CITATION: R. v. McColeman, 2017 ONSC 4019

COURT FILE NO.: C749/15

DATE: 20170815

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

Paul McColeman

Accused

Philip Zylberberg and Kara Vakiparta, for the Crown

Darren Berlinguette, for the Accused

HEARD: March 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, April 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, May 1, 2 and June 29, 2017

By court order made under subsection 486.4 and 486.5(2) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the persons described in this judgment as the complainants may not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner. This judgement complies with this restriction so that it can be published.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Hennessy j.

Introduction[1]

1For seven years, between 2007 and 2014, Paul McColeman surrounded himself with a group of adolescent boys in the small northern town in which he lived. He began by employing boys who were about 12 years old to work in his garage after hours, alone and unsupervised. Some of these boys were then invited to his house, sometimes to care for his dog. Soon, he welcomed and/or permitted boys to hang out at his house when their own living situations were precarious, and to stay overnight when they had no other place to go.

2The boys recounted how they spent their days, evenings or weekends at McColeman's small house, drinking, smoking marijuana, playing video games and messaging their friends on MSN or Facebook, at times using McColeman’s personal computer.

3Paul McColeman conducted a pattern of grooming and luring many of these boys over the years to provide sexual services for him. Nearly every one of the boys who were the successful targets of Paul McColeman’s grooming and luring operation lived without any family structure or supervision, and without a stable home. For many, McColeman provided that home base. He paid attention to them, listening to their stories, taking them to motocross races, the rifle range, and on camping trips. They ate McColeman’s food, drove his quad and dirt bikes, drank his liquor, smoked his marijuana, and slept on his couches or in his bed. He became a father figure to at least two of the boys. As time passed, the boys began to introduce McColeman to their friends, and importantly for McColeman, to their younger friends.

4As much as the boys spent time with McColeman in person, they also communicated with him electronically via Facebook. Their communications, many of which were reproduced at trial, and their evidence of the time they spent together, describe the life of a man in his 40’s who was fully embedded in the lives of a group of troubled adolescent teenage boys who were willing to trade sex acts in exchange for their ever increasing need for drugs, alcohol or money.

5As the number of boys with whom McColeman had these relationships grew, it was inevitable that word would get around in this small town. In the spring of 2014, some adults had seen or heard about the situation. They reported their concerns to the police who started an investigation, slowly and quietly. McColeman was well known and respected in this community. At first, the boys were reluctant witnesses. For some, McColeman was still the centre of, or certainly, a very important person in their worlds. When the police initially questioned them, they were confused, protective, nervous, ashamed and afraid. But, eventually, their stories emerged.

6McColeman was charged with luring offences related to 15 boys, and, with respect to seven of those boys, he was charged with what I will refer to collectively as sexual offences.

7McColeman denied all of the charges. He acknowledged that he helped out the boys who needed a home, a place to hang out and/or a meal. He admitted he bought them food, cell phones, clothes, video game equipment, and dirt bikes. However, and most significantly, he denied that he set up or communicated with the boys via social media profiles, which he allegedly used to arrange meetings with the boys and to negotiate their rewards for the sexual pranks, dares or missions that were proposed to them.

8In these reasons, I will review the similar fact application, the evidence from the complainants and the police on identity, and the defence evidence before making final assessment of all the evidence, considered as a whole.

Complainants’ Summaries

9I set out a summary of the complainants’ evidence in the order in which they testified.

10The first set of complainants alleged that they had received messages from the Facebook profile of Treber Boucher. The second group alleged that they had received MSN messages from Hyperchick or Jennifer Johnston.

CX1

11CX1 was 10 years old when he first met McColeman in 2012. McColeman was already living with Sheldon George who had been living there since 2007. McColeman’s long-time girlfriend Kari had moved out in 2008. CX1 was already drinking, using marijuana, smoking cigarettes and getting into trouble with the police. CX1 lived with McColeman off and on for a year before moving in with him full time at age 11 in January 2013 and was still living with him at the time of his arrest in June 2014. For those 2 ½ years between ages 11-13 CX1 did not attend school. He missed grade 6, 7, and 8.

12CX1 is now 16 years of age. He was in a very anxious state as he gave his evidence. He was afraid he was going to cry or have an anxiety attack as he was asked to recount the past. He said he was scared but was being truthful.

13CX1 was living with his foster mother when he met Paul McColeman. CX1’s mother approved his move into McColeman’s house. Apparently, at some point, the CAS also became aware of the living situation and in some fashion, they approved it.

14When CX1 first moved to McColeman’s house, he slept on the futon in the living room and McColeman slept in the only bedroom. At some point, CX1 started sleeping in McColeman’s bed. CX1 stated that they shared a single blanket. McColeman and Sheldon George denied the CX1 shared blanket with McColeman story and testified that each of them had their own sleeping bag.

CX1 – Drug Use

15McColeman was intimately involved in CX1’s ever-increasing consumption of marijuana and other drugs.

16CX1 and McColeman developed a close bond, like father/son in some respects. CX1 stated that McColeman asked him to call him Dad. McColeman took CX1 fishing, camping, and bought him a dirt bike, a quad, a computer and a phone. Paul McColeman purchased the phone for CX1 after the first year CX1 lived with him.

CX1 – Drug Use and Sex Dares

17With respect to Percocets, CX1 also testified that:

• McColeman introduced and provided him with Percocets and mushrooms;

• his consumption of Percocets escalated to the point where he needed them to function; and took two or three every day;

• the drugs were always supplied by McColeman and CX1 did not pay for the drugs with money;

• at one point McColeman cut him off from Percocets but started supplying again after CX1 began breaking into vehicles for money;

• CX1 broke into McColeman’s gun safe where the drugs were stored.

18After CX1 moved in, McColeman’s house became even more of a gathering place for young boys who were not going to school. Some of his friends hung around during the day, others stayed over from time to time. The routine at the beginning was that McColeman would go to work in the morning and CX1 would invite some friends over. The boys would play video games, drink and smoke marijuana, supplied by either CX1 or another boy. McColeman came home for lunch once in a while and took CX1 for fast food lunches. Sheldon George and/or McColeman would often try to restrict which boys could come to the home, but to no avail.

19CX1 recalled the first sexual contact with McColeman occurred when he was 11 years old. His friend had brought him to Paul McColeman’s house and told him that he could get him some weed if he wanted some. McColeman was in the house at the time.

20CX1 recalled sitting in the living room of Paul McColeman’s house and his friend showing him a message on Facebook from the profile of Treber Boucher. The message dared him to go and peek on McColeman in the shower and see if he was masturbating, and to let Treber Boucher know. CX1 and his friend went into the bathroom and watched McColeman masturbate. They could see him through the opening between the curtain and the wall. After the boys reported back to Treber Boucher on Facebook, they were then directed to the carport where they retrieved the marijuana that had been left for them. CX1 recalled that he did the “shower dare” about 4-5 times.

21In short order, the dares escalated and the bigger or harder the dare, the more marijuana was provided. In time, whenever either CX1 or his friend wanted more marijuana they would message Treber Boucher and say, “Give us a dare.” CX1 testified that Treber Boucher would reply, “Give me a minute and I’ll give you something to do.” By then, CX1 said that he and his friend “were doing weed 24/7” and were prepared to do bigger dares to supply their habit. Treber Boucher would often ask if CX1 had any ideas for dares and CX1 would respond in the negative. Then Treber Boucher asked if he would make McColeman ejaculate for weed and CX1 agreed.

22The second set of dares also involved McColeman in the shower. CX1 testified that Paul McColeman would pull aside the shower curtain so that CX1 could masturbate McColeman until he ejaculated. This also happened 4-5 times. In return for this dare, CX1 received whatever had been offered in the Facebook message, either a mickey of alcohol or 3 gr of marijuana. The marijuana was left in the BBQ in the carport/garage for him and the liquor was in the freezer for him to retrieve.

23CX1 gave evidence that once, after asking CX1 if he had any ideas for a dare, Treber Boucher proposed that CX1 cut a glory hole in the laundry room door and put his penis through it so it could be sucked on the other side. CX1 presumed it was McColeman on the other side of the door as there was no one else in the house at the time. CX1 recalled this dare happening twice.

24Around this time, CX1 recalled that he looked once at McColeman’s phone and saw that his messages to Treber Boucher were on McColeman’s phone. He confronted McColeman about this and according to CX1, McColeman admitted he was Treber Boucher. From that point on, the Facebook messages about dares were between McColeman and CX1 directly.

25Soon McColeman suggested “cheese doodles,” which involved McColeman performing fellatio on CX1. In the mornings before McColeman left for work, he would ask for cheese doodle. After the act, Paul McColeman would leave Percocets on the table for CX1 and go off to work. CX1 would stay at the house and get high with his friends. Often McColeman came home for lunch, asked for cheese doodle from CX1 and then took CX1 to McDonald’s and gave him marijuana. In the evenings, before bed, Paul McColeman asked for cheese doodles and then gave CX1 marijuana or Percocets so he could sleep.

26CX1 testified that the Percocets were kept locked in the gun safe in the house. CX1 recalled that they were in a bottle with McColeman’s name on it.

27CX1 recalled that sometimes he would be so intoxicated at night that he could not ejaculate. One time when this happened, McColeman hit him and said that if he did not perform McColeman would rape his little brother. At some point, McColeman demanded that CX1 perform fellatio on him. CX1 testified that he was afraid he would get hurt or that McColeman would hurt his younger brother if he did not comply. CX1 stated that McColeman had angry outbursts from time to time, yelling and hitting CX1. The incidents escalated over time and when drunk, McColeman demanded that CX1 perform anal sex on him. CX1 complied with this demand a few times. In return, CX1 received a couple of Percocets, the usual whiskey in the freezer and some marijuana.

28McColeman was arrested in July 2014 when CX1 was 13 turning 14 years old. CX1 recalled a conversation with Sheldon George after the arrest. He recalled that Sheldon tried to make him believe that what everyone was saying about McColeman was a lie, that it was all rumours. CX1 was also contacted post arrest by Tammy McColeman, who started asking him questions but he blocked her from further communications.

CX1 – Recruitment

29CX1 was recruited by CX3 and another friend. CX1 stated that his friend told him about the dares to spy on someone in return for marijuana and that CX3 messaged him about it to set it up. The friend did not testify. CX1 identified a number of typed excerpts from his Facebook profile. They included discussions with CX3 when CX1 was first invited to go and spy on someone in a house on McColeman’s street. CX3 said in a Facebook message that the spying was “…something my buddy gets peeps to do if they want weed or ciggs and booze.”

30CX1 recalled how McColeman asked him a number of times to recruit other boys to do dares. CX1 was 13 when McColeman first made these requests. CX1 recruited CX6 and CX7. He recalled that CX6 did many dares. However, CX1 testified that he stopped recruiting others when McColeman wanted younger boys.

CX1 – Use of Paul McColeman Computer

31McColeman’s computer was password protected, but CX1 stated that many of his friends had the password. CX1 also had the password to log into McColeman’s Facebook account, as McColeman had the password to log into CX1’s Facebook account. CX1 regularly used McColeman’s phone until McColeman bought him his own phone.

X2

32X2 is the mother of two boys, both of whom were part of McColeman’s world, and the elder of whom is the complainant CX3. X2 lived with her sons and supported them on her modest income from social support and a part time job. She was separated from the boys’ father, who left the home when the boys were 10 and 11 years old, and who left the small town a couple of years later. The boys did not have much of a relationship with their father and did not see him often. In particular, she recalled that the father had been particularly hard on CX3 and that CX3 had been afraid of him.

33Both boys were diagnosed at a young age with disorders which affected their learning and social interactions. School presented a real challenge to CX3 and he did not have an easy time learning.

34X2 had known McColeman through McColeman’s sister, Tammy. McColeman sent her a friend request on Facebook. They started chatting and X2 invited McColeman to her house for coffee where he met the boys and took a liking to them. The boys started wanting to hang out with McColeman because in their minds, he was cool and seemed like a father figure. X2 testified that McColeman told her boys that he cared about them.

35Soon the boys started spending a lot of time with McColeman. He bought the two boys things that she could not have afforded to buy for them. He took one of her sons for rides, trips to McDonalds, and to dirt bike races in a nearby town. He bought that son a brand new Xbox and a brand new dirt bike helmet. The day before he was arrested, he was going to give CX3 a snow machine.

36At times X2 herself went to the McColeman house. She knew that CX1 lived there, however she never saw him. Nor did she see drug or alcohol use while she was there. She told her sons that she did not want them to hang around with CX1 because he had been in trouble.

37X2 found herself defending McColeman when people in town commented on the fact that he was spending his time with kids. She believed that her boys considered McColeman a father figure.

CX3

38CX3 lives with his mother. He receives a disability pension. CX3 stated that in the past his father beat him and was very mean. He has not seen his father in years. He met McColeman after his parents had separated. CX3 thought that McColeman was cool and recalled that his mother trusted McColeman.

39CX3 stated that he met McColeman and started going to McColeman’s house in 2009, when he was 11-12 years old. He would walk to McColeman’s house during the day when he was supposed to be in school. He would use McColeman’s computer, and would get the password from McColeman.

40When asked to describe his relationship to Paul McColeman, CX3 stated that McColeman was cool and like a father. Paul McColeman gave CX3 all the attention he wanted and that otherwise he did not have enough attention. CX3 would go dirt biking and quadding with McColeman and hang out at McColeman’s house with McColeman’s dog. CX3 recalled that CX1 lived at McColeman’s house for a while during the time he was involved with McColeman.

41CX3 says he started drinking around the time his parents split up, he was very depressed, and used alcohol to take his mind off things. He was an alcoholic by age 15 and is still an alcoholic. When asked what he meant by alcoholic, CX3 said it meant he was drinking all day every day, sometimes until he passed out.

42He started slowing down his drinking over the last two years and says that he was motivated by a desire to better himself.

43CX3 stated that McColeman treated him well at first; he bought him beer and whiskey when he was 13-14 years old during the years he was in Grades 7 and 8.

44CX3 had a Facebook account under his own name when he was 11 years old. He first got a friend request from Treber Boucher when he was in Grade 8. CX3 had known the real Trever Boucher, who was older than he was but he knew that the real Trever Boucher had moved to Kitchener.

CX3 – Sex Missions and Alcohol/drugs

45CX3 described a number of sexual encounters or missions either initiated and arranged by Treber Boucher on Facebook or done knowingly with McColeman in return for alcohol and marijuana. They included:

− Fellatio on the hospital trail

− Anal sex “jizz in his butt”

− “Dream missions”

− Fellatio in McColeman’s vehicle.

46One of the first missions was to go to the hospital area on a trail and be fellated in return for alcohol. Treber Boucher set up these missions by telling CX3 that he was to whistle at some point on the trail and a person in the bush would clap. CX3 was to follow the clapping sound into the bush where he would encounter the person and the sex act would happen. It would be dark or just when the sun was going down. CX3 stated that he wanted to believe that the person in the bush was a girl but he could not say. This mission happened a couple of times.

47CX3 stated that at least once when he was 15 years old and was at home, he got Facebook messages from Treber Boucher who set up a mission for him to go to McColeman’s house to give McColeman anal sex in return for alcohol. When CX3 arrived at McColeman’s house, McColeman was there. They sat in the living room and then went into the bedroom and did the sex act. CX3 recalled that on this visit, he was not sober, and he thought he might have had 12 beers by the time he arrived. No one else was at the McColeman house when he was there for that mission. CX3 recalled staying overnight at the house and sleeping on the couch in the living room. He recalled that he saw Sheldon George in the morning but he did not recall seeing CX1.

48Treber Boucher also set up other missions for CX3, called “dream missions”. In those missions, Treber Boucher told CX3 to go to McColeman’s house and allow the person there to fellate him. When he got to the house, McColeman was there alone and fellated CX3. This happened about 5-6 times. In return, CX3 received what he called free booze.

49In addition to these missions at McColeman’s house, CX3 recalled an encounter in McColeman’s vehicle when he was 14 years old and was going into high school. CX3 messaged McColeman and asked him to pick him up to hang out. At the time, CX3 had been drinking. McColeman arranged to pick him up at his home. CX3 testified that they went to a local parking lot where McColeman fellated him and in return, McColeman provided him with alcohol.

50CX3 also stated that he received ‘free booze’ for masturbating McColeman about five or six times.

51CX3 found it difficult to answer questions about this anal sex event, which he found extremely embarrassing. He was very emotional when he gave his evidence. CX3 was also very suggestible, especially during cross-examination.

CX3 – Recruitment

52CX3 explained that Treber Boucher often asked him to recruit other kids to do dares and missions on the hospital trail. CX3 identified printed excerpts from his Facebook account in 2011, 2012 and 2013 on this subject although he had only a vague recollection of sending the messages.

53One set of communications was with CX1, who was younger than CX3. In the conversation, CX3 told CX1 he could get ‘free’ marijuana for spying on Paul at his house. CX3 explained that the ‘dare’ was to walk by the window and watch Paul masturbate in return for alcohol or marijuana. In one message to CX1, CX3 says ‘that you have to sleep here to spy’. About 5 days later, there were more messages from CX3’s Facebook account to CX1 asking for help to spy on Paul so that CX3 can get alcohol. He promised to share the alcohol with CX1. Further messages show CX3 telling CX1 he could get money for going to a glory hole and being fellated by a girl. CX3 recalled that Treber Boucher talked about a glory hole in the town.

54CX3 identified another set of messages between his Facebook account and Treber Boucher from June and July 2013. In one message, he suggests to Treber Boucher that he will ask Paul if he can mow his lawn. CX3 testified that he was craving alcohol at that time and was desperate for money to buy some. Some days later, there were messages from Treber Boucher telling CX3 that if he brought others to the hospital trails for fellatio, he could get CX3 some alcohol. CX3 was content to go on his own to do the sex act for a bottle but Treber Boucher was not satisfied with that arrangement and wanted CX3 to bring others who were younger. CX3 testified that this suggestion or ask was made all the time.

CX3 – Link between Treber Boucher to Paul McColeman

55CX3 confirmed that the only person he communicated with on Facebook about doing things for alcohol was Treber Boucher. He stated that when he referred to Paul in those Facebook messages, he was referring to Paul McColeman.

56CX3 did not know a Treber Boucher. He testified that at one point he thought he was communicating with a real Trever but now has an idea who Treber Boucher is, but is not going to say.

57CX3 testified that the day before his statement to the police, McColeman told him in person that he was going to get a snow machine if he kept his mouth shut about everything they had done, including missions and dares. CX3 acknowledged that there was an exchange of Facebook messages between himself and McColeman about the snow machine, and that he could work on the machine, as he was interested in mechanics. However, CX3 was adamant that McColeman initiated a conversation in his vehicle with CX3 prior to the Facebook messages where he ‘basically said, keep my mouth shut and I would get a snow machine.’

CX4

58CX4 is now 21 years old. CX4 moved back to the town around the age of 14 and started hanging around with CX1, sometimes at McColeman’s house where they would smoke marijuana. At some point, CX4 recalled that McColeman became angry and told him that he was not allowed to be at the house with CX1.

59However, CX4 would go to the house often when McColeman was alone. CX4 thought that McColeman was a cool guy who worked on cars and sleds. CX4 testified that he spent time with McColeman at his house between the ages of 16-18, mostly when CX1 was not there.

60CX4 was a drug user before he met McColeman. He also testified that he was depressed and drunk most of the time during this period. He testified that he hung out at McColeman’s house mostly for the drugs and alcohol; and that alcohol was available at the house before he learned about the pranks and continued to be available with or without the pranks (i.e. sex acts).

61CX4 was going through a difficult time in his relationship with his girlfriend at the time and would go to McColeman’s place when he was fighting with his girlfriend or was depressed about the relationship. He spoke to McColeman about his girlfriend troubles and the fact that he was depressed. McColeman was well aware of CX4’s troubled emotional state during this period of time and that CX4 was looking for some way to end the pain. Ultimately, CX4’s relationship with his girlfriend ended in 2014.

CX4 – Pranks

62CX4 described the following pranks, which he did with McColeman in exchange for marijuana or use of the quad:

− Cup prank

− Blow jobs / fellatio by McColeman

− Hand jobs / masturbation by CX4 of McColeman.

63CX4 recalled that Treber Boucher started messaging him on Facebook where he proposed the first prank. CX4 was to go into McColeman’s shower, ejaculate in a cup and leave it for McColeman to drink. In return, Treber Boucher stated that CX4 would receive some marijuana. There was no one else in McColeman’s house when he did this. After he left the cup in the bathroom, CX4 testified that McColeman gave him a couple of grams of marijuana, which he smoked. That was the only time the cup prank was proposed to him.

64The next set of pranks proposed by Treber Boucher was fellatio in return for marijuana. CX4 said he was alone in the house with McColeman when these pranks occurred. Treber Boucher directed CX4 to go into McColeman’s darkened bedroom, and have his penis exposed. Treber Boucher indicated that Paul would come into the room and fellate CX4. CX4 recalls that this prank happened a few times, perhaps five, but he said that he did not want to keep track. Each time, CX4 went along with the proposed prank and each time received a couple of grams of marijuana directly from McColeman as promised. Sometimes however, when the requests were made directly by McColeman, the compensation was keys to the quad and CX4 would be permitted to drive the quad. Treber Boucher also proposed the prank of CX4 masturbating McColeman. After CX4 had confronted McColeman about his identity, the proposal for ‘hand jobs’ came directly from McColeman. He could not recall how many times he had done this.

