His Majesty the King - v. -, 2023 SKPC 16

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2023 SKPC 16 Date: January 26, 2023 Information: 90423412 Location: Prince Albert _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: His Majesty the King - and - T.M. Appearing: Ms. MaryAnne Larson For the Crown Mr. Christopher Koban For the Accused DECISION H.M. HARRADENCE , J INTRODUCTION: [ 1 ] T.M. is charged as follows: Count 1) on or between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013 in Shellbrook, Saskatchewan did commit a sexual assault on D.L.2 contrary to

section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada ;

Count 2) on or between July 1, 2003 and December 21, 2013 in Shellbrook, Saskatchewan did for a sexual purpose invite counsel D.L.2 a person under the age of sixteen years to touch directly with a part of his body to wit his penis the body of T.M. contrary to

section 152 of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 3) on or between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2014 in Shellbrook, Saskatchewan for a sexual purpose touch D.L.2 a person under the age of sixteen years directly contrary to

section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 4) on or between July 1, 2010 and August 30, 2012 in Shellbrook, Saskatchewan did commit a sexual assault on M.L. contrary to

section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 5) on or between July 1, 2010 and August 30, 2012 in Shellbrook, Saskatchewan did for a sexual purpose invite counsel M.L. a person under the age of sixteen years to touch directly with a part of his body to wit his penis the body of T.M. contrary to

section 152 of the Criminal Code of Canada ; and Count 6) on or between July 1, 2010 and August 30, 2012 in Shellbrook, Saskatchewan for a sexual purpose touch M.L. a person under the age of sixteen years directly contrary to

section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 2 ] He entered a not guilty plea on July 6, 2021. The trial proceeded on April 11, 2022, before me. The evidentiary portion of the trial was completed on that day. Near the end of the evidence, it became apparent that Mr. T.M. had not heard the Crown testimony given his hearing impairment. As a result, I ordered a transcript of the evidence and requested that Mr. Koban seek instructions regarding a remedy for his client’s lack of ability to hear. The trial was adjourned to July 11, 2022.

Unfortunately, I was ill, out of the province, on July 11, 2022, so a new date was selected. That date was October 6, 2022. [ 3 ] On October 6, 2022, Mr. Koban indicated Mr. T.M. and he had met, reviewed the transcript of the evidence and his instructions were to proceed. (The Court had provided Mr. T.M. with a set of headphones in order that he could better hear the proceedings.) Argument proceeded on that date and the decision was reserved to December 19, 2022. The decision was then adjourned to January 26, 2023, at my request to give me a further opportunity to consider it.

THE FACTS: [ 4 ] The Crown called four witnesses: D.L.1; C.L.; D.L.2; and M.L.. D.L.1 is the daughter of the accused and his wife K.. D.L.1 has been married to C.L. for approximately 25 years. They have four children who they raised in Leoville. All of their children are now adults: C., D.L.2, B. and M.L.. [ 5 ] D.L.1 testified that when the children were younger – between approximately 2003 and 2012; they would take them to Shellbrook for swimming lessons during the summer months. During these lessons, the children would stay at the residence of her parents in Shellbrook.

D.L.2 and M.L. allege that they were sexually assaulted by their grandfather, T.M., in the night while they were sleeping with him in the upstairs bedroom during these summer visits. These allegations are denied by T.M.. [ 6 ] At the time of the trial in the Spring of 2022, D.L.2 was 24 years old living in Prince Albert.

His evidence is set out below. [ 7 ] D.L.2 agrees that from the age of approximately five until approximately age fourteen, he would attend swimming lessons in Shellbrook and stay with his grandparents, K. and T.M.. [ 8 ] D.L.2 testified that from the ages of five to twelve, he was inappropriately touched by his grandfather when he was sleeping

with him in the bedroom upstairs in the grandparents’ house. D.L.2 says he would wake up in the middle of the night to his grandfather touching him. That touching would include: a. Kissing him on his stomach, his chest and his legs. b. Touching him including touching his penis, sometimes he would wake up and his grandfather would have his hands in D.L.2’s pants. c. His grandfather would rub his body against D.L.2’s body. d. When D.L.2 was 9 or 10, his penis would become erect. e. He says his grandfather would perform oral sex on him. f. D.L.2 says that when he got older, he would ejaculate. g.

