COURT FILE NO.: CR-18-1052-00 DATE: 2019 04 30 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mario Thomaidis, for the Crown

• and -

M.K. Luka Rados, for M.K.

HEARD: March 4-8, April 26, 2019

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

D.E. HARRIS J.

Introduction

[1] M.K. and A.H. were wed in an arranged marriage ceremony in Pakistan in 2014. After their honeymoon, M.K. returned to Canada where he had been living for a number of years. A.H. remained in Pakistan where she had grown up.

[2] In late November of 2015, A.H. followed her husband to Canada. M.K. and his entire family met her upon arrival at Pearson Airport. Everyone was happy. According to her evidence, this was to change that very night.

[3] A.H. alleged that during her very first night in Canada, her husband forced himself on her several times. A.H. also alleged that other offences were committed against her during the 10 month offence period of the indictment, covering November 2015 to August 2016. On one occasion, with no forewarning, the accused held a knife to her throat and then turned the knife on himself. He was not injured nor was she. On another occasion, she woke up in bed to the accused holding the flame of a lighter to her feet. There was slight redness but she was not injured. These incidents were charged as separate assaults with a weapon.

[4] Just before A.H. went to the police in late August of 2016, it was her evidence that the accused would not allow her to leave their apartment in the basement of M.K.’s family home for a period of two or three days. This was charged as forcible confinement. There was also a death threats count and a simple assault count.

[5] This was a pure credibility case. There was no significant confirmation of the complainant’s evidence. The accused testified and denied the allegations. His mother and sister were also called as defence witnesses to support aspects of the accused’s evidence.

The Complainant’s Evidence

[6] It is impossible not to be sympathetic to the situation A.H. found herself in. At the tender age of twenty, she came from a foreign land thousands of miles away and began living with a husband with whom she had spent little more than a month and with an extended family she barely knew. She lived in the basement of the family home with her husband. Also living in the house were the accused’s parents, two of his sisters and a brother. There were also two infants.

[7] A.H. did not speak English well and the cultural differences between Canada and Pakistan were pronounced. She worked part-time in two salons but was not paid. She also worked for an agency and did factory work.

[8] It was her evidence that although there were some good times, things started off exceedingly badly. After first having consensual intercourse the night of her arrival, her husband would not take no for an answer and forced intercourse upon her several times. He also held her nose with his fingers and forced her to commit fellatio on him. She testified that she was very tired from travelling, told him to stop and did not consent to any of it. During the period of November 2015 to August 2016 when the marriage dissolved, there were several other occurrences in which she did not consent to sexual intercourse or fellatio.

[9] There were also instances in which she said that she did consent to sexual contact. Before the commencement of the trial, the Crown raised a concern that cross-examination of the complainant by defence counsel with respect to the consensual sexual events was prohibited by the rape shield provision in Section 276 of the Criminal Code.

[10] Section 276(2) prohibits the defence from calling sexual history evidence, not the Crown. The pertinent part of the provision reads, “… evidence shall not be adduced by or on behalf of the accused that the complainant has engaged in sexual activity other than the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge.”

[11] The Crown elicited evidence of consensual intercourse from the complainant in examination-in-chief. It was an integral part of A.H.’s story and it could not, as a matter of fairness and practicality, be left out.

[12] Once adduced by the Crown in examination-in-chief, the defence was entitled to cross-examine on the subject. It would be patently unfair if defence cross-examination on evidence elicited by the Crown were not permitted: R. v. Acorn [2008] O.J. No. 863, 78 W.C.B. (2d) 282 (S.Ct.), at para. 29. The Crown’s concern was unfounded.

[13] The relationship with the accused, despite the alleged sexual assault on the first night, appeared to be reasonably good at the beginning. Defence counsel did not argue that a negative inference should be drawn from the complainant not leaving her husband or complaining soon after being raped during their first night together in Canada. He was right not to do so. While it might have been a reflexive reaction of some in days gone by to expect a complaint if the allegation were true, on this record, that would have been simplistic and wrong: R. v. D.D. 2000 SCC 43, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275, at paras. 60-63.

[14] Sensitivity to the details of the predicament the complainant found herself in is important. She had made a life-long commitment to her husband and his family. Her relationship with them up to that point, brief as it was, had been positive. After all she had invested in it and the fact she was alone and isolated, it was completely understandable that she would not want to sacrifice it all following the accused’s serious alleged misconduct.

