His Majesty the King - v. -, 2023 SKPC 49

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2023 SKPC 49 Date: October 17, 2023 Information: 991125732 Location: Prince Albert _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: His Majesty the King - and - Theron St. Germaine Appearing: Ms. Cara Faye Merasty For the Crown Mr. Timothy Nolin For the Accused PUBLICATION RESTRICTION : The publication of these reasons is restricted pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code such that any information that could identify the complainant shall not be published in any way. REASONS FOR DECISION S. D. S CHIEFNER, J [ 1 ] Theron St.

Germaine is charged with sexual assault. The facts giving rise to this charge occurred on March 23, 2020 after the complainant, CW, went to Mr. St Germaine’s apartment hoping to stay with him for a while. The complaint testified that Mr. St. Germaine implied that a sexual relationship would be required if she wanted to stay at his apartment and then he proceeded to have sex with her without her consent. Mr. St.

Germaine denied that any sexual encounter occurred and speculated that the complainant falsely accused him of sexually assaulting her because he refused to let her stay at his apartment if she was not able pay rent. [ 2 ] Only two people were present on March 23, 2020. While it is entirely possible that the complainant is telling the truth, it is also possible that Mr. St. Germaine is telling the truth. The events as described by both the complainant and the accused are plausible,

with neither suffering from any significant internal inconsistencies. More importantly, there is no external evidence that corroborates or substantively contradicts either narration of events. In the end, I simply do not know whom to believe. Because I do not know whom to believe, I am left with a doubt – a reasonable and persistent doubt – as to Mr. St. Germaine’s guilt. Because the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a sexual assault took place, the Crown has not met the high burden required by the Canadian criminal justice system and Mr. St.

Germaine must be found not guilty. [ 3 ] The following are my reasons for coming to this decision. The Evidence : [ 4 ] A trial was conducted on August 9, 2023. I heard testimony from three witnesses. The Crown called the complainant, CW, and Constable Christopher Stubb. The accused testified in his own defense. All events relevant to these proceedings happened in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. There was no issue of identity. [ 5 ] Mr. St. Germain is 28 years old and lives in a two-bedroom apartment on River Street, near 5 th Avenue.

He has been living at this apartment since 2016, soon after he graduated from high school. While Mr. St. Germaine has had roommates from time to time, for the most part he has lived alone. Mr. St. Germaine has been diagnosed with autism and has an anxiety disorder that can be triggered when he is required to go out in public. His condition is such that he receives disability income. [ 6 ] The complainant, CW, is 22 years of age and grew up on the Wahpeton Dakota First Nation (Wahpeton) with her family. CW has known Mr. St. Germaine for approximately 7 years – since 2016/2017. She met Mr. St.

Germaine when she went to school at Westmore High School in Prince Albert. At the time, her aunt, Lexis, was in grade 12 with Mr. St. Germaine, as was CW’s brother. CW was in grade 9. After graduating from high school, two of CW’s aunts, Lexis and Ashley, lived with Mr. St. Germaine for short periods – a couple of months at a time. On each of the occasions when her aunts were living at Mr. St. Germaine’s apartment, CW lived with them (for at least part of the time). The last time CW lived at Mr. St. Germaine’s apartment was about 1 year prior to the incident, when CW was 17 years old.

The Complainant’s Testimony regarding March 23, 2020 : [ 7 ] CW testified that in March of 2020, she was living with her family at Wahpeton. On March 23, 2020, she decided she wanted to move off the reserve. She was having trouble at home and wanted a different place to live. CW sent Mr. St. Germaine a message on Facebook messenger and asked if she could stay at his apartment again. She testified that he said “yes” and told her to get a ride or walk into Prince Albert and come to his apartment. [ 8 ] CW walked to Prince Albert and then walked to Mr. St. Germaine’s apartment. When she got there, Mr. St.

Germaine buzzed her in the building, and opened the door for her when she got to the apartment. CW said that Mr. St. Germaine seemed to be “a bit excited that she was there – some adrenaline or something”. CW said that Mr. St. Germaine was sober and was not consuming any alcohol at the time. Mr. St. Germaine told her to “make herself at home”, which she did. She took off her jacket, sat on the couch and began watching tv. She then began sending messages to her friends. Soon thereafter, CW said that Mr. St. Germaine went to go take a “nap” in his bedroom. About 15 or 20 minutes after Ms. St.