65CX4 recalled that Treber Boucher had proposed other pranks such as anal sex and sex with the dog, but he had refused.

CX4 – Link between McColeman and Treber Boucher

66CX4 had known the real Trever Boucher before he moved away. CX4 recounted how he communicated on Facebook with Treber Boucher and how he came to the conclusion that Treber Boucher was actually McColeman. He testified that he started receiving messages from Treber Boucher who proposed certain pranks in exchange for marijuana. After a few pranks, CX4 realized that every time he was at McColeman’s house sitting on the couch messaging with Treber Boucher, McColeman was also texting on his phone and trying to keep his screen hidden. CX4 had a hunch that McColeman might be Treber Boucher. One time, CX4 looked over at McColeman’s screen and saw his own profile picture and the profile picture of Trever Boucher. CX4 said that he called McColeman out on the issue and questioned McColeman. CX4 testified that McColeman “admitted in a weird way” that he was making the pranks and set-ups. After that conversation, CX4 testified that they started doing the pranks face to face.

CX4 – Demeanor

67CX4 was obviously a very troubled young man and exhibited great distress while giving his evidence. Throughout testimony, CX4 kept his head down, almost on the ledge of witness box.

68When asked to recall pranks in a specific order or comment on how many times they occurred, he answered:

“I don’t know, I don’t keep track of dates and stuff. People that just want to die don’t care about dates, they just get by. Like I care about time or day or keep track? Why would I keep track if don’t want to remember?

You try being drunk every day and high and wanting to die and keeping track of shit.”…

“After all the Paul shit happened, I started doing a bunch of shit, more than just that (PCP).

You think I feel good for what I did for drugs?

I just want to be left alone, I hate bringing up the past.”

CX5

69CX5 is now 17 years old. He was 14 at the time of the alleged offences. He grew up in the small town and had seasonal employment. CX5 testified that he hung around with CX1 for a while and during that time, they would sometimes go to McColeman’s house, usually in the evening. At McColeman’s house, they would play video games and smoke a marijuana pipe. CX5 recalled that he would leave by 10 p.m., and that sometimes Paul McColeman was there, sometimes he was not.

70CX5 recalled that he accepted a Facebook friend request from Treber Boucher and later that he received messages from Treber Boucher asking him if he was interested in marijuana and what kind of dares he would do to get the marijuana. At the time CX5 was a regular marijuana smoker.

CX5 – Sex Dares

71CX5 recalled participating in two dares he received from Treber Boucher on Facebook when he was 14 years old. He was to go to a trail by the hospital and receive oral sex. When CX5 arrived at the spot on the trail, the person who performed the oral sex was already there on their knees. The person was wearing all black; CX5 could not see the person’s face but he believed the person was a male. CX5 also recalled a distinctive smell, which he had smelled before when he had gone to visit CX1 at McColeman’s house.

72CX5 testified that there was a second dare that was the same as the first but on a different trail, one used for quadding. Again, it was dark. CX5 said he could tell it was the same person, they had the same build and the same distinct smell. The person was kneeling and wearing black clothing.

73CX5 received marijuana each time as payment for the dares.

CX5 – Treber Boucher Facebook Messages

74CX5 provided his phone to police who extracted excerpts of his Facebook messages with a profile called Treber Boucher. CX5 testified that the profile picture associated with the account was a somewhat grainy picture of a male whose face was visible and who was giving the finger.

75In a message dated May 30, 2014, Treber Boucher wrote: “Yo name stuff you would do for free weed.”

76There follows a very graphic conversation in colloquial language about the terms of the deal. CX5 was adamant that he would not perform oral sex on a man but was prepared to receive oral sex from a man so long as the person was blindfolded. The conversation also touched on the location and the clap and whistle signals to be used as locators.

77Finally, the conversation turned to a negotiation of the amount of marijuana that CX5 would receive. The conversation ended with the Treber Boucher profile indicating that he still had to ‘set it up’. Throughout the conversation, Treber Boucher encourages CX5 to think of other dares he would do for more marijuana. At the end of the dare, CX5 messaged Treber Boucher that he had received a couple of grams of marijuana directly from the person in the bush.

78The next set of messages occurred on June 4, 2014. CX5 told Treber Boucher that he does not need marijuana anymore because he has decided to quit drugs. Treber Boucher replies that CX5 can get others to do dares for “money, smokes or booze”. Treber Boucher goes on to encourage him to get younger ones to do it and he could split the money with them.

“…but if you know someone, you can help them out … Okay money, smokes or booze just for fun of it. Get younger ones, do bit and you split the money with them simple.”

79A few days later, CX5 initiated messages with Treber Boucher, asking what he can do to get some marijuana, that he is back on the stuff, and needs some marijuana. The conversation between the two included references by Treber Boucher that the person in the bush will lay on his stomach. CX5 testified that he knew that to mean he was being dared to engage in anal sex with the man on the trail. However, CX5 rejected that suggestion and did not accept the dare.

80In messages between CX5 and Treber Boucher on June 16, 2014, Treber Boucher asked for at least a second time about a specific younger boy. CX5 resisted the suggestion. On the second inquiry, CX5 testified that he became very angry and replied that he was very close to the boy and treated him like a little brother. At the time, the boy had just turned 12 years old.

81CX5 also was shown excerpts of his Facebook messages with an older boy from June 4, 2014. Treber Boucher had told CX5 earlier that the older boy had given CX5’s name to him, Treber Boucher. Treber Boucher and CX5 then messaged the older boy and said that he could trust Treber Boucher. CX5 told the older boy that if he wanted to go for dares that CX5 would accompany him for his first time.

CX6

82CX6 is a fragile 16 year old who lives in the small town with his mother and still goes to high school. While he was in grade 8, at the age of 14, he hung out with CX1 on a daily basis and spent time at McColeman’s house during school hours and sometimes on weekends when McColeman was present. Once in a while he stayed overnight at Paul McColeman’s house. While at McColeman’s house he smoked marijuana. CX6 had a Facebook account and he had communications with Treber Boucher but he could not recall the contents of those messages.

83McColeman brought CX6 to motocross races to take pictures of dirt bikes.

CX6 – Sex Dares

84CX6 was involved in three types of dares with McColeman, all of which were set up by CX1:

− Shower Dare

− Blindfold Dare

− Cup Dare.

85CX6 testified CX1 set up a dare for him to go into the bathroom at McColeman’s house and watch McColeman, who was naked in the shower, in return for marijuana. CX6 stated that the purpose of the dare was to ‘get free weed’. He recalled that he did this dare three or four times. Each time he was alone in the bathroom but CX1 was in the house. He testified that within minutes after the dare, he received marijuana from CX1.

86The next dare he called the blindfold dare. The blindfold dares took place approximately five times when CX6 was about 13-14 years old. CX6 would go into McColeman’s bedroom and lie on his back. The room would be dark and McColeman would come into the room. It was called a blindfold dare because McColeman would wear a toque over his head. McColeman would then fellate him. This dare was set up by CX1 who told CX6 that they would receive free weed if he did it. I note that CX1 did not specifically mention a “blindfold dare,” but did offer CX6’s name to Treber Boucher as someone who would do dares for weed and/or alcohol, and also testified that CX6 did many dares. In return for the blindfold dare CX6 would receive about seven grams of marijuana, which was of great interest to him. CX1, McColeman and the dog were at the house on each occasion of the blindfold dare.

87Another dare that CX1 asked him to do was ‘jizz in a cup’ and leave it for McColeman to drink. CX6 did the dare but did not actually see McColeman drink from the cup.

88CX6 denied the suggestion that these dares were part of any truth or dare game he played. He also testified that there were no dares that did not involve McColeman.

89CX6 was a very reluctant witness. He said, “I just want to get this done” and “I don’t want to be here”. CX6’s testimony ended, at his request, after 15 minutes on the first day. He was very emotional and in clear distress.

90On his second appearance, a week later to continue his evidence, a distraught CX6 said he found it very difficult to testify and stated that it has been very difficult for him to disclose the things that he did.

CX9

91CX9 is still a high school student. In the summer of Grade 8, when he was 14 years old, CX9 received a Facebook friend request from Treber Boucher. He accepted this request. CX9 testified that the Facebook profile had a photo of a young man with long brown hair. The male was holding up the middle finger of both hands to the camera.

92CX9 received only two communications from Treber Boucher. Both messages were invitations. He did not accept either one. In the first message, Treber Boucher offered money to CX9 if he would go to the nearby convenience store and look for the glory hole. CX9 did not know what a glory hole was but was assured by Treber Boucher that he would find out what it was when he got there.

93In the second communication, a few days later, Treber Boucher asked CX9 to go to the convenience store again to look at the glory hole. Treber Boucher told CX9 that if he came to the store he would receive money or marijuana. CX9 was encouraged to bring friends. CX9 did not go to the convenience store as requested and unfriended Treber Boucher from his Facebook account sometime after the second message.

CX8

94CX8 is 16 years old. He lives with his mother and younger brother. CX8 was a friend of CX1 and had spent time with CX1 at McColeman’s house, smoking pot. CX8 testified that CX1 would tell him to leave the house before McColeman came home. CX8 believed this was because CX1 did not want CX8 to get involved in any ‘of the stuff’ like his other friends who were involved.

95A few weeks before McColeman was arrested, when CX8 was 13 years old, he accepted a friend request from Treber Boucher. Treber Boucher’s profile picture showed a man with longish hair giving two middle fingers to the camera. CX8 received three or four communications from Treber Boucher. In the first message, Treber Boucher said that he wanted CX8 to ‘spot out glory holes’ which he claimed were growing marijuana. CX8 testified that Treber Boucher got angry when he declined the invitation. CX8 stated that he knew what the phrase glory hole meant and that it referred to a place where fellatio occurred. CX8 declined an invitation to perform fellatio on someone or to have fellatio performed on him in return for a quarter of an ounce of weed.

96CX8 did not continue to have Treber Boucher as a Facebook friend after the last of this set of messages.

CX7

97CX7 is 16 years old and still in high school. CX7 was a friend of CX1 and used to visit CX1 at McColeman’s house, where they played video games and smoked marijuana. While at McColeman’s house, he met McColeman. When CX7 was in grade 8, age 13 and 14, he received a friend request over Facebook from Treber Boucher, which he accepted. CX7 recalled that the photo associated with the Facebook profile was a guy with longer hair and his two middle fingers up.

98One time while at McColeman’s house with CX1, CX1 explained the shower dare, which he could do in return for marijuana. CX1 was supposedly communicating with Treber Boucher who was making the arrangements to set up the dare. CX1 would learn from the communications with Treber Boucher what time the boys were supposed to go into the bathroom where they knew that McColeman was in the shower. The boys waited in the living room until they were told it was time to go into the bathroom. The boys went into the bathroom; the shower curtain was closed. After a few minutes, they left the bathroom and waited in the living room. McColeman emerged from the bathroom, then CX1 left the living room and returned with marijuana, which he shared with CX7. CX7 recalled that when CX1 first raised the issue of the dare, he was reluctant but ultimately was convinced to participate when he was assured that he would get marijuana in return. CX7 stated that the only purpose for going into the bathroom was to get the marijuana. CX7 did the shower dare twice, both times shortly after McColeman returned home from work.

99CX7 also received dares directly from the Treber Boucher profile during his grade 8 year. One of the dares was a shower dare, the other was for Paul to perform fellatio on him or for CX7 to perform fellatio on Paul McColeman. CX7 refused to accept this dare and deleted Treber Boucher from Facebook.

CX10

100CX10 received a Facebook friend request from Treber Boucher when he was in grade 9. The photo that accompanied the Facebook profile was of a teen with black hair. He accepted the friend request because they had mutual friends. On June 15, 2014, when he was 13 years old, CX10 received a Facebook message from Treber Boucher telling him that he could get free ‘smokes, booze, weed or money’ if he got ‘sucked’. There were references to other dares. CX10 did not take up any of the offers and reported the messages after he saw newspaper articles following the arrest of McColeman.

101The second set of complainants had communications with the MSN profile of Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston and on the Facebook profile of Jennifer Johnston.

CY1

102CY1 first had e-communications with Jennifer Johnston and later with McColeman directly. He declined an early hospital trail dare from the Facebook profile of Jennifer Johnston. Later CY1 developed a close relationship with McColeman who supplied him with drugs and alcohol, sometimes in exchange for sexual acts:

• Receiving fellatio from McColeman; and

• Performing fellatio on McColeman.

103When CY1 was about 16 years old, he met McColeman through a friend. At the time, CY1 had moved out of his family home and was living with a friend. He was also using Percocets, hydromorphine and Demerol. He saw his mother and stepfather from time to time, but he was essentially without family support. The friend invited CY1 to go to McColeman’s house where they could drink their own beer. CY1 also knew Sheldon George who he saw from time to time at McColeman’s house, sometimes with his girlfriend.

104After that first visit, CY1 began communicating directly with McColeman on Facebook. McColeman offered his support and told CY1 that he could see that CY1 was going through hard times and that McColeman was always available to him if he wanted to talk. Shortly after this message, McColeman picked CY1 up and they went for a drive and talked about the difficulties in CY1’s life, including his drug use and problems with his parents who had broken up when CY1 was quite young.

105After his first meeting with McColeman, CY1 started to talk with him 2-3 times per week when they went for drives and or hung out at McColeman’s house. They became very close. When CY1 indicated that he was moving out of his friend’s residence, McColeman invited him to live at his residence. By then CY1 had dropped out of school. By his recollection, CY1 lived with McColeman for about three months during this very troubled period of his life.

106CY1 stated that McColeman supplied him with alcohol, marijuana and Percocets, and that he was drinking and using marijuana and Percocets on a daily basis. During the day, CY1 would smoke weed and use the computer. At the end of the day, McColeman provided him with Percocets. At some point McColeman confronted CY1 about the amount of Percocets that he was using and decreased the supply. CY1 testified that he had a conversation with McColeman about trying to get off substances, but ultimately he realized that he could not get off drugs while he lived there and the drugs were right in front of his face. By the time CY1 left McColeman’s residence and moved to Sudbury, he was highly addicted to a number of substances.

107CY1 recalled three instances of sexual activity with McColeman, each occurring in McColeman’s bedroom behind the closed doors. The first incident was initiated by a text message from McColeman asking if he had ever had a sexual experience with a man. Although McColeman and CY1 were texting one another, they were sitting in the living room of McColeman’s house at the time. CY1 recalled that he was drinking and smoking marijuana during that evening, and that he sniffed two crushed Percocets. They went into McColeman’s bedroom where McColeman performed fellatio on CY1.

108The second incident also occurred in McColeman’s house. That evening, CY1 recalled that he was doing weed and the two of them were listening to a band on the computer. The conversation came up between them directly and then the two of them went into McColeman’s bedroom where CY1 asked for Percocets and again McColeman performed fellatio on CY1.

109The third incident began when Paul McColeman and CY1 were in the living room of McColeman’s house. CY1 was very drunk and doing weed. He composed a note on the computer to McColeman saying that he felt McColeman was a father to him. CY1 testified that he felt like this because he could tell McColeman anything and McColeman gave him all he needed including food and shelter. Neither CY1 nor his parents contributed to his support. CY1 did not recall how it came about but the two of them ended up in McColeman’s bedroom where CY1 asked for two Percocets and then they had oral sex. Although McColeman raised the possibility of anal sex, CY1 refused and there was no further talk about it.

110Earlier that evening, there was a conversation between CY1 and McColeman regarding CY1’s viewing of porn sites. CX1 was present. CY1 recalled that McColeman became upset that CY1 wanted to view the porn sites instead of sharing a ‘special time’ together. CY1 understood that this phrase ‘special time’ referred to times when McColeman performed fellatio on CY1.

111CY1 contended that he stayed at McColeman’s house for two to three months, not two to three weeks as stated by McColeman in his evidence. At some point CY1 moved into McColeman’s bedroom from where he had been sleeping on the living room couch. He stated that when he slept in McColeman’s bedroom the door would be closed. CX1 and/or Sheldon George were there at the residence from time to time.

112CY1 did not have any communications with the Treber Boucher Facebook profile.

CY4

113CY4 is 21 years old and lived most of his life in the small town. He moved into a trailer park when he was about 12 or 13 years old and he became best friends with CY2 who worked for McColeman at the garage.

114CY4 had an MSN account. He received a message from someone identified as Jenpooh, with a screen name of Jennifer Johnston. Jenpooh/Jennifer Johnson invited him to do missions and dares on the hospital trail.

115When he was between 13 and 15 years old, he and CY2 did one or more hospital dares together. CY4 said that these missions were always set up with CY2, always on the same trail in the dark, and always set up by communication with Jenpooh. The messenger explained the mission.

116CY4 testified that CY2 talked about girls who did dares for money or missions for money, weed or alcohol. CY4 stated that CY2 told him that the missions were oral sex or hand jobs and the money or weed or alcohol would come from ‘her’ to whoever did the mission.

117I note that there was confusing and conflicting evidence of the hospital trail visits given by CY4 and CY2. However, both testified about the hospital trail dares, including that they went together one or more times.

118On a later hospital trail encounter, CY4 stated that he was reluctant to touch the person on the trail so instead he was touching himself when the person grabbed his hand and tried to force it. CY4 ran away and met CY2 later who brought him the money.

119Another time that CY4 went to the trail, he was accompanied by another boy. He brought that boy pursuant to an agreement with Jenpooh who had asked him to bring someone else. CY4 explained to the boy about the arrangement. They went together and they were each paid $50 for receiving fellatio.

120On each occasion, CY4 recalled that the man he encountered wore a dark blue hoodie, which partially obscured his face. On each occasion, the man handed him the money directly.

121One communication from Jennifer Johnston involved an invitation to engage in a fantasy where CY4 would ‘finish in their eye’. He recalled that the payment for that would have been double the usual payment, thus $100. CY4 did not do that and he thought that he communicated that he would not do it back to Jennifer Johnston.

122During the time that CY4 was doing missions with CY2, CY4 learned from CY2 that the person on the trail was McColeman. According to CY4, CY2 explained to him in detail how he was paid if he brought other kids on missions.

123CY4 testified that when he was 14 or 15 years old (2009-2011) he also began to receive messages from Jennifer Johnston on Facebook. He did not want to repeat the transactions of sex for money so he threatened to call the police if the messages continued. Shortly afterwards, he noticed that the profile was taken down.

124Also some time in the years 2009-2011, CY4 and CY2 were in a difficult spot and CY2 called McColeman to tell him that they had no place to stay that night. CY4 was drunk and stoned. They arrived at McColeman’s house where Sheldon George and the real Trever Boucher were already there with McColeman. Later in the evening, CY4 was sleeping on the floor when he awoke to find his pants pulled down and McColeman’s face by his crotch. CY4 swung at Paul McColeman who backed off. CY4 left the house and did not tell anyone of the incident because he was scared of being taken advantage of by a 40-year-old man who sold drugs. He was also afraid people would think he was gay and that no one would believe him. He stated that in the small town it was not a good thing to be gay. The only person he finally told about the incident was his mother.

125CY4 was challenged on cross-examination that he had discussed his evidence with Tanya Van Norman.

126Tanya Van Norman was an adult who lived in the small town who became very interested in the case after the arrest of Paul McColeman and the associated publicity. She operated a website about sexual abuse.

127CY4 was vague and inconsistent in his evidence about when he stayed with Tanya Van Norman. Initially CY4 denied discussing the McColeman experiences with Tanya Van Norman. However, when reminded, he acknowledged that he must have spoken to her around the time of McColeman’s arrest and his statement. He had stayed with her for approximately one month when he had nowhere to stay in Sudbury, but he was not familiar with her website. Although Tanya Van Norman indicated to CY4 that she would support him, he did not trust her and asked her to leave him alone.

CY2

128CY2 is currently 23 years old. He grew up with his mother and brothers in very modest circumstances. His stepfather was incarcerated, his mother suffered from a number of serious physical ailments and received a disability pension as her only income. CY2 was expected to help out at home and look after his brothers. Essentially, CY2 was without any effective family structure.

129CY2 has learning difficulties and did not complete Grade 9. He has difficulty reading and writing, and has long history of problems related to controlling his anger and emotions. CY2 indicated that he is not very good with time, including days or months. When he was younger, CY2 was addicted to alcohol and Percocets, and consumed quite a lot of marijuana.

130CY2 now describes himself as almost a shut-in. He has been sober for almost one year.

131CY2 met McColeman when he was 12-13 years old, through his mother’s friend Kari Richer. Kari was McColeman’s girlfriend. Kari lived with McColeman but also spent quite a bit of time at the home of CY2 and his mother including overnights.

132McColeman hired CY2 to clean the garage from 6-8 p.m. in the summer after CY2 finished Grade 8, in 2008. CY2 worked at the garage or the gas bar from age 12-16, usually after hours when the garage was closed.

