Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CR-22-50000548
Date: 2025-08-11
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King – and – D.M., Defendant
Counsel:
Sunita Malik and Emily Cherlet, Counsel for the Crown
Ed Ducharme, Counsel for the Defendant
Heard: April 28, 29, May 1, 2, and June 5 and 6, 2025
Restriction on Publication
Pursuant to s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code there is an order that any information that could identify the Complainant shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
Justice C. Rhinelander
Overview
[1] DM is charged with three counts of sexual assault, and one count each of assault with a weapon and assault cause bodily harm alleged to have occurred between March 1, 2018 and January 31, 2020, against RM, his spouse. The parties married in June 2016 and separated for approximately two months in 2018 before reconciling. They separated permanently on January 22, 2020. RM reported the allegations of abuse to the police on February 24, 2022. Two witnesses testified at trial - RM and DM. The central issue at trial was credibility.
[2] DM is charged with:
- Count #1: sexual assault occurred sometime between March 1 and April 30, 2018.
- Count #2: sexual assault occurred sometime between October 1, 2019 and January 31, 2020.
- Count #3: sexual assault occurred sometime between October 1, 2019 and January 31, 2020.
- Count #4: assault with a weapon: occurred sometime between September 15, 2019 and January 31, 2020.
- Count #5: assault cause bodily harm: occurred sometime between September 15, 2019 and January 31, 2020.
[3] The charges involve allegations of assaults that include a jar of Vaseline thrown at RM, a struggle that resulted in a broken toe, and both vaginal and anal sexual assaults.
[4] On August 7, 2025, I found DM not guilty of all five counts. I advised written reasons for my decision would be provided. These are my reasons.
Issues
[5] Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that DM sexually assaulted RM on the three specific occasions?
[6] Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that DM assaulted RM with a weapon?
[7] Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that DM caused bodily harm to RM?
Summary of the Evidence
[8] The following is not in dispute:
- RM and DM married June 11, 2016.
- They have a child born August 22, 2016.
- The parties separated April 30, 2018, but reconciled a few months later.
- The parties permanently separated in early 2020.
- During their relationship, the parties resided in apartments on Vaughan Road, Shell Avenue, and Kane Avenue.
- RM had resided at the apartment on Vaughan Road prior to meeting DM. They lived together at this address from June 2015 until April 30, 2018.
- The parties lived on Shell Avenue from July 2018 until the end of September 2019.
- The parties lived on Kane Avenue from October 2019 until the date of their final separation.
- RM attended her family doctor on September 16, 2019. Her right foot was x-rayed on September 17, 2019 and confirmed she had a small avulsion (tearing) to the joint on the fifth toe. RM was referred to a fracture clinic.
- RM attended her family doctor on September 23, 2019, and the doctor noted the same toe was swollen but the swelling had improved, and redness resolved.
- On September 27, 2019, RM was informed by the fracture clinic that her toe will settle by itself. She was advised she could wear an air cast boot, or good running shoe with her toes buddy taped.
[9] I have briefly summarized the parties' evidence regarding the respective incidents which I have referred to as Incidents #1, #2, #3, and #4, that correspond with the counts on the indictment. Incident #4 includes both counts 4 and 5.
Incident #1
RM's Evidence
[10] RM testified that DM sexually assaulted her while living on Vaughan Road. She described an incident where DM forced her to have vaginal sex. It was at night, and their child was in the room where they slept. DM removed her clothes, took hold of her two hands, and forcibly opened her legs. He used the weight of his body to keep her pinned down. RM begged him to stop but he refused. He continued having vaginal intercourse with her until he ejaculated. He did not use a condom. RM was crying. After DM had ejaculated, he commented that it was like having sex with a corpse.
[11] RM maintained this occurred in March or April of 2018. She was not interested in having sexual relations with him around that time because she had caught him communicating with another woman. RM moved out sometime after this incident.
DM's Evidence
[12] DM maintained this incident never happened. He has never had non-consensual sexual relations with RM. Nor has he ever made a comment to RM at any time during their relationship as she claimed.
