R. v. Schacter, 2019 ONSC 2027

minicounsel

Footnotes

R. v. W.D., 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742.
Exhibit 15.
Oddly, Mr Schacter drove to the park from his house – a distance of nine houses.
Exhibit 6.
Exhibit 8 is 7 photographs showing awards and certificates given out by Mr Schacter.
These measures were approximated by the court based on visual estimates provided by Mr Schacter based on the size of the courtroom.
Mr Schacter did not explain the basis for his assertion that there is a general practice between adults and small children in the “orthodox tradition” that is distinct from other traditions. Later in his evidence he testified that it “would never be appropriate for a girl to be on a lap” unless it was on a female teacher’s lap.
By this, I understood Mr Schacter to mean that he was the only male teacher for grades 2 and below. Certainly the rabbis were all men.
This rather gratuitous comment – the question had nothing to do with treating an injured student – sounded ridiculous and defensive in the context in which it was made.
Exhibit 10.

COURT FILE NO.: 18-40000332

DATE: 20190401

Linsay Weis, for the Crown

Crown

and -

Joseph Kappy, for Mr Schacter

Accused

JUDGMENT

D.L. Corbett J.:

1Stephen Joseph Schacter is charged with multiple counts of sexual improprieties with young boys over a period of more than twenty years. The eldest complainant was aged 11 to 13 years old during the time of Mr Schacter’s alleged sexual misconduct with him. The other three complainants were students at Eitz Chaim School, a private orthodox Jewish school in Toronto at which Mr Schacter was a primary school teacher.

2In an oral judgment I found Mr Schacter guilty of all the crimes alleged against him, though not of all the conduct alleged by all of the complainants. I indicated at the time of the oral judgment that I would provide these more detailed written reasons in due course.

Overview of Legal Principles

3The four complainants testified to what they said Mr Schacter did to them. In addition, a student teacher, Lauren Brooker, testified to witnessing inappropriate physical contact of a young boy by Mr Schacter when she was working in his classroom.

4At the start of trial, on consent, the court ordered that the complainants’ identities protected pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada. As I did during my oral reasons, I give each of them a pseudonym in these reasons. I refer to the complainants as follows:

a. Adam;

b. Bobby;

c. Charles; and

d. David.

None of these names is the real name of any of the complainants. I refer to a fifth boy, who made allegations against Mr Schacter in the 1990’s, as “Felix”. I have chosen names starting with the letters A, B, C and D to assist the reader in recalling the chronology of events – and then the letter F, for the boy who is not a complainant in this case.

5Mr Schacter testified and denied all allegations against him. He also adduced evidence from his parents by which he tried to establish that he did not have the opportunity to commit some of the crimes alleged against him. He also called as a witness fellow teacher Sharon Wannicott, both as to matters relating to Mr Schacter’s opportunity to commit some of the crimes alleged against him, and as to his reputation as a conscientious and respected teacher.

6In evaluating the evidence, I am guided by the principles laid down in R. v. W.D.:

a. If I believe the defence evidence that Mr Schacter did not do the acts alleged, then I must acquit him.

b. If I do not accept the defence evidence that Mr Schacter did not do the acts alleged, then I must determine if this evidence raises a reasonable doubt in my mind of Mr Schacter’s guilt.

c. Even if I do not believe the defence evidence, and even if it does not raise a reasonable doubt of guilt in my mind, I still may find Mr Schacter guilty of a crime only if I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt on the basis of the evidence that I do accept.¹

7Of course, I must ask myself these questions in respect to each of the charges against Mr Schacter. And even where I am satisfied of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of a charge, I have applied the same probing standard of proof to evaluate the evidence to decide precisely what conduct I am satisfied has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt in respect to each charge.

8I have reminded myself that I may accept some, none, or all of any witness’ evidence.

9The Crown applied to have the evidence respecting three of the complainants treated as similar fact evidence for the charges against all three of those complainants. For oral reasons given during the trial, I granted that application. There is a clear pattern of consistent conduct by Mr Schacter with these three complainants. There was no collusion among the complainants, and I am satisfied that their evidence establishes a pattern of conduct that is properly probative of the question of guilt or innocence in respect to these three complainants. As will also be seen below, where one of the complainants, Charles, testified to alleged conduct that seemed to depart from this pattern, and in respect to which there were other difficulties relating to its reliability, this reliance on similar fact evidence contributed to a reasonable doubt of guilt about some of the specific conduct alleged.