When asked by Ms Larson if he cleaned himself after he ejaculated, D.L.2 initially said no, then he said sometimes he would, “but sometimes he’d be sucking me off. And he’d swallow it” h. At other times D.L.2 said his grandfather would attempt to suck his penis. i. D.L.2 says his grandfather would say to him when D.L.2 became erect, “you’re pointing at me”. His grandfather would also tell him that it was their little secret. j. D.L.2 says that his grandfather would sometimes take D.L.2’s hands and his feet and rub them on his penis. k.

D.L.2 said that on and off his grandpa would drink quite a bit when they were there, pepsi and vodka. [ 9 ] D.L.2 recalls that when he turned 13 years old, he knew this behavior was wrong. He said one night when his grandfather attempted to touch him, he punched him in the face. The touching stopped and it never happened again. [ 10 ] D.L.2 was asked to describe the bedroom. He could not remember the bed sheets nor the size of the bed, but he did say that there was a tv in the bedroom and it was usually on.

His grandpa liked to watch Trailer Park Boys. [ 11 ] D.L.2 said his grandfather always slept in the bedroom upstairs. It had all his clothing and personal items in it. He was asked about the doorknob and said it was glass or crystal. [ 12 ] The Crown asked D.L.2 when he first told someone about these incidents. D.L.2 testified that he told his father when they were on a fishing trip, 2 – 3 years before the trial. They were both drinking. They both cried. His father, C.L., confirmed this in his testimony.

D.L.2 says that shortly thereafter he gave a statement to the police, received counselling, and did confront his grandparents. [ 13 ] In cross-examination, D.L.2 admitted that he had not told the police about his grandfather swallowing his ejaculate when performing oral sex. He explained this by saying that for years he tried to suppress these events but the more you think about it, the more it comes back.

[ 14 ] D.L.2 testified that he is quite intelligent. He and his father are best friends, although they have had their arguments when he was growing up. In relation to these allegations, he estimated that he had talked to his father one or two times and six or seven times to his mother. [ 15 ] D.L.2 admitted in cross-examination that he had used cocaine, molly and magic mushrooms. In his youth he had been a skilled hockey player but suffered five concussions playing hockey. [ 16 ] The other complainant is D.L.2’s younger sister M.L.. At the time of the trial, she was 19.

She says that she too was touched by the accused, her grandfather, between the ages of eight and ten. She says she did not tell anyone until after D.L.2 made his statement. She said once D.L.2 made his statement she felt safe to tell people what happened to her. [ 17 ] She says that the touching happened when she was staying in Shellbrook for swimming lessons over the summer months.

One of the ways she remembers her age is because she had Tinker Bell pajamas. [ 18 ] M.L. alleges that her grandpa sexually assaulted her by reaching inside her pajamas and rubbing, touching and doing back and forth motions with his hand against her vagina. She recalls one time he attempted to put his finger in her vagina but that hurt so she squirmed, and he stopped. Her estimate is that the touching went on for about two years, until she was ten. [ 19 ] During this time, M.L. testified that there were other sexual acts which her grandfather did to her: a.

Sometimes he would touch his own penis – he would rarely ejaculate but did a couple of times and then he would clean up with the tissue; and b. Sometimes he would grab her right hand and make her stroke his penis – she estimates this would last for five to ten minutes. She would see his penis and when asked what it looked like she said “hard, I guess”. [ 20 ] M.L. says she started to pee the bed a lot when she was staying with her grandparents. She told her grandmother she did not want to sleep with her grandpa anymore, so she started to sleep in the basement.

The hospital bed where her grandmother slept was in the basement. [ 21 ] M.L. testified that she gave two statements to the police, probably a month apart. They were both given to the same male officer. She testified that when she gave the first statement, she felt uncomfortable. In the second statement she was able to say more things the way she wanted to say them. [ 22 ] In cross-examination M.L. acknowledged the following: a. In the first statement she told the police she had a bad brain injury when she was 12 and does not remember much, let alone these incidents: Q MR.