Incidents #2 and #3
RM's Evidence
[13] The parties moved to a one-bedroom basement apartment on Kane Avenue on October 1, 2019. The parties slept in the bedroom with their child. DM wanted to have anal intercourse with RM. RM was awake. DM removed her clothes. RM said they had previously discussed anal intercourse and she told DM she did not want to have that kind of sex.
[14] They engaged in consensual sexual activities that included vaginal and oral sex. RM had verbally communicated her consent to DM for these activities. While having sex, DM inserted his penis in her anus. RM did not consent to this. DM continued until he ejaculated.
[15] Approximately two to four weeks after Incident #2, DM had anal intercourse with RM a second time without her consent. RM had told DM after the first occasion that she did not feel comfortable and had diarrhea after. DM said he would not do it again.
[16] On this occasion, the parties had engaged in consensual intercourse. Like the last time, it was night, and their child was asleep in the room beside them. Before starting to have sex, RM warned DM not to do what he did before. It was agreed it would only be vaginal intercourse. RM stated she told DM verbally she was only consenting to vaginal intercourse. RM was positioned on her hands and knees on the bed. DM put his penis in her mouth, she refused to let him ejaculate. DM then had anal sex with her and ejaculated. RM did not consent to this act.
DM's Evidence
[17] DM testified that he and RM had only engaged in anal intercourse on two occasions. The first time was at the Vaughan apartment. It occurred during the day. DM had a day off and it was only the two of them in the apartment.
[18] RM and DM were having vaginal intercourse when he asked RM about anal intercourse. RM did not respond verbally. DM described how he wet her bum area with saliva and from the wetness of RM. RM responded physically and was positioned with her head and knees on the bed. DM said he was going to enter her, and RM replied with a sound, "mmm mmm". DM proceeded slowly and ejaculated inside RM's anus shortly after. There was no oral sex on this occasion.
[19] Afterwards, they both went to the bathroom. RM went on the toilet and DM went in the shower. They talked while in the bathroom and RM said it felt like he was still inside her. It was a new experience for both and was very different.
[20] The second time occurred at the Kane Avenue apartment. DM stated it was very late. RM was on her hands and knees on the bed when they were having vaginal intercourse. He wet her anal area with his saliva and said he would enter her slowly. He said this and told her what he was doing because he loved RM and did not want to hurt her. Afterwards, DM retrieved baby wipes and cleaned himself and RM. They spooned and went to sleep.
[21] Prior to having sex that night, they did not discuss vaginal or anal intercourse. There was no discussion, they just responded to each other physically.
Incident #4
RM's Evidence
[22] RM described being assaulted by DM in their bedroom on Shell Avenue. DM was changing the child's diaper and putting cream on the child. RM was standing by the window. DM was arguing with RM, and he threw a jar of Vaseline at her which struck her in the left thigh. RM threw her phone at DM, striking him on part of his back. DM picked up the phone and threw it at her, but it hit the wall and broke. DM then grabbed RM's right leg and dragged her across the floor. DM tried to grab her baby toe.
[23] RM stated they were both on the bed when this incident happened. RM was standing, and DM was right beside her. RM was standing on the bed to fix the curtain. The bed consisted of two mattresses on the floor, approximately 18 inches in height. There was no bedframe. DM held her leg and turned RM upside down and dragged her from the bed.
[24] While describing the incident in examination-in-chief, RM said DM was holding my body and my head was upside down. Her head was on the bed and her legs were in the air. DM twisted RM's baby toe and dragged her off the bed. RM was unable to get off the bed to defend herself.
[25] RM suffered a large bruise on her left leg and her pinky or baby toe was broken.
DM's Evidence
[26] DM testified he had come home from work and was tired and dozed off. RM confronted him to take and prepare the child for bed. While preparing the child for bed, RM got mad because he did not use the Vaseline on the child. RM took the jar and threw it at DM hard. DM threw the jar back at RM and she threw her phone at DM. He caught the phone off his chest and hands and threw it away from them. The phone hit the wall.
