CITATION: R. v. Chung, 2018 ONSC 4406
OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CR-17-14499
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
ROBERT YOUNG CHUNG
Defendant
M. Gillen, for the Crown
B. Davies and O. Goddard, for the Defendant
HEARD: June 4-8, 2018
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
1The defendant Robert Chung at the relevant time, was a teacher at S[…] Catholic School in B[…]. The complainant, C.D. was a student in Mr. Chung’s class in grades 7 and 8. She graduated from S[…] School in June, 2008 when she was fourteen years old. She then attended A[…] High School. She entered grade 9 in September, 2008. By March, 2011, the accused and C.D. were heavily engaged in a sexual relationship. She became pregnant and underwent an abortion. The issue before me on this trial is whether the relationship between the accused and the complainant constituted a criminal offence on the part of Mr. Chung.
2Mr. Chung is charged with the following offences under the Criminal Code:
THAT HE, on or between the 1st day of September, 2008 and the 4th day of January, 2010, at the Town of Whitby, in the Central East Region, and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, unlawfully did commit a sexual assault on C.D., contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
THAT HE, on or between the 1st day of September, 2008 and the 4th day of January, 2010, at the Town of Whitby, in the Central East Region, and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, unlawfully did, with a part of his body, for a sexual purpose, directly touch the body of a person under the age of 16 years, namely C.D., contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
THAT HE, on or between the 1st day of September, 2008 and the 4th day of January, 2010, at the Town of Whitby, in the Central East Region, and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, unlawfully did, with a part of his body, for a sexual purpose, invite a person under the age of 16 years, namely C.D., to directly touch a part of his body, contrary to s. 152 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
THAT HE, on or between the 5th day of January, 2010 and the 4th day of January, 2012, at the Town of Whitby, in the Central East Region, and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, unlawfully did, being a person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, with a part of his body, for a sexual purpose, directly touch the body of that young person, namely C.D., contrary to s. 153 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
3For the purposes of this judgment I intend to canvas first the evidence relating to the existence of a sexual relationship between the accused and the complainant by March, 2011. I will then address the first three counts of the indictment, to be followed by my analysis of the fourth count.
The existence of a sexual relationship between the accused and the complainant by March, 2011
4Only two witnesses were called at trial. The crown called C.D., who was born on […], 1994, as well as her friend at the time, A.S. The complainant in her evidence identified a series of text messages between her and the accused. In addition, the Crown introduced a statement taken from the accused prior to trial on March 29, 2016. The defence elected to call no evidence.
5Although not formally admitted by the defence, there can be no reasonable doubt that by March, 2011, the accused and the complainant were involved in a long-term sexual relationship. The complainant’s evidence is that she and the accused started to have intercourse in August, 2009 after she had finished grade 9 and while working as a Counselor at a drama camp where the accused was her supervisor. The timing of when the sexual relationship started is the critical issue on Counts One to Three. It is clear, however, that by March of 2011, this sexual relationship was well established. The complainant’s evidence in this regard is well supported by a series of deleted text messages which were recovered from the complainant’s phone and which are dated March 27, 2011. For purposes of reviewing this evidence I have considered only the statements of the accused in the texts. The comments of the complainant or police officer have been considered only to put the statement of the accused into context. One of the text messages from the complainant reads as follows:
(1/2) my parents have been joking around that I have had a boyfriend for the past 2 years but haven’t told them. I think to some degree my (
6In response the accused replied:
i hope they don’t find out its me!!
7Later on March 27, 2011, the complainant texted:
ummmm kiss your face
8To which the accused responded:
oh yes please
9Another example from the deleted text messages is as follows. The complainant wrote:
I love you and you’re very perfect for me.
10The accused responded:
aww i love you. you’re so perfect for me too!
11In the accused’s statement to police at p. 89 of the transcript, Mr. Chung stated as follows:
Detective Constable Hancock: When is the first sexual interaction with her that you remember?
Robert Chung: That’s… that’s hard… I don’t know, I don’t--. I can’t give you that right now at this exact moment.
12On the question of the complainant’s abortion, Mr. Chung at p. 72 of the transcript stated as follows:
Detective Constable Hancock: Okay, but I did say are you saying you didn’t get her pregnant and you’re saying… you said no, I didn’t say that, which I’m then… I don’t wanna assume, but that that means that yes you did get her pregnant, so--.
