Metro Vancouver art instructor found not guilty of child molestation, despite judge's concerns with case

"The evidence in this case leaves me strongly suspecting that (the teacher) touched (the student) under her pants as she described,"write Supreme Court of B.C. Justice Heather Holmes

A Metro Vancouver art instructor has been found not guilty of molesting a young student, despite the judge ruling that she strongly suspected the accused touched the girl “under her pants as she described”.

According to a Supreme Court of B.C. ruling, the teacher was arrested last March after the student reported the alleged incidents to her mother.

The girl testified that during the course of art classes at the man’s home he put his hand down her pants, under her underwear and that he placed her hand on his penis, over his pants.

He was subsequently charged with touching a child (count one) and inviting a child to touch him (count two) for a sexual purpose – to which he pleaded not guilty.

The teacher said the only touching that occurred was to correct the student’s sitting position or posture as she drew and painted. He said he was a strict teacher who often admonished the student and had at one point put his hands on her torso to pull her back into her seat.

Justice Heather Holmes said the girl was a credible witness and that key areas of her testimony “had the ring of truth”.

“I accept (the student’s) evidence that Mr. Chen touched her inside her pants, in the way she described, during the final Sunday lesson and on at least one other occasion, likely a number of other occasions.”

In reference to the alleged penis touching, Holmes wrote “(the student’s) uncertainty or discomfort in remembering or describing this conduct do not reduce the credibility of her evidence.

“However, together with the associated absence of detail, they leave her evidence about this allegation as little more than a bare assertion of the conduct she described, with little context against which to assess its reliability.”

In conclusion, Holmes wrote that if she were to chose between the evidence of the student and evidence of the teacher regarding count 1 “I would conclude (the student’s) evidence is more credible and more reliable than (the teachers).

“However, that is not the task. For an accused person to be found guilty of a criminal offence, the evidence must establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a very high standard.  It does not require absolute certainty, but it does require more than strong suspicion.

“The evidence in this case leaves me strongly suspecting that (the teacher) touched (the student) under her pants as she described.  However, the evidence does not give me confidence on that point beyond a reasonable doubt.  (The teacher’s) evidence is not compelling, for the reasons I have given, but I cannot reject it entirely.  It leaves me with a reasonable doubt.”

As a result, the teacher was found not guilty on both counts.

The accused name, the location of the art studio and the ages of all parties have not been reported due to a publication ban put in place to protect the girl’s identity.