[15] It will often be difficult for a complainant to clearly articulate the emotional motivations behind her actions. She might not even be aware of them. But the full context requires the finder of fact to meticulously inquire into a sexual complainant’s emotional state. There is often, as there was here, significant complexity. There were contradictory forces working on the complainant.

[16] There was no direct evidence elicited from the complainant to support these observations. There was no necessity that there be. There were sufficient primary foundations to paint a full circumstantial picture.

[17] For these reasons, nothing could be drawn from the complainant taking no action and making no complaint. However, in this case, the circumstances around A.H.’s eventual complaint to the police at the end of the alleged offence period in August of 2016 are of critical importance.

[18] The complaint came at the time of the final breakdown of the marriage. A significant irritant which led to the collapse was the disappearance of the complainant’s jewelry. This was discovered about a week before she went to the police.

[19] The jewelry had been gifted to her at the time of her wedding in Pakistan mainly by the accused’s family and some of it from her own. It was gold jewelry of considerable value. There were necklaces, earrings and rings. When she could not find the jewelry, she looked in drawers, closets and in luggage. She broached the matter with the rest of the household. When asked, all members of the family answered that they did not know where the jewelry was. In cross-examination, the complainant was asked whether she accused members of the family of stealing the jewelry. Her answer was ambiguous. She only said that she asked them about it.

[20] When defence counsel asked whether her father living in Pakistan became involved, the complainant’s evidence slowed down to a crawl. It was put to her that according to her father, a person in Pakistan purporting to have clairvoyant powers had been asked to assist. The person had supposedly seen a vision of two women with a white bag containing the jewelry. The implication was that the two women were the accused’s mother and sister. This was crucial evidence for the defence as explained below. The Crown initially objected to this evidence being admitted on hearsay grounds but of course it was not going in for the truth of its contents.

[21] The complainant was originally non-committal on this subject. When asked whether the two women were asked to swear on the Koran by her father, she said her father talked about it. Thereafter, several non-responsive answers followed. The complainant testified that her mother-in-law raised her voice and swore at her.

[22] After the two women eventually swore on the Koran, the complainant testified that she held their feet and asked for forgiveness.

[23] In the end, there was no substantial difference between the Crown and defence versions on this subject. The accused, his mother and his sister all testified about the missing jewelry. They were accused of taking it. They said that the complainant’s father, communicating from his home in Pakistan, told the story about the vision of the two women and then required them to swear on the Koran that they had not taken it. This was a matter of some consternation in the household. In their evidence, the accused’s mother and sister talked about being accused of taking the jewelry. Although they were somewhat reluctant to admit it, the evidence left little doubt that the mother and sister were angered by the accusation.

[24] It was understandable that the complainant and her father were very upset about the loss of the jewelry. It was also understandable that they suspected someone in the house had taken it. This stood to reason. The people living in the house had the opportunity to steal the jewelry. However, after the two women were accused of being responsible, it was not surprising that M.K.’s family became alienated and angry with the complainant.

[25] It was out of this unhappy circumstance that the forcible confinement allegation arose. At the very outset of her evidence, the Crown elicited from the complainant that she went to the police to make her complaint with respect to the accused on August 24, 2016. She testified at this early stage of her evidence that the accused would not allow her out of the house the last few days she lived there. He stopped her from going out of the house and the day before had prevented her from going to work. He said that if she stepped out of the house, he would end the relationship and they would be divorced.

[26] She elaborated further that the accused would not allow her to leave the basement and go upstairs. The night before she went to the police, she had not eaten anything for a considerable period of time. The accused would not let her eat without permission. Her mother-in-law would not allow her to go upstairs and go to the kitchen. She was constantly swearing at her.

[27] There was an argument with the accused in which he grabbed her shirt. The accused alleged that the complainant was acting in a sexually inappropriate way with Suhail, his brother-in-law. The next day the accused attacked her and held her by the neck. Again, he would not allow her to go upstairs. Eventually, he gave her permission to go into the backyard. Once in the backyard, she was able to escape. A woman at the salon she was working at took her to the police. This was the final stage in the breakdown of the marriage. The accused was arrested and charged soon after.