Germaine went into his bedroom, CW said she received a message from Mr. St. Germaine on Facebook messenger saying that she should come into his room so they could discuss “the living situation”. CW said that she went into Mr. St. Germaine’s room and sat on a chair in the corner of the room that he used for playing on his “gaming console” (i.e. his “green” gaming chair). [ 9 ] CW testified that Mr. St. Germaine asked her if she wanted a place to move into. She said “yeah”. She said that Mr. St.

Germaine told her that she could move in under one “exception” (I think she meant “condition”), but he did not say what that condition was. Instead, CW testified that Mr. St. Germaine moved closer to her, that he put his hand on her check, and that he started kissing her. CW told Court that, although she did not stop him from kissing her, she did not consent to being kissed. [ 10 ] CW said that “things then escalated”. She testified that Mr. St. Germaine moved her to his bed and began kissing her again once she was on his bed. CW said that Mr. St. Germaine undressed himself.

After he did so, he then removed CW’s pants and underwear – she was lying on her back. In cross examination, CW said that she was wearing “baggy” sweatpants that were tied at the waist. There was no belt, or zippers, or buttons to undo. CW testified that Mr. St. Germaine then moved on top of her and began having vaginal intercourse with her. CW said that Mr. St. Germaine then pulled her on top of him and held her tightly with her arms held in front of her against his chest.

CW said that the entire encounter lasted between 5 and 10 minutes and ended when she pushed down on his chest with her hands and told him “this can’t go on any longer”. She said she grabbed her underwear and pants and began putting them on as she walked out of Mr. St. Germaine’s bedroom. [ 11 ] CW told Court that she and Mr. St. Germaine did not have a conversation about sex prior to the encounter. She did not recall Mr. St. Germaine saying anything during the encounter other than, “I don’t care where I come”. CW testified that she did not say anything during the entire experience.

She told Court that she did not want to tell him to stop because she thought “he might hurt me”. [ 12 ] CW told Court that she did not want any of this to happen – that she did not consent to having sex with Mr. St. Germaine. She said that she felt “guilty” and “ashamed” after the incident. CW testified that she had no prior romantic or sexual relationship with Mr. St. Germaine before the incident. However, CW said that Mr. St. Germaine had previously expressed a desire to have sex with her.

However, at the time, she was “underage”. [ 13 ] After leaving the bedroom, CW testified that she went into the kitchen and called a girlfriend and then she called her sister. CW said she told both her friend and her sister what happened. CW said she stayed in the apartment for approximately 10 to 20 minutes after the incident. However, she became upset when Mr. St. Germaine came out of his bedroom acting as if nothing had just happened in

the bedroom. CW said that when Mr. St. Germaine went back into his room, she grabbed her things and walked out of the apartment. [ 14 ] CW said that she called her father (who was in Saskatoon) and asked him for a ride. She said her father drove in from Saskatoon to pick her up. CW waited outside of Mr. St. Germaine’s apartment until her father got there – about 2 hours later. She testified that, while she did not call the police (and did not know who did), the police arrived on the scene soon after her father did.

CW testified that she talked to the police officer and gave a statement later that evening at the police station. Cross-examination of the Complainant : [ 15 ] During cross-examination, CW acknowledged that Mr. St. Germaine did not tell her that she could not leave (his bedroom or his apartment). She also acknowledged that Mr. St. Germaine did not prevent her from leaving (his bedroom or his apartment). CW denied that Mr. St. Germaine asked her to pay money to stay at his apartment. Initially, CW said that she did not offer to pay rent.

But later in cross-examination, she said that she did not expect to stay for free, that she did offer to pay something, but that she could not remember how much she offered to pay toward rent. Finally, CW admitted that Mr. St. Germaine told her that she could not stay with him unless she paid some form of contribution toward rent. [ 16 ] CW acknowledged that the officer (Constable Stubbs) told her about completing a sexual assault kit. However, she said she did not remember going to the hospital.

She said she remembered going to the police station and giving a statement but did not remember what she did after that. Defence counsel suggested to CW that the police officer told Court that she went to the hospital on March 23, 2020 to have a sexual assault kit completed. CW said she still did not remember going to the hospital. The Testimony of Constable Christopher Stubbs : [ 17 ] Constable Stubbs received a dispatch for a call involving an alleged sexual assault. The officer drove to the address given – an apartment on River St. near 5 th Avenue. The time was 8:20 p.m.