Robert Chung: No, that’s--.
Detective Constable Hancock: did I misunderstand that?
Robert Chung: Yeah.
Detective Constable Hancock: Okay. That’s… I don’t wanna make any assumptions. Was she carrying your child at one point?
Robert Chung: I don’t know, like I don’t--. I don’t know.
Detective Constable Hancock: Okay.
Robert Chung: And that is me being as honest as... like I don’t know.
13At p. 89 of the accused’s statement, he states as follows:
Detective Constable Hancock: when is the first sexual interaction with her that you remember?
Robert Chung: That’s… that’s a hard… I don’t know, I don’t - - I can’t give you that right now at this exact moment.
14At p. 103 of his statement, the accused agrees that he paid for the complainant’s abortion.
15The clear inference which I draw from the accused’s statements to police is that he was involved in a sexual relationship with the complainant prior to the abortion. His statements in the text messages strongly corroborate the existence of a sexual relationship by March, 2011.
16With respect to the timing of the abortion, the complainant initially testified in her examination-in-chief that she thought the abortion took place just prior to March Break in 2010. However, on cross-examination she testified that immediately following the abortion, she had to go to work as a rink monitor. She didn’t start this job until October, 2010, which means that the abortion could not have taken place in 2010, when she was 16 years old, but would have taken place in March, 2011, when she was 17. In cross-examination, she agreed with the suggestion that the abortion must have taken place in March, 2011 as opposed to March, 2010. I therefore conclude that the complainant was incorrect in her evidence in chief when she stated that the abortion took place in 2010. I do accept her evidence that the abortion took place shortly before March Break because she was worried about going on her family’s regular March Break holiday so soon after having had the abortion. The conclusion that I reach therefore is that the abortion most likely occurred shortly before her March Break holiday in 2011.
17The evidence therefore allows me to conclude that by March, 2011, the accused and C.D. were involved in a serious sexual relationship which included vaginal intercourse. As of March, 2011, she was 17 years old and in grade 11. The sexual relationship was consensual in the sense that the complainant entered into the relationship voluntarily.
Counts One, Two and Three
18Count One is an allegation of sexual assault. Section 150.1 of the Criminal Code at the relevant time provided that in respect of an offence under s. 271 involving a complainant under the age of 16 years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject matter of the charge.
19The evidence at trial clearly indicates that the sexual activity in this case was consensual in nature. Thus, a conviction under s. 271 can only be considered if the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant was under the age of 16 years at the time the offence occurred. The complainant turned 16 years old on January 5, 2010, which explains why the timeframe on the indictment terminates on January 4, 2010.
20The same considerations apply with respect to Counts Two and Three involving allegations of touching for a sexual purpose and inviting the complainant to directly touch a part of his body.
21In their submissions, the defence acknowledged that if there was a sexual relationship between the complainant and the accused before the complainant was age 16 years old, the Crown would have established all of the essential elements under Counts One, Two and Three. The defence acknowledged that there are no other issues, such as mens rea or identification for purposes of Counts One to Three. The issue I must address, therefore, is whether the sexual relationship between the accused and the complainant started before the complainant was 16 years old.
22In her evidence, C.D. testified that she initially took a drama class with Mr. Chung in grade 6. She specifically requested Mr. Chung as her home room teacher in grades 7 and 8. During grades 7 and 8, C.D. stated that Mr. Chung had some favourite students and she was one of them. After grade 8, Mr. Chung invited C.D. to apply to become a Counselor in Training during the summer at a drama club which he supervised. The drama club had several locations. She worked at the C[…] location in Whitby during the time she was a CIT. She was later hired by Mr. Chung to work as a Counselor at the drama camp in subsequent summers.
23The following September, in 2008, the complainant entered grade 9 in high school at A[…] High School. The complainant would have been 14 at this time. She testified that she visited Mr. Chung back at S[…] School on several occasions, including once with her friend A.S. On one of these occasions, Mr. Chung took her to the gym equipment room where they kissed and he fondled her in the genital area. This sexual touching continued on other visits by the complainant to see Mr. Chung at the school. In her evidence, the complainant described another occasion where she and the defendant were kissing and fondling in the school staff room. Throughout the course of their relationship, C.D. stated that the accused told her to delete all their messages and she did this routinely, mostly before bed.