133McColeman sold him a quad, which CY2 was to pay off from his wages. After CY2 broke his leg and could he no longer earn money, McColeman simply gave him the quad along with a $50 gas card.

134The quad was a gift that CY2’s mother could never have afforded or given to her son. She was very grateful to McColeman for it.

135CY2 testified that he became a regular visitor to McColeman’s house after he began working at the garage. His mother often told him to go to McColeman’s house because she said he would be better off with McColeman and having a father figure in his life.

136CY2 often stayed overnight at McColeman’s house during the week and weekends. CY2 did not recall Kari ever staying overnight at McColeman’s house when he was there. Similarly, CY2 stated that Sheldon did not stay overnight when CY2 stayed over. McColeman agreed that CY2 dropped by the house regularly, but also stated that CY2 brought different girlfriends to the house; sometimes when McColeman was not there; that CY2 was jealous of Sheldon who received more attention and was given a dirt bike; that he took CY2 to the gun range a couple of times; and that CY2 took what alcohol he wanted. CY2 stopped staying over at McColeman’s house when he was around 16 years old, which was also around the time he believes the relationship between McColeman and Kari ended.

137CY2 had an MSN account from the time he was 12 years old. On that account he started receiving messages from Hyperchick, whose name was Jennifer. CY2 recalled that there was a profile picture associated with this profile, showing two girls. CY2 testified that Hyperchick said she was just getting into high school. CY2 never did meet any girl who he connected to the Hyperchick or Jennifer profile.

CY2 – Sex Dares and Alcohol/Drug Use

138CY2 described the following sex acts he engaged in as set up by Hyperchick on MSN or Jennifer Johnston on Facebook:

• Masturbate on webcam at the garage;

• Ejaculate in bottles or on things;

• Receiving fellatio on couch in garage;

• Receiving fellatio on hospital trail;

• Perform fellatio on McColeman; and

• Masturbate McColeman.

139In return for performing these missions or dares, CY2 received :

• Money;

• Marijuana;

• Alcohol;

• Percocets; and

• Access to dirt bikes and quads.

140At first, the messages from Hyperchick/Jennifer were general questions focused on getting to know CY2. After some initial questions, Hyperchick asked if CY2 would be willing to do certain sexual acts on webcam at the garage. Hyperchick indicated that there would be alcohol or money or weed for CY2 if he did certain sexual acts. The first request was that CY2 masturbate on the webcam. Later there were requests that CY2 ejaculate in bottles or on items that would be left in the fridge at work, which he did. In return for these acts, CY2 would receive payment, but usually not as much as what he would later receive for oral sex.

141Later when he was still 12 or 13 years old, the messenger asked CY2 if he would be interested in being fellated or masturbated by someone. He was directed to lie down on the couch at the garage and pretend to be asleep and someone would come and fellate him.

142Although CY2 was initially too nervous to see who was performing the oral sex on him, one time, he peeked and saw that it was McColeman who had not hidden his face. He did not know how to confront McColeman about this and he continued to accept the dares.

143In return for complying with these requests, CY2 would be directed to pick up his payment, which was sometimes money and sometimes alcohol, usually Smirnoff vodka. The messenger directed him to pick it up from a bin behind the garage.

144Much later Hyperchick asked CY2 if he wanted to meet near the hospital trails and have somebody perform oral sex on him in exchange for drugs, money or alcohol. On the trail, he met someone in dark clothing, with the hood pulled down. The person was scruffy and had short hair. CY2 was pretty certain it was McColeman, because after a while, his eyes adapted to the dark and he was able to figure out who it was. In return for the oral sex on the trails, CY2 testified that he would usually ask for money. Sometimes he asked for weed.

145CY2 permitted McColeman to fellate him at the hospital trails and recalls that he received marijuana in return. CY2 went another time with CY4, but he was unclear on that point.

146There was some confusing evidence of the hospital trail visits together with CY4. Although both CY2 and CY4 testified that they spoke about the hospital trail dares and went together on one or more occasions, their evidence is not consistent on details.

147At that time, CY2 testified that sometimes the requests would be for anal sex or other things but he would respond that he was not interested those dares.

148When CY2 was around 14 years old and starting high school, he set up a Facebook account under his own name. He began to receive messages from Jennifer Johnston on Facebook. He indicated that most of the time the messages were similar to the messages he received from Hyperchick on MSN. Jennifer Johnston asked CY2 to involve his little brothers, which angered CY2. Jennifer Johnston also asked him to get his friends involved.

149CY2 indicated that he would go to McColeman’s house because the MSN and Facebook messages offered drugs and other things if he went and did certain things. Sometimes the requests were to do specific things to or with McColeman, for instance to ejaculate in his face, or stick his penis in McColeman’s mouth if McColeman was sleeping or masturbate, or fellate him. CY2 accepted these dares.

150At first CY2 received payment for the sex acts with McColeman, but after a while, McColeman told him that he was already at the house and taking as much as he wanted. CY2 agreed that there was a large quantity of alcohol and drugs available at the house. In addition, there were dirt bikes, quads and other fun things that he could use when he could use the next day if he stayed overnight. CY2 recalled that he also did drugs at McColeman’s house starting with weed and then ecstasy, Viagra and one time MDMA.

CY2 – Link between Paul McColeman and Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston

151At some point CY2 became suspicious that McColeman was both Hyperchick and Jennifer Johnston. His suspicions were based on the coincidental timing of his arrival at the garage and the start of the messaging. At that time, CY2’s only computer access was at the garage. He would receive messages from Hyperchick or Jennifer Johnston as soon as McColeman left the garage space and went over to the gas station area. As a result of his suspicion, CY2 confronted McColeman one day while they were in a vehicle driving out to the gun range. In response, McColeman became very angry and threatened CY2 that he had a videotape of CY2 naked and he would show it to all of his friends. Then he slapped CY2 in the chest and said, “We’re even. We’ll keep this between you and me.” CY2 explained how this had angered him, because he was already a loner and believed that people looked at him in a negative light. At the time, CY2 was fearful of McColeman. He described himself as short and scrawny and that McColeman was bigger, looked strong, owned guns and had a police-trained dog.

152McColeman acknowledged that he was aware that CY2 was not popular at school and was concerned that he could not handle any further damage to his reputation. McColeman could not recall a confrontation with CY2 about being Hyperchick.

153Often incidents in the house were set up in the evening while CY2 was drinking and on McColeman’s home computer. He would receive a message from Hyperchick on MSN asking if he was interested in lying on the couch and pretending to sleep. They would trade messages about the reward. CY2 recalled that at some point, later on, the message indicated that the person would be Paul McColeman. This message came only after CY2 had confronted McColeman. When CY2 complied with the message request, a person would come over and fellate him. CY2 would wait until the person had finished and walked away before he got up. Before and after the incident, McColeman would be in his room. CY2 would receive money in return, $50-$100, which he would retrieve from a spot disclosed to him, usually at the garage.

CY2 – Why not Report?

154CY2 stated that he did not tell his mother or others about what was going on with McColeman because he did not feel like they would care or listen. His mother once asked him if rumours about McColeman were true or if McColeman ever touched him. CY2 responded in rage and left the house.

155CY2 also recalled that his mother confronted him once with a story that McColeman related to her about CY2 bringing a girl to the garage for sexual activity. CY2 denied it to his mother.

156He stated that he felt really uncomfortable talking about what had gone on; that it made him feel that he had done something wrong and he was disgusted with himself. CY2 testified that he felt dirty, filthy and sick. When he was subpoenaed to give evidence at the preliminary hearing, CY2 recalled that he felt ‘beyond vulnerable’, that he relapsed with drugs and alcohol in reaction to being back in that town. At trial CY2 stated that he barely remembered what he said at the preliminary hearing, which was the hardest thing he had ever done in his life.

Y3

157Y3 is the mother of CY2. She confirmed that her son had severe learning disabilities, severe ADHD, and serious anger management issues. She said he had a very hard time at school, only completing a few high school credits, and did not have many friends.

158CY2 did not have a relationship with his biological father. His stepfather had substance abuse problems and was incarcerated. Y3 has had a long history of serious health problems and relied heavily on CY2 to help her parent his two much younger brothers.

159Y3 is best friends with Kari who dated and lived with McColeman for 15-16 years. It was Kari who told Y3 that McColeman was looking for someone to clean his garage after hours, leading to an introduction between McColeman and CY2.

160Y3 recalled that CY2 started going over to McColeman’s house about 3-4 months after they moved to the small town in 2006. By the time he was 13-14, she knew CY2 was at McColeman’s house often without her even being involved. Y3 confirmed that CY2 often spent the night at McColeman’s house and stayed over weekends. Y3 also confirmed that Kari was at her house every day and often stayed overnight. Most of the times that CY2 stayed at Paul McColeman’s house, Kari stayed with Y3. For a period of time, this occurred every weekend. This was during the time that CY2 was 13, 14 and 15 years old. She was grateful that CY2 could have a male figure in his life, one who could do fun things like taking CY2 to the rifle range or on an ATV.

161Y3 confirmed that McColeman gave CY2 an ATV, not a new one, for which CY2 was supposed to pay something. Y3 recalled that McColeman told CY2 not to worry about payment and gave him a gas card.

162Y3 visited her friend Kari at McColeman’s house and initially used his computer to go on Facebook and to listen to music. However, at some point McColeman put a password on his computer so that Kari could no longer use it. At some point, Y3 recalled that CY2 had stopped working for McColeman and also stopped going over to his house or ask him for rides or favours. It was at that time that she started hearing rumours about all the young boys who were hanging around McColeman. She confronted CY2 who angrily denied anything inappropriate.

CY5

163CY5 is 21 years old. He communicated with Jennifer Johnston through Facebook, and she invited him to do missions for money, booze or drugs. He participated in three kinds of missions:

− Oral sex

− Anal sex

− Cup mission.

164CY5 grew up in the small town, moving back and forth between his parents and grandparents houses. CY5 knew of McColeman through his cousin who worked at the garage. He was a bit more mature than the other boys were, perhaps because he had been involved at the periphery of the entertainment business from a young age. CY5 had a Facebook profile in his own name, which showed his date of birth.

165When CY5 was between the ages of 13 and 14 years old, he accepted a friend request from Jennifer Johnston who started messaging him shortly thereafter. There was photo associated with the profile of a girl with long dark hair, who CY5 believed to be around 16 years old.

166CY5 testified that he first accepted to do missions when he was in a tough spot vis-à-vis money. CY5 had two different sets of encounters with McColeman set up by Jennifer Johnston, the second set of which he initiated one-two years after the first set of encounters ended.

167When CY5 was first contacted by Jennifer Johnston, he was six months into an addiction to hydromorphone and oxycodone. After a couple of messages in which Jennifer Johnston inquired into CY5’s sexual history, Jennifer Johnston introduced the idea of a mission in which CY5 would receive a blowjob in return for money, booze or drugs. The exact nature and amount of the payment was fixed shortly before the mission took place.

168Over a period of 1 to 2 years, CY5 recalled that he did 6 to 8 missions, which all took place at McColeman’s house when he was between the ages of 13-15 years old. The mission required CY5 to go to the side door of McColeman’s house, which was in the carport in the dark. Once there he would open the screen door, and see a man on his knees. The first few times, the man wore a ski mask and boxer shorts. CY5 was fellated and he would be given money or marijuana or alcohol in return. The payment was given immediately by the man on his knees. There was no conversation or even words exchanged.

169The first time, CY5 received $50 and a bottle of Sambuca. Other times he received different amounts of money, from $200-$500, various amounts of marijuana (from few grams to quarter of ounce) and different types of alcohol. He also received MDMA tablets one time. On two or three occasions, CY5 also fellated the man in the house by pre-arrangement. Once during this period CY5 did the cup mission, which meant that he ejaculated in a cup and left it on a chair outside of McColeman’s house. When he deposited the cup, he picked up money and marijuana, which had been left there for him.

170On these missions, CY5 was sometimes accompanied by one or two of his friends. The first time, both friends accompanied him to the location and left him to perform the mission. The friends all met later at the convenience store. A couple of times, CY5 went to the house alone.

171CY5 recalled that the cup mission was his last encounter in the first phase of communications with Jennifer Johnston. All of the encounters to that point had been before his 16th birthday.

172After a long break in communication with Jennifer Johnston, CY5 found himself in a desperate situation in his addiction to oxycodone and hydromorphone. He was about 16 years old. He and a friend were very sick with withdrawal symptoms and were trying to find a way to buy more pills. CY5 decided to contact Jennifer Johnston and ask if she could set up a mission for him to get some money.

173Jennifer Johnston proposed anal sex but CY5 refused and they eventually settled on oral sex again at the same place. CY5 walked back to McColeman’s house and was met again by a man in silk boxer shorts. After fellatio, the man handed CY5 the money. This phase went on for about six months, involving approximately five to six encounters, all of which were arranged with Jennifer Johnston on Facebook.

174The second phase ended when CY5 decided he could not live like that any longer, he stated that he had found his moral compass. He had begun to take methadone and stopped all contact with Jennifer Johnston.

CY5 – Link to Paul McColeman

175Although CY5 did not initially know McColeman, he knew who McColeman was from the garage. When the first mission was set up with Jennifer Johnston, CY5 was only given a description of the house and carport, the vehicle, and its proximity to the convenience store. CY5 asked his cousin and friend to accompany him the first time and when he repeated the description of the house he had been given, his cousin who had worked for McColeman was able to identify the exact house. The house his cousin identified matched the description from Jennifer Johnston. Later CY5’s cousin invited CY5 over to the same house where he was housesitting for McColeman. CY5 knew not to knock on the door because of the dog. CY5 recalled that he knew the identity of McColeman after about half of the encounters in the first phase. Notwithstanding that knowledge, he did not contact McColeman directly to initiate the second phase of encounters.

CY5 – Drug Addiction

176CY5 testified that he was heavily addicted to narcotics during this time. He was using hydromorphone daily. His habit eventually cost him up to $100 per day, which he funded from his savings and by asking for money from his extended family. When he was in need of money, he would do the missions. CY5 stated that half the time he went to the house, he was in withdrawal and he felt this was his only option to get money for drugs. CY5 testified that he was often quite sick when he went over to the house for a sexual encounter and transaction.

177CY5 could not recall how many times the person at the door wore a mask, but he did recall that the person had orange pubic hair. On his head, the person had a buzz cut, very short hair.

CY8

178CY8 did not have any sexual encounters with McColeman or anyone set up by Jennifer Johnston. CY8 was a friend of CY5. Jennifer Johnston initiated MSN contact with CY8 and they exchanged messages when he was somewhere between 11 to 13 years old. CY8 thought that Jennifer Johnston sounded older in the messages than she looked in the profile picture.

179CY8 testified that he received an invitation from Jennifer Johnston to go to someone’s house to perform sexual favours with a man in return for drugs, money or booze. In the message, Jennifer Johnston said they would record it. CY8 declined. CY8 stated that he accompanied his friend CY5 to the house one time where CY5 said he was going to receive a blowjob in return for some weed. CY8 recalled that he stayed in the carport while CY5 went into the house and that CY5 emerged from the house with a bag of weed which he said he got in return for the blowjob.

180A few years later, when he was 13 or 14 years old, CY8 recalled that he visited the same house when his cousin was house sitting for his boss, McColeman, the owner of the gas station. He went there with CY5 and another boy. He stated that they drank there. Although he did not see a dog, he recalled seeing things that belonged to a dog.

CY6

181CY6 is 23 years old and has lived in the small town his whole life. He worked for McColeman and hung around at McColeman’s house drinking his liquor. CY6 received invitations for sexual encounters from Jennifer Johnston but did not accept them.

182CY6 worked at McColeman’s garage and gas station from age 14-16 (in 2008-2010). At age 14, he worked cleaning the garage. McColeman knew his age. CY6 went to McColeman’s house once or twice a week and every other weekend during the time he worked for him. Sometimes there were as many as four other boys with him at the house including Sheldon George, CY2 and the real Trever Boucher. CY6 testified that McColeman supplied the boys with beer or hard liquor. A couple of times a month, the boys would consume marijuana, supplied by McColeman or one of the boys.

183CY6 had a MSN account under his own name during this period. Jennifer Johnston contacted him on MSN, she also had the name Hyperchick. The associated profile picture was of a girl with brown hair who he judged to be 17-18 years old.

184CY6 stated that he received a few messages from Jennifer Johnston inviting him to go to certain spots in a dark room of the gas station to receive oral sex in return for marijuana, alcohol or money. Jennifer Johnston did not give the amounts of drugs or money that would be paid. Jennifer Johnston also invited CY6 to go around to McColeman’s house and take pictures of McColeman in the shower and send them to her. In return, Jennifer Johnston offered money, drugs or alcohol. CY6 did not take up any of these invitations.

185CY6 testified that he talked to his friends who worked at the garage about these messages and that three of his friends had also received messages from Jennifer Johnston. Sometimes he received these messages while he was at McColeman’s house. He recalled that he told Jennifer Johnston where he worked and when he was going to McColeman’s house.

186CY6 denied that the boys working at the garage or gas station played tricks on one another.

CY7

187CY7 is 22 years old. He grew up in the small town.

188When CY7 was between the ages of 12-13, he had an MSN account. His cousin CY2 forwarded to him the link to the MSN account of Jenifer, also known as Hyperchick. He could not recall Jenifer’s last name. He could not recall who sent the first message between himself and Jenifer but he did recall that there were a number of communications. There was a profile picture of a girl approximately 16-18 years old.

189He received two invitations from Jennifer/Hyperchick to do certain things after she asked him to confirm that he was old enough to ejaculate. She asked him to fill a bottle with semen and leave it for her. He declined. She also asked him about the idea of grouping a bunch of people inside a tarp and she would be outside, performing blow jobs through holes in the tarp. Again, CY7 declined. CY7 testified that he did ask Jennifer/Hyperchick if he could have vaginal sex with her and she declined.

190CY7 did not know any Jennifers in the town who resembled the photo nor did he ever meet anyone who matched the profile. He told his cousin CY2 about the messages.

191CY7 went to the police after the media release of McColeman’s arrest and found the messages.

Similar Fact Application

192The Crown applied at the end of trial to admit the evidence from each complainant to counts involving the other complainants for two issues: identity on the luring counts and the actus reus of all of the other charges on the indictment.

Similar Fact Application – Identity Issue – Introduction

193Paul McColeman is charged with 16 counts of Child Luring pursuant to sections 172.1(1) (a) and (b) of the Criminal Code for using social media MSN Messenger and Facebook profiles under the false names of Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston and the Facebook profile of Treber Boucher to connect, communicate and entice pubescent boys to do sexual acts or dares, pranks, or missions for payments of money, alcohol or drugs involving 15 different complainants[2].

194Paul McColeman is also charged with eight counts of Sexual Interference pursuant to section 151 of the Criminal Code involving sexual acts with seven male complainants and charged with counts of Child Prostitution, Indecent Exposure, Procuring and Invitation to Sexual Touching involving the balance of the complainants.

Similar Fact Application – The Law

195As the Supreme Court said in R. v. Handy, [2002] S.C.R. 908, the starting point is that similar fact evidence is presumptively inadmissible. The onus is on the Crown to establish on a balance of probabilities that the likely probative value of the similar fact evidence outweighs its potential prejudice, thereby justifying admission. The probative value exceeds the prejudice when the force of similar circumstances defies coincidence or other innocent explanation. (Handy, at paras. 47 and 55)

196In Handy, the Supreme Court of Canada established a framework for analyzing whether the probative value of similar fact evidence outweighs the prejudicial effect. The probative value may be evaluated by assessing the following factors:

i. Strength of the evidence – It must be ‘reasonably capable of belief’ that is ‘sufficiently strong enough to support the inferences requested by the Crown’;

ii. Identification of the live issue in question – The Crown must identify the issues to which they seek to relate the proposed evidence. Otherwise, there would be no context in which to consider the probative value vs. its prejudicial impact. The Crown identified two issues which it argued would be advanced by the application of the proposed evidence; the identity of the child lurer and whether the actus reus of the sexual offences had been made out on the evidence.

iii. The degree of similarity between the similar facts evidence and the charged conduct including:

a. The proximity in time of the similar acts;

b.The extent to which the other acts are similar in detail to the charged conduct;

c. The number of occurrences of the similar acts;

d.Any distinctive feature(s) unifying the incidents;

e. Any intervening events; and

f. Any other factors that would tend to support or rebut the underlying unity of the similar acts.

Handy, at paras. 73-74, 76-82, 102, 134, and 135

197If collusion is present, it destroys the foundation on which admissibility is sought, namely that the events described by the complainants are too similar to be credibly explained by coincidence. (Handy, para. 104) The existence of collusion rebuts the premise on which admissibility depends. (Handy, para. 110)

Similar Fact Application – Identity Issue – Crown Position

198The Crown contended that there was strong evidence of striking similarity that established that the same person committed all the luring acts in the indictment, and that there was some evidence linking McColeman to the acts.

199The Crown listed the features of the various communications with the complainants in support of their claim that the same person is likely the one who sent both the Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston messages and the Treber Boucher messages. Appendix 1 shows the features in chart form. This chart was originally prepared by the Crown. I have modified it.