[27] RM began screaming and started slapping DM. He tried to stop her and prevent her from harming the child who was between them. DM pushed RM and she slumped to the bed and was in a sitting position. RM was in the middle of the bed and DM was on the edge of the bed with his feet on the floor. RM began kicking. DM tried to prevent RM from kicking the child. RM's kicks connected with his arms and elbow. He tried to grab her leg to stop the kicks. At one point, DM had RM's left leg trapped between his legs and was trying to grab RM's shoulders. DM had no recollection about grabbing RM's right leg. DM was having trouble holding onto RM's leg to stop her kicking which is why he tried to pull her towards the edge of the bed. After containing her left leg, he stood her up, so they were both standing on the floor.
[28] The parties were facing each other, and DM was holding RM by her shirt on her shoulders. RM was still hitting DM with her knee and continuing to try and kick him. DM managed to get RM out of the bedroom away from their child. When outside the bedroom, his daughter from a previous relationship, who was 10 years old, asked them to stop. During the struggle, RM struck her.
[29] At that point, the upstairs tenants had come down and told them to stop. If they continue, other neighbours may hear and call the police. DM wanted to call the police. He left and called a friend. RM approached him and asked him not to call the police. RM was concerned because she had inadvertently hit DM's daughter. RM told him her foot was sore and he encouraged her to get it checked. He was not aware she already had a scheduled appointment for the following day.
[30] DM does not know how RM's toe got injured. He denied grabbing hold of her toe and maintained he was only able to grab her legs to prevent her from kicking him.
[31] DM maintained at no time was RM upside down. Throughout this incident, the child was lying between them on the bed.
After 2020 Separation
RM's Evidence
[32] RM moved out with their child and stayed with family. After separation, the parties reverted to the previous parenting time arrangements from their first separation. DM would see the son from Saturdays to Tuesdays. This agreement was no longer valid due to their reconciliation but agreed to those times.
[33] Soon after, it was COVID and RM did not want DM to see their child. There was a COVID incident at DM's workplace and they decided it was best he not see their son in person. RM did set up a Facebook account for DM to have virtual contact with their son. DM removed her from his phone plan, so she lost communication with DM.
[34] DM showed up at her apartment on August 22, 2020, without advance notice. He was shouting and kicking the door. RM did not see him physically but could hear him from within. RM agreed the last time DM saw their son was in April of 2020. RM explained that DM had not seen the child because of COVID and that same households had to remain in your own bubble and DM did not reside with them.
[35] On December 31, 2021, RM stated she was taking their son for a haircut and DM followed them to the barbershop. On February 4, 2022, DM followed her from the train station at Yorkdale mall to her house. She kept telling him to stop this, wanting him to stop following her. On February 8, 2022, DM sent her an email asking to speak in person.
[36] RM called police on February 24, 2022, because she wanted to report that DM was harassing her. RM was seeking a restraining order to prevent DM from harassing her in public. Based on the information RM provided to police, she was advised there were insufficient grounds to charge DM and that RM was free to seek a restraining order through the courts.
[37] RM spoke with police again later that week. She informed police she had commenced family proceedings against DM. She spoke about financial abuse since 2018, the physical assault that is the basis for the charges arising from incident #4. Ultimately, she shared with the officer the sexual assault allegations. In questions from the crown, RM stated she ultimately told the police about the incidents of sexual and physical abuse because she needed there to be an end.
DM's Evidence
[38] DM testified he did not see his child between August 2020 and December 2021. He explained that he attended at RM's apartment on August 22, 2020, as it was their son's birthday. RM had brought gifts and knocked on the door. He could hear voices from within and saw someone look out, but no one answered the door. He was there for about 15 minutes. DM recognized RM and their child's voices.
[39] RM had blocked DM on Facebook, and he did not have a phone number for her. He found RM's email address from their earlier separation agreement of 2018.
[40] On December 31, 2021, DM was at the bank to make a transaction. There was a long lineup. DM saw RM and their child outside and opened the door and greeted their son. He told his son he missed him and loved him very much. DM offered to play with their son while RM did her banking. After looking around, she agreed. After finishing her banking, RM said their son needed a haircut. DM recommended a barber nearby and they went. After his haircut, they all went to Pizza Hut. It was takeout location only and it was too cold to play outside. RM decided to go home, and DM gave them the pizza.
[41] The next time DM saw RM was at Yorkdale. He was on a day off and went to the mall with his daughter. He saw RM and spoke with her. Their son was not with her.