24Following grade 9, Mr. Chung invited C.D. to work during the summer as a Counselor at the drama club where she was paid a salary. Her responsibilities involved taking care of campers. The accused was a Director who supervised activities at various sites for the program. Mr. Chung was responsible for directing her to the various locations and supervising her in the drama club program.
25According to the complainant, just after the August long weekend, she arranged to meet with the accused. Although there was no camp that week, her parents drove her to work where she had previously agreed to meet Mr. Chung. They then went to his apartment in Ajax where they engaged in a variety of sexual activities including sexual intercourse. They continued a sexual relationship for the balance of the summer and into the following year when she was in grade 10. She testified that she would usually see Mr. Chung after school at his house in Whitby, which was about a five minute walk from A[…] High School.
26It is apparent from the complainant’s evidence that if she is correct with respect to the time when the sexual relations first started, she would have been 15 years old.
27In her examination-in-chief, C.D. stated that she became pregnant in around February of 2010 and went for an abortion in March, just before March Break. As noted earlier, however, it would appear that the abortion actually took place in March, 2011 given the plaintiff’s description of having to go to work as a skate monitor after the procedure was completed.
28C.D. was a credible witness. On cross-examination she candidly acknowledged inconsistencies in her recollection as to when certain events occurred. She also acknowledged that the accused never touched her in an inappropriate way while she was a student at S[…]’s. At the same time, her evidence was corroborated in a number of significant respects. The deleted text messages which were retrieved from her phone from March, 2011, strongly support the existence of a well established sexual relationship between her and Mr. Chung. In addition, as noted earlier, the statement of Mr. Chung further supports the existence of this sexual relationship. Further, the evidence of A.S. supports the development of a strong personal relationship at drama camp in the summer after grade 8. She described how C.D. and Mr. Chung were always paired up as partners during the camp. She also saw C.D. heading towards the accused’s home in Whitby on several occasions after grade 9.
29This still leaves, however, the critical issue of when the sexual relationship commenced. In her cross-examination, C.D. acknowledged that she had provided inconsistent information to the police about whether she had worked at the drama camp in 2012 and when she broke up with Mr. Chung. There is therefore some reason to question the reliability of her evidence regarding the dates on which significant events occurred. The most serious inconsistency in her evidence, concerned the timing of the abortion and the length of time she had been engaged in sexual activity with the accused prior to the abortion. In cross-examination, she agreed that the sexual relationship with Mr. Chung started about seven months prior to the abortion. This was premised on her belief that the abortion had occurred in March, 2010. From this evidence it would follow that the sexual relationship started when she was 15 years old. However, later in cross-examination she was referred to the date she started work as a skate monitor and she agreed that the abortion would have had to have taken place in March, 2011, which would make her 17 years old at the time. Based on her evidence that she had been engaged in sexual activity with the accused for seven months prior to the abortion, this would mean that the sexual relationship started not when she was age 15, but rather 16 years old.
30It is significant to note that when the complainant was cross-examined about the timeframe when the sexual relationship started, she was quite firm that the sexual relationship started about seven months prior to the abortion. She rejected the suggestion it could have been eighteen months or something other than her estimate of approximately seven months.
31There is, however, considerable evidence to support the complainant’s assertion that the sexual relationship started in the summer after grade 9, when she was 15 years old. The text message from the accused on March 27, 2011 responds to the complainant’s assertion that the accused had been her boyfriend for the past two years without any suggestion that this timeframe was not accurate. If the sexual relationship started as asserted by the complainant while she was in grade 9, with full intercourse occurring in August, 2009, the assertion of a relationship for two years would be entirely consistent with the complainant’s evidence that the sexual relationship started when she was 15.
32It is also significant that Mr. Chung was well aware that having a sexual relationship with the complainant early on would have been totally prohibited. In his statement to the police at p. 41, he makes the following comments:
Robert Chung: it makes… it makes sense, yeah. … All I can say is I guess I should… I don’t know if I should, but yeah, she was my student, yes she was my co-worker, you’ve alleged a lot of sexual activity very early on that I don’t agree with.