200The following is a summary of the features:

i. A fake identity was used that was a play on a real person who resided or had resided in the small town;

ii. The purpose of these profiles was to anonymously communicate with pubescent boys, aged 11-15 years old, to entice them into participating in sexual acts for payment;

iii. Both profiles invited the boys to do “dares” (or “missions” or “pranks”) that involved the boys participating in sexual activity for payment;

iv. Both profiles sought out the boys by sending the initial message or friend request through social media;

v. The “dares” started with voyeurism or ejaculation into a cup or bottle and proceeded to receiving fellatio from an unknown man;

vi. The payments for the “dares” was money, alcohol or drugs – mainly marijuana;

vii. The locations were similar: at Paul’s Garage, the bush trails near the hospital or McColeman’s residence;

viii. The man who met the boys at the bush trails near the hospital was similarly described as wearing a dark hoodie over their face and the boys had to “clap and whistle” to locate the person in the trails;

ix. Both profiles invited the boys to do “dares” related to watching McColeman masturbate or take a shower;

x. Both profiles invited the boys to do “b.j. dares.” Two of these boys, CX4 and CY2, saw that Paul McColeman was the person performing fellatio on them[3];

xi. There were distinctive “dares” involving a glory hole; and

xii. The “dare” of ejaculating into a cup or bottle and leaving it somewhere for someone to drink is strikingly similar.

201Secondly, the Crown contended that there was some strong evidence linking McColeman to both the Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston and Treber Boucher profiles. Appendix B, originally prepared by the Crown, modified by me, sets out the evidence upon which they rely for this argument. It can be summarized as follows:

i. Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston profiles centered on Paul’s Garage as the location for “dares” from 2006 until 2009, while McColeman’s partner Kari Richer still resided with him;

ii. Both profiles used McColeman’s residence as a “dare” location;

iii. Both profiles used the bush trails near the Hospital as a “dare” location;

iv. Both profiles made “dares” naming and involving Paul McColeman himself (i.e. watch Paul masturbate or take a shower);

v. There is direct evidence of McColeman’s involvement with the Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston profile. When McColeman was confronted by CY2, he did not deny the claim, rather he threatened to blackmail CY2 by releasing compromising video footage of CY2 to his peers;

vi. Both CX1 and CX4 confronted McColeman about being Treber Boucher. CX1 saw the Treber Boucher profile logged into on McColeman’s cell phone, and after the confrontation, CX1 no longer accepted dares though the Treber Boucher account. Instead, CX1 negotiated “dares” directly with McColeman. Similarly, CX4 saw the image of his own face in a chat bubble on McColeman’s phone when CX4 was chatting with Treber Boucher, he confronted McColeman, and McColeman did not deny being Treber Boucher to CX4.

vii. The jayrayxray@hotmail.com email address associated to the Treber Boucher Facebook account was registered in April 2014, using the IP address that was connected to McColeman’s Eastlink account.

viii. Identical IP addresses were used to access both the Treber Boucher and the McColeman Facebook Accounts on multiple occasions, often on an overlapping time period and often within minutes, sometimes very few minutes. During the period from May 1 to June 26, 2014, this happened 51 times.

Similar Fact Application – Crown Position Actus Reus of Sexual Offences

202The Crown alleges that McColeman directly engaged in sexual acts with seven boys while they were under the age of 14 or under the age of 16.

203The Crown submitted that the evidence reveals an underlying unity in respect of the circumstances of each of the complainants involved in the sexual offences, which spanned a multi-year period.[4] The Crown points to the following features of this underlying unity.

Proximity in time

204The events continued uninterrupted from 2006 to 2014. The allegations begin in 2006 with CY2 and continue with CY5 over 2008 to 2011 and CY4 from 2009 to 2010. CY1 testified to events in 2009 to 2012. CX1, CX3 and CX6 described events during the period from 2012-2014. CX5 testified to events during a six-month period in 2014.

Introduction to Profile or to Paul McColeman

205The initial set of offers to the complainants were made through social media profiles of either Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston or Treber Boucher. CY1 was the sole exception. Although he had some early communications and invitations from Jennifer Johnston, he declined. Later when CY1 was 16 years old, he received invitations directly from Paul McColeman.

206In addition to the communications through the social media profile, the boys met Paul McColeman through their friends or their mothers.

Escalation of Dares/Missions/Pranks

207The invitations to engage in voyeurism or sex acts started with low-level dares/missions/pranks in return for payment of money, alcohol and/or marijuana.[5]

208The low-level dares/missions/pranks included: watching Paul McColeman naked in the shower; watching McColeman masturbating in the shower; and leaving semen in a cup or bottle. If the boy accepted these dares, he received invitations to higher level, more intrusive dares/missions/pranks including receiving fellatio. If the boy accepted the fellatio dare, he was then invited to consider performing fellatio and or anal sex upon Paul McColeman. Three of the boys did move to this level: CX1, CX3 and CY5. For the most part, once a boy accepted a dare, more dares were proposed and performed, even if the dares remained at one of the lower levels.

209As the number of dares performed increased, the boy was often encouraged to bring friends, or identify or introduce friends who might participate in dares. Jennifer Johnston asked CY2 to involve his younger brother and friends in dares. Treber Boucher asked CX3 to recruit younger boys to participate in dares or missions on the hospital trail. Treber Boucher also encouraged CX5 to get younger boys to do dares after he himself stopped participating. McColeman asked CX1 to recruit other younger boys, which he did until McColeman asked him to bring even younger boys.

210The Crown argued that seven of the boys provided evidence that McColeman was directly involved in the sex acts they described: CX1, CX3, CX4, CX6, CY2, CY4 and CY1. These acts occurred over the period of 2006-2014. Two other complainants, CY5 and CX5 testified that they participated in sex acts with an unknown male person as a result of dares from Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston and Treber Boucher.

211The Crown further argues that the evidence shows certain distinctive features of vulnerability of the complainants who accepted dares which made it possible for McColeman to lure and groom the complainants as a precursor to the dares:

• They were all age 11-13 when first approached via social media.

• They were all, but for CY1, age 11-13 when first enticed into sex acts.

• They were without significant family structure or support: they had limited, difficult or intermittent relationships with parents, or parental figures.

• They were without a father or father figure in their lives.

• They were hungry for the positive attention of a parent or parent figure.

• They were consuming drugs and alcohol and were interested in increasing their consumption, some were already dependant on substances.

• They needed a place to gather during the day when they were not attending school, and where the authorities would not find them consuming drugs and alcohol.

• They were easily tempted by offers of outside adventures which were common to boys of that town but which would have been beyond the ability of their parents to provide: dirt biking, quadding, hunting, fishing and going to the rifle range.

212The Crown argued that the email address associated with the Treber Boucher Facebook profile was jayrayxray@hotmail.com. It was registered on April 22, 2014, from an IP address linked to McColeman’s Eastlink account at his home address.

Crown Position on Collusion and Prejudice

213The Crown also submitted that there was no evidence of collusion among the complainants or between the complainants and other persons.

214Finally, the Crown argued that there was no prejudice to McColeman’s fair trial if the allegedly similar acts are admissible against the other counts on the indictment. In this respect, they note that they are not asking the court to go beyond the counts on the indictment, that the trial is before a judge alone, and that no additional time was taken to adduce the evidence of the allegedly similar acts.

215The Crown submitted that there was neither moral nor reasoning prejudice apparent in the circumstances of this case if the evidence from one complainant was applied to the counts respecting other complainants.

Similar Fact Application – Defence Position

216The defence opposed the similar fact application. The defence submitted that the evidence of links between McColeman and the Treber Boucher profile was weak and that the complainants’ evidence did not have the requisite probative value.

217In this case the defendant disputes the probative value of the similar fact evidence on three grounds:

i. Opportunity for collusion amongst the complainants and between the complainants and Tanya Van Norman;

ii. The frailties of the complainants’ evidence; and

iii. Weakness of the identity evidence linking the accused to either of the social medial profiles used in the luring.

218The defence claimed that there were two pieces of evidence pointing to someone other than McColeman accessing the Treber Boucher Facebook account and sending messages to the boys from it.

219Tammy McColeman claimed that someone other than McColeman must have accessed the Facebook account on May 17, 2014, when messages were sent from the Treber Boucher account. On that day, the Treber Boucher account was logged into the Wi-Fi account associated with the McColeman family residence where Paul McColeman’s parents and sister resided. Tammy McColeman claimed that her brother was not at the McColeman family home that day. Ms. McColeman testified that the Wi-Fi connection in the home was not secured and it had been accessed in the past from the park across the street.

220The second piece of evidence in support of the defence position that someone other than McColeman was accessing the Treber Boucher account, relates to the evidence of messages sent August 8, 2014.

221On August 8, 2014, when McColeman was incarcerated and not able to access his internet, seven messages were sent from the Treber Boucher account to CX3 and his younger brother. To CX3, the message began: “I think Paul figured out who I am …” To CX3’s younger brother, the message included the words: “They think Paul is me.”

222The police investigated these messages after McColeman was released on bail. They found that the IP address associated to those messages was linked to the modem located at a residence close to McColeman’s residence. The police then determined that this home computer did not have secure Wi-Fi. Two members of the family who resided in that house gave evidence. They denied having anything to do with the Treber Boucher profile. They were not challenged on this claim. The police were able to access their Wi-Fi connection from a parked cruiser on the street across from their home showing that a third party could have accessed their Wi-Fi.

223The defence submitted that this evidence demonstrates that the Treber Boucher messages were sent from other locations by individuals other than McColeman. Therefore, the defence argued that the court cannot make the link between McColeman and either of the profiles.

224The defence took the position that the evidence of the complainants is not reasonably capable of belief in the face of many inconsistencies in their evidence and the lack of corroboration. They contend that the Crown is relying on broad and general facts that do not distinguish the acts or incidents.

225The defence also claimed that there was a potential for collusion between the complainants and Tanya Van Norman, a person from the small town with a website called Protect our Children Stop Sexual Abuse. The defence claimed that there is a real and significant possibility that Tanya Van Norman coached three complainants on their evidence.

226The defence asserts that if this similar fact evidence is admitted, the prejudice to the defence is not outweighed by its probative value. The defence underscored the weakness of the Crown evidence on the links between McColeman and the two profiles, and the diminished credibility of the complainants. On the other hand, they claimed that admitting the evidence would lead to moral and reasoning prejudice and therefore an unfair trial.

227On the issue of collusion, the defence highlighted the links between Tanya Van Norman and four complainants. Counsel claimed that there was the real possibility of collusion because there was a suggestion by a second-hand source that Tanya Van Norman had attempted to coach a witness and had communicated with others.

228A mother of a boy who had frequented Paul McColeman’s house testified that she read messages from Tanya Van Norman to her son, and the messages were trying to coach her son to say that he had been molested by McColeman. Her son did not testify at trial.

Similar Fact Application – Discussion – Issue of Identity

229With respect to identity, the Crown sought to prove that the person behind the two fake social media profiles was Paul McColeman. Where identity is an issue, the court must engage in a two-step analysis: first, a determination on a balance of probabilities that the same person committed both sets of acts, and second, whether there is some evidence linking the accused to the similar acts. (R. v. Perrier, 2004 SCC 56, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 228, at paras. 20-24) A number of significant similarities, taken together, may be such that by their cumulative effect, they warrant admission of the evidence. (Perrier para. 19)

230The defence does not appear to dispute the similarities between the communications of Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston and Treber Boucher.

231In my view, on the first stage of the analysis, I find there is sufficient significant similarity between the communications from the two profiles. In fact, the similarities are overwhelming.[6]

232The evidence of the similarities has been set out in Appendix 1. Both profiles primarily targeted an overlapping cohort of adolescent boys in the small town who were without effective adult supervision or control either from family or from school. The profiles’ communications followed a set pattern: inviting the boys to participate in similar dares/missions/pranks in return for similar rewards of money, alcohol or marijuana. If the boys accepted, they were invited to do something more intrusive. The locations for the dares were similar, the signals on the hospital path were the same, and approaches were similar. The communications, in both their vocabulary, the circumstances in which the boys received the messages were similar. The trade of goods or money for sex and the handover of the reward were similar.

233One can only conclude that the extensive and numerous communications, which I find to be strikingly similar in many respects, render the likelihood of coincidence completely improbable. These communications were unusual to begin with: That there were dozens and dozens of them over the years leads me to conclude that it is beyond improbable that two or more persons could coincidentally engage in such similar sets of communication. The cumulative effect is that on the basis of this evidence the Crown has established on a balance of probabilities that the same person was behind both profiles, that there was a single person who was communicating with these boys.

234On the second stage of the analysis, the court must determine if there was “some evidence” linking the accused to the similar acts. A link between the accused and the similar acts is a precondition to the admissibility of the proposed evidence. (Perrier, at paras. 23-24) Appendix 2 sets out the evidence linking the accused to the two profiles. That evidence easily meets the threshold of “some evidence.”

235This linking evidence includes: references to “Paul”, to Paul’s garage and his residence, the confrontations to McColeman’s link to the profiles, the overlapping IP addresses for accessing the fake profiles and the McColeman profile and the association of the email address set up through Wi-Fi connection at the McColeman residence linked to the Treber Boucher profile.

236The evidence from Tammy McColeman regarding the May 14, 2014, messages and the evidence of the post-arrest August 2014 messages does not displace the evidence showing the link between McColeman and the Treber Boucher profile.

237Regarding the defence challenge to the IP address evidence, the Crown produced a comparison chart showing the dates and time when the Facebook accounts of Treber Boucher and McColeman used the same IP address within minutes of each other. There were many examples.

238For example, on May 16, 2014, Treber Boucher accessed his Facebook account on Wi-Fi at 20:47:59 and Paul McColeman accessed his Facebook account on Wi-Fi at 20:49:58.[7] Both connections had the same IP address associated with it. The chart showed a two-month period in May and June of 2014 where McColeman was accessing his Facebook account up to 17 times a day. On the same dates, Treber Boucher was accessing his Facebook account also up to 17 times a day. Throughout this period of examination, there was an overlap of the two accounts being accessed using the same IP number more than 20 times. Other times the accounts were accessed from 2-59 minutes apart using the same IP address. While it would not be impossible for the internet provider to assign an IP address to McColeman for his Wi-Fi access and then at another person within two minutes, the frequency and regularity with which it happened strongly suggests that the same Wi-Fi account was being used to access both the McColeman and the Treber Boucher Facebook accounts. The number of times this occurred reduces the likelihood of coincidence. I find that the improbability of these being separate Wi-Fi accounts rebuts an innocent explanation and is also some evidence linking McColeman to all of the communications.

239The defence also challenged the Crown assertion that the IP address associated with the jayrayxray@hotmail.com account is not determinative of a link between McColeman and the email address. Recall that this email address is associated with the Treber Boucher Facebook account. McColeman asserts that many of the boys who frequented his house had access to the Wi-Fi at his house and therefore that anyone could have created the Treber Boucher account.

240I accept that the evidence linking McColeman to the email address associated with the Treber Boucher profile is not by itself determinative. It is but one part of the larger picture. Taking into account the actual references to McColeman and/or to the McColeman residence within the messages and the other evidence linking him to the communications, the technical data is not necessary in and of itself to support the Crown contention. It simply adds weight to the other similar features of the linking evidence.

Similar Fact Application – Conclusion on Identity Issue

241At the admissibility stage, I must consider the strength of the evidence in the context of the issue of identity. The challenges to the complainants’ evidence had little impact on their overall credibility and reliability, particularly in light of the excerpts of messages produced at trial, which were consistent with the testimony of some of the complainants.

242I find that the Crown evidence on the issue of the link between McColeman and the social media profiles easily meets the test of reasonably capable of belief.

243I accept that the evidence shows on a balance of probabilities that the same person was behind the profiles Hyperchick, Jennifer Johnston and Treber Boucher. I am also satisfied that there is some evidence that McColeman was that person.

244The evidence relating to each luring count is admissible on the other luring counts.

245Therefore, the application on the issue of identity is successful.

Similar Fact Application – Discussion – Issue: Actus Reus of the Sexual Offences

246The Crown also sought a ruling that the evidence of the complainants with respect to the sexual offences be treated as similar fact evidence and apply count-to-count to support the allegations on those charges on the indictment. The overall question is whether there is a sufficient underlying unity in the circumstances in which those acts occurred. (R. v. J.M., 2010 ONCA 117, 251 C.C.C. (3d) 325, at para. 91)

247As Charron J.A. said in R. v. LB; MAG, 1997 CanLII 3187 (ON CA), [1997] O.J. No. 3042 at paras 37-39:

It is important to consider not only the acts themselves but all of the circumstances in order to assess what similarities, if any, exist between the discreditable conduct and the alleged offence and whether these similarities give the evidence probative value.

248The defence argued that the inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainants with respect to the sexual offences were so frequent and significant that the evidence does not have sufficient strength to be admitted.

249However, I find that the inconsistencies identified by the defence do not diminish the strength or the overall reliability of the complainants’ evidence. For instance, the defence underscored the many inconsistencies and contradictions with respect to who was at the McColeman residence during days, evenings, weekends, and while certain events occurred. There are a number of explanations but one in particular arises from the overall picture I took from all of the evidence. The house was occupied on a regular basis by a number of adolescents with no outside touchstones, a number of whom were living unstructured lives without job or school obligations, who were using and abusing substances and generally staying outside of mainstream life.

250Many of the complainants were living precariously, eating when there was food, and obviously not making notes on their cellphone calendars. Over the time periods covered by the indictment, various boys lived in different situations and spent some time staying with extended family, friends or girlfriends, or were out of town. Their living experiences over these years were not stable or permanent. It was unstable and unpredictable. While a few of the boys participated in dirt bike racing for a period of time, the balance of their lives did not provide them with the cycles and patterns that would normally allow them to recall with any precision who lived or stayed at the house when or who was frequenting the house at any given time.

251The defence also points to the inconsistencies between the trial evidence and the evidence at the preliminary hearing or in the statements to the police by some of the boys, for example CX3.

252CX1 was another boy who admitted up front that his disclosure increased from his initial statement, to the preliminary hearing, and then to the trial. He explained that he was not forthcoming with the police and even later at the preliminary hearing because he was still not ready to recount all of his experiences. At first, he did not want to get McColeman in trouble. Later he realized how embarrassing it was to admit how he had stayed in that relationship and what he did to feed his addictions.

253I also note how CX1 and other complainants differ from the usual complainant who comes before the court at their own initiative, wanting certain behaviour to stop, or seeking a finding that they were violated or abused in some way. Neither CX1 nor the majority of complainants initiated contact with the police.[8]

254The police involvement came about outside the initiative or control of the complainants. For many years, segments of the community seemed to have a collective and reckless blindness to what was going on in and around the McColeman house. Finally, someone, but not a complainant, went to the police. The police initiated an investigation based on what they had heard or seen going on in the spring of 2014. Until that moment, CX1 was living with Paul McColeman, as a 12-13 year old youth without complaint. He was shocked when he came back from a camping trip and learned of McColeman’s arrest. His statement to the police on his 14th birthday, in the circumstances of his ongoing relationship to McColeman was an understandable understatement of the more detailed picture he disclosed later. The gay stigma, their self-loathing, the drug use and the bonds of friendship factored into reticence of the boys to make full disclosure in their initial contact with the police and the Crown.

255The defence also points to inconsistencies between various complainants, especially when they supposedly did pranks together or were in the house at the same time when pranks occurred. For example, the evidence of CX1 and CY1 is not consistent on the point of who slept in McColeman’s bed for what periods. Also, there were the following inconsistencies:

• between CY2 and CY4 on the hospital trail dares they supposedly did together;

• evidence of CX3 who says he did things in the bedroom when CX1 was supposedly there;

• CX6 doing a blindfold dare supposedly set up by CX1;

• of CX6 staying over when CX1 said his friends didn’t stay over; and

• CX7 said he was set up for a dare by CX1, CX1 did not corroborate.

256The defence claims of weak inconsistent evidence within and amongst complainants must be considered in context of the age and circumstances of these boys at the time of the events and the time of their statements and evidence.

257Courts have long considered the special situation of children who have been sexually abused or exploited. It is fully accepted that important details like time and place may be missing from their recollections (R. v. R.W. 1992 S.C.R. 122). The courts have also long rejected and discredited any attempt to draw an adverse inference from failure to make a timely complaint (R. v. DD 2000 SCC 43, [2000] S.C.J. No. 44), or from the fact that their disclosure was incidental (R. v. L.K. 2011 ONSC 2562, [2011] O.J. No. 2553). It is this incidental disclosure that the defence points to as inconsistencies.

258In this case as in all cases, the court is asked to use a common sense approach to the assessment of evidence. Some of the common sense I apply to my analysis of the evidence is the proposition that

“The more often a person experiences an event, the more difficult it is to remember the details of any particular episode. The more similar the episodes the more difficult it will be to differentiate them…

In many cases of sexual assault (or I add sexual exploitation), the experience is not traumatic in the same way as an assault by a stranger in a dark alley… even traumatic events can become commonplace if repeated many times.”