[28] Later in her examination-in-chief, the complainant testified that it was almost immediately after the jewelry debacle that the accused left for Montreal on a Friday for the weekend. He was there for two days and then came back for ten minutes Sunday night, leaving once again. He returned the next morning, a Monday, the day she went to the police.

[29] It was suggested in cross-examination that the accused was not present during the weekend as he was in Montreal. He only returned on Monday. The complainant maintained her evidence that he returned on Sunday but only for a few minutes. It was true that other than this, he was not at home for the weekend according to her.

[30] When the complainant was asked how it was that the accused could prevent her from leaving during a time when he was in Montreal, the complainant had no adequate explanation. It was put to her that she was not physically forced to remain in the basement. The complainant said that he did grab her by the arm and sit her down. However, she acknowledged being allowed to go into the backyard to call her father. When asked why she did not call her father from the basement, she replied that the way she was restricted and treated, she felt suffocated down there. Eventually she acknowledged that the call could have been made from the basement.

[31] Looking at the evidence in its totality, a picture of what happened just before the complainant went to the police emerges. The jewelry theft accusation left bad feelings amongst the accused’s family. They likely treated the complainant poorly, including swearing at her and voicing general hostility towards her. For a young woman far from the warmth of her parents and her home, largely dependent on the kindness of the accused and his family, this was deeply upsetting. Those she relied upon to care for her and to be her new family, turned against her.

[32] Examining the complainant’s evidence, including her unresponsive answers, it is relatively clear that the accused’s family did not force her to remain in the basement. Instead, the atmosphere in the communal areas of the house, specifically the kitchen, was likely unpleasant and hostile. It might have felt that she was being kept down in the basement but this was an incomplete and distorted impression.

[33] Of critical importance, the time period in which she said that the accused forced her to remain in the basement and would not allow her to eat was a time in which he was away in Montreal. While it is theoretically possible that he forced her to stay in the basement, it could only have been for a very short period of time. But she testified at least initially that it was for the entire weekend.

[34] In analyzing her evidence, there are two key conclusions:

1. The complaint to the police was made at a time in which the complainant felt she had been mistreated by his family and by the accused. The marriage was in the final stages of breakdown. She was very upset and resentful;
2. Her evidence with respect to the two or three days confined to the basement immediately before she went to the police, as argued by the defence as his primary submission, was seriously flawed. She was not forcibly confined to the basement by the family. Nor could the accused, contrary to her evidence, have been actively involved throughout the period of the supposed confinement. It was common ground that he was in Montreal.

[35] The Crown must show the complainant’s evidence reliable and reliable to the beyond a reasonable doubt degree of certainty. The difficulties arising out of the evidence from the forcible confinement allegation are significant.

The Accused’s Evidence

[36] The accused in his testimony flatly denied the allegations. The Crown, using the accused’s statement to the police upon his arrest, attacked his credibility with some success.

[37] For example, he had said in his statement that the couple’s sex life was good. But it was clear from his evidence on the witness stand that this was not the case. The discrepancy was important because he had a clear motive to portray their sex life as much better than it was to help to rebut his wife’s allegations. There were other examples of material discrepancies which did some damage to his credibility.

[38] There is no need to delve into the accused’s evidence in detail. Unfortunately, the Crown cross-examination of him, his mother and his sister was marred in both tone and substance. The questioning of each of the three defence witnesses dripped with disdain and disrespect. There was a bullying, angry tenor to it. The Crown was anxious to display that he held each of the witnesses in contempt.

[39] Much of the questioning was either on the line of incivility or just over it. In retrospect, even in a judge alone case, it was perhaps a mistake not to curtail it: R. v. Foster 2019 ONCA 282, at para. 8. However, there were no real objections from the defence.

[40] What follows are several excerpts of specific instances of improper questioning. As is often the case, reading the cold words of a transcript fails to fully convey the tone which was used.