Detective Constable Hancock: Okay.
Robert Chung: Because I love my job too much, I would never do that, you know what I mean?
33Given Mr. Chung’s knowledge of how inappropriate it would be to engage in a sexual relationship with the complainant at an early stage, it is hard to understand why he would not respond to a text message on March 27, 2011 asserting that the relationship had existed for two years at that point, unless that information was accurate.
34The complainant’s evidence is also supported by the evidence of A.S. who observed as a Counselor in Training (“CIT”) that the complainant and the accused were always paired up as partners while she was working as a CIT at the drama camp. She also testified that she would see the complainant walking towards Mr. Chung’s house on a number of occasions after grade 9, although it must be acknowledged that the witness did not clarify the precise time period when she made these observations. It is also significant that the complainant did not allege that any sexual activity occurred when she initially worked at the drama camp after grade 8 as a CIT.
35Further, there is evidence from the complainant that she was familiar with the layout of Mr. Chung’s condo where the first act of sexual intercourse is alleged to have occurred. The evidence as to when Mr. Chung moved from his condo to a house in Whitby is, however, not entirely clear. In his statement to police at p. 91, Mr. Chung states that he moved from his condo to his current home in 2009 or 2010. If in fact the move occurred in 2010, it is at least possible that the plaintiff’s recollection of having sexual relations with Mr. Chung at his condo in August after the long weekend, is accurate, but her age at the time would have been 16, rather than 15.
36In R. v. W.(R.), 1992 CanLII 56 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122, the Supreme Court stated that details important to adults, like time and place, may be missing from their recollection of events. The court explained that in general, where an adult is testifying as to events which occurred when they were a child, their credibility should be assessed according to criteria applicable to them as an adult witness. Yet, with regard to evidence pertaining to events which occurred in childhood, the presence of inconsistencies, particularly as to peripheral matters such as time and location, should be considered in the context of the age of the witness at the time of the events to which they are testifying.
37In the present case C.D. was 24 years old at the time of giving her evidence. However, she was talking about events which occurred when she was 15 or 16 years old. I do not find it surprising that there are some inconsistencies and some vagueness in her evidence about the precise time when certain events occurred. This does not detract from her overall credibility. Having said that, however, the time when the sexual relationship occurred is an essential element of the offences in Counts One to Three. Therefore, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual relationship started before the complainant was age 16. Having said that, I accept for the reasons previously given, the complainant’s evidence that prior to March, 2011, she became involved in a sexual relationship with the accused which included intercourse. I further accept that this relationship initially started as fondling during one of her visits to the school to see Mr. Chung. I also accept that the initial act of intercourse occurred in Mr. Chung’s apartment while she was employed as a Counselor at the drama camp.
38I am concerned, however, by the complainant’s evidence that the sexual relationship started seven months before the abortion, which I have concluded took place no earlier than March, 2011. The complainant was quite firm when giving this evidence in her cross-examination. As noted earlier, she denied that it could have started more than about seven months before the abortion. If this estimate is correct, the sexual relationship with the accused would have started in approximately, August or September of 2010, when the complainant would have been 16 years old. The complainant’s evidence, therefore, would still be consistent with her recollection of events, but just one year later than her recollection. It would have occurred while she worked in the drama camp, but after grade 10, instead of grade 9.
39While accepting the complainant’s recollection of the events which occurred, I am left with a reasonable doubt about when the sexual relationship started. It is not surprising that the complainant had some difficulty in recalling the exact timing of events. The timing of events is, however, critical to the first three counts which the accused is facing. It is at least possible that the complainant’s recollection of events is off by a year and that while she accurately recalls what occurred, her recollection of the timing of events is faulty, in that instead of the events having occurred during and after grade 9, they in fact occurred during and after grade 10, at a point when the complainant was age 16.
40I have also considered the complainant’s evidence that there was some initial fondling, which started in the fall prior to the more serious sexual activity, which occurred later on in August. Even assuming that this activity occurred in grade 10, it seems likely that the complainant would have been age 15, as she did not turn 16 until January of her grade 10 year. However, I am still concerned about the reliability of the complainant’s evidence on the timing of this initial fondling. As the complainant turned 16 in January, it is apparent that if her time estimate of the fall is off by even a few months, this initial fondling could have occurred after she turned 16 (assuming that the sexual activity started while she was in grade 10). Given the frailty of the complainant’s evidence about the dates on which certain events occurred, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the initial fondling occurred before the complainant turned 16.
