to do with the details of the assaults, rather than with the overall picture and do not detract from his credibility.
[40] I distinguish, however, and this is crucial, between credibility and reliability. In R. v. S.C., 2012 33601 (NL SC), [2012] N.J. No. 210, 324 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 19, a decision I found to be very helpful, Star J. commented:
79 In assessing the evidence of any witness, I must distinguish between credibility and reliability. Credibility has to do with the witness's truthfulness; reliability with the accuracy of the evidence. A witness who is not credible on a particular issue cannot give reliable evidence on that issue; a credible witness can, however, be honestly mistaken.
80 The allegations here are "historic" in the sense that they relate to events that took place many years ago. The complainant, now an adult, has testified as to events that are alleged to have occurred when she was a child. This circumstance has been addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada:
In general, where an adult is testifying as to events which occurred when she was a child, her credibility should be assessed according to criteria applicable to her as an adult witness. Yet, with regard to her evidence pertaining to events which occurred in childhood, the presence of inconsistencies, particularly as to peripheral matters such as time and location, should be considered in the context of the age of the witness at the time of the events to which she is testifying. [R. v. W.(R.), 1992 56 (SCC), 1992 CarswellOnt 90, [1992] S.C.J. No. 56].
[41] I found reliability problems with the evidence of Y.P. I accept that some of those reliability problems are likely as a result of Y.P. having been ten years old at the time of the alleged assaults. That is why I am not significantly troubled by some of the inconsistencies between Y.P.’s evidence and the evidence of the corroborative witnesses or the statements given by Y.P. at different times. As Ms. Strasberg rightly points out, those inconsistencies are to be expected and do not mean that any of the witnesses are lying. That said, there are significant reliability problems on important issues that leave me in a state of reasonable doubt with regard to the Crown’s case. I address each of these reliability problems in turn