KOBAN: And so, M.L., you've now had the opportunity to listen to that. Would you agree that it appears that you indicate: (as read) I just don't have much memory of anything. Like, I had a bad brain injury when I was 12, and I don't remember anything about my childhood, let alone this. A Yeah. I did say let alone this, but I was implying when he was -- when I was saying that just certain little -- THE COURT: You were what, sorry, M.L.? I didn't hear you.

A I was implying when I was saying that that just certain little details were hard for me to remember. I couldn't remember little details, but then after that he said, but do you -- you do remember him touching you? And he said yes. I can remember those details. b. She confirmed in her testimony that she had rolled her quad and suffered a very bad concussion. She was briefly hospitalized but has had short term memory problems for years. c.

She also agreed that in her first statement she told the police she had weird dreams, and it is difficult to distinguish between what happened in her dreams and what happened in real life: Q Okay. But you also indicated to the officer that the difficulty you have distinguishing between what happens in your dreams and what happens in real life messes up your mind; right? A Sure. But I did not make any of this up. [ 23 ] On the specific topic of the dreams, M.L. was re-examined. She said she did not really know what she was trying to say about these dreams.

She said she would get mixed up about the details of the room but would never get mixed up about the touching part. [ 24 ] M.L. agreed that in her teenage years she used cocaine and alcohol. She also acknowledged that after she had provided both her statements, when preparing for the trial in December 2021, she told the prosecutor that sometimes her grandpa would ejaculate when he touched her. This was not included in either one of her statements. [ 25 ] C.L. is the father of D.L.2 and M.L..

He confirmed that D.L.2 told him of these incidents involving him when the two of them were on a fishing trip in Northern Saskatchewan. He also confirmed that he and the accused had arguments in the past, some centered on the way C.L. was raising his children. [ 26 ] D.L.1 is the mother of D.L.2 and M.L.. She was the last Crown witness. D.L.1 testified that her dad’s bedroom “was mainly the one upstairs”. Her mother worked shift work as a nurse, and they had made a room in the basement which was hers. D.L.1 was asked directly in cross-examination whether she ever saw her father sleep downstairs.

She replied by saying she did not think so but admitted she was not there every night. [ 27 ] As indicated the accused T.M. testified in his own defence. At the time of the trial, he was 76 years old. He said he had lived in the Shellbrook area for 20 years. He is a retired Home Hardware employee. He still looks after and feeds a few farm animals. He and his wife have celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. He also said that he has 12 grandchildren, two of whom, D.L.2 and M.L., were accusing him of molesting them. [ 28 ] Mr.

T.M. agreed that his grandchildren stayed at their house in Shellbrook when they were taking swimming lessons during the summer months. He testified they would come Monday morning and stay until Friday night. His wife K. would take holidays to look after them. During this time, he was working at Home Hardware and farming. He described his typical day as getting up at 4:00 a.m., going to the farm, doing some fencing, coming home for breakfast then going to Home Hardware to open in the morning. After his workday at the store, he would return to the farm until 10:00 p.m.

He says he would then come home and go to bed. He says he slept mostly on the hospital bed downstairs because it did not affect anyone when he came in late at night. [ 29 ] In his testimony, Mr. T.M. said that his wife mainly looked after the grandchildren when they were there for swimming lessons. He and his wife lived in a small house that measured only 24 x 26.

He developed the basement putting in a washer and dryer and a half bath. [ 30 ] Although he agreed he did see his grandchildren while they were staying at his home, the thrust of his evidence was that his time with his grandchildren was extremely limited given his work schedule. Mr. T.M. volunteered that the sleeping arrangements for D.L.2 and M.L. were as follows: “they slept with the other kids. They slept with K. probably, it was one or two slept with me. I don’t

know”. [31] Later in his examination-in-chief he said: When I came in at 10:00 p.m. at night there was nobody that wasn’t in bed… I didn’t go around and check them sort of thing… I justcame in, had my shower and went to bed… I don’t know where they slept. [32] He said he was never intoxicated when the children were around. [33] His examination in-chief ended by Mr. Koban taking him through each of the charges. He unequivocally denied each one. [34] Early on in his examination in-chief, Mr. T.M. referred to a potential motive for D.L.2 and M.L. to fabricate these allegations. Mr. Koban did not pursue this motive.