41For the above reasons, I have concluded that the Crown has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual touching or sexual assault occurred before the complainant turned age 16. The accused is therefore acquitted on Counts One, Two and Three of the indictment.
Count Four
42The timeframe for Count Four is between January 5, 2010 and January 4, 2012. This relates to the time when the complainant was 16 or 17 years old. Mr. Chung is charged under s. 153(1) of the Criminal Code, which at the relevant time provided as follows:
153(1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitive of the young person, and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or
(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.
43Under s. 153(2), a young person is defined as a person between the age of 16 and 18.
44Section 153(1.2), provides as follows:
A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including
(a) the age of the young person;
(b) the age difference between the person and the young person;
(c) the evolution of the relationship; and
(d) the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.
45In the present case, I am satisfied that the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was involved in a sexual relationship involving sexual touching with the complainant while she was between the ages of 16 to 18 for the reasons outlined earlier. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the other essential elements of the offence other than the issue of whether Mr. Chung was in a position of trust were conceded by the defence in argument. The critical issue, therefore which I must address is whether the accused was in a relationship of trust vis-à-vis the complainant. The defence position is that there is insufficient evidence of influence and control by the defendant which would justify a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in a position of trust or authority over the complainant. As a result, the defendant submits that the alleged offence in Count Four has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
46The Supreme Court of Canada has given considerable guidance on the interpretation on s. 153 in its decision in R. v. Audet, 1996 CanLII 198 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 171. In that decision the Supreme Court concludes that the Crown does not have to establish that the accused actually used his or her position towards or a relationship with the young person in order to obtain the young person’s consent to the alleged sexual activities.
47In the Audet decision, the court notes that it would be inappropriate to try to set out an exhaustive list of factors to be considered in deciding whether a position of trust exists. However, the court notes that relevant factors include the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of their relationship and above all, the status of the accused in relation to the young person. The court goes on to comment that a teacher, will, apart from exceptional circumstances, be in a position of trust and authority towards their students. In R. v. R.T., 2017 ONSC 2625, [2017] O.J. No. 2206, Justice Pomerance describes a number of factors that are relevant to the determination of whether an accused is in a position of trust. These include:
The age difference between the accused and the young person -- the higher the age difference, the more likely it is that the relationship is a trust relationship.
The status of the accused – the more formal the status (teacher, father figure, big brother, mentor, etc.), the more likely it is that the relationship is a trust relationship.
The degree of control, influence or persuasiveness exercised by the accused over the young person.
The expectations of the parties affected, including the accused, the young person and the young person’s parents.
The vulnerability of the young person – i.e. his or her level of intelligence, sophistication, independence, and maturity and relationship with his or her parents.
Any grooming, pressuring, or incentivising behaviour on the part of the accused.
48In the present case, the defence argues that at the time any sexual activity occurred, the relationship of the accused as teacher had dissipated and that Mr. Chung was no longer in a position of trust. The defence points to the absence of any evidence of influence and control, and further, that there is no evidence of pressure being applied or threats by the accused.
49I am satisfied, however, Mr. Chung was in a position of trust or authority vis-à-vis C.D. The entire relationship between Mr. Chung and the complainant evolved from the teacher-student relationship. The complainant was a student in Mr. Chung’s class for grades 6, 7 and 8. It is clear, therefore, that the student-teacher relationship developed at a point in time when the complainant was very young. The strength of this relationship is illustrated by the fact that Mr. Chung was her teacher for a period of three years at the specific request of the complainant. As a society, we put our trust and confidence in teachers to act in a quasi-parental role to provide not just education to our students, but to provide guidance, support and mentoring to them as the children develop into adults.