[42] Between December 31, 2021, and February 24, 2022, DM was permitted to speak to the parties' son virtually two times a week for approximately 30 minutes each time. There were occasions where he was allowed to speak to him and other occasions where his calls went unanswered.
[43] There was only one occasion where DM spoke with RM via Facebook and that was February 22, 2022. The call was 1 hour and 18 minutes in length. They discussed parenting time and decision-making responsibility for their son. RM wanted sole custody (primary residence and decision-making responsibility) with limited access (parenting time) to DM. RM offered access to DM on Sundays between 7 am and 7 pm. DM said he would have to think about this and would give her a response in a few days.
[44] On February 24, 2022, DM sent RM a series of messages expressing that he was not agreeable to her proposed arrangement. DM would not give full custody to RM. He also wanted overnight parenting time and was insisting on his rights as a parent. He hoped RM would understand and that everything was for their son.
Legal Framework
[45] To establish DM is guilty of each of the offences charged, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of each offence.
[46] For counts 1 to 3, the crown must establish that i) DM touched RM in circumstances of a sexual nature that compromised her sexual integrity; ii) RM did not consent to the touching; and iii) DM knew RM was not consenting to the sexual touching or he was reckless or willfully blind as to whether RM was consenting.
[47] The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that RM did not consent to the sexual activity in question. Consent is a voluntary agreement to engage in the sexual activity in question. The consent must apply to each and every act that occurred – agreement to one form of sexual activity is not agreement to any or all forms of sexual activity. An agreement to touching one part of the body is not agreement to touching other parts of the body; an agreement to one form of touching is not agreement to all forms of touching. In addition, a person may revoke consent or limit its scope at any time, and there is no requirement to express a lack of consent either by words or conduct. There is neither presumed nor implied consent and such consent may be revoked or withdrawn at any time: R. v. Ewanchuk; R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33.
[48] For counts 4 and 5, the crown must establish that (i) DM touched RM intentionally; (ii) RM did not consent to the touching; (iii) DM used a weapon (for count 4); and DM caused bodily harm to RM (for count 5).
[49] A criminal trial is not a credibility contest, in which the Court picks the version of events it prefers more. Nor is it a question of which version the Judge thinks is more likely. Rather, the question in this case is whether the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that DM is guilty of the offences charged. The trier of fact's task is not to choose between the two competing versions of events: R. v. S. (J.H.), 2008 SCC 30, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 152, para. 9. If after a careful consideration of all the evidence, I am not satisfied the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that DM committed the offences charged, I must find him not guilty.
[50] As previously stated, the main issue in this trial is credibility. DM is presumed innocent. He remains innocent unless and until the Crown has proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
[51] It is not enough for me to believe that DM is possibly or even probably guilty. I must be convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not require proof beyond all doubt, nor is it proof to an absolute certainty. Reasonable doubt lies far closer to absolute certainty than it does to a balance of probabilities. It is based on reason and common sense and must be logically connected to the evidence or its absence.
[52] DM testified in his own defence. He denied the allegations regarding Incident #1 and maintained the two incidents of anal intercourse that comprise Incidents #2 and #3 were consensual. He testified regarding the incident in the bedroom that involved throwing the Vaseline and the cell phone, and the physical exchange between him and RM. The law is clear that if I believe his evidence, then I must acquit. Moreover, even if I do not believe DM's evidence, I must consider whether I am left with a reasonable doubt by his evidence. If so, then I must acquit. Finally, even if I am not left with a reasonable doubt by DM's evidence, I must ask myself, based on the evidence that I do accept am I satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. If not, then I must acquit. (See R. v. W. (D.), [1991] S.C.R. 742).
[53] Intimate partner violence including physical and sexual assault often lack witnesses apart from the complainant and the accused person. These cases often come down to two differing versions of events.
[54] As in all cases, the court must assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence of the witnesses. However, this analysis does not create a credibility contest between RM and DM. I am not permitted to decide this case based on which version of events I prefer.
[55] Credibility relates to the honesty or veracity of a witness, whether the witness is expressing themselves truthfully to the best of their ability.
[56] Reliability relates to the accuracy of a witness' testimony - whether a witness has a strong recollection and memory of the event, whether they can recount details, and whether they are accurate.