[41] In the first excerpt, the Crown attempted to demonstrate that the accused was not a successful man, unlike the rest of his family:

Q. Okay. Well, why don’t we just leave that. Perhaps this is going to be one of those moments that we’re going to have to agree to disagree about what happened, sir, but – how else did alcohol affect your life? A. How else did it affected my life? My family didn’t like it. Q. Mm-hmm. A. My wife didn’t like it. And we had issues a few times about drinking. I guess that’s it. Q. Were you the disappointment in your family, of the siblings? A. No, not really. Q. No. You, you.... A. My family did not like my drinking, but it’s not like I was a, a disappointment towards the family. Q. Your brother has a university degree? A. Yes. Q. Your sister finished college and she has a child? A. Yes. Q. Your older sister is happily married... A. Yes. Q. ...to someone your family has great respect for? A. That’s right. Q. Has three children. A. Yeah. Q. You have an alcohol problem? A. It wasn’t – I do drink, but it’s not like my family had such a problem that you know what they would kind of disown me. Q. Okay. You, so you had a alcohol problem, but your family didn’t disown you. You didn’t go through with your career in the college program you chose. A. Yeah. Q. You were – I’ll put it to you this way, sir, you’re doing honest work, but you were doing odd jobs? A. Sorry? Q. You were doing construction? A. Yeah. Q. It’s honest work. A. Mm-hmm. Q. Did you aspire to do construction as a journey man? A. Well, construction I got into it because of a friend of mine. He had a construction company and he told me to come work with him and he was paying me good, so I went, I went with him. (Emphasis Added) March 7, 2019, Page 20 line 7 to page 21 line 22

[42] When given the opportunity to explain this line of cross-examination prior to the release of these reasons for judgment, Crown counsel maintained that it went to legitimate issues at trial. However, as the bolded questions make clear, the Crown was juxtaposing the success of his siblings and brother-in-law with the accused’s comparative failure. Perhaps this demeaning cross-examination was meant to rattle the accused, allowing the Crown to have an easier time undermining his credibility. Whatever the precise intention, this cross-examination was obviously improper.

[43] In the next excerpt, the Crown put the accused’s police statement to him in order to impeach his credibility:

Q. Okay. Did you ever force yourself on [A.H.]? A. No, sir. Q. No. Do you remember being asked that question in – by the officer? A. Yes.... Q. Do you remember what your response was? A. I’m not sure. 2. Q. You don’t remember? At page 26, the officer asked you that very simply question. He said, “Have you ever forced yourself on her?” Your response was, “The, the day, umm, ahh, I, like I have a handy, oh a habit of drinking.” Officer, “Yeah.” “She doesn’t like it” A. Gotcha. Q. Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. So your response to an inquiry about forcing yourself on [A.H.] was that you have a habit of drinking. A. Yes. Q. Is that because you believe you may have become so intoxicated at some point that you – you sexually assaulted her? 3. A. There was more to it after I believe, right? Q. Take a moment. A. And – yes, and the next sentence it says, “And even the day I drank I won’t sleep there. Even if I do I’ll get my separate blanket and stay on the other side of the bed or keep my head down the other side.” (Emphasis Added) March 7, 2019, Page 75 line 32 to page 76 line 26

[44] When putting a prior statement to a witness in cross-examination, counsel must be careful. Fairness to the witness, particularly in a cross-examination by the Crown, is paramount. There will be cases in which it is clear that nothing beyond the crux of the discrepancy need be put. Then there will be situations where what should be put to the witness lies in a grey area and reasonable people can disagree about the matter. In response, re-examination by opposing counsel will often be appropriate. Then there will be cases in which more than just the bare discrepancy must be put to ensure that no one is misled.

[45] The present situation is closest to the third category but is actually one step beyond it. When the accused was asked whether he had forced himself on the complainant, he replied that he had a habit of drinking and the complainant did not like it. Stopping there, as the Crown did, this answer was starkly unresponsive. Given that this type of conduct was one of the central allegations against the accused, the marked deviation from a responsive answer was significantly damaging to his credibility.

[46] It took the accused to point out that there was more to his response in the transcript of the statement than the Crown had read. It should be noted that the police statement had not been supplied by the Crown to me. As the transcript excerpted above shows, the accused had in fact made a responsive answer. He said that when he drank, he made sure not to sleep with the complainant. In other words, he took measures to ensure he was not heedless of her potential lack of consent. In the context of his less than perfect behavior, this showed at least some degree of responsibility.

[47] Without this last part of the statement, the impression left was entirely different. It appeared he was in full avoidance mode. It turned what could have been a mild positive in his favour into a significant negative hit against his credibility.