R. v. R. para. 15-17

259McColeman set up an accepted way of living, relating and obtaining drugs, alcohol and other favours. The complainants did not distinguish unique discreet events or incidents so much as describe a pattern of living. In this context, it is not surprising that they did not always corroborate each other with respect to a specific event. An event that one boy remembered specifically may be totally different than an event another boy remembered for his own reasons. The weight of similarity of the pattern of events supports the credibility and reliability of the boys more than the lack of corroboration reduces it.

260We cannot rely on any particular expectation of new of how or why a complainant acts in certain circumstances. There is no inviolable rule on “how people who are victims of trauma like sexual abuse will behave.” “There is no standard of normal when it comes to sexual assault of children, especially those living in complex and difficult family relationships. R. v. R. 2004 MBQB 69 para. 33.

“It would come as no surprise that the complainants would have mixed feelings about the accused and his actions.” Para. 36

261I consider this statement and the principle on which it is based applicable as well to cases of sexual exploitation as we have here.

262We know as courts and as lay people that the reactions of victims of sexual abuse – and I add sexual exploitation may vary.

263For example, there should not be an adverse inference where the complainant continues to associate with the accused (R. v. M.(K)), 2005 CarswellOnt OSCJA 247). This is especially the case where the accused supplies the drugs and alcohol, the home base and the fun things to do for teenage boys. It is always the case where the child is dependent on the accused. The dependence can arise where the accused supplies essentials of life and or the substances to which the teen is addicted.

264Where the complainants may have over-stated or under-stated frequency or timing of events, this did not affect their credibility overall or their reliability on other points.

265These inconsistencies and others do not go to the root of the pattern or the mere facts of the sexual activity. Some of them do go to opportunity, but McColeman himself admitted opportunities existed for him to be alone with various boys.

266The defence claims that the complainants did not corroborate the accounts of each other. I note their tendency to minimize their disclosure particularly about the activity of another boy. There is nothing sinister in this. It was not explored during their testimony but in light of obvious discomfort of many of the complainants while they were testifying it was understandable that their evidence was narrowly focused on the exact questions put to them.

267On the other hand, the similarities between the accounts include:

• The vulnerable circumstances of the complainants;

• Their appetite for or dependence on addictive substances;

• Their lack of adult supervision, control, or guidance;

• Their appetite for exciting, fun outdoor activities that were otherwise inaccessible to them;

• The escalation of events from voyeurism to fellatio and masturbation, to anal sex;

• The ejaculation in a cup/bottle dare;

• The profile to set up the sexual contacts;

• The attempts by the adult on the hospital trail, in McColeman’s house, and in the garage to be a hidden figure or cover his own vision;

• The exchange of money, drugs, or alcohol for the sex acts;

• The provision of alcohol and drugs as part of the regular environment, substances known to be disinhibitors.

Similar Fact on Actus Reus - Conclusion

268I accept that the evidence shows an underlying unity in respect of the sexual offences over the years. I come to this view in light of the continuity of conduct from one boy to the next or with certain boys during the same time period as other boys. From 2006 when CY2 is first employed at the garage to 2014, the invitations to trade sexual services for “money, booze or weed” were repeated over and over. The pattern was established and continued without any gaps during that period.

269These were not “one-off” incidents. The number of occurrences and the numerous complainants add weight to the argument that these similarities cannot be explained by coincidence.

270As the Supreme Court of Canada said in Handy at para. 45, “coincidence, as an explanation, has its limitations.”

271It defies common sense to look at what is an obvious pattern of approach, invitation, touching and exchange among all of these boys in the same age group, in the same town and conclude that the similarities are mere coincidences.

272The conclusion that this was a pattern of conduct gains strength when one considers the number of boys involved, the number of incidents of alleged conduct, the small circle of individuals involved in the small town in which they all lived.

273On the issue of collusion, there is simply no evidence that any took place. Three of the four complainants who had some contact with Tanya Van Norman denied having any dialogue with her. The fourth complainant did not testify. CX1 had Tanya Van Norman as a Facebook friend although he never communicated with her, CX3 received messages on Facebook from her but he did not look at the messages, and CY4 lived with Tanya Van Norman for about a month after he left the small town. CY4 confirmed that he spoke to her about the case, heard stories from her about two complainants, and that she stated that she had spoken to mothers of complainants.

274On the contrary, many of the boys who appeared were highly distressed by the obligation to respond to questions about their experiences with McColeman and a number of them stated that they had not told anyone of these experiences either during or after the 2014 arrest, as they were so ashamed of what they had done.

275While I must be vigilant in my assessment of the possibility of collusion, there must be an air of reality to the allegation if the defence is to prevail in their opposition to this motion. Suffice to say, there was nothing more here than evidence of some contact; some opportunity for collusion. There was no evidence of collusion.

276I am of the view, as I noted earlier, that the potential for prejudice is minimal in the circumstances of this application to admit evidence from one count to the other counts. There is no moral prejudice. The facts related to one complainant are no more or less disturbing than the others. There is a low likelihood of reasoning prejudice where the proposed similar facts arise from the same time period in the same indictment and not from a history of part convictions or complaints. Whatever slight prejudice may arise, it is substantially outweighed by the probative value of the proposed similar fact evidence.

277The application is successful on the issue of actus reus. The count-to-count evidence will be admitted for the purposes of assessing actus reus of all of the other counts.

Summary of Defence Evidence

278The defence theory was centered on the improbability or impossibility that McColeman could be linked to the Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston or Treber Boucher profiles, the general overall weakness of the complainant’s evidence and their knowledge of McColeman as a man who helped others without a self-serving motive. There was also defence evidence contradicted certain complainants’ evidence or attacked the credibility of complainants’ evidence.

How Others Could have been Behind the Profiles

279The defence theory relied on the evidence from a number of witnesses who concluded that someone other than Paul McColeman must have been the link to the Jennifer Johnston and Treber Boucher profile.

280MP was the mother of a boy who was part of the circle of boys who hung around with McColeman. The purpose of the mother’s evidence was to demonstrate that McColeman had not been sending messages from the Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston profile. The mother testified that one afternoon she and her son were outside the front of their house waiting for McColeman who was coming to take her son on an excursion. W2 stated that while McColeman was present, her son handed his iPod to her for safekeeping. The iPod was capable of receiving messages. She heard the sound of a message received. She saw that there was a message for her son from Jennifer Johnston. The mother decided to investigate who sent this message. She went indoors to her basement computer and replied to the Jennifer Johnston message, grilling the messenger about what she was doing communicating with an adolescent boy. Jennifer Johnston responded. The mother returned to the yard and McColeman was still present.

281The mother admitted she was not in McColeman’s presence when the Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston profile responded to her messages, nor could she say when the original Jennifer Johnston message had been sent to her son. However, she claimed that the Jennifer Johnston message could not have been sent by McColeman. The Crown suggested the iPod could only receive messages when it came into Wi-Fi range for it to connect to the internet and may have been sent before McColeman was in her presence. The mother did not deny this possibility. Surprisingly, the mother seemed to have a detailed memory of this event, notwithstanding that she had not told anyone about it for four to five years after it happened, and at the time, it had no significance to her in respect of the allegations, which later surfaced about McColeman and the Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston profile.

282The mother also gave evidence, which was meant to discredit the evidence of CY5. The mother believed that CY5 lied to the police about her son. The mother confronted CY5 about lying and in response CY5 made a rude gesture and said: “wait till you see my Academy performance.” The mother took this to mean that CY5 was going to lie at McColeman’s trial.

283I do not accept that the mother’s evidence established that CY5 was planning to lie at this trial. The evidence showed that the mother still holds a strong animus against CY5, who had impugned her son’s character. Nor do I accept that the mother’s evidence demonstrates that McColeman could not have sent messages from the Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston profile. She could not say when the Hyperchick messages were sent. They could have been sent by McColeman before he arrived and while he was in the yard. MP was not present in either of those periods.

284Paul McColeman’s adult sister testified at the trial. She continues to reside in the family home with her parents. Ms. McColeman testified that she and Paul McColeman grew up in a family where the parents regularly welcomed into their home young people who needed a bed. She associated this with the kindness that her brother had shown these boys who so needed attention, food, and shelter.

285Ms. McColeman’s evidence was briefly discussed in the similar fact application. Ms. McColeman sought to demonstrate that someone other than Paul McColeman was sending messages from the Treber Boucher account.

286For example, the Treber Boucher account was accessed using an IP address connected to the McColeman family home’s Wi-Fi on May 17, 2014. It was agreed for the purpose of this trial that neither Ms. McColeman nor her parents accessed the Treber Boucher account. The Crown alleged that McColeman sent the message from his own device while logged-into his parents’ Wi-Fi.

287Ms. McColeman testified that this was not possible. She recounted her recollection of that day based upon a series of messages between herself and McColeman. Ms. McColeman was adamant that her brother had not been at the family home that day, and therefore someone else had sent messages while logged-into her parents’ Wi-Fi to access the Treber Boucher profile.

288Ms. McColeman recalled the events of May 17, 2014, when she reviewed the disclosure related to her brother’s case sometime in December 2014. McColeman produced copies of two text communications with her brother from that day in which she sought his assistance for a household repair. McColeman responded early in the day, indicating that he was committed to activities in a town about 30-40 minutes away from the family home and could not help. At the end of the day, there was another message from McColeman to her.

289Ms. McColeman acknowledged that she had gone out to go to do an errand during the day. She would not accept the possibility that her brother could have come by the house while she was not there and had connected to the house Wi-Fi. She would not accept that she might have forgotten this.

290Shortly after Paul McColeman’s arrest, Ms. McColeman started a website called “Justice for Paul”. She has strongly and publicly stated her belief in her brother’s innocence. She denied that her strong loyalty to her brother might have influenced her recollection of the time line of May 17, 2014.

291The purpose of Logan Sielow’s evidence was to show that McColeman could not be messaging from the Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston profile because Logan had been able to observe McColeman during some chats.

292Logan worked for McColeman at the gas bar for about two years, starting in 2009 when he was 14 years old. He is now 22 years old. Logan also spent time regularly at McColeman’s house. He and other boys would play outside with the dog, watch TV, have a couple drinks, and smoke a little bit. Logan saw McColeman’s house as a safe place, out of the way, where no one would call the cops. He remained friends with McColeman until the time of the arrest.

293Logan testified that all the boys who worked at the garage had access to the computer and that there was no password required to access the computer or the internet. When Logan was working at the garage, he received a Facebook friend request from Jennifer Johnston. They messaged a couple times a week.

294After a couple messages, Jennifer Johnston asked Logan to perform a dare. Logan was to ejaculate into a bottle and toss it, in return he would receive money. Logan tossed the water bottle, but did not ejaculate into it beforehand. However, he took the $50 that had been left in the dumpster by the school. Despite finding it weird, he did not tell anyone about his conversations with Jennifer Johnston, the dare, or the money he took.

295Logan testified that McColeman would stop by the garage to make sure Logan was doing his job, and that he was there when he received the messages from Jennifer Johnston. He recalled that McColeman told him not to talk to Jennifer Johnston.

296Logan recalled that when he was on the computer at the garage, he could see if McColeman was on his phone and that he did not always have the cellphone out. He recalled that McColeman was within his view on more than one occasion while Logan was on the computer. Although Logan initially took the position that because he could see McColeman while he was communicating on the computer with Jennifer Johnston that McColeman was not sending the messages, Logan acknowledged that McColeman may have been communicating as Jennifer Johnston from the couch.

297Logan was never contacted by Treber Boucher.

Doreen Turner

298Doreen Turner gave evidence with respect to the time she and her 12-year-old son spent with McColeman in the years before he left the garage and gas station in 2011 and among other things, she commented on access others had to McColeman’s computer.

299Ms. Turner met McColeman through motocross racing. McColeman accompanied Sheldon George for some time on the racing circuit and later attended on his own, helping boys with their bikes including Ms. Turner’s son and taking photographs. Ms. Turner started helping McColeman at the gas bar, doing books, payroll and deposits, all of which she did without pay during 2009-2011. Ms. Turner also helped McColeman at his house, looking after the dog, doing some laundry and making some meals also without pay. Her time at the house was primarily before CX1 moved into the house.

300In this context, Ms. Turner was able to say that she had never seen kids at the house using drugs or alcohol. Ms. Turner stated that she used the home computer when at the McColeman residence, as did the kids who were there. She confirmed that kids also used the computer at the garage. She claimed that all of the kids knew the McColeman’s home password, which they needed to use the Xbox.

301Ms. Turner brought her son to the house on a regular basis when he was 11-12 years old. She would pick him up after school and would drop him at the McColeman house and pick him up when she was finished work to take him home. McColeman was generous with her kids and bought them things until 2010 when his finances deteriorated to the point where she helped him out financially.

302Ms. Turner confirmed that Sheldon George lived at the McColeman house on and off and that other kids would show up when they had problems with their parents or when they were in trouble. They considered his house a safe haven.

303Ms. Turner confirmed the cost of supporting a young person in motocross. The bikes cost $4-$6,000, the helmets and gear cost $1,500, and each race had travel and entry fee costs. She confirmed that McColeman had bought Sheldon at least one bike and the related gear.

304Ms. Turner and McColeman communicated via text messages sometimes 50-100 times during the day. She confirmed that he was constantly on the phone. Ms. Turner said she was a close friend of McColeman’s and acknowledged that McColeman knew she was a strong and watchful mother who kept a close eye on her son.

Kari Richer

305Ms. Richer started living with Paul McColeman while she was in high school. They broke up in 2008 and Ms. Richer moved out of the house. In the year before she moved out, their relationship was rocky. Ms. Richer helped out at the gas station. She did the deposits, balancing and purchasing of supplies.

306Ms. Richer corroborated much of the evidence describing the circumstances of McColeman’s life in 2007 and 2008. She agreed that Sheldon moved into the house in 2007 and that he was in a highly vulnerable state. She cooked and shopped for him. They bought a cot for him, which was set up in the living room. Sometimes Sheldon slept in the bedroom with McColeman and she slept on the couch. Ms. Richer moved out of the house about six months after Sheldon moved in on a full time basis.

307Ms. Richer acknowledged that she was a good friend of Y3, the mother of CY2 and that CY2 stayed with McColeman overnight when she stayed overnight visiting his mother. She said that she would go to visit her friend when the noise from the Xbox was too loud. She denied however, that CY2 stayed over at the house on school nights. Ms. Richer said she would rather visit her friend than go out four-wheeling with McColeman and Sheldon or watch boys play Xbox. She acknowledged that the presence of the boys in the house did not help her relationship with McColeman.

308Ms. Richer acknowledged that arranging for CY2 to get a job at the garage was something she might have been involved in with CY2’s mother and McColeman. She recalled that CY2’s mother was very sick and in the hospital for some time.

309Ms. Richer said that McColeman never mentioned to her that he had received messages from Hyperchick. She indicated that McColeman used marijuana infrequently when they were together.

Sheldon George

310Sheldon George’s evidence about how often his girlfriend stayed at the residence, including overnight stays, is inconsistent with all of the complainants’ evidence. I find that Sheldon George exaggerated the amount of time his girlfriend spent at the house. He would not or could not believe any of the allegations against McColeman. He thought that the entire situation was a set-up and ultimately he provided an implausible explanation for why his evidence on this point changed so significantly from the statement he made to the police.

311When Sheldon met Paul McColeman, he was a 13-year-old boy living with an alcoholic mother who had essentially abandoned him. One night, not long after Sheldon started working at the garage, McColeman found Sheldon outside his house in dire circumstances.

312Sheldon said that at the time, he was a heavy user of narcotics and soft drugs, he ate rarely, and was in great need of someone who was interested in what was going on in his life. McColeman invited him in to stay.

313Sheldon moved in with McColeman and Kari Richer full time around 2006-2007, when he was 14-15 years old. He stayed in the house until McColeman was arrested in 2014. Over those years, Sheldon kept his home base with McColeman but frequently stayed over with his mother, other friends and in later years sometimes stayed with his girlfriend.

314Sheldon said that McColeman was the best thing that ever happened to him. At first McColeman was a refuge from Sheldon’s alcoholic mother. Later McColeman provided him with all the activities an adolescent boy could want: fishing, camping, partridge hunting, dirt biking, and quadding. They would have barbeques and play video games, watch movies and pass out. They travelled to races to take photos. Sheldon raced motor-cross for a year and a half, fully funded by McColeman. Sheldon said that it was his dream to dirt bike and motor-cross, and McColeman made that dream come true. McColeman also provided Sheldon with necessities, buying his clothes and his food. Sheldon said that but for the help from McColeman, he would be dead given “the roads he was taking, the drugs, the crowds”.

315Sheldon denied that he received drugs or alcohol from McColeman or at McColeman’s residence. However, he agreed that he told police that McColeman sold drugs to make money for the household.

316Sheldon was happy when McColeman’s girlfriend Kari Richer moved out of the house. He was then able to go quadding, dirt biking, and fishing with McColeman alone.

317While Sheldon was living with McColeman, CX1 began spending time at McColeman’s house. Although Sheldon had brought his friends to the house, he was not happy with how CX1’s friends installed themselves there. CX1 had hit bottom. He was in need of a home. Sheldon said that the boys came during the day to hang out with CX1 when McColeman was at work and left when McColeman came home for lunch or at the end of the day. While at the house, they would smoke dope and the house reeked of marijuana.

318Sheldon had nothing good to say about CX1. He said that McColeman acted like a father to CX1 but that CX1 was a troublemaker and disrespectful. CX1 did not contribute to the house and would not stop bringing over his friends no matter how many times he was asked or directed by Sheldon and or McColeman.

319Sheldon said that from 2012 on, McColeman was in a high debt situation and money was very tight. During this period, McColeman also took in CY1 who was in very dire straits. According to Sheldon, those kids raided McColeman’s food and otherwise cost him a lot of money.

Sheldon George and the Social Media Profiles

320Sheldon George recalled that he had received messages from Hyperchick, but he acknowledged that ‘she’ had many other names including Jenpooh, Jennifer Johnson and others. The profile picture was of a female and he thought she look about 18 years old. The Hyperchick profile contacted Sheldon while he was working at the garage and spending time on the computer. After a few messages, she started asking Sheldon to ejaculate into a water bottle and leave it outside the garage. Sheldon testified that he did this but the bottle was not retrieved. Sheldon testified that whenever he got messages from this profile McColeman was in his presence. McColeman told Sheldon that he also got messages.

321Sheldon claimed that he told McColeman and others who worked at the garage about the messages but not about the bottle. Sheldon adamantly rejected the idea that McColeman could have been behind these messages, and he said it was not possible because McColeman was a ‘protector not a destroyer’.

322Sheldon also claimed that he made an arrangement once with Hyperchick to meet at the gas station. He said that he learned that she lived in Whitefish and was in the small town on her way to Sudbury in her grandmother’s vehicle. According to Sheldon, the vehicle did in fact come to the garage and he spoke to the grandmother, who said that the young woman was too nervous to get out of the car. Sheldon claimed that he told a number of people about this at the time but he did not tell the police when they questioned him. Sheldon admitted that he did not tell the police or the defence lawyer who called him as a witness about this incident until he was on the stand for the second day. He said he did not refer to it the first day because it slipped his mind.

323At some point, Sheldon messaged the Hyperchick profile and told it not to message him anymore. Sheldon also recalled that he once got a message from the Treber Boucher profile. He knew it was fake because he knew the real Trever Boucher, who was a friend of his. However, Sheldon agreed that he only told McColeman about the message. He did not tell the police even though they asked about his knowledge of the Treber Boucher profile. He said that he lied to the police because he did not trust them and he did not know what their part was in all this.

324Sheldon claimed that he spent most nights at the McColeman house with his girlfriend even though he had told police that she only stayed over a couple of times. After CX1 moved into McColeman’s house, if Sheldon and CX1 were there at the same time, Sheldon slept on the couch in the living room. Sheldon testified that he was certain that McColeman and CX1 always slept in their own sleeping bags when they shared a bed in McColeman’s bedroom. He knew this because the door was always open because the dog was in the room and they could not close the door on the dog.

325Sheldon also acknowledged that after the arrest, there were many young people in town who were still loyal to McColeman who knew the password and could have used the unsecured Wi-Fi to send messages from the Treber Boucher account in August, although he denied it was him.

Justin Rivard

326The purpose of Justin Rivard’s evidence was to comment on a report that CX6 might not have been telling the truth. He said that CX6 came to see him before the trial looking very stressed and saying that he did not want to go to court. Justin Rivard replied that he did not have to go to court if nothing happened. Then Justin Rivard asked if something had happened and CX6 replied that he had received a message from Treber Boucher but had not followed through because he was not stupid. CX6 was asked about this conversation. He denied that he said that McColeman had not touched him. He denied that he told Justin anything about these things.

Paul McColeman Evidence

327Paul McColeman admitted much of the evidence given by the complainants and others describing the circumstances of his life from 2007 until his arrest in 2014. He said that his relationship with Kari Richer ended because she was having an affair and that he had been seeing another girl on the side. He admitted that he lost the gas station as a result of debt, to some extent caused by Kari Richer, and that six months later he sold the garage. He said that he was employed as a mechanic from 2011 to 2014 and that money had always been tight. He said Sheldon contributed a little to the cost of food in the last month he was there. He admitted that Sheldon and CX1 lived with him until his arrest and that he was fully supporting them. McColeman confirmed the lay out of the small house, consistent with the evidence of CY2, CX1 and others.

