The judge in the sexual assault trial of Jian Ghomeshi offered a blistering opinion of the three complainants, saying in his not-guilty ruling that each of the women had been dishonest with the Court.

“Each complainant was confronted with a volume of evidence that was contrary to their prior sworn statements and their evidence in-chief,” said Justice William B. Horkins, in reading his ruling from the bench Thursday morning. “Each complainant demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion. It is this aspect of their evidence that is most troubling to the Court.”

During the trial, each of the witnesses had been less than entirely forthcoming in describing their relationships with Mr. Ghomeshi, in some cases until the truth of those relationships was revealed during cross-examination.

The verdict: Full text of the judge's ruling in the Ghomeshi case

“The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the Court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth,” said Justice Horkins. “I am forced to conclude that it is impossible for the Court to have sufficient faith in the reliability of sincerity of these complainants. Put simply, the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt.”

He noted that “one of the challenges for the prosecution in this case is that the allegations against Mr. Ghomeshi are supported by nothing in addition to the complainants’ word. There is no evidence to look to determine the truth. There is no tangible evidence. There is no DNA. There is no ‘smoking gun.’ There is only the sworn evidence of each complainant, standing on its own, to be measured against a very exacting standard of proof. This highlights the importance of the assessment of the credibility and the reliability and the overall quality of the evidence.”

He noted that his conclusion “is not the same as deciding in any positive way that these events never happened.” Still, he found, “the bedrock foundation of the Crown’s case is tainted and incapable of supporting any clear determination of the truth.”

The verdict cleared Mr. Ghomeshi of four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking, charges that stemmed from alleged incidents dating from late 2002 to the summer of 2003.

The verdict brings to a close one chapter in an ongoing saga for Mr. Ghomeshi that began when the CBC fired him in late October, 2014, and his private life suddenly spilled into public view. Days after his dismissal, the CBC hired an employment law firm, which issued a report last April that found Mr. Ghomeshi “consistently breached the behavioural standard” of the broadcaster by yelling at, belittling and humiliating others.

Mr. Ghomeshi’s next trial, on a single count of sexual assault dating from an alleged incident of workplace harassment in 2008, is scheduled for June 6.

Over an eight-day judge-only trial last month at Toronto’s Old City Hall courthouse, Justice Horkins heard three complainants outline allegations of criminal conduct against the former CBC personality.

The first woman – whose identity was protected by a court-ordered publication ban – said she had met Mr. Ghomeshi in December, 2002, while she was working as a waitress at a CBC event. Days later, Mr. Ghomeshi invited her to a taping of >play, the CBC Newsworld show he was then hosting, and the two went out for a drink. As their date concluded, the woman said, Mr. Ghomeshi suddenly and without warning yanked her hair – the first alleged incident of sexual assault.

Some weeks later, after attending another taping of >play, she went with Mr. Ghomeshi to his house. After a few minutes of flirting, she said, he pushed her to the ground and began beating her about the head – the second alleged incident of sexual assault. She told the court that, when she began to cry, Mr. Ghomeshi suddenly withdrew and said he would call her a cab.

In media interviews she gave after the allegations about Mr. Ghomeshi broke in the fall of 2014, the woman insisted she had been so distraught over the incidents that she broke off all contact with him. But during the trial, Mr. Ghomeshi’s lead defence counsel, Marie Henein, produced a pair of e-mails the woman had sent him more than a year after the incident. The second e-mail contained a photograph of the woman in a red bikini. In court, the woman explained the e-mail and photo were “bait” to draw him in.

“The motivation behind my picture – all of this – was to get Mr. Ghomeshi to phone me so I could ask him why he punched me in the head,” she said.

The second complainant to testify was Trailer Park Boys actress Lucy DeCoutere, who, after giving dozens of media interviews when the story broke in which she allowed her name and face to be broadcast, waived her right to the publication ban on her identity.

Ms. DeCoutere told the court that, after a dinner date in July, 2003, she and Mr. Ghomeshi were at his house in Toronto’s Riverdale neighbourhood. “He started kissing me and then he took me by the throat, pushed me against the wall, cutting off my breath,” she said. “And he slapped me three times” – the alleged incident that gave rise to the third charge of sexual assault and the charge of overcoming resistance by choking.

Asked by assistant Crown attorney Corie Langdon if she had consented, Ms. DeCoutere said no such discussion had taken place. “It’s impossible to consent to something you’re not asked, so no, I didn’t consent to it.”

During cross-examination, Ms. Henein confronted Ms. DeCoutere with numerous e-mails and a six-page handwritten letter that appeared to show she had pursued a romantic relationship with Mr. Ghomeshi, contrary to Ms. DeCoutere’s characterization of the relationship.

After her testimony, Ms. DeCoutere’s counsel read a statement to the media on the courthouse steps that said the actress “maintains her allegations, and remains resolute in her decision to come forward.” Gillian Hnatiw added: “Lucy wants survivors of violence to know that what they do in the aftermath when they are harmed in no way changes the truth.”

The third complainant, whose musician brother knew Mr. Ghomeshi, told the court that, at the conclusion of a dinner date in July, 2003, she and the CBC host were kissing in a public park when “some kind of switch happened” in him and he grabbed her throat and covered her mouth without warning – the alleged incident that led to the fourth charge of sexual assault.

Days before she was due to testify, she gave an additional statement to police in which she disclosed that she and Mr. Ghomeshi had had a sexual encounter after the alleged assault.

Mr. Ghomeshi did not testify at his trial, and his counsel did not offer evidence to directly counter any of the women’s core allegations. But Ms. Henein and her associate Danielle Robitaille made much of inconsistencies in the complainants’ testimony.