In a sexual assault trial where there are two versions of the same events, what is the role of the trial judge in determining whether the accused has proven his case beyond a reasonable doubt?

This is one of those situations where the trial judge has to be careful to avoid falling into the error of choosing one version of events over another. In trials where there are two versions of the same events, it is not simply a question which version the trial judge favours or believes; rather, the role of the trial judge is to assess the testimony of the accused and to determine whether the exculpatory testimony is believed, whether it raises a reasonable doubt, and failing both, whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt: see Gahan v. R., 2014 NBCA 18, at para 1.