[57] A witness who fails to tell the truth is not credible and not reliable. However, a witness who tries to tell the truth to the best of their ability, and believes the truth of what they are stating, may be mistaken in their recollection. Witnesses may be convinced they are right but may still be wrong when faced with contradicting extrinsic evidence. A credible witness may give unreliable evidence. (R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56). Evidence must be both reliable and credible to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[58] In assessing the credibility of a witness, I must consider any inconsistencies in their testimony whether internal or with prior statements. Inconsistencies on minor matters may be of less importance and not affect the credibility of a witness. However, inconsistencies that impact material issues can lead to a finding that a witness is not credible or reliable.
[59] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 provides guidance to judges when assessing the credibility and reliability of witnesses. Martin, J.A., writing for the majority and reviewing earlier decisions, held that "testimonial assessment requires triers of fact to rely on common-sense assumptions about the evidence" (para. 72). This includes relying on reason and common sense, life experience, and logic in assessing credibility. In recognizing the importance of assessing credibility and reliability, she identifies the difficulty in sexual assault cases, which often "hinge on the contradictory testimony of two witnesses" (para. 81).
[60] In assessing the evidence of RM, I am cognizant that there are no definitive rules as to how persons who are victims of trauma like sexual assault or intimate partner violence will behave: R. v. D.D., 2000 SCC 43. It is an error of law to make assumptions about how a victim of sexual assault should or will react to the assault: R. v. A.R.D., 2017 ABCA 237, para. 50, R. v. A.B.A., 2019 ONCA 124, para. 5.
[61] Similarly, it is incorrect to expect or assume that victims of sexual assault or intimate partner violence will report the abuse or assaults at the first opportunity, or that they will refuse to associate or avoid the alleged perpetrator after the offence. A delay in disclosure on its own will never give rise to an adverse inference against the credibility of a complainant. The timing of the complaint is simply one circumstance to consider in the context of the specific case.
[62] As the above authorities make clear, I may believe all, some, or none of the testimony of a witness, including an accused person. If I am unable to decide who to believe, I must acquit.
[63] In assessing whether the Crown has discharged its burden to prove DM's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I must apply the analysis set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.):
i) If I believe the DM's evidence I must acquit;
ii) If I do not believe DM's evidence, but I am left in a reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit;
iii) Even if I am not left in doubt by DM's evidence, I must ask myself whether, on the basis of the evidence I do accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of DM's guilt.
Analysis
[64] I turn now to consider the evidence applying the above analysis. I start with whether I accept, DM's evidence.
[65] DM testified in a straightforward and credible manner in response to questions in both examination in chief and cross-examination. He remained steadfast and unshaken regarding each of the separate incidents and provided reasonable explanations. He provided significant details regarding incidents 3 to 4. Regarding incident #4, he admitted he should not have thrown the phone against the wall but was clear it was away from both RM and the child. He agreed with the crown when appropriate and corrected questions that summarized his evidence incorrectly by both his counsel and the crown.
[66] I accept DM's denial that the first incident never occurred. I accept his evidence that the two incidents of anal intercourse were consensual and took place at different apartments and a few years apart. I accept his evidence that RM consented to the acts and demonstrated her consent through her physical responses and her verbal responses and sounds she made.
[67] Regarding the incident in the bedroom, I accept his evidence that RM threw the jar of Vaseline at him, and he threw it back as a reflex. RM then threw her phone at him and he threw it against the wall away from RM and the child. I accept that the two engaged in a struggle whereby DM tried to control RM to prevent her from kicking him. It is quite possible during the struggle while kicking at DM that RM injured and broke her toe. I do not accept that he grabbed her baby toe and twisted it and used it as leverage to pull her off the bed.
[68] I have not considered DM's evidence in isolation, but have considered it in the context of the whole of the evidence, including that of RM.
[69] Both parties testified with the assistance of an interpreter as English is their second language. It was evident during their testimony that both RM and DM understand English. RM's proficiency is significantly better than DM's. There were several occasions where RM replied to answers in examination in chief in English before the interpreter had an opportunity to interpret. There were other occasions where she waited for the interpreter and then answered in English. On at least one occasion, she interjected to provide the English word or term as it did not exist in their language.