[48] When the Crown was asked during closing submissions whether putting only the first part of the accused ’s response to the police was a mistake or deliberate on his part, he hesitated for some time. He then answered that it was a mistake.

[49] When given the opportunity to explain again not long before the release of these reasons, the trial Crown said he was planning on proceeding through the police statement in parts. After putting the first part, he was intending to put to the accused the part the accused himself raised beginning at number 3 in the excerpt above. In other words, this was a deliberate strategy which the Crown defended as proper and fair.

[50] It should be pointed out that this approach would have been strange as the second part of the statement would have revealed, as did ultimately occur, that the Crown had not been acting fairly in putting only the first part and cross-examining on it in isolation.

[51] The essence of the problem is that the initial part of the statement as identified at number 2. in the excerpt could not be hived off from the second part at number 3. without leaving a fundamentally misleading impression.

[52] The Crown took full advantage of his piecemeal approach. He asked immediately after reading the first part of the question and answer, “So your response to an inquiry about forcing yourself on [A.H.] was that you have a habit of drinking.” This falsely attacked, by tearing it out of context, the apparently unresponsive nature of the answer. The Crown then asked a question which went to the ultimate issue of guilt on the most serious charge in the indictment: “Is that because you believe you may have become so intoxicated at some point that you – you sexually assaulted her?”

[53] Again, this question was premised solely on the first part of the statement artificially separated from the second part. These two cross-examination questions were clearly misleading and unfair. The Crown took what was essentially one statement and cut it into two parts. This stratagem enabled him to ask potentially damning questions of the accused based only on the first part which, if the whole statement had been put, he could not have asked.

[54] The last excerpt from the cross-examination is this one:

Q. Okay. Just to be clear. We spoke a little bit about your work. A. Yes. Q. And about your – you said that you wanted Amina to go – go to school? A. That’s right. Q. And you said it, it was going to be more – you didn’t want her working at Tim Horton’s or MacDonald’s, or a job at a factory for minimum. It’s not really that respectful. I guess I’m trying to figure out is pizza delivery respectful? A. No. Q. No. But that was okay for you to engage in that? A. I was doing it part-time. Q. Okay. A. So.... Page 80 line 32 to page 81 line 15

[55] The accused was saying that he wanted a better job and life for his wife than he was, at least at that time, living himself. This was laudable. Instead, the Crown, in a twist the logic of which is difficult to comprehend, attempted to cast aspersions on the accused for it.

[56] There is no need to excerpt the cross-examination of the accused’s mother and sister. For the most part, the questioning, like that of the accused, was contemptuous. It was rife with irrelevancies and ventured far beyond the allegations themselves. Like with the accused, they were taken to task in a series of mini side trials over such things as the accused’s admission into hospital several years before the allegations as a result of ingesting too much Tylenol. This was ineffective and distracting.

[57] The tone and substance of the Crown questioning are of a similar kind as criticized by judges over the years in the case law. For example, in what is perhaps the leading statement on the issue, Justice Cory (as he then was) wrote in R. v. Logiacco (1984), 11 C.C.C. (3d) 374 (Ont. C.A.)

It has been said before but perhaps it should be repeated that the role of the Crown attorney in the administration of justice is of critical importance to the courts and to the community. … The Crown prosecutor must be a symbol of fairness, prompt to make all reasonable disclosures and yet scrupulous in attention to the welfare and safety of witnesses. Much is expected of the Crown prosecutor by the courts. The community looks upon the Crown prosecutor as a symbol of authority and as a spokesman for the community in criminal matters.

It has been said that the functions of the Crown prosecutor are quasi-judicial. See Boucher v. The Queen (1954), 110 C.C.C. 263 (S.C.C.), at p. 267; Dupuis v. The Queen (1967), 3 C.R.N.S. 75 (Que. C.A.), at pp. 83, 84 and 87.

Great trust is placed in the Crown prosecutor by the courts and by the public. Heavy obligations are imposed upon him in his quasi-judicial role. To be worthy of the trust and reliance which is placed in his office, he must conduct himself with becoming dignity and fairness.

In this case, the Crown attorney fell short of the high standards required of his office. Perhaps, in the heat of the conflict, he momentarily lost sight of his obligations in his desire to achieve what he considered to be the proper result.