Once there, he located CW who was sitting in a vehicle with her father near Riverside School. Constable Stubbs spoke with CW. The officer said that she told him she had been sexually assaulted. As a result, the officer suggested that she go with him to the hospital to have a “sexual assault kit” completed. The officer said that CW agreed and that, after speaking with CW for about 15 minutes, she and the officer went to the Victoria Hospital to see a doctor. The officer said they arrived at 8:35 p.m. Unfortunately, they were told a doctor was not available, and they would have to wait for a doctor.

Constable Stubbs testified that he then left the hospital and was notified sometime later that a doctor was available. The officer returned to the hospital at 10:07 p.m. and spoke with CW. Constable Stubbs told court that, by the time a doctor was available, CW told him that she had changed her mind and that she no long wished to have a sexual assault kit completed. However, CW agreed to provide a KGB statement to the officer. The officer and CW arrived at the police station at 10:43 p.m., at which time she provided a statement to the officer. The Testimony of Theron St. Germaine (the accused): [ 18 ] Mr. St.

Germaine said that he received a message on Facebook from CW on March 23, 2020 and that, in the message, CW asked if she could move into his apartment as a roommate. He said he thought it would be a “room and board” situation. Mr. St. Germaine said he told CW to come to his place and he was anticipating that they would “talk” about her moving in. He said that he did not immediately agree that she could stay with him. [ 19 ] Because of their prior messages, Mr. St. Germaine was expecting CW when she arrived at his building. He buzzed her into the building and let her into his apartment.

He said he told CW to “make herself at home” when she got there. He said there were plenty of snacks in the cupboard and drinks in the fridge and that she could help herself. Mr. St. Germaine said he offered a drink from the fridge. [ 20 ] Mr. St. Germaine said that, soon after CW arrived, she was in the kitchen area watching a movie and he decided to take a nap. He went into his bedroom and locked his door. He said it was his practice to lock his door when he had someone at his apartment, and he wanted to sleep. When first asked to explain what happened next, Mr. St.

Germaine said that he woke up about 20 minutes later and heard a knock on his door. He opened the door and let CW into his bedroom. Later in his testimony, Mr. St. Germaine clarified that he was already awake when CW knocked on the door. He said he had woken from his nap and began playing video games. After playing video games for a while, he sent a message to CW and asked her to come to his room. As a result, he was expecting CW to come to his room when she knocked on his door. [ 21 ] Mr. St. Germaine testified that, when CW came in the room, they both sat down. He did not say where CW sat.

However, he denied that CW sat on his gaming chair. He said that he sat on the gaming chair because he likes to “game” when he talked with people. Mr. St. Germaine said he then began having a conversation with CW about a number of topics, including her living situation on reserve, room and board, how much she could pay per month, and whether or not CW had a steady source of income. Mr. St. Germaine said that he was playing video games while they were talking. During their conversation, CW said that she did not have a job or a means of contributing toward rent. After talking to CW, Mr. St.

Germaine told her that he could not accept her as a roommate. He said she could hang out for a while, but she could not live with him. At which point, CW left his room and went back out into the kitchen area. Mr. St. Germaine said that he came out of his room about three hours later and she was gone. He said he did not hear her leave. [ 22 ] By way of background, Mr. St. Germaine explained that CW and two of her aunts had previously lived with him at his apartment for short periods of time. In 2018, CW and her aunt Lexis lived at the apartment.

Then, on another occasion, CW and her aunt Ashley lived at his apartment. On the first occasion, Lexis paid rent for the first two months. However, Lexis stopped working and stopped paying rent and buying groceries for her and CW. Mr. St. Germaine said it became too expensive for him. In addition, his parents advised him that they were taking advantage of him. As a result, he asked them to leave. A similar problem arose when Ashley

and CW lived with Mr. St. Germaine sometime later. He said he had to ask them to leave again because they were not paying rent orbuying groceries. [23] By way of further background, Mr. St. Germaine explained that he can be overstimulated when there are people in hisapartment. When he feels overstimulated, he will go into his bedroom and play video games. [24] Mr. St. Germaine denied sexually assaulting CW. He denied that he tried to kiss her or that any sexual contact of any kindtook place on March 20, 2020. Finally, Mr. St.

Germaine denied that he implied that he wanted or expected a sexual relationship withCW on March 20, 2020, or any other time. Finally, when asked by his counsel, Mr. St. Germaine speculated that CW made theallegations that he sexually assaulted her because he did not accept her as a roommate. Cross-Examination of Mr. St. Germaine: [25] Mr. St. Germaine stated his belief that, prior to the incident on March 20, 2020, CW was a friend. He denied that he tried tohave a romantic relationship with CW when she was living with him on the two previous occasions. Mr. St.