328McColeman confirmed that he hired teen boys as young as 12 years old to clean the garage unsupervised after hours. They typically came to the garage around 6 to 8 p.m. He told the boys that he did not care if they watched movies on his computer after they were finished their work and he presumed the work took about one and a half hours.

329McColeman denied:

• That he had any link to the profiles of Jennifer Johnston/Hyperchick or Treber Boucher;

• That he sexually touched any of the complainants;

• That he made or sent any of the communications from Jennifer Johnston/Hyperchick or Treber Boucher to the complainants, which are the subject of evidence in this case;

• That he directly communicated by computer with any of the complainants for the purpose of facilitating the commission of one of the sexual offences.

Circumstances of Arrest

330On June 22, 2014, the police interviewed McColeman, following up on a report that someone had seen some sexual activity going on at the house between McColeman and CX1. CX1 told the police that it must be a mistake. As a result of this report, the CAS was contacted and CX1 was removed from the home.

331For reasons having to do with the resources of a small town police force, there were no search warrants executed on the McColeman home, computer or cell phone after the initial interview with the police two weeks before his arrest. What was found on his cell phone after he was arrested and released on bail provided no evidence of the Treber Boucher Facebook profile. McColeman denied that he knew how to remove a name from his contact list but did admit it was possible that he could have cleansed his phone of the Treber Boucher Facebook account and cleaned his computer of any Treber Boucher Facebook account material prior to his arrest.

Drugs and Alcohol

332McColeman said that he kept beer in the house in the summer and had a liquor cabinet. He drank rye after work, one or two glasses. After Kari Richer moved out the liquor started to disappear. Once CX1 moved in, he could not keep alcohol in the house because it would go missing. He kept his rye in the trunk of the car.

333McColeman said that Sheldon introduced him to marijuana to deal with his troubled sleep. Later he started consuming more, which he got from Sheldon. He knew CX1 was smoking marijuana during the day because he could smell it. McColeman would hide his marijuana from CX1 and his friends but CX1 seemed to find it wherever it was hidden. He only provided marijuana to CX1 a couple of times, once for cutting the grass and once to reward him for not breaking into cars.

334McColeman also agreed that he knew CX1 was an avid pot smoker with his friends. He believed that CX1 got the money for marijuana by selling his own prescription drugs. Sometimes, McColeman would offer him marijuana to encourage him to go skiing.

Social Media

335McColeman was an active user of Facebook in 2007-2008. He had also used MSN for about a year prior. McColeman allowed Sheldon and others to have the password for the computer at the garage and at the house. He left the computer open so Sheldon and the others could see the photos that he had posted. The computer at the garage had a webcam and internet access. The garage also had a sofa.

336McColeman said that he first learned of the Hyperchick profile in 2008-2009 when he received communications from her. He said that he thought she was 18 years old. After about ten sessions of messages back and forth, McColeman said he decided to ignore her when he realized she was not a real person. McColeman denied knowing the real Jennifer Johnston as a friend of his sister and said he only knew the profile name of Hyperchick or Jen.

337McColeman denied ever hearing about the name or about the profile of Treber Boucher on Facebook. He denied sending messages from that profile, denied communicating to lure teenage boys to engage in sex, and asserted that he had no connection in any way with the Treber Boucher Facebook profile.

Wi-Fi Connection with McColeman Family Home

338McColeman denied logging onto his parents’ Wi-Fi connection to send messages from the Treber Boucher Facebook profile. He noted that his parents’ Wi-Fi connection was not secure and that it was also possible that CX1 might have sent them when he was in the house.

Jayrayxray Email

339McColeman denied setting up the jayrayxray email. He stated that his own Wi-Fi connection was not secure and suggested that whoever set up the jayrayxray email could have been someone in the area around the house using his Wi-Fi connection. He denied he set up the Treber Boucher Facebook profile associated with this email.

340McColeman suggested that it was either a coincidence that the same IP address was used so close in time to logging into the Treber Boucher account and logging into his own account or that other teens in the house who knew his password could have been the ones logging onto the Treber Boucher Facebook profile.

341Finally, McColeman denied that he had ever used the Treber Boucher Facebook profile to invite boys to participate in sex acts with him, that any of the boys had ever disclosed the invitations they were receiving from Treber Boucher, and that he participated in any sex acts with the boys.

McColeman Comments on CX1

342McColeman acknowledged in general the circumstances surrounding CX1 and the dates of his move into the home. McColeman confirmed that the two became very close. McColeman denied that CX1 was vulnerable to those who might exploit him.

343McColeman became the acknowledged guardian of CX1. Early in the relationship, McColeman took CX1 to the hospital early in his stay for a drug overdose. He met with CAS about CX1, and he dealt with the police and school regarding CX1. He learned that CX1’s mother did not want him at her house so CAS approved CX1 staying with McColeman and they did regular inspections of smoke detectors and other such things. He bought CX1 a computer in September 2013.

344McColeman confirmed much of CX1’s evidence about the activities and excursions they went on together. McColeman confirmed CX1’s evidence about things he bought for him. McColeman also gave CX1 approximately $20 per week for an allowance. He did not enforce attendance at school or completion of home schooling work. He said, however, that he treated CX1 like a brother not a father.

345McColeman confirmed that by 2014, CX1 had many friends over to the house on a regular basis who were smoking dope and playing video games. McColeman said that the boys were coming into the house as he was going out the door to work. The boys or CX1 stole his marijuana, his alcohol, and money from his wallet. McColeman did not kick CX1 out of the house because he was afraid that CX1’s mother would put him in a group home. McColeman said that he thought he could improve CX1’s life by providing him with a home and many other material comforts. McColeman acknowledged that CX1 spent a fair amount of time in McColeman’s bedroom, hanging out with the dog and watching television.

346McColeman confirmed that Sheldon spent time at the house, at his girlfriend’s house and at his mother’s house during the time that CX1 was around. He also confirmed that he regularly came home from work during the day to bring CX1 for fast food or to check on him. McColeman denied that there was any sexual activity with CX1 and testified that he did not know the phrase cheese doodle.

347McColeman claimed that CX1 never told him about the dares he received from Treber Boucher via Facebook that had to do directly with or referenced McColeman. However, he also testified that he had seen CX1 in conversation with the Trever Boucher profile. McColeman says he was unaware that CX1 was dared to watch him have a shower and denies that CX1 ever asked him for marijuana in return for doing that dare or any other dare including oral or anal sex.

348McColeman specifically denied that there had been any glory hole in the door in the laundry room. He said that the door was on the date of trial exactly as it had been the whole time he owned the house. The photo taken the week of trial shows a door without any hole.

349McColeman also denied ever having had any sexual activity with any of CY2, CX1, CY1, CX3, CX6 or CX4, who all testified to participating in sexual activity with McColeman at his house. He did admit however, that each of those boys demonstrated some instability and dysfunction in their lives and that all were using drugs and alcohol but not to the extent that they described. McColeman denied that he gifted or supported the boys beyond his financial limits or in return for sexual acts. He claimed that he was unselfishly generous to CX1 simply because he wanted to show him that there were nice people out there; that school, the CAS and his foster mother had all let him down.

350After the initial interview with the police in June 2014, CX1 was required to live with his foster mother. The Facebook messages between McColeman and CX1 were filed as Exhibit 32. Within an hour of the police interview, McColeman messaged to CX1 that CX1 was not to worry, that in a couple of weeks, all would be back to normal and they could go fishing. He also says that maybe he can save up enough for a bike. Later in the conversation, McColeman says: “O well we know nothing happened” … and later on that evening says: “guess I gotta get you new phone again soon.” McColeman denied that he was making offers to CX1 in return for securing his loyalty and knowing that the police would soon interview CX1 about alleged sexual activity between the two of them.

351McColeman acknowledged most of Sheldon’s evidence regarding his life circumstances at the time he moved into the house. For eight years, McColeman provided Sheldon with a home, rent free, a place where he could be safe and secure, where he could come and go as he wished, where he could hang out with friends and smoke dope instead of going to school. McColeman also confirmed that he and Sheldon provided emotional support to one another, that they shared a strong emotional bond. He admitted that at the time of his arrest, he was particularly protective of Sheldon, just as Sheldon had been of him. As for his dog, Paul McColeman agreed that all of the boys who came over loved the dog.

CY2

352McColeman acknowledged most of the circumstances of CY2’s life, the time they spent together and their relationship. He acknowledged selling then giving CY2 the quad and taking him to the shooting range a few times. McColeman would not admit however, that CY2 was vulnerable to exploitation by someone who could give him money and drugs. McColeman said that CY2 would just take what he wanted. McColeman acknowledged that he was kind and generous to CY2.

353McColeman also acknowledged that CY2 took the same things the other boys took, that he would be up all night and then McColeman would discover that the rye bottle was missing. McColeman said that CY2 was not at the house as much as CY2 described in his evidence, although McColeman also said he often did not know who was at his house during the days and when he was not there.

354McColeman denied he had any sexual contact with CY2 or that he communicated with him via the Hyperchick profile. McColeman acknowledged that if CY2’s allegations about the Hyperchick dares to lie on the sofa in the garage during his evening work shift are true, then Hyperchick would have to be someone who knew CY2’s work schedule and he was one of those people.

355McColeman denied giving CY2 the drugs ecstasy or Viagra or MDMA. He said that CY2 only stopped by his house now and then but that he would also see him at his mother’s house.

356McColeman was asked about CY2’s allegation that CY2 had confronted McColeman about being the person who fellated him on the sofa at the garage as part of the blindfold dare from Hyperchick. McColeman did not recall CY2 confronting him about being the Hyperchick profile.

357McColeman says that any comment that he made about having CY2 on video was misunderstood. He recalled speaking to CY2’s mother about having CY2 on the security camera from the garage. In any event, McColeman knew that any disclosure that CY2 was engaged in sexual acts at work would have been extremely embarrassing to CY2 and would have further damaged his reputation.

CY1

358McColeman confirmed most of CY1’s evidence regarding their relationship. CY1 asked McColeman if he could stay at McColeman’s house. McColeman considered him a couch surfer with a heavy drug habit who was trying to kick his hard drug habit. McColeman took time off work to stay with CY1 as he went through withdrawal. He did not bring CY1 to rehab or call anyone for assistance. McColeman admitted that CY1 confided in him, and was happy to have a place to stay and someone who would feed him. McColeman brought him to get his driver’s license and permitted him to smoke marijuana at the house.

359McColeman was asked about an incident with W2, who called him to tell him that a message he had left for her son was inappropriate. The message suggested that two boys could jump on one another and make mayonnaise. McColeman warned her that if she was calling him a pedophile that he would sue her.

CY4

360McColeman knew CY4 as an older boy who hung out with CX1 but he did not like him and kicked him out of the house. However, McColeman said he did not know if CY4 actually stayed away. He also denied that he was the person on the hospital trail with whom CY4 engaged in sex acts.

CY5

361McColeman denied he was the person at the door of his house who performed sex acts on CY5. He acknowledges that the house described by CY5 matches his house. He also acknowledged that the boys CY5 was with the night he found the house for the first time would have known the house, as they were part of a gang of boys who worked at the garage or gas bar and who came by the house to look after the dog.

CX7

362Paul McColeman admitted that CX7 was a close friend of CX1 and that he was at the house frequently or that CX1 was at CX7’s house. He acknowledged that it was possible that a boy snuck into the bathroom when McColeman was taking a shower after work because the Xbox was so loud he might not have noticed. McColeman denies, however, that he heard of another time where the Treber Boucher profile invited CX7 to fellate McColeman.

CY6

363Paul McColeman acknowledged that he employed CY6 at the garage at the same time as CY2, Trever Boucher and Sheldon. Although he admitted that he and CY6 were close and shared confidences, he testified that CY6 never told him that he had received offers from the Hyperchick profile.

CX5

364CX5 was a friend of CX1, and who got in trouble with him. CX5 was someone who was not part of a functional family. He was a lonely kid who smoked marijuana. McColeman denied that he traded money for sexual favours on the hospital trail with CX5 or anyone else.

CX3

365McColeman acknowledged that CX3 started coming by the house when he was 11 or 12 years old, about once a week to walk the dog. Sometimes the boy would stay to visit after he walked the dog. McColeman knew that CX3 was a high functioning autistic boy who was estranged from his abusive father and that his mother encouraged the boy to spend time with McColeman.

366McColeman knew that CX3 was drinking but did not think he was an alcoholic. He bought him an Xbox for Christmas one year. CX3 stayed over at the McColeman house from time to time, often the night before motor-cross races. McColeman gave CX3 beer as part of a deal to keep him from stealing it. When CX3 was 15 years old, Paul McColeman took him camping one weekend, just the two of them. For the camping trip, McColeman bought beer. McColeman allowed CX3 to drive his truck on a bush road. McColeman knew that CX3 was interested in mechanics and motors. Shortly before his arrest but after his first interview with the police, McColeman contacted CX3 via Facebook and said: ‘don’t get me in trouble.’ In a later message, he offered to drop off an old snow machine for CX3 to work on the motor. McColeman denied that this was an attempt to buy CX3’s silence but admits that this offer, made one hour after he had spoken to police was the first time he had ever mentioned the snow machine to CX3.

367McColeman was asked about an earlier series of Facebook messages with CX3 from June 2013, which referenced him and past experiences with “bj’s”, “what Paul would like,” and past experiences “with Paul”. McColeman said that CX3 never told him about such messages even though they had a close relationship. McColeman stated that he knew nothing about these messages.

CX6

368Paul McColeman acknowledged that CX6 was a friend of CX1 who was at his house daily, likely missing school. He recalled how he brought CX6 into the house one night after he found the boy outside sleeping. McColeman described CX6 as a typical teen who smoked weed and couch surfed. McColeman admitted that there was a weigh scale in the house which belonged to Sheldon and it was possible that CX1 may have weighed out some marijuana for CX6. McColeman confirmed that he took CX6 to motor-cross races and that CX6 often stayed overnight at the house. When asked if he tried to fellate CX6 one night, Paul McColeman replied, it could have been whoever was staying at the house.

CX4

369CX4 was living in a group home when McColeman met his mother and became her friend. McColeman knew that CX4 was a very troubled teen when he started coming by the house in 2012. CX4 drank heavily and soon was taking Percocets. McColeman confirmed CX4’s evidence about his girlfriend troubles. CX4 asked McColeman if he could use his gun to kill his girlfriend. McColeman made arrangements to get the guns out of the house. McColeman denied that CX4 confronted him about the Treber Boucher profile and said that he had other reasons to hide his screen from CX4.

Analysis

370In this section, I will comment on the complainants’ evidence, in particular the potential weaknesses of certain complainants’ evidence, the impact of the similar fact evidence on both the issue of identity and actus reus, review the position of the defendant and evidence of McColeman and the other defence witnesses, and apply the law to the elements of the offences in light of all of the evidence.

Complainants’ Evidence

371The defence takes the position that there are serious credibility and reliability issues with the complainants’ evidence arising from inconsistencies within their own evidence or amongst the complainants, and the implausibility of their narratives.

372The issues of the credibility of the complainants’ evidence was fully canvassed in the analysis of their evidence for the similar fact application. I accepted the complainants’ evidence for the purpose of the similar fact application and that analysis and acceptance continues to apply at this stage.

Delayed or Incremental Disclosure

373I find that CX1 and CY2 provided compelling explanations for delayed or incremental disclosure or disclosure disclosing more each successive time they were questioned. I note that neither CX1 nor any of the other complainants initiated contact with the police. The police sought out CX1 and the other boys to assist in their investigation. These boys were young and felt pulled into an investigation that they had not initiated.

374At the time of the initial interviews with police, CX1 and the other complainants gave the following reasons for their reticence in describing the full nature of their relationship with McColeman and the extent of the sex acts they had engage in with him.

• They still considered McColeman a friend or father;

• He had been a provider and support to them.

• They were embarrassed and ashamed, worried about the ‘gay stigma’; and

• They were protective of McColeman, particularly his reputation.

• They were completely unprepared emotionally for the intrusive questions put to them by the police.

• CX1 had been in trouble with the law since he was 9 years old.

• They were unclear of the moral status of the relationship with McColeman.

• McColeman had told CX1 that their sexual activity was what sons and fathers do together.

• They did not want McColeman to go to jail because they were afraid of what would happen to him there.

375I accept these explanations. I do not find that the incremental disclosure which was at the root of what counsel identified as inconsistencies undermines the reliability of the essence of their evidence as it goes to the invitations to and the participation in providing sexual services to McColeman in exchange for a reward.

376We have come a long way in our understanding the behaviour of victims of sexual abuse or exploitation. See R. v. L.K., 2011 ONSC 2562. There is no reason to draw an adverse inference from these incidents of incremental disclosure in the circumstances of these boys’ lives. Their sexual exploitation was but one source of the trauma they experienced. The predictable associated feelings towards McColeman and their experiences with him go a long way to explain the way they approached their narratives to the police and the court.

377In any event, CX1 expanded on his initial statement in a second interview and in trial evidence. To a much greater extent, his evidence was consistent from the second interview onward. With respect to CX3, his testimony revealed a young man who was just coming to grips with his experience and was more willing to describe events. In some respects, the similar fact evidence assists me in assessing his evidence in light of the inconsistencies that remained.

Other Issues with Complainants’ Credibility and Reliability

378CX1 admitted that he mislead police on a few points. One example was when he told police that he saw a girl leave the house after he had been at the glory hole in the laundry room. Another example was his description of an anal sex dare in McColeman’s bedroom. In his statement, CX1 said that his friend did the dare first, and that when CX1 went into the dark bedroom he confirmed anatomically that the person was a woman. At trial, CX1 admitted that he was not being honest with the officer on those points. Both of these examples can be seen as attempts to obscure the obvious, that CX1 was engaged in sexual activity with a man.

379At trial, it was evident that CX1 was still not comfortable speaking about the things that had transpired between him and McColeman. CX1 had loved McColeman and believed McColeman when he said what they were doing was ok, that CX1 had nothing to worry about, and that McColeman loved him.

380He did not want to go to court; he did not want others to look at McColeman as if he was sick.

381Further, CX1 explained that his adoptive mother was in the room when he was interviewed by the police. Her presence made it even harder for him to answer the questions fully because he did not want her to know about his experience.

382CX3’s statement to police was not fully consistent with his evidence at trial. There were at least 3 points on which CX3’s testimony at trial differed from his statement to police.

− Person on hospital trail was a girl.

− Whether anal sex happened at the trail or McColeman’s house.

− Whether the truck incident included fellatio.

383At trial, CX3 admitted that he was not completely truthful in his police statement and in his evidence at the preliminary hearing. CX3 stated that it was hard to talk about his sexual encounters with McColeman or arranged by Treber Boucher. He was very nervous each time he had to recount details.

384In July 2014, shortly after McColeman’s arrest, CX3 gave his statement to the police at the end of a day when after a 13 hour shift of hard physical work. He was exhausted. He found the interview with the police embarrassing, intrusive, and nerve-racking. When asked at trial if he had told the police and the court at the preliminary hearing all of the truth, CX3 testified that he just could not remember it.

385CX3 remembers telling the police that at the first hospital mission, the person in the bush who fellated him was a girl. CX3 repeated in his testimony at trial that he wanted to believe it was a girl, and that is why he told the police that he had checked to determine if it was a girl, but in reality, he did not check and does not know who it was. He explained that he gave that answer to the police because he was nervous and embarrassed. He ultimately confirmed that the person in the bush was wearing a hoodie and he could not see the persons’ face.

386He was also challenged about having told the police that there was an anal sex event in the bush. CX3 accepted that he said that but at trial, he testified that he was not being truthful because he did not want to talk about it, it was too embarrassing and it was too hard for him to talk about it.

387However, ultimately CX3 confirmed there was an anal sex incident at the house, not on the trail, and that there was a truck incident, which included blowjob.

388The Crown only has to prove one incident of sexual interference and I am not persuaded that the problems with the evidence on these two incidents require me to draw an adverse inference or that it affects the reliability of his evidence on other points.

389CY2 attempted to answer questions seeking an exact number of times he had each type of sexual interaction with McColeman. He said 30 times for some things, 50 times for another. He did not refer to notes or a calendar but simply made estimates. All I can conclude from CY2’s evidence is that these sexual events were frequent and regular. This is consistent with his evidence that he had a close and long-time association with McColeman, that they spent a considerable amount of time together and alone. McColeman confirmed many of the aspects of the relationship and of the surrounding circumstances and the practices and layout of the garage. However, I attribute CY2’s evidence of how many times things happened to his limited education and learning ability, and to the fact that he was describing things that happened almost ten years ago from the perspective of a troubled adolescent who had considerable difficulty interacting with counsel. I found that he was doing his best to provide an exact number in order to answer the question.