In cross-examination, Mr. T.M. told Ms. Larson that he believed C.L. had put D.L.2 and M.L. upto it to try to obtain a portion of his mother’s $100,000.00 estate. [35] He was unable to point to any evidence which substantiated this motive. He simply said, “I don’t have a better reason”. [36] In his cross-examination, he stated that when the grandchildren were visiting, he would sleep on the hospital bed downstairs. He says at all other times, he and his wife shared the master bedroom upstairs.

He said there was no tv in the master bedroom and hedoes not ever recall watching the television show Trailer Park Boys. [37] Mr. T.M. was asked in cross-examination about his daily routine in some detail. He elaborated by saying he would comehome for lunch; he would come home for supper between 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. before he went out to the farm for the evening. Hesaid that he would play hide and seek with the children and sometimes cards. [38] He further said he could not remember his wife ever sleeping downstairs on the hospital bed.

He agreed when specificallyasked, that it is likely the grandchildren slept with him downstairs. He said it probably did happen, but he does not have a recollection ofit, and he cannot remember if he slept with boys or girls. [39] When asked in cross-examination, Mr. T.M. said that the doorknob in the master bedroom upstairs was metal in color. Healso said that he slept in his underwear. ANALYSIS: [40] In a criminal trial the foundation of any analysis of the evidence is the presumption of innocence. The accused is presumedinnocent.

This presumption can only be rebutted if the Crown has satisfied me that this accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable guilt is not sufficient. (R v Lifchus, (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 320 at paras 13, 27, 29 and 36.) In applying thisrigorous standard to the evidence, I must respect the W. (D.) formula. (R v W. (D.), (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742 at p 757 –758). This is not a credibility contest. [41] In this trial there are six charges, three involving D.L.2 and three involving M.L..

The evidence relating to one charge cannotbe used as bad character evidence to convict the accused of one or more of the other charges: “where an accused faces multiple counts,evidence relevant to one count is considered extrinsic and thus presumptively inadmissible on the other counts”. R v R.K.K., 2022BCCA 17 at para 60, relying on R v M.R.S., 2020 ONCA 667 at para 63, 396 CCC (3d) 172. [42] The accused testified denying the charges. He is not required to prove or disprove anything.

The evidence presented at thistrial must be assessed as a whole with the presumption of innocence and the principles of proof beyond a reasonable doubt firmly inmind. As Justice Tholl said in R v van Deventer, 2021 SKCA 163, 407 CCC (3d) 291:

[24] When an accused’s evidence contains a bare denial of the allegations, a trial judge should consider this denial in the context of the evidence of the complainant and, indeed, the evidence as a whole. As long as the assessment of the entirety of the evidence follows a discernable pathway through the W.(D.) analysis, a trial judge is permitted to examine the credibility of a complainant in their assessment of the accused’s bare denial. An accused’s testimony should not be assessed in isolation at the first stage of the W.(D.) test.

In order to properly assess the accused’s denial, a trial judge must be permitted to consider the credibility and reliability of the allegations against the accused. In my view, it would be difficult to determine the credibility of a bare denial without also considering the entirety of the evidence.

The evidence of the complainant provides the basis for an accused’s denial, so considering one without the other could often be a pointless exercise. [25] A finding of credibility and reliability regarding a complainant’s testimony about the alleged conduct can be the reason for rejecting the testimony of an accused, when considered in the context of the entirety of the evidence.

As long as a trial judge is mindful of the burden of proof and the principles from W.(D.) , they can reject the accused’s evidence on the basis that the complainant’s evidence is accepted to the extent that it leaves no room for reasonable doubt. [ 43 ] In this case the complainants were not children when they testified but they did testify about events that occurred while they were children. The general caution expressed by Judge Agnew in R v Nippi at para 3, 2022 SKPC 36 [ Nippi ] is helpful.

Judge Agnew relies on R v R.I.G. , 2020 SKCA 26 , at paras 36 – 39 , which recognizes that the evidence of children must be viewed from their perspective, but this does not in any way change or displace the standard of proof in criminal matters. [ 44 ] I am also mindful in considering the evidence presented at this trial of the distinction between credibility and reliability as succinctly stated by Justice Mitchell in R v Levac , 2020, SKQB 171 [ Levac ] (relying on R v Wolff , 2019 SKCA 103 at para 38 [ Wolff ]) at para 106: [106] Credibility is concerned with a witness’ honesty or truthfulness.

