Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartcar
I followed this quite closely and I think the judge made the right decision. There is a lot of commentary based on media reports but the bottom line is EM was not credible, did consent at the time and likely was influenced by events afterwards (shame, anger at being dissed, etc). Also looking for a big payout. I thought blaming her civil lawyers for material errors in her statement of claim was BS. Who doesn’t read their statement of claim it’s an affidavit FFS.
Here is the full decision:
https://www.scribd.com/document/8929...ict#from_embed |
You’re not describing the case accurately.
1. Yes, the judge found EM’s credibility lacking in some areas. That doesn’t mean she was proven to be lying. In Canadian law, being found “not credible” is not the same as lying. People can be confused, inconsistent, or emotional without being dishonest.
2. The verdict wasn’t “she consented,” it was that the Crown didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn’t. That’s a big difference. Our system does not declare someone innocent, just “not proven guilty.”
3. Saying she was influenced by shame or rejection is pure speculation. The judge never said that. You’re projecting a motive that wasn’t found in court.
4. As for the settlement, that happened before the trial and doesn’t prove anything either way. Most high-profile cases settle because both sides want to avoid a public mess. It’s not evidence of lying.
5. A statement of claim is not an affidavit. It’s written by lawyers, not sworn testimony. EM said she didn’t review it closely. That might not be great, but it’s not some “gotcha” moment.
If you’re going to point people to the full decision, you should probably read it more carefully. The judge explained her reasoning clearly, and none of it supports the idea that EM was just some vindictive liar out for money.