390It is not unusual for youthful witnesses to err when describing duration or frequency of disturbing events. Nor should the court expect that witnesses who experience sexual activity with adults to be without error on these points. In any event, the indictment only alleges one count each of the hands-on offences per complainant and so the criticism that the evidence over stated the number of times things happened does not, in my view, weaken their credibility or their reliability on other points in their evidence. R. v. WR, para. 24-26 (how to assess child witnesses)

391There were a number of inconsistencies between CY2 and CY4 with respect to their joint participation in the hospital trail missions. Their versions of their hospital trail visits in response to dares from Hyperchick are not reconcilable. I conclude that CY4 has not yet reached the point where he has come to terms with what he was willing to do for money. He appeared to be filled with shame, which lead him to minimize his participation in these missions. All one can conclude is that there were some visits to the trails for the purposes of exchanging sex for drugs or money.

392The defence submitted that some of the complainants’ evidence was simply implausible. For example, CX1’s evidence that he slept in McColeman’s bed every night for two and a half years, and that he received Percocets, marijuana and fellatio every night for two years. I find CX1’s evidence is either an exaggeration, or his way of describing what he felt was a full-time practice. However, McColeman admitted to sharing a bed with CX1 over a long period of time, although he denied that he performed fellatio or that he supplied drugs to CX1 except in certain specific circumstances which were not related to sex acts.

393I do not find that CX1’s evidence on this point, which does not take into account the many nights he simply was not at the house, the initial period when he slept on the couch, or the period of time when CY1 stayed at the house and shared McColeman’s bed, to have any significant impact on his credibility or the reliability of other parts of his evidence. It does not diminish CX1’s credibility on how often he shared a bed with McColeman. In fact, his evidence on this point was largely corroborated.

394The defence also submitted that there was evidence of collusion amongst the complainants and coaching of complainants by a third party who had taken an interest in the case.

395In support of his claim that there had been collusion, defence counsel noted that both CX3 and CY1 referred to McColeman as a father figure. I am not persuaded that these references point to any collusion between CX3 and CY1. They have had a few years to process this deeply disturbing time in their lives. They are older and have had an opportunity to try to figure out how they ended up in what they now perceive to be an embarrassing and shameful set of circumstances. This is not unusual in people as they develop insight into their own actions. That these boys now describe their relationship with McColeman in father figure terms does not lead to the conclusion that they have colluded. Instead, one can conclude and I do, that the choice of terms to describe their relationship with McColeman is similar to one another because this is exactly the type of relationship that McColeman intended to foster. In his own words, McColeman was protecting them from various state agencies, schools, CAS, and police to give them a better life. Parents play the role of protector. That is a defining feature of the parental responsibility.

396CX1’s evidence about the glory hole is troubling. He says he actually cut a hole in the door through which he was fellated. A number of defence witnesses said that the door that is currently in place is the same door that was always there and there is no hole in that door. CX1 stuck to his evidence notwithstanding seeing the photos of the undamaged door. The Crown pointed out that McColeman has had years to replace the door since he was arrested and released. I note that there was no warrant for the search of the house at the time of arrest. I find that the photos by themselves, taken in 2017 do not contradict CX1’s evidence on this point. The opportunity to change the door is the same opportunity that was available to McColeman to clean his phone and personal settings to remove the Treber Boucher Facebook profile and any damaging communications with the boys.

397CY5 described the person at the McColeman residence who waited inside the door in the dark and who performed fellatio on him as having orange hair. McColeman does not have orange hair and no other witness describes McColeman as ever having orange hair. CY5 did not try to explain his recollection of the hair colour. CY5’s evidence would be problematic but for the fact that his evidence is corroborated in many ways, by the two boys who accompanied him to the house and also by the similar features of other exchanges of sex for alcohol or money arranged by the Jennifer Johnston profile. The essential features of the event have been corroborated and there was no evidence from McColeman or other defence witnesses that other adult males were ever about or were having sexual activities with boys. I find that CY5 was simply mistaken on this point.

398The defence theory was that McColeman was a generous provider to troubled boys; that he acted out of pure goodwill and sought nothing in return for what might be called extreme generosity, which he gifted against his own self-interest. However, this theory raises questions for which there are no logical or plausible answers.

• Why would a middle age man surround himself with deeply troubled adolescent and teen boys who stole from him, disturbed his nights, ate his food, smoked marijuana in his house till it reeked, stayed up all night playing Xbox, and came and went as they pleased all in return for precisely nothing?

• Why would a licensed mechanic who owned his own garage hire 12-year-old boys to work unsupervised, after hours in his garage and pay them for two to three hours when he knew the work of cleaning only took one to one and a half hours?

• Why would a person in serious financial straits who lost his business take on the liability of feeding, clothing and entertaining teenage boys for no compensation?

• Why would an adult who is purporting to help kids, permit and enable them to be absent from school and spend their days consuming substances?

• Why would McColeman offer CX3 an old snow machine within hours of his first police interview, at the same time as saying, “don’t get me into trouble,” if not for the purpose of buying CX3’s silence and loyalty?

• Why would CX3, who had a very close relationship with McColeman, not tell McColeman about messages and dares referencing “Paul”?

399The fact is that when the boys were outside the school system and essentially outside any third party adult supervision, they would be less likely to report or disclose what was going on in the McColeman house. McColeman provided all of the boys with a place to gather to avoid school where they had bad experiences, to drink and do drugs away from authorities including school, CAS and police.

400I find the theory of McColeman’s selfless giving completely implausible. While McColeman might have wanted to paint himself as the Mother Theresa of this small town, at the same time by his own account, he was supplying these boys with drugs, deliberately not involving the authorities when he should have, and enabling the boys to maintain a personally destructive lifestyle. He displayed an unexplained interest in and tolerance for young boys and the troubles they caused him. The only other adult relationships with which he could identify were with some of the mothers of these boys, mothers who for various reasons were unable to parent their sons.

401McColeman could not provide any logical explanation for welcoming these boys into his home and life especially given his precarious financial situation, his work demands, and the fact that his personal relationship with his long-term partner had broken down.

402The evidence from MP, Logan Sielow and TM is not individually or cumulatively sufficiently probative to have a real impact on the evidence which links McColeman to the profiles. An objective view of the evidence of these three witnesses demonstrates that their experiences do not lead to the inference that they wish to draw, i.e. that Paul McColeman could not be linked to the Jennifer Johnston or Treber Boucher profiles.

403Ms. McColeman’s recollection may not be as perfect as she thinks. Although she could not accept the possibility that her brother attended the house while she was absent, I note that such a possibility exists. It is very possible indeed that during the day, while Ms. McColeman was absent, Paul McColeman, who was a frequent and regular visitor to the family home and who had been specially asked that day to provide assistance, did come by the house and while there, log onto the Treber Boucher Facebook account using the unsecured Wi-Fi connection from the McColeman family home. In any event, should someone other than Paul McColeman have accessed the Treber Boucher account that day, it does not negate in any way the dozens of other Treber Boucher messages where McColeman was central to the dare/mission or prank. Nor does it overcome all of the identity evidence linking McColeman to the Treber Boucher profile.

404The evidence of Sheldon George does not provide support for the defence theory or answer any of the troubling questions raised by the complainants’ evidence.

405Sheldon’s evidence raises a number of problems, including inconsistencies within his own evidence and with the evidence of others. The following are examples:

• At first Sheldon said his girlfriend only slept over at McColeman’s house a couple of times. Later in his evidence he tried to portray the situation differently, claiming the he and his girlfriend spent most of their time at the McColeman house.

• He told the police that McColeman was dealing drugs but did not reveal that he had received messages from the Treber Boucher profile, which he considered more damaging information.

• That McColeman was always in the room and in sight when he received messages from Hyperchick.

• That the bedroom door was always open when CX1 and McColeman slept there.

406Sheldon’s evidence was implausible in many respects. He could not explain why his evidence was different from his statement to the police on how much time he spent away from the McColeman residence in the years prior to the arrest. He could not explain why he waited over two years to disclose this alleged visit by Hyperchick to the garage. He said he did not trust police as an explanation for why he did not tell them what he knew of the Treber Boucher profile. Finally, there was no explanation for why his evidence was so different than more than ten boys on how much alcohol and marijuana was consumed at McColeman’s house.

407It seemed clear that Sheldon’s loyalty to McColeman triggered a need to protect McColeman from criminal consequences and rumours. Sheldon admitted that he experienced a major emotional loss when McColeman was arrested and then prohibited from contacting or communicating with him. He admitted that he wondered where he would live after the arrest, and how the scandal in town would affect him. Sheldon admitted that he spoke to CX1 two weeks after the arrest and told him that what he CX1 had told the police was not true but were false statements and that McColeman had been set up.

408Where Sheldon’s evidence contradicts the evidence of CX1 and CY1 on how often he was at the house or on whether McColeman was always in his presence when he received messages from Hyperchick, or whether McColeman’s bedroom door was always shut, I find it is not reliable and I reject it. Not only are there logical flaws in this evidence, Sheldon’s apparent motive to protect McColeman seemed to override his attachment to events he could actually observe.

409Justin Rivard’s evidence on its own does not have any impact on CX6’s credibility. A likely interpretation is that when CX6 was told he would not have to go to court if nothing happened, he was prepared to say, at least at that moment, that nothing had happened. He could meet his desire to avoid going to court, according to Justin Rivard, if he simply denied any involvement. Coincidentally, by denying that anything happened, CX6 or any other boy could fend off the rumours that they were engaged in sex with a man.

Buying Silence

410The Crown pointed to two instances where McColeman sought to buy the silence and loyalty of the two boys who had the most to tell the police. I find that his communications with CX1 and CX3 were exactly that, an attempt to influence them in their forthcoming interviews with the police. I find that McColeman did his best to make it clear that there would be rewards for not disclosing the truth to the police. Not only were material rewards promised, a bike and phone for CX1 and a snow-machine to CX3, but he also made sure that CX1 who was emotionally dependent on him was reminded that the fun and personal parts of the relationship could continue if there was no disclosure.

411These two offers or promises further erode McColeman’s credibility.

Analysis

412The indictment has 34 counts involving 15 complainants.[9] There were 16 luring charges. Each luring offence was accompanied by a second count, being the specified secondary offence. The specified secondary offence depends on the age of the boy. There are three counts of procuring (s. 212(4)), five counts of invitation to sexual touching (s. 152) and two counts of exposure (s. 173(2)).

413There were also allegations of hands-on offences, namely seven counts of sexual interference (s. 151). A summary of the counts and an overview of the essential elements of each offence is as follows.

Essential Elements

414The essential elements of each of the counts are as follows.

Luring a child under 18 (s. 172.1(1)(a))

• Intentional communication by computer

• With a person whom the accused knows or believes to be under 18 years of age

• For the specific purpose of facilitating the commission of a specified secondary offence[10]

See R. v. Legare, 2009 SCC 56, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 551, at para. 36

Luring a child under 16 (s. 172.191)(b))

• Intentional communication by computer

• With a person whom the accused knows or believes to be under 16 years of age

• For the specific purpose of facilitating the commission of a specified secondary offence[11]

See R. v. Lambe, 2015 ONSC 4051, at para. 50, citing with approval Legare.

Sexual interference (s. 151)

• The complainant was under the relevant age at the time. Up to April 30, 2008, this section applied to persons under the age of 14 years of age. As of May 1, 2008, this section applied to persons under 16 years of age.

• The accused touched the complainant.

• The touching was for a sexual purpose.

See R. v. A.S., 2014 ONSC 6984, at para. 11

Invitation to sexual touching (s. 152)

• The complainant was under the relevant age at the time. Up to April 30, 2008, this section applied to persons under the age of 14 years of age. As of May 1, 2008, this section applied to persons under 16 years of age.

• The accused invited the complainant to touch the accused’s body.

• The touching that the accused invited was for a sexual purpose.

See A.S., at para. 15

Exposure (s. 173(2))

• The complainant was under 16 years of age at the time

• The accused exposed his genitals to the complainant, and

• The exposure was for a sexual purpose

See R. v. W.R., 2016 ONSC 1243, at para. 24.

Procuring (s. 212(4)) – repealed as of July 10, 2014.

The accused must:

• Obtain for consideration or communicate for the purposes of obtaining for consideration

• Sexual services

Of a person under the age of 18

Luring Counts – The Elements of Age and Purpose

415The issue of identity is the only live issue on the luring counts. It is also central to many of the other offences.

416The luring offences require that the communication with the underage person be for the purpose of arranging another offence. What matters is whether the evidence as a whole establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused communicated by computer with an underage person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a specified secondary offence in respect of that person. (Legare SCC 2009). Each element of the offence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

417The defence did not argue that the messages, which invited the boys to participate in sexual services in exchange for a reward, did not constitute the offence of luring. The messages for each complainant including the initial invitation were made by computer, which includes a cell phone. I find that this purpose element of the offence has been made out for each count.

418I am also satisfied that the uncontradicted evidence with respect to age was made out in respect of each complainant. McColeman knew the exact age of the boys he employed. In the other cases, his evidence generally confirmed the complainants’ evidence of their age at the time of the events. The defence raised no issue about age. I find that the age element with respect to each of the complainants was made out.

Luring Counts – Identity

419The link between McColeman and Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston was extensively reviewed in the discussion of the similar fact application. I rely on that analysis now as well as the evidence from each complainant with reference to their specific allegations when I consider whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that McColeman is Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston and Treber Boucher.

420The similar fact evidence included messages from Treber Boucher and Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston which made numerous of references to Paul or Paul McColeman’s street address or described dares that are directly associated with Paul McColeman. For example, when CX3 was recruiting CX1 he mentioned the street name and the name “Paul”. CX3’s Facebook message exchange with McColeman included references to “being dirty from work” and “coming over before anyone gets here.” These statements suggest a close relationship between the sender and CX3, someone who knows his work and home routine. CX3 had that close relationship with McColeman. The number of times that the Treber Boucher account proposed a dare that was ultimately linked to the McColeman house or to McColeman directly further diminishes the likelihood that the overlapping IP addresses are a coincidence and supports the contention that McColeman was the author of the luring messages.

421McColeman stated that none of the boys told him they were dared to spy on McColeman in the shower, notwithstanding the close relationship they enjoyed; a relationship which supposedly included being able to talk about things. This is implausible given the close relationship between CX1 and McColeman. There is no explanation for this unlikely and counter-intuitive theory.

422McColeman also waffled in his evidence about when if ever he learned about the Treber Boucher Facebook account and the messages the boys were receiving. At first, he denied any knowledge, later he admitted that he might have heard about it five years ago. This is implausible in light of the closely connected lives of McColeman, CX1, CY2, and CX3.

423There is more reason to link Treber Boucher and McColeman when one considers the response from McColeman when two boys, CY2 and CX4, confronted him directly that he was operating the Treber Boucher Facebook account. McColeman admitted to CX1 he was the Treber Boucher profile and McColeman dealt directly with CY1 doing similar trades.

424In the case of CX4, McColeman testified he did not remember (did not make) a direct admission, but following the challenge, CX4 started communicating directly with McColeman to set up the dares and negotiate the reward/payment.

425I accept the uncontradicted evidence from the real Trever Boucher whose actual photo was used for the profile of Treber Boucher. He was a frequent visitor to McColeman’s residence before he left the small town. Trever Boucher denied having any connection to the Treber Boucher profile and denied sending any of the messages to the boys. No other evidence points to the real Trever Boucher as the person behind the Treber Boucher profile.

426I also accept the uncontradicted evidence of the real Jennifer Johnston. She still lives close by the small town and is known to McColeman through his sister. She denied that she set up the Hyperchick or Jennifer Johnston profiles. No other evidence points to Jennifer Johnston as the person connected to that profile.

427The defence asked the court to conclude that Paul McColeman could not be the person behind the Treber Boucher profile because someone other than McColeman had logged into it and sent messages from it in August 2014 when McColeman was in custody. However, I find that there is another conclusion that I must consider, especially in light of the preponderance of evidence that does link McColeman to the Treber Boucher profile.

428The post-arrest messages could have been made by anyone who was close and loyal to McColeman. A person could have walked by the neighbour’s residence and used their Wi-Fi to log into the Treber Boucher account and create an alibi. This would include any of the boys who had the password to McColeman’s profiles. There was, however, no proof that any specific person or persons did this. Even if someone else did send these or some of the other Treber Boucher messages to the boys, the evidence also points to McColeman as a central figure in the set-ups for the dares. He was the common figure in all of the sexual dares where an individual was identified.

429I also reject the conclusion drawn by McColeman’s sister Tammy McColeman with respect to the evidence of May 14, 2014. I do not accept that the messages show that someone other than McColeman was sending messages from the Treber Boucher account. As I indicated earlier, there is another plausible explanation.

430I am left with overwhelming evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul McColeman was the author of the messages from the social media profiles, which were made to underage boys, intentionally and for the specific purpose of facilitating one of the other sexual offences.

431As such, these 16 counts of luring with respect to each of the 15 complainants have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Analysis – Offences of Sexual Interference and Invitation to Sexual Touching

432On this indictment, the luring counts are either under s. 172.1(1)(a) or (b), depending on the age of the boy at the time the communications were received. Subsections (a) and (b) have different secondary offences, which is why for some complainants the secondary charge is procuring and in others, it is sexual interference, exposure or invitation to sexual touching. Other than the specific age, the other elements for (a) and (b) are the same.

433As I said earlier, defence counsel did not challenge or contradict the evidence on the age of each of the complainants or purpose of the communication. There is no issue with respect to either of these issues and I find that these elements of each of the offences are made out.

Analysis – Specified Secondary Offences – Procuring and Invitation to Sexual Touching

434The specified secondary offence for either of the luring counts did not involve “hands-on” touching (sexual interference) or actual showing of the genitals (exposure), with respect to counts 8, 14, 16, 18, 30, 32, 34 and 36. The specified secondary offences of procuring and invitation to sexual touching do not require proof of any hands-on activity. The essential elements of these counts were not disputed outside of the bald denial of the luring offence. On the basis of all of the evidence I have accepted, I am satisfied that these counts have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

435That leaves the question: Did McColeman engage in the prohibited conduct of sexual interference or exposure at least once with each complainant in the counts listed below?

436The Crown evidence shows that McColeman conducted a set grooming program to lure vulnerable young boys to perform sexual acts for him or on him as part of an exchange for services. Where the boys had an appetite for drugs or alcohol, and were otherwise living outside of parental control, they were easy marks. When McColeman tried to lure boys who were not couch surfing, addicted or otherwise troubled, his attempts were declined, for example: CX9, CX8, CX10, CY8, CY6, and CY7.

437The evidence of the boys (CX1, CX3, CX5, CX6, CX7, CY5, CY2 and CY4) who did participate in the exchange of sexual services for a reward was compelling. Firstly, it shared a number of strikingly similar features, which I have reviewed above.

438I note that individually, each of the boys had widely different demeanors and were at different stages of their lives. They demonstrated a wide range of reaction to their experience and trauma of sexual exploitation and testified to it in different ways. CX6 was so agitated he required a one-week break between parts of his testimony. Some were angry and some were more matter of fact. Each one was unique.

439However, the court does not require victims of sexual assault to meet a particular type of reaction or manner of giving evidence. I have discussed the approach one should take to evidence from persons who experienced sexual abuse (and I add to that sexual exploitation). Some of the complainants were young children when the events occurred and some were still considered children when they testified. The court is required to take into account what we have learned about the evidence of children. We must not impose strict stereotypes, standards or expectations that their recollection of dates, times, duration and frequency will meet the adult standard of recollection. (R. v. RW, SCC 1992)

440McColeman confirmed in large part the basic features of the narratives recounted by the complainants. He confirmed the time periods, his knowledge of or relationship to the boys, their daily and weekly patterns, their living and sleeping arrangements, their leisure activities, their absence from school. With respect to the supply of drugs and alcohol, McColeman started out by denying he ever provided drugs or alcohol but later claimed that some boys stole his drugs and alcohol, which he tried to hide. McColeman did not deny that there was extensive drug and alcohol consumption by the boys at his residence.

441CX3 was not an enthusiastic witness. He seemed to have a hard time admitting to himself what he had done. His evidence on some of the messages clearly show the involvement of McColeman in the dares. His name and the street on which he lived are directly referenced. McColeman testified that notwithstanding the fact that he and CX3 had a close relationship for three years, CX3 did not tell him about these dares that mentioned his name and address. As the implausibility of the defense evidence grows, the credibility of CX3 was strengthened. He testified that he engaged in blowjobs on the trail with an unknown person and received fellatio (dream mission) and anal sex at Paul McColeman’s residence. He was confused and inconsistent in his evidence on what happened in the truck and where the incident of anal sex occurred. Nevertheless, he was consistent on his evidence with respect to various incidents of hand jobs and fellatio, which evidence was also consistent with the arrangements made with other complainants. Any one of these acts constitutes an offence and I have no problem accepting that CX3’s evidence was credible.

442The court cannot expect exact memories of events that happened in the chaotic circumstances of the life McColeman promoted and with the frequency with which these events where woven into the chaotic life. In any event, the similar fact evidence assists in assessing CX3’s evidence. Whatever problems remain with what exactly happened in the truck or where the anal sex occurred, they do not undermine the evidence that at least one incident of sexual touching of CX3 occurred. With respect to the essential elements of sexual interference, I am satisfied that the essential elements of sexual interference have been made out beyond a reasonable doubt.

