In a case like this, where the accused has testified and presented evidence, the case of R. v.
W.(D.),  1 S.C.R. 742 directs the court in its approach to the evidence. The W.D. test
applies not just to an accused person’s testimony, but to any defence evidence and any
potentially exculpatory evidence, whether led by the defence or the Crown: R. v. Smith, 2020
ONCA 782, 69 C.R. (7th) 126, at para. 12. In short, the test tells me that if I believe the
accused’s evidence, or it leaves me with a reasonable doubt after I have considered it in the
context of all the evidence, the accused must be acquitted.
 It is important to note, however, that in deciding a case, a judge is not simply comparing
each account and deciding which account to believe. Trials are not credibility contests where
the more credible witness’s account necessarily carries the day. It is also important to note that
a judge can believe a witness but still be left with a reasonable doubt about what happened
after considering all of the evidence. As has been noted by our Court of Appeal, “a reasonable
doubt can survive a finding that [a] complainant is credible”: R. v. T.A., 2020 ONCA 783, at
para. 29, citing R. v. J.W., 2014 ONCA 322, 316 O.A.C. 395, at para. 26.
 Further, even if a judge disbelieves the evidence given by an accused person, or is not left
with a reasonable doubt based on the accused’s evidence, this does not mean that the Crown
has proved its case. A judge must always determine whether the Crown has proved each
element of every offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt. This will only happen when there
is evidence that the judge accepts that supports each element the Crown is required to prove.
 As for what is meant by “reasonable doubt”, it is not an imaginary, far-fetched or frivolous
doubt, and it must not be based upon sympathy or prejudice. It is based on reason and common
sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence: R. v. Bryce (2001), 140
O.A.C. 126(C.A.), at paras. 13-20. Probable or likely guilt is not sufficient to meet the standard
in a criminal trial. But the burden of proof is also not impossibly high. The Crown is not
required to prove its case to an absolute certainty.
 If, at the end of the case, a judge concludes only that the accused is likely or probably
guilty, the accused must be acquitted. Before an accused may be found guilty, and face the
consequences of a conviction, a judge must be sure that the accused committed the offence
charged (see D. Watt, Watt’s Manual of Criminal Jury Instructions, 2nd Ed., Thomson Reuters
Canada Ltd., 2015, Final 13, “Reasonable Doubt”, at pp. 261-267; and R. v. Lifchus,  3
S.C.R. 320, at paras. 36-40).
 Counsel agree that the case for the Crown is based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
This means that for every offence charged, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the accused’s guilt is the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the whole of
 A trier of fact must guard against the risk of “filling in the blanks” by too quickly
overlooking reasonable alternative inferences and be vigilant about the path of reasoning