Reliability, however, focusses on a witness’ powers of observation, recollection and communication. A witness who is not credible cannot give reliable evidence. Yet, credibility is not a proxy for reliability. A credible witness may give unreliable evidence. See: R v Wolff , 2019 SKCA 103 at paras 38 , 380 CCC (3d) 223 [ Wolff ]; R v H.C. , 2009 ONCA 56 at para 41 , 241 CCC (3d) 45. [ 45 ] Applying these principles and considering the whole of the evidence as it relates to each count, I have reached the following conclusions and observations about the evidence. [ 46 ] The evidence of D.L.2 was matter of fact.

On some matters, like the contents of the bedroom and what was on tv, he testified to events that occurred when he was six to twelve years of age with little difficulty. Other matters such as the size of the bed and the color of the bed sheets he could not remember. [ 47 ] He admitted that he had spoken to his mother six or seven times about these allegations. His mother is the daughter of the accused. He also agreed that he had spoken to his father approximately two times.

There is evident animus between C.L. and his father- in-law, the accused. [ 48 ] D.L.2 also admitted that he had tried to suppress these incidents and the more he thought about it the more he remembered. Although this is not detailed in the evidence before me, he said that he is in counselling over these incidents. [ 49 ] The evidence of D.L.2 was externally consistent with the evidence of his mother, and to some extent, the evidence of the accused. He did attend swimming lessons in Shellbrook. He did sleep with his grandfather, he believes in the upstairs bedroom, which apparently was the master bedroom.

His evidence of the incidents is not corroborated but it was presented in a straightforward and compelling manner. [ 50 ] M.L.’s evidence is more difficult to assess. Since the time of the incidents, she has suffered what she called a bad brain injury, which has affected her short-term memory. She also experienced what she termed “weird dreams” and she has difficulty differentiating between the dreams and reality as it relates to these events. [ 51 ] Ms.

Larson, in argument, specifically points to her re-examination of M.L. relating to the dreams where M.L. indicated that she remembered the touching but not all the surrounding details. Ms. Larson also says that the courtroom and the very nature of the allegations are stressful, and I must be mindful of this when assessing M.L.’s testimony. I agree and I have considered her evidence from this perspective with the caution from Nippi in mind.

[ 52 ] Mr. T.M. may sincerely believe he is not capable of these sexual acts towards his grandchildren; however, his memory of the circumstances is questionable at best. He went to great lengths to establish that he was hard at work from 4:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. every day of the swimming lessons. He said he spent little time with his grandchildren and insisted while they were at his house, he slept downstairs on the hospital bed. In the end, he admitted he probably slept with his grandchildren when they were ages six to ten while wearing only his underwear.

My assessment of his evidence is that he felt trapped by these allegations and was prepared to say anything to refute them. For reasons I will elaborate on, I have no confidence in his memory. [ 53 ] Mr. T.M. suggested a motive for his grandchildren to fabricate these incidents. There was no basis in the evidence for this suggestion and it is nothing more than unfounded speculation. [ 54 ] Throughout my analysis, I have focused on the demanding standard of proof required for a criminal conviction.

As reiterated in R v Allary , 2021 SKCA 110 at para 37 , I am required to scrutinize the evidence to determine whether it satisfies this standard even where I accept the Crown’s evidence and reject the evidence of the accused. [37] More specifically, it is an error of law for a trial judge not to turn their mind to the possibility that, despite the acceptance of the evidence of a Crown witness and the rejection of the evidence of the accused, there might still be a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused: R. v Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26 at para 65 , [2002] 1 SCR 869, and R. v Mah, 2002 NSCA 99 at paras 41-42 , 167 CCC (3d) 401. [ 55 ] The assessment of the evidence in this trial is complicated by the fact that the alleged incidents occurred at least ten years ago.

The law does not require corroboration of the complainant’s evidence although such evidence can be useful. In this case, there is very little available. There is also a stark division in the evidence. [ 56 ] As noted by Justice Mitchell in Levac , at para 108 , credibility and reliability assessments are not an all or nothing proposition. A trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of a witness’ evidence. With this in mind, when I consider the whole of the evidence, I find the evidence of D.L.2 to be generally, although not wholly, credible and reliable.