[58] This description and criticism of an overzealous, demeaning cross-examination fits the Crown conduct in the case at hand. The intent behind the questioning is similar to that in R. v. R. (A.J.) (1994), 20 O.R. (3d) 405, 94 C.C.C. (3d) 168 (Ont. C.A.). Justice Doherty said in that case

27 These are but a few of a great many instances where Crown counsel used the pretence of questioning the appellant to demonstrate her contempt for him and the evidence he was giving before the jury. No counsel can abuse any witness. This self-evident interdiction applies with particular force to Crown counsel engaged in the cross-examination of an accused.

[59] The prosecutor in this trial felt it important to convey his strong belief that the accused was guilty and was of low character. But a finder of fact is interested not in an expression of opinion but in evidence and arguments. That is what our system is built on. Opinions are a distraction and are of no assistance whatsoever. Furthermore, the character of the accused is vigilantly protected and attempts at character assassination have long drawn the ire of the courts: see R. v. Robinson (2001), 53 O.R. (3d) 448, 153 C.C.C. (3d) 398 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 35.

[60] Coming from a “spokesman for the community”, the lowering of the dignity and fairness of the trial through substantive unfairness and a contemptuous tone cannot be tolerated. The effects of improper Crown cross-examination of the accused are pernicious enough that jury verdicts of guilt even in strong and very serious cases have been reversed as a consequence: see R. v. Bouhsass (2002), 169 C.C.C. (3d) 444 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Henderson (1999), 134 C.C.C. (3d) 131 (Ont. C.A.); Logiacco; Robinson; R. v. S. (F.), 144 C.C.C. (3d) 466, 47 O.R. (3d) 349; R. v. Hill (1986), 32 C.C.C. (3d) 314 (Ont. C.A.)

[61] Besides the stain left on the administration of criminal justice, which is the main problem, there is a functional detriment to the Crown from such a cross-examination. It is related to the negative effects of a lack of civility articulated by Justice Moldaver in Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada 2018 SCC 27, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 772, at paras. 65-66.

[62] Mistakes, inconsistencies and reversals in the course of a defence witnesses’ cross-examination potentially lower credibility and\or reliability. However, in this case, as is so often true, it is important to remember that the three defence witnesses had probably never testified in a court before. They were totally unfamiliar with what happens under cross-examination on the witness stand. As a result of the hectoring and derisive tone of the Crown, minor flaws in their evidence could be attributed not to a lack of credibility or reliability but to their adverse reaction to the questioning itself.

[63] An improper and abusive cross-examination by the Crown, whatever else it may be, is poor advocacy. A proper cross-examination in which the witnesses were treated with the measure of respect they deserve would have excluded the alternative explanation of the witnesses struggling to protect themselves against abusive questioning.

[64] In this case, I need not delve into the defence witnesses’ credibility or reliability in any depth. At least some of the potential problems, however, were diminished by the nature of the Crown questioning.

CONCLUSION

[65] This, like so often true, is a credibility case with no significant corroboration or confirmation either way. Both the complainant and the accused testified and gave diametrically opposed accounts. Colloquially, this is often referred to as a “she said, he said” case.

[66] In order to find guilt to the high degree of certainty set by the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, the complainant’s evidence must be strong and the accused’s evidence must be so weak as to be positively rejected. Often a credibility contest between complainant and accused offers no firm ground on which to be sure of the guilt of the accused.

[67] In the case at hand, the complainant substantially exaggerated the circumstances behind the forcible confinement allegation. The family did not forcibly confine her in the basement. The accused was not present throughout the vast majority of the time period of the accusation of forcible confinement. The complainant’s distortions were understandable in the situation she found herself in. Nonetheless, the result is to render her allegations of criminal conduct by the accused unreliable. It would be unsafe to find guilt on the forcible confinement count.

[68] This problem with the complainant’s evidence is fundamental and undermines the other criminal allegations as well. The tumult arising out of the disappearance of the jewelry created an environment in which the complainant was emotionally overwrought. The exaggeration of the forcible confinement was one by-product. But the overall effect is to undermine the reliability and credibility of the other allegations too. Verdicts of guilty based on the evidence in this case, in my view, would be unreasonable.

[69] For these reasons, the accused is found not guilty on all counts.

D.E. HARRIS J. Released: April 30, 2019