Germaine said he was awarethat it took 30 minutes to drive from Wahpeton to Prince Albert and it would take much longer to walk that distance. Whileacknowledging that he invited CW to come to his apartment, he denied that he agreed that CW could live with him during theirconversation on Facebook messenger. Mr. St. Germaine stated that the purpose of inviting CW to his apartment was to “talk” about herbeing a roommate. However, he acknowledged that they could have merely “talked” over Facebook. Mr. St. Germaine denied that heinvited CW to his apartment because he wanted to have sexual relations with her. [26] Mr.

St. Germaine admitted that he sent a message to CW inviting her to come into his room so that they could discuss “theirliving arrangements”. He said that his door was locked. CW knocked on his door, he opened the door and then he sat in this gaming chairand started playing video games while they talked. Mr. St. Germaine testified that he was fully dressed at the time, wearing black jeansand a black hoody. [27] In cross-examination, Mr. St. Germaine denied kissing CW, touching her or engaging in any form of sexual contact. Hedenied getting undressed or attempting to undress her.

Subsequent testimony: [28] In response to a question from the Court about his conversations with CW about her staying with him, Mr. St Germaine saidthat he thought it was a good idea because he could use the extra money. He explained that in March of 2020, he had been strugglingfinancially, and he thought a roommate could help with expenses. As he put it, he hoped the extra money would allow him to “eat for amonth without starving himself”. [29] In response to a question from the Court, Mr. St. Germaine provided the clearest articulation of what happened when CWentered his bedroom.

He said that, after he went into his room, he had a short nap. When he woke, he got up, moved to his gamingstation, and then played video games. After playing video games for a short while, he sent a message to CW on Facebook messengersuggesting she come to his room so they could discuss “their living arrangement”. A short time later, CW knocked on his door, he let herin, and he returned to his gaming chair and continued gaming while they talked. He did not say where CW was sitting but Mr. St.Germaine explained that he turned around from time to time to maintain “eye contact”. In previous testimony, Mr. St.

Germaine hadexplained that he understood that it is important to periodically have eye contact with people, so they know you are paying attention tothem. Mr. St. Germaine said that he told CW that if she wanted to stay at his apartment, she would have to make a contribution to rent,she would have to buy her own groceries, and she would have to keep her room clean. Mr. St. Germaine denied that “livingarrangements” meant anything other than rent contributions, buy groceries, and keeping the apartment clean.

Argument: [30] Both counsel agreed that this is a W. (D.) case – a case that requires the trier of fact to weigh contradictory testimony ofwitnesses, while at the same time respecting the presumption of innocence and recognizing the burden on the Crown to prove its casebeyond a reasonable doubt. The parties agreed that the accepted framework for doing so was set forth by the Supreme Court of Canada inR v. W. (D.), (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742 [W. (D.)]. [31] The Crown argued that CW’s testimony was clear, cogent and compelling: in fact, so clear, so cogent and so compelling thatit overwhelmed Mr. St.

Germaine’s testimony – which the Crown described as “rehearsed”. As for CW not remembering going to thehospital, the Crown cautioned that it is not unusual for a victim of sexual assault to struggle to remember the events that occurred after asexual assault, including significant events immediately after the incident. The Crown noted that CW’s testimony about the sexualassault was detailed, consistent and unmoved on cross-examination. On the other hand, the Crown argued that Mr. St. Germaine’sevidence was not believable.

For example, the Crown noted that, if all he wanted to do was “talk” to CW about the potential of her livingat his apartment, she did not need to walk for hours to get to his apartment for them to have a conversation and that they did not need to“talk” in his bedroom. Counsel argued that there is a compelling inference that Mr. St. Germaine wanted to have sex with CW inexchange for her staying at his apartment and that he did so without her consent. [32] Defence counsel argued that Mr. St. Germaine’s testimony was equally clear, cogent and compelling – sufficiently so that heought to be believed.

