Were Michelle's out-of-court statements sufficiently reliable to have been admitted at trial?
Should Dr. Elterman have been permitted to testify as to the type of memory the children had of specific incidents of alleged abuse?
Were the appellants entitled to cross-examine Ms. Bunko-Ruys using the transcripts of the videotaped interviews?
Was the evidence sufficient to support D.W.’s conviction for sexual assault?
Were the trial judge’s findings regarding D.R. and H.R. inconsistent in respect of the sexual offences?
Were the trial judge’s reasons inadequate in respect of D.R.’s and H.R.’s convictions for assault?
Should the certificate confirming the conviction of Peter K. for sexual assault have been admitted as fresh evidence?