443CX6 was so distressed at the requirement to give evidence in this case and became so agitated that he asked to interrupt his testimony after a short time. He returned a week later, clearly willing himself to get through what appeared to be a grueling experience for him. He testified that CX1 set up the dares for him, which were incidents of fellatio with a man wearing a toque over his face in McColeman’s bedroom, when McColeman, CX1 and CX6 were the only ones in the house. Defence argued that it was implausible that McColeman would try to hide his face in his own bedroom. I do not agree that this scenario is implausible as it is consistent with the many other occasions where McColeman is the only adult male in the house but once the dare is set up for the boy to go into the bedroom he hides his face. It is no different from hiding his face on the hospital trail after some of the boys knew who he was. It is no different than using the Treber Boucher profile to set up dares but then naming McColeman as the target of voyeurism dares. The weight of the similar act evidence strengthens CX6’s credibility and I am not left in any doubt that the essential elements of the exposure and sexual interference counts has been made out beyond a reasonable doubt.

444CX5 gave his evidence in a matter of fact way. No motive for dishonesty or fabrication was attributed to him. He did not identify McColeman during the incidents. However, the set-up of the hospital trail dares mirrors the evidence of many other boys. The messages were no doubt from McColeman and the arrangements were the same. CX5 was a true negotiator and it took several messages to set the terms and payment amount for each dare. In the messages, McColeman followed another trend, which was to invite CX5 to bring others, especially younger ones to the hospital trail. I am persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that McColeman performed fellatio on CX5 and therefore that the essential elements of sexual interference have been made out.

445CX7’s evidence was that he did two shower dares set up directly through CX1 who was communicating with Treber Boucher. CX7 also testified that when he received invitations from the Treber Boucher profile to do the shower dare and a fellatio dare he rejected both of these invitations and ended communication. CX7’s evidence was not weakened in any way on cross-examination. His evidence shows how far CX1 had become enmeshed in McColeman’s world. This recruitment by CX1 was consistent with McColeman’s desire to broaden the group of boys in his circle and to include younger boys. It is also consistent with the voyeurism dares made to other boys as first times dares. That CX1 did not specifically recall his recruitment of CX7 is not enough to weaken the evidence. CX1 did not deny that he did this. I am satisfied that the exposure count and invitation to sexual touching count are both made out beyond a reasonable doubt.

446CY4 testified that he did hospital trail dares. His evidence was rather inconsistent on the circumstances of those incidents. He was having a hard time describing what had gone on. He did not appear to have any motive to lie or animus towards McColeman, nor was it suggested that he did. However, CY4 described incidents that were so similar to the other evidence about the hospital trail dares and messages from the MSN profile that I find the evidence credible. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that CY4 responded to invitations and received fellatio from McColeman at least once on the hospital trail and consequently the count of sexual interference has been made out.

447CX1’s evidence has been reviewed in the section on identity and the similar fact application. I have accepted his evidence where he alleges that he engaged in repeated sexual acts with McColeman over the period they lived together. I have rejected McColeman’s bald denial of the sexual activity between the two of them. The proof that McColeman at least once touched CX1 for a sexual purpose is overwhelming and McColeman’s denial of this is completely implausible in all of the circumstances that he himself has accepted. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on count 2.

448CY5’s evidence of his sexual encounter with a man in the dark in the entranceway to McColeman’s house was very persuasive. It was also persuasive that like the other boys he received the invitation to the mission from the Facebook profile of Jennifer Johnston. The missions included receiving fellatio for money or alcohol. The only issue with CY5’s evidence was his description that the man involved had red hair. I have already found for purposes of the luring count (count 21) that I am satisfied that CY5 was mistaken. The similar fact evidence is enough to bring me to the conclusion that the person inside the door of McColeman’s house who fellated CY5 was Paul McColeman and I am satisfied that count 22 has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

449CY2’s evidence of his long association with and close relationship with McColeman was not disputed. I accept CY2’s evidence with respect to the sexual touching by McColeman, in light of their extensive history together that was admitted by McColeman. The complete implausibility of McColeman’s denial in light of the degree to which their two lives were intertwined reduces to zero McColeman’s denial. I find that the essential elements of count 25 and 26 have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

450On the issue of actus reus of the sexual offences, I am satisfied that the actus reus has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt on each of the counts.

Conclusion

451There shall be convictions on all counts on the indictment but for counts 19 and 20, which were stayed at the request of the Crown.

The Honourable Madam Justice Patricia C. Hennessy

Released: August 15, 2017

R. v. McColeman

Appendix 1

Summary of Evidence that Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston

and Treber Boucher are the Same Person

Hyperchick / Jennifer Johnston

Treber Boucher

Identity

Profile of a female who does not exist.

A “play” on real person Jennifer Johnson who grew up in Espanola and changed her named to Jennifer Thibeault in approximately 2008-2009. She is a co-worker to McColeman’s sister Tammy McColeman.

Profile of male who does not exist.

A “play” on the real Trever Boucher identity who grew up in the small town, worked and socialized with McColeman. He moved away from the small town when he was 16 years to live in Kitchener in approximately 2009. The real Trever Boucher was known to many of the complainants.

Purpose: Method of Initiation of Sexual Acts with Boys

Profile messaged boys from the small town area to communicate and sought them out. Once connected, the Profile started sexual conversations that eventually led to offer of sexual “dares” for payment.

The dares generally started with voyeurism or masturbation, and led to receiving fellatio and more serious sexual acts.

Profile sent friend requests and messages to boys in the small town area to communicate and sought them out. Once connected, the Profile started sexual conversations that eventually led to the offer of sexual “dares” for payment that generally started with voyeurism or masturbation, and led to receiving fellatio and more serious sexual acts.

Meeting Locations

“Paul’s Garage” [closed in 2011]

Bush Trail by the Hospital

McColeman’s House

Bush Trail by small town Hospital

McColeman’s House

Persons Involved

(Known and Unknown)

Dares: McColeman (either performing fellatio or dares are about watching Paul McColeman shower/masturbate)

Bush Trail Dares: Involved unknown male with a bigger build, scruff and a dark hoodie over face that is eventually identified by some boys as Paul McColeman

CY5: Unknown male wearing ski mask and boxer shorts at McColeman’s house

Bush Trail: CX5 identified unknown male wearing a hoodie. With a distinctive smell (same smell from McColeman’s house)

Dares: Paul McColeman

(either performing fellatio or dares are about watching Paul McColeman shower/masturbate)

Dares Involving Paul McColeman naked or taking a shower

Watch McColeman masturbate or shower

Some boys identified McColeman giving them fellatio

Watch McColeman masturbate and/or take a shower

Some boys identified McColeman giving them fellatio or the person on whom they performed anal sex

Dares to receive Fellatio for payment

Pauls’ Garage

CY2

CY6 – invitation only

[business closed in 2011]

McColeman’s House

CY5

Hospital Trail

CY2

CY4

*same method of clapping and whistling to locate person

McColeman’s House

CX3

CX4

CX6

Hospital Trail

CX3

CX5

*same method of clapping and whistling to locate person

Distinctive Dare:

Glory Hole

CY7 – to go to Glory Hole

CX8 – invitation only

CX9

CX1

Distinctive Dare:

Ejaculate into Cup or Bottle

CY2

CY5

CX1

CX4

CX6 (heard of the “jizz in a cup” dare)

Types of Payments

Alcohol, marijuana and/or money

Alcohol, marijuana and/or money

Keys/Use McColeman’s quad [CX4 only]

Paul McColeman was confronted by boys as being the person behind these fake profiles

CY2 [Accused got very angry and threatened that he had CY2 on “video tape” or in compromising acts on surveillance video]

CX1

CX4

After both boys confronted the Accused, they then continued with sexual pranks/dares but spoke directly to McColeman about them

R. v. McColeman

Appendix 2

Summary of Evidence Linking Paul McColeman to Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston

and Treber Boucher

Hyperchick / Jennifer Johnston

Treber Boucher

Location:

Paul’s Garage

Boys invited to do sexual dares for payment that were centered around Paul’s Garage:

• Ejaculate into a bottle and leave behind building near dumpster (CY2)

• Watch McColeman masturbate in bathroom (CY2)

• Receive fellatio on sofa located inside Paul’s Garage after hours (CY2, CY6)

McColeman had full access to his residence after Kari Richer and he separated in 2008, and Paul’s Garage closed in 2011.

Location:

McColeman’s house

Boys invited to do sexual dares for payment that occurred at Paul McColeman’s house:

1. CY5: dared to ejaculate into a cup and leave it outside of McColeman’s house, also received fellatio from unknown man wearing a ski mask for payment

2. CY2: pretended to sleep on living room sofa and received fellatio for payment

3. CY6: spied on McColeman in his shower at home for payment

Boys invited to do sexual dares for payment that occurred at Paul McColeman’s house:

1. CX1: dared to

a. watch McColeman in the shower,

b. receive fellatio through a glory hole in the basement,

c. perform anal sex on a man in the bedroom for payment

2. CX3 dared to:

a. Attend McColeman’s

house to receive fellatio for payment,

b. perform anal sex on a man located in McColeman’s bedroom

3. CX4 dared to:

a. ejaculate into a cup and leave it in McColeman’s shower/bathroom,

b. receive fellatio in McColeman’s bedroom for payment

4. CX6 dared to:

a. watch McColeman take a shower,

b. receive fellatio in McColeman’s bedroom for payment

5. CX7: dared to watch McColeman take a shower in his bathroom

Location: Trails near Hospital

CY2 and CY4 both arranged through the Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston profile to meet on these trails and recognized McColeman as the person waiting on the trail in the dark.

CX5 arranged with the Treber Boucher profile to meet on those trails and recognized that the male had a very distinctive smell that he could not describe but had only smelled before at McColeman’s house

Invitations to participate in dares where McColeman specifically identified

CY6: spy on McColeman having a shower

CY2: spy on McColeman masturbating in bathroom

CX1: watch McColeman take a shower

CX6: watch McColeman take a shower

CX7: watch McColeman take a shower

CX3: Paul (meaning McColeman) is repeatedly mentioned in the chats with Treber Boucher

Direct Evidence that Paul McColeman is the person operating the fake Profile

CY2 confronted Paul McColeman as being the person behind Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston. McColeman did not deny the accusation, but got very angry and threatened CY2 that if he said anything then McColeman had him on video in compromising acts that he would not want his peers to see. CY2 had social issues and this threat silenced him.

CX1 sent Treber Boucher messages and then heard McColeman’s cell phone “ding” [or sound for the receipt of a message] twice in the shower. CX1 found this very suspicious and looked at McColeman’s cell phone to see that it was logged into the Treber Boucher Facebook account. CX1 found the messages that both he and another boy had previously sent to Treber Boucher.

CX1 confronted McColeman, and McColeman admitted that he was really Treber Boucher. After this confrontation, all dares for payments were then discussed directly between CX1 and McColeman.

CX4 saw Treber Boucher’s profile picture and his own profile picture on McColeman’s cell phone. CX4 was concerned because he was not texting McColeman, but he saw a picture of his own face in a chat bubble. CX4 confronted McColeman who “admitted it but didn’t admit it” and “agreed to it in a weird way. Importantly, after the confrontation CX4 discussed sexual “pranks” for payment directly with McColeman.

Email Address Connected to Profile

There was no information available for the Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston account by the time law enforcement officials investigated.

An email address associated with Treber Boucher Facebook profile was jayrayxray@hotmail.com. This address was registered on April 22, 2014, from IP address 67.204.228.189 that was linked to McColeman’s Eastlink account at his home address.

IP Address used to Access Treber Boucher Facebook Account connected to Ken McColeman’s Eastlink Account

May 17, 2014 (2014-05-17) at 19:36:17 UTC time, the Treber Boucher Facebook account was accessed using IP address 67.204.229.215 that was linked to Ken McColeman’s Eastlink Account (Accused’s Father).

Identical IP Address used to access both Paul McColeman’s Facebook Account and the Treber Boucher Facebook Account on same date within minutes or at the same time (i.e. overlap)

May 16, 2014: 51 minutes

May 16, 2014: 2 minutes

May 17, 2014: 35 minutes

May 18, 2014: 8 minutes

May 18, 2014: 44 minutes

May 19, 2014: 39 seconds

May 19, 2014: 58 seconds

May 20, 2014: 29 minutes

May 20, 2014: 10 minutes

May 21, 2014: 2 minutes

May 22, 2014: Overlap

May 22, 2014: 48 seconds

May 22, 2014: 31 minutes

May 22, 2014: Overlap

May 23, 2014: 4 minutes

May 23, 2014: 12 minutes

May 24, 2014: 59 seconds

May 24, 2014: Overlap

May 24, 2014: 1 minute, 15 seconds

May 24, 2014: 35 minutes

May 25, 2014: 11 minutes

May 26, 2014: 14 minutes

May 26, 2014: Overlap

May 26, 2014: Overlap

May 27, 2014: Overlap

May 28, 2014: 7 minutes

May 28, 2014: 26 minutes

May 28, 2014: Overlap

May 29, 2014: 4 minutes

May 29-30, 2014: 33 minutes

May 30, 2014: 32 minutes

May 30, 2014: 30 minutes

May 30, 2014: Overlap

May 31, 2014: Overlap

June 1, 2014: 43 minutes

June 2, 2014: 32 minutes

June 3, 2014: Overlap

June 4, 2014: Overlap

June 5, 2014: Overlap

June 5, 2014: Overlap

June 6, 2014: 12 minutes

June 6, 2014: 18 minutes

June 7, 2014: 7 minutes

June 8, 2014: Overlap

June 9, 2014: 12 minutes

June 10, 2014: 15 minutes

June 11, 2014: 3 minutes

June 11, 2014: Overlap

June 12, 2014: 8 minutes

June 13, 2014: Overlap

June 13, 2014: Overlap

June 14, 2014: 11 minutes

June 14, 2014: Overlap

June 15, 2014: 4 minutes

June 15, 2014: 20 minutes

June 16, 2014: 24 minutes

June 17, 2014: Overlap

R. v. McColeman

Appendix 3

Count Overview

The amended indictment filed June 29, 2017, has 36 counts. Counts #19 & 20 were stayed. The table summarizes the remaining 34 counts.

OFFENCE

TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPLAINANTS

COMPLAINANTS BY NAME

Luring

• s. 172.1(1)(a)

• s. 172.1(1)(b)

15

• Note: there are actually 16 counts because there are two counts involving CY2

CX1, CX3, CX5, CX4, CX6, CX7, CX8, CX10, CY5, CY2 (x2), CY4, CY1, CY6, CY7, CY8

Sexual interference

• s. 151

7

• Note: there are actually 8 counts because there are two counts involving CY2

CX1, CX3, CX5, CX6, CY5, CY2 (x2), CY4

Invitation to sexual touching

• s. 152

4

CX7, CY6, CY7, CY8

Sexual exploitation

• s. 153(1)

1

CY1

Exposure

• s. 173(2)

2

CX6, CX7

Procuring

• 212(4)

3

CX4, CX8, CX10

R. v. McColeman

Appendix 4

Summary of Counts from Indictment dated June 12, 2017

Complainant

Count

Charge

CX1

(C.R.)

1

Luring a child under 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b)

2

Sexual interference – s. 151

CX3

3

Luring a child under 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b)

4

Sexual interference – s. 151

CX5

5

Luring a child under 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b)

6

Sexual interference – s. 151

CX4

7

Luring a child under 18 – s. 172.1(1)(a)

8

Procuring – s. 212(4)

CX6

9

Luring a child under 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b)

10

Exposure – s. 173(2)

11

Sexual interference – s. 151

CX7

12

Luring a child under 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b)

13

Exposure – s. 173(2)

14

Invitation to sexual touching – s. 152

CX8

15

Luring a child under 18 – s. 172.1(1)(a)

16

Procuring – s. 212(4)

CX10

17

Luring a child under 18 – s. 172.1(1)(a)

18

Procuring – s. 212(4)

CY5

21

Luring a child under 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b)

22

Sexual interference – s. 151

CY2

23 & 25

Luring a child under 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b)

24 & 26

Sexual interference – s. 151

CY4

27

Luring a child under 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b)

28

Sexual interference – s. 151

CY1

29

Luring a child under 16 – s. 172.1(1)(a)

30

Sexual exploitation – s. 153(1)

CY6

31

Luring a child under 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b)

32

Invitation to sexual touching – s. 152

CY7

33

Luring a child under 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b)

34

Invitation to sexual touching – s. 152

CY8

35

Luring a child under 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b)

36

Invitation to sexual touching – s. 152

Table of Contents

Introduction. 1

Complainants’ Summaries. 2

CX1. 3

CX1 – Drug Use. 3

CX1 – Drug Use and Sex Dares. 3

CX1 – Recruitment 5

CX1 – Use of Paul McColeman Computer 6

X2. 6

CX3. 6

CX3 – Sex Missions and Alcohol/drugs. 6

CX3 – Recruitment 6

CX3 – Link between Treber Boucher to Paul McColeman. 6

CX4. 6

CX4 – Pranks. 6

CX4 – Link between McColeman and Treber Boucher 6

CX4 – Demeanor 6

CX5. 6

CX5 – Sex Dares. 6

CX5 – Treber Boucher Facebook Messages. 6

CX6. 6

CX6 – Sex Dares. 6

CX9. 6

CX8. 6

CX7. 6

CX10. 6

CY1. 6

CY4. 6

CY2. 6

CY2 – Sex Dares and Alcohol/Drug Use. 6

CY2 – Link between Paul McColeman and Hyperchick/Jennifer Johnston. 6

CY2 – Why not Report?. 6

Y3. 6

CY5. 6

CY5 – Link to Paul McColeman. 6

CY5 – Drug Addiction. 6

CY8. 6

CY6. 6

CY7. 6

Similar Fact Application. 6

Similar Fact Application – Identity Issue – Introduction. 6

Similar Fact Application – The Law.. 6

Similar Fact Application – Identity Issue – Crown Position. 6

Similar Fact Application – Crown Position Actus Reus of Sexual Offences. 6

Proximity in time. 6

Introduction to Profile or to Paul McColeman. 6

Escalation of Dares/Missions/Pranks. 6

Crown Position on Collusion and Prejudice. 6

Similar Fact Application – Defence Position. 6

Similar Fact Application – Discussion – Issue of Identity. 6

Similar Fact Application – Conclusion on Identity Issue. 6

Similar Fact Application – Discussion – Issue: Actus Reus of the Sexual Offences. 6

Similar Fact on Actus Reus - Conclusion. 6

Summary of Defence Evidence. 6

How Others Could have been Behind the Profiles. 6

Doreen Turner 6

Kari Richer 6

Sheldon George. 6

Sheldon George and the Social Media Profiles. 6

Justin Rivard. 6

Paul McColeman Evidence. 6

Circumstances of Arrest 6

Drugs and Alcohol 6

Social Media. 6

Wi-Fi Connection with McColeman Family Home. 6

Jayrayxray Email 6

McColeman Comments on CX1. 6

CY2. 6

CY1. 6

CY4. 6

CY5. 6

CX7. 6

CY6. 6

CX5. 6

CX3. 6

CX6. 6

CX4. 6

Analysis. 6

Complainants’ Evidence. 6

Delayed or Incremental Disclosure. 6

Other Issues with Complainants’ Credibility and Reliability. 6

Buying Silence. 6

Analysis. 6

Essential Elements. 6

Luring Counts – The Elements of Age and Purpose. 6

Luring Counts – Identity. 6

Analysis – Offences of Sexual Interference and Invitation to Sexual Touching. 6

Analysis – Specified Secondary Offences – Procuring and Invitation to Sexual Touching. 6

Conclusion. 6

Appendix 1. 6

Appendix 2. 6

Appendix 3. 6

Appendix 4. 6

CITATION: R. v. McColeman, 2017 ONSC 4019

COURT FILE NO.: C749/15

DATE: 20170815

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

Paul McColeman

Accused

By court order made under subsection 486.4 and 486.5(2) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the persons described in this judgment as the complainants may not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner. This judgement complies with this restriction so that it can be published.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The decision and reasons were given orally in court on June 29, 2017. These written reasons have been significantly edited as counsel were advised at the time.

Hennessy J.

Released: August 15, 2017

1The decision and reasons were given orally in court on June 29, 2017. These written reasons have been significantly edited as counsel were advised at the time.

2For one of the complaints, there are two luring counts and two counts of sexual interference.

3Other boys could identify Paul McColeman performing fellatio upon them either through arrangement of the dare by CX1 or directly with McColeman.

4The sexual offences include sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, indecent exposure, and child prostitution.

5The language of the invitation often went something like this: Would you do this for free booze, drugs or money?

6For a full description of the similarities, see Appendix 1 in the section outlining the position of the Crown.

7Times are in UTC, which means Coordinated Universal Time. UTF time is 4 hours ahead of Sudbury (EST)

8Only two of the complainants CX10 and CY6 initiated contact with the police about messages they had received from one of the profiles. Both of these boys declined any dare.

9Two of the charges (Counts 19 and 20) were stayed by the Crown; those complainants were not called as witnesses.

10In this case, the relevant listed secondary offence at the relevant time is procuring (s. 212(4)).

11In this case, the relevant listed secondary offences are sexual interference (s. 151), invitation to sexual touching (s. 152), and exposure (s. 173(2)).