50The defence argues that the position of trust was extinguished by the time any sexual activity occurred. I disagree. The complainant returned to visit the accused after graduating from grade 8 because of the strong relationship and bond with Mr. Chung which had developed during her time at S[…] School. The bond and position of influence Mr. Chung had with the complainant was further supported by the arrangements made by the accused to employ the complainant initially as a Counselor in Training and later as a Counselor at the drama camp, during the summer holidays in high school. Further, the complainant’s evidence, which I accept, is that the accused tutored her sister from around 2009 or 2010. Later on, he was hired to tutor her cousins who are twins. This evidence supports the high degree of integration the accused had with the complainant’s family, and the degree to which he was given privileged access by the parents to their children and other members of the family.
51I conclude, therefore, that while the formal student-teacher relationship ended at the end of grade 8, the continuing relationship was based on the foundation of the student-teacher relationship developed at S[…]’s, together with the subsequent employment relationships arranged by the accused over the summer months during high school.
52This conclusion is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that the continuing relationship after the complainant’s graduation from S[…] School evolved directly from her visits to come back specifically to see Mr. Chung at S[…] School. These visits were in turn based on the student-teacher relationship developed while the complainant was his student.
53It is significant in my view that the initial fondling between the complainant and the accused occurred at S[…] School during the course of one of the complainant’s visits back to the school to visit him. Similarly, it is significant that the first time they had sexual intercourse was while the complainant was working at the drama camp, where the accused was her supervisor. This employment relationship had been arranged and offered to the complainant by the accused in his capacity as the supervisor of the camp.
54It is not unusual to think that a child in grade 7 or 8 might develop a crush on one of her teachers, which would prompt her to return to the school after graduation. However, what is apparent is that in this case, the accused failed to respect the boundaries which were inherent in the position of trust which developed while the complainant was a student at S[…] School and this constituted in my view an exploitation of the relationship.
55The sexual relationship which occurred in this case did not evolve out of a chance meeting which occurred some time after graduation and which was unconnected to the student-teacher or employment relationship. Instead, it flowed directly from the student-teacher relationship. Further, the employment of the complainant at the drama camp also flowed directly from the relationship which developed at S[…] School.
56I also find the age difference between the complainant and the accused to be a significant factor. Accepting that the sexual relationship occurred when the complainant was 16 years old, the accused would have been 29 years old, which is close to double the age of the complainant.
57It is also significant that there was an element of control or influence exercised by the accused over the complainant. I accept the complainant’s evidence that the accused gave her instructions to delete their text messages to prevent the relationship from being known to the complainant’s parents. There is further support for this conclusion in the deleted text messages when the accused responds to the complainant by stating, “I hope they don’t find out its me!!”. Therefore, I reject the accused’s statement to the police that he never told the complainant to keep their relationship quiet.
58I do not find that there was any grooming or pressuring behaviour on the part of the accused, nor do I find that there was a particular vulnerability on the part of the complainant, apart from her young age. However, weighing all of the factors, I have concluded that the accused stood in a position of trust in relation to the complainant. In drawing this conclusion I have considered the evidence of Mr. Chung in his statement to the police. However, having reviewed his statement, his comments are really directed towards the factual allegations relating to the nature of the sexual activity and in particular its timing. His comments support a conclusion that he understood that if the timing of the sexual activity occurred as alleged, it would cause him to lose his job. The comments in his statement do not raise a reasonable doubt in my view about the existence of a position of trust or the exploitive nature of the relationship, which I find existed at the time the sexual relationship started.
59His statement in fact confirms many of the factors which support the creation of a position of trust including:
(a) He was the complainant’s teacher at S[…] School
(b) He ran the drama camp and identified the complainant as a person he wished to hire at that camp
(c) The complainant visited him after school following graduation, initially with a group and later, on her own
(d) He paid for the complainant’s abortion
(e) The complainant visited his house in Whitby after the move from his apartment to a house in Whitby
(f) He spent time at the complainant’s house with her family
60I therefore have concluded that the accused’s statement does not raise a reasonable doubt regarding the allegation that he was in a position of trust vis-à-vis the complainant.
Conclusion
61For the above reasons, I find the Crown has proved the accused’s guilt on Count Four beyond a reasonable doubt. There will be a finding of guilty on Count Four of the indictment. There with be an acquittal on Counts One, Two and Three.
Justice M. McKelvey
Released: July 18, 2018
CITATION: R. v. Chung, 2018 ONSC 4406
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
ROBERT YOUNG CHUNG
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Justice M. McKelvey
Released: July 18, 2018