In taking this position, counsel speculated that the complainant falsely accused Mr. St. Germaine because herefused to let her stay at his apartment if she could not pay rent. In the alternative, counsel argued that Mr. St. Germaine’s testimonyshould at least raise a reasonable doubt as to the events described by CW. In this regard, defense counsel noted that there is no forensic

evidence or other evidence to corroborate CW’s allegations. Similarly, counsel noted that we do not have the Facebook messagesbetween these parties, which could have shed light on what happened that day. Finally, counsel argued that CW’s inability to remembernot going to the hospital ought to be a concern for the Court. Findings of Fact and Conclusions: [33] The standard of proof in criminal proceedings engages a high threshold. It requires the Crown to prove each element of theoffence and to do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is closely tied to the presumption ofinnocence, a concept that is fundamental to our system of justice. This concept demands that an accused person must have the benefit ofany reasonable doubt that may exist in the Crown’s case. Whether such a doubt exists depends on the particular facts of a case. Doubtmay arise from the lack of convincing evidence on an essential element, or from the presence of exculpatory evidence. If, after hearingand weighing all the evidence, I am not convinced that Mr. St. Germaine is guilty, I must acquit.

It is not sufficient for the Crown toprove that Mr. St. Germaine is probably or likely guilty. Unless I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual assault asdescribed by CW occurred, I must acquit because the Crown has not proven its case to the high standard demand by the Canadiancriminal justice system. See: W. (D.) at pages 757-58. [34] In R v M. (P.N.) (1996), (SK CA), 106 CCC (3d) 1 at para 5, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal set forth afour-part formulation of the W. (D.) test to be utilized by the trier of fact.

The formulation is as follows: First, if you believe the accused, obviously you must acquit; Second, if, after careful consideration of all of the evidence, you are unable to decide whom to believe, you must acquit; Third, if you do not believe the evidence of the accused but nonetheless you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit; Fourth, even if you do not believe the evidence of the accused, you must ask myself whether, on the basis of the evidence which youhave accepted, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. [35] In these proceedings, I heard from three different witnesses, and they provided contradictory testimony on a number of facts.While I need not resolve every contradiction in the evidence, there are certain findings of fact that I will address: 1.

Did CW go to the hospital on March 23, 2020 for the purpose of completing a sexual assault kit? 2. Did a sexual encounter as described by CW occur on March 23, 2020? [36] Before I set forth my findings of fact, I will note that, even with the W. (D.). formulation, assessing credibility is challengingfor the trier of fact. Credibility is concerned with a witness’s veracity. It’s about a witness’s honesty - their willingness to tell the truthwithout amplification or obfuscation. Credibility is not an all or nothing proposition. A trier of fact may believe all, part or none of awitness’s evidence.

Furthermore, a trier of fact may attach different weight to different parts of a witness’s evidence. See: R v R. (D.), (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 291, 2 SCR 291 at para 93. See also: R v Wolff, 2019 SKCA 103 at para 38, 380 CCC (3d) 223. In the end, the central question is whether or not the witness’s evidence is accurate. A number of factors can be used to assess theaccuracy of evidence, including: (

a) the overall likelihood or plausibility of the evidence, (

b) the presence of independent supportingevidence, (

c) consistency of a witness’s evidence with verifiably surrounding events, (

d) the internal consistency of the evidence, and (e)the demeanor of the witness and the “balance” of his/her evidence. [37] Most of Mr. St. Germaine’s testimony was delivered slowly, as though he needed to think before he spoke and/or he wanted tobe very specific about the words he was using. Although some of his testimony was spontaneous, most of it was given slowly anddeliberately.

While the trier of fact should use caution in placing too much weight on demeanor evidence to assess credibility, I am alertto the fact that non-spontaneous answers can be indicative of a witness who has rehearsed his/her testimony and is more concerned aboutstaying within a predefined script than he/she is with telling the truth. Cross-examination is often intended to generate spontaneousanswers in an effort to probe the accuracy of a potentially “scripted” answer. While it is possible that Mr. St.

Germaine was following ascript in his mind, there is also a reasonable inference that the deliberation and precision he displayed in testifying was an artifact of hisautism. I come to this conclusion because, in observing Mr. St. Germaine, I noted that most of his testimony appeared to be non-spontaneous. He was slow and deliberate during both direct and cross-examination. He displayed a desire to be precise in describing allfacts and events, including wholly non-controversial and routine matters. I also noted that Mr. St.

Germaine tended to display littleemotion during his testimony – other than nervous anxiety, which appeared to be present the entire time he was in the courtroom. I willexpand upon these observations later in these reasons for decision. Did CW go to the hospital on March 23, 2020 to have a sexual assault kit completed?

