What is the test for reviewing a conviction by a trial judge in a sexual assault case?

I have read the reasons for judgment of the majority disputing the trial judge's assessment of the evidence. But I find that I must respectfully disagree with the majority's assessment and interpretation of the evidence. Instead, I support the trial judge's balanced and detailed analysis of all the relevant evidence as well as the conclusion he reached. The test for reviewing a conviction by a trial judge in these circumstances is well known. And that test is the same whether the case is based on direct evidence or, as is the situation here, circumstantial evidence. Is the decision one that a properly instructed jury acting judicially could reasonably have rendered: Yebes v. R. 1987 CanLII 17 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168. In my view, it is.