[70] I have identified areas of concern in RM's evidence that affect her credibility and reliability. I have outlined some of the examples below:
RM was anything but straightforward in answering questions. She did not respond to questions being asked by the Crown or Defence which resulted in her being on the stand for three days. The Crown, who is very experienced, framed the questions several different ways, and took significant steps to try and clarify with RM what happened during each of the four incidents.
RM answered what she wanted to answer or what she thought should be the answer. Rather than focus on the question asked, RM would provide information that was not useful in responding to the question but was deliberate in attempting to paint DM in a bad light. Whenever possible, she would suggest he was a person of bad character.
RM was asked several times and several different ways to extract what happened during incidents #2 and #3. Efforts were made to draw out details regarding any conversations had between her and DM regarding the sexual activity and whether she consented to anal intercourse.
While adamant she did not consent to anal intercourse, RM's descriptions of the events that preceded and occurred afterwards continued to change and lacked consistency. I do not wish to embarrass the parties and have refrained from specifics other than one example where RM said oral sex was consensual during the incident but later said it did not occur as she refused because DM wanted oral sex after he had sexually assaulted her anally.
Incident #3 was alleged to have occurred within two to four weeks of incident #2. Again, RM described how the pair engaged in sexual intercourse. RM said the parties had a verbal discussion regarding the sexual activities she was consenting to and what she was not. At another point, she stated there was no discussion on either occasion he just did what he wanted although he knew she was opposed to anal intercourse.
In her statement to police, RM told the police DM was an alcoholic. At not time did RM testify regarding any issues with alcohol with DM.
RM contacted police on February 24, 2022, the same day DM advised he would not agree to giving her sole custody of their son.
RM's initial reporting to the police was that DM had harassed her on December 31, 2021, and February 4, 2022. Police received information from her and advised there was insufficient basis to charge DM. The parties lived in the same neighbourhood, banked at the same bank, took the same TTC routes, and were bound to run into each other. DM had not threatened her and only wished to have contact with his son.
RM next told police that DM had been physically, financially, and emotionally abusive during the marriage. The financial abuse stemmed from a disagreement of RM having removed $20,000 from a joint bank account into her personal account and refusing to return half of the money. Ultimately, she did return 50% of the money, however, she felt all the money belonged to her. RM was also upset because DM sent money to his children who stilled lived in the Philippines. RM had not worked since giving birth, and wanted DM to provide her with his paycheques so she could control the finances.
RM also told police he was having an affair by exchanging emails with a woman from Dubai. RM was told there was an insufficient basis upon which to charge DM.
RM then told police DM was responsible for breaking her baby toe during a physical assault (incident #4).
RM's description of incidents #2 and #3 were very generic and lacked specificity.
[71] In this specific case, I have trouble with the timing of RM's allegations to the police. RM had not seen DM since February 4, 2022. Her call to police on February 24, 2022, coincided with DM informing her he would not agree to sole custody. Further, RM failed to tell police she had communicated with DM between December 31, 2021, and February 24, 2022, including a facetime call that took place for over an hour on February 22, 2022. When asked in re-examination by the Crown why she failed to tell the police this, RM said she was unable to mention it because of her confusion and her mind, that her brain was all muddled.
[72] When asked about the February 22 call in cross-examination, RM denied it and explained it must have been DM speaking with their child for makeup time. During a break in the proceedings, RM sent a message that said "February 22, 2022" through Facebook messenger by accident. DM received this message. RM is the only one who controls the account. RM tried to explain after the recess she was accessing the account to look at it herself.
[73] RM provided an explanation for why she did not immediately disclose the sexual assault allegations to police. She said she was embarrassed and had not told anyone. This does not explain why she delayed reporting the incident that involved her broken toe.
[74] For the above reasons, I have concerns about the credibility and reliability of RM's evidence.
[75] Even if I did not accept DM's evidence in relation to each of the four incidents, it certainly raises a reasonable doubt when considered with the other evidence such that I would be uncertain where the truth lies. Collectively, I am not satisfied of DM's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on each of the counts.
[76] DM is found not guilty on all five counts.
Justice C. Rhinelander
Released: August 11, 2025