The evidence of M.L., I find to be unreliable, and the evidence of the accused I find to be both unreliable and incredible. [ 57 ] D.L.2 testified that he was sexually touched by his grandfather in the upstairs bedroom of their home. He described the bedroom, including the television, and said it was generally on. He said this was his grandfather’s room. His mother, D.L.1, confirmed that the room upstairs was her parents’ bedroom. She said that her father generally slept in that room.

The accused agreed that was his room, but he said that when the children were staying at his house, he slept downstairs in the hospital bed. I do not believe the accused’s evidence on this point, and I am satisfied that he slept in his bedroom when the children were staying at his house. I also believe, contrary to his evidence, that there was a tv in that room and it was generally on.

I also note the accused testified that he generally slept in his underwear and agrees that he could have slept with his grandchildren, which evidence is consistent with the testimony of D.L.2. [ 58 ] I find that the evidence of D.L.2, that he was touched by his grandfather, is straightforward and consistent. As I have said, T.M. may believe that he did not touch his grandson; however, I have concluded that his evidence is inconsistent, and I do not believe his denial in this regard. [ 59 ] D.L.2 also testified that his grandfather performed oral sex on him.

His recollection of the oral sex changed materially over time. In cross-examination by Mr. Koban, D.L.2 said he remembered, after he had given his statement to the police, that his grandfather would swallow his ejaculate while performing oral sex.

This addition to his recollection caused me to question his testimony in this area for the following reasons: he gave his statement when he was 21 years of age and at that time he agreed that he told the police the whole truth; he testified that if something traumatizing happens to a person, it “ burns into your memory”, but he also testified in answer to a question about remembering more details over time, “for years you try to suppress it so much and the more you think about it the more it comes back”; his terminology became more aggressive when describing the oral sex; he agrees he had spoken to his parents about these incidents and presumably some of these conversations were after his police statement; although not detailed in evidence, he agreed he was participating in counselling in relation to the incidents.

When I examine this testimony in the context of the evidence as a whole, these facts cause me to doubt the reliability of his memory as to whether oral sex or attempted oral sex occurred at all. [ 60 ] In relation to M.L., I am unable to conclude on the evidence that she is being untruthful. The events which she described may well have happened. However, there are significant pieces of her testimony which cause me to doubt its reliability.

She has attempted to reconstruct these events despite a serious head injury which occurred subsequent to the events, and recurrent bad dreams about her grandfather and what he did. As described by Justice Kalmakoff in R v Wolff , “a witness who is credible may provide

unreliable evidence, because honest witnesses can misperceive events, have poor memory, or just be wrong”. For these reasons, when I review all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that she was sexually touched by her grandfather, that he forced her to sexually touch him, or that he touched his own penis or that he ejaculated in front of her. [ 61 ] In regard to the evidence of the accused, I believe it is neither credible nor reliable. I do not believe he slept downstairs on the hospital bed when his grandchildren were visiting. I think he slept upstairs in his bedroom and that he slept with his grandchildren. I find his evidence of his work

schedule to be deliberately exaggerated, in order to give the impression that his contact with his grandchildren was limited. In addition, I find his evidence that he slept downstairs was designed to convince me that he did not have the opportunity to touch either D.L.2 or M.L.. At the same time, he conceded that he did sleep with his grandchildren in his underwear. This evidence, together with his unsubstantiated motive suggestion, lead me to conclude that he does not remember these events, or he is unable to accept them.

Whichever it is, I am satisfied that he has fabricated a recollection that is not credible and highly unreliable. CONCLUSION [ 62 ] When I consider the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that T.M. kissed D.L.2 on his stomach chest and legs, touched D.L.2’s penis, rubbed his body against D.L.2’s body and sometimes would rub D.L.2’s hands and feet against his own penis. On this evidence, the Crown has proven the counts relating to D.L.2 beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of T.M. does not raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

The accused is guilty of counts #1 through #3. [ 63 ] I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt in relation to the allegations of M.L.. Her evidence is not reliable and does not satisfy me of T.M.’s guilt. The accused is found not guilty of counts #4 through #6. Dated this 26 th day of January, A.D. 2023, at the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan. ___________________________ H.M. HARRADENCE, J