SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE - Justice John Vertes is expected to rule today in the case of a man who is accused of aggravated assault against his child in 2007.

The trial, which began Monday in Supreme Court, brought to light the father's different accounts of what may have caused the injuries, and included testimony of doctors who said the father's explanations were possible, but unlikely.

"If there's an innocent explanation of what happened to (the child), we haven't heard it," said Crown lawyer Shannon Smallwood in her closing arguments on Thursday.

Between midnight and 3 a.m. on Oct. 22, 2007 something happened to a five-month-old child which caused bruising on his face and tore veins in his brain, which led to internal bleeding and requiring surgery.

The father, who was the only person home at the time, has maintained he does not know exactly what happened to cause the injuries. When first questioned by doctors and police, he mentioned that the child had rolled off a couch a week earlier, and that the child's older brother had hit him in the head with a toy.

The father was co-operative with police, but during his third statement to the RCMP - the day after the incident - he mentioned that he'd tripped on a toy and fallen on the baby in a bedroom. It was the first time he'd brought it up, according to Smallwood.

She said the credibility of the man's statements to police were compromised due to the discrepancies.

The man's lawyer, Thomas Boyd, said the later addition to his client's story could be accounted for by the man's state of panic.

"He knew his children were being apprehended ... he's in this maelstrom of events," Boyd said, adding that his client has no prior convictions.

"This was all very new to him," he said.

This explanation left Vertes with a question.

"I can accept that he was probably in a state of panic when he took his kid to the hospital ... I'm curious that he didn't mention (the fall) to the doctors or constables when he was arrested," said Vertes.

Boyd also said the scenarios put forth by the man could account for the injuries, according to testimony from several doctors, even if some said it was unlikely.

Smallwood said though witnesses who regularly saw the man with his kids said "he was a good father," they did see him frustrated from time to time.

A witness who was at the house earlier that day said the baby was fine for most of the day, but got "cranky" and cried for about three hours before the witness left the house.

Smallwood suggested that maybe, late at night, with a child that was crying and another three-year-old son to take care of, the perhaps tired and frustrated man reached his limits and intentionally harmed his young son. Smallwood told Yellowknifer the baby has "some lasting health effects" due to the injury.

Vertes adjourned the court until this morning at 10 a.m. to decide whether or not it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the man assaulted his child.