Yes. [38] While CW said she did not remember doing so, I find, based on the whole of the evidence, that she did in fact go to thehospital on March 23, 2020; that she did so on the suggestion of Constable Stubb; that she waited for over an hour for a doctor to becomeavailable to see her; and that she ultimately declined to follow through with the procedure. [39] I acknowledge that submitting to a sexual examination is a highly invasive procedure and that there are a number of validreasons why a woman may decline to do so, including the potential for re-victimization. However, it seems improbable that CW would

forget going to the hospital and waiting at a hospital for 1.5 hours for that very purpose – particularly, when she remembers all other events in detail. Because she did not recall the events at the hospital, she was unable to explain why she declined to have the procedure completed – for valid reason or otherwise. The fact that CW did not remember any of these significant events undermined her credibility. Did Mr. St. Germaine assault CW in the manner she described? I do not know. [ 40 ] As I noted at the outset of these reasons for decision, I do not know whom to believe.

It is entirely possible that the complainant is telling the truth. Other than not remembering going to the hospital, CW’s testimony was cogent and compelling. With one exception, it was entirely plausible and internally consistent. The exception is that CW’s story appeared to change on the issue of paying Mr. St. Germaine something for rent. Initially, she testified that she did not offer to pay him any rent but later in cross-examination she said she that she did not expect to stay for free, that she did offer to pay, but she could not remember how much. Other than Mr. St.

Germaine’s denial, there was no external evidence that contradicted CW’s testimony that a sexual assault occurred. Simply put, there are few reasons not to believe the complainant. [ 41 ] On the other hand, it is also possible that Mr. St. Germaine is telling the truth. The narration of events that he provided was plausible and not significantly undermined on cross-examination. In coming to this conclusion, I note that Mr. St. Germaine’s narration of how CW came into his bedroom changed. In direct examination, he failed to mention a number of facts that did not come out until cross-examination.

In fact, I did not get a clear articulation of how CW came into his bedroom from Mr. St. Germaine until I asked a question of clarification. In the end, when I examine his evidence, Mr. St. Germaine’s subsequent articulation of facts was not significantly inconsistent with his initial description of events. More importantly, when I consider the whole of Mr. St. Germaine’s testimony, his narration of events was internally consistent and, other than CW’s testimony, was not contradicted by any external evidence. [ 42 ] The Crown noted the uncontradicted evidence that Mr. St.

Germaine wanted CW to come to his apartment, that he was excited when she arrived, and that he wanted to talk to her in his bedroom about their living arrangements. The Crown argued that these facts only make sense in CW’s version of events. The Crown’s concern is well-taken and warrants examination. However, in my opinion, it is not accurate to say that the only reasonable explanation for Mr. St. Germaine’s conduct on March 20, 2022 was his desire for a sexual relationship with CW. Mr. St. Germaine has autism and an anxiety disorder. I had an opportunity to observe him during the trial. Mr. St.

Germaine tended to avoid eye contact and he had trouble sitting still. His movements were awkward, and his speech was at times impeded. Finally, his testimony was delivered slowly, as though he needed to think before he spoke. To a casual observer, Mr. St. Germaine presents as a socially awkward and simple young man. [ 43 ] As for his testimony, Mr. St. Germaine said that he was struggling financially in March of 2020 and a roommate would have helped with his financial situation. He perceived CW as a friend and she had lived with him before, with the only issue being payments for rent and groceries.

Under these circumstances, it is logical that he would be pleased to hear from her and looking forward to the potential of having her as a roommate. I do not find it unusual that he wanted to discuss their potential living arrangements in person, and I have no doubt that he would have displayed nervous energy when she arrived at his apartment in either version of events. As for having the conversation in his bedroom, Mr. St. Germaine testified that he sometimes needs to go lie down if he became overstimulated and that playing video games helps him when he feels anxious. Mr. St.

Germaine needed to have an important conversation with CW about their living arrangements. A sexual intent is not the only reasonable explanation for his desire to have that conversation in his bedroom. Given Mr. St. Germaine’s disorders, his desire to have that conversation while he was playing video games is not unbelievable. [ 44 ] At the end of the day, I find there is no external evidence that either corroborates or substantially contradicts either narration of events – either the events as described by CW or the events as described by Mr. St. Germaine. I find that both versions of events are plausible.

Only two people were present on March 23, 2020 and, having heard the evidence in these proceedings, I simply do not know whom to believe. Because the evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a sexual assault took place on March 23, 2020, the Crown has not met its burden and I find Mr. St. Germaine not guilty. Dated this 17th day of October, A.D. 2023, at Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan. __________________________ S.D. SCHIEFNER, J