10The Crown did not bring a similar fact application respecting one of the four complainants, Adam. That complainant was older, was not one of Mr Schacter’s pupils, and the alleged sexual conduct for this complainant was more extensive over a sustained period in contrast to the other complainants. As I indicated during oral argument of the similar fact application, I agreed with the Crown’s assessment that Adam’s allegations were not sufficiently similar to those of the other complainants to be probative of more than general propensity, an improper use of similar fact evidence.

11Mr Schacter was charged with child pornography prior to the charges in this case. When these earlier charges were laid in 2015, police appealed publicly for people to come forward if they had been victimized by Mr Schacter. That public appeal led to the four complainants in this case bringing their allegations to police.

12Mr Schacter was subsequently found guilty of the child pornography charges, a decision that I understand he intends to appeal.

13The child pornography convictions would not ordinarily be in evidence in a trial of this kind. They invite propensity reasoning prejudicial to an accused person. However, these matters were raised by the defence, not the Crown, as part of the defence theory as to why the complainants might have motive to fabricate their allegations against Mr Schacter. I received this evidence initially for this limited purpose. The Crown cross-examined Mr Schacter on this evidence, and as a result I have also used this evidence, in a limited way, as part of my assessment of Mr Schacter’s credibility as a witness. I have cautioned myself that, just because Mr Schacter is sexually attracted to young boys, that does not establish that he committed the crimes alleged against him.

14Mr Schacter was alleged to have committed sexual impropriety with Felix, another young boy in the 1990’s. Felix was not a complainant in this case. I heard no direct evidence about these allegations and there was no similar fact application in respect to them. Again, it was the defence that introduced these events, because they formed part of the defence theory of the complainants’ motives. In brief, this theory was: the Toronto orthodox Jewish community, in which Mr Schacter lived and worked, was insular and resisted allegations that would have the effect of placing a stain upon the community in the eyes of the broader public. The defence theorizes that the complainants were angry by what they perceived to be their community’s inadequate response to Felix’s allegations. They (wrongly) believed that Mr Schacter was preying on young boys, and when they heard the public appeal for victims in 2015, they came forward, not because anything had happened to them, but because they felt that Mr Schacter deserved to be punished for what he had done to Felix, and their community should be exposed for having protected Mr Schacter in a position of trust and authority over young boys. I explain below why I reject this defence theory of motive, and why I am satisfied that the complainants were not motivated by anything other than their own experiences with Mr Schacter. Here I wish to be clear that I have placed no weight on the hearsay evidence I heard about Felix’s allegations: the evidence was admissible to establish the state of mind of the complainants before me, on the issue of whether it motivated their allegations, and for no other purpose.

Structure of the Judgment

15I start with the evidence about Mr Schacter – his life story as it was recounted to me by Mr Schacter and his parents – and my credibility assessments of this evidence.

16I then review the evidence of each of the complainants and explain my findings of credibility respecting each of them.

17I then review the evidence of the student teacher and explain why I find her evidence credible.

18I then return to the defence evidence. I explain why I do not accept Mr Schacter’s denials, and why they do not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind of his guilt. I then review the balance of the defence evidence and explain why it does not give rise to a reasonable doubt of Mr Schacter’s guilt.

19I then return briefly to the evidence of the complainants to explain why it does satisfy me beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, and to re-state aspects of that evidence that I have not accepted.

Part I – Stephen Joseph Schacter

20Stephen Joseph Schacter was born in October 1960 to Shirlee and Lunard Schacter, the second of two children – his sister was ten months older than he. His father was (and still is) a successful butcher. Once the Schacter children were at school full-time, Ms Schacter worked outside the home.

21Mr Schacter was a good student: “school was everything to me”. He liked the structure, the routines. He loved his teachers throughout his school years. He reports having been very “compliant” and “dedicated”, a “top-notch” student.

22At some point the family moved to their first house – in the Bathurst and Lawrence area of Toronto. This was so exciting for Mr Schacter – a new house – a new school – just five minutes away. But then everything “came crashing down”. While he was watching a Stanley Cup game (hockey being a great passion for him), his parents drew him aside and told him that they were separating. He was so shocked. He hadn’t seen it coming. “I am always the last to know”, he testified. When asked how the separation affected him he testified that he burst into tears “and became an emotional cripple”. His parents divorced “and left me hurt to the core”. This event “had a profound effect on me”… at the time “and today”.

23This seemed no overstatement. Mr Schacter burst into tears in the courtroom as he told me about his parents’ divorce, and even began wailing briefly. I found this unsettling – not that Mr Schacter had been deeply affected by his parents’ separation and divorce – but that, as a grown man, nearly half a century later, he was reduced to tears by the great distress of thinking about it. The more I learned about Mr Schacter’s family, the more dissonant this reaction seemed: he lived with his mother (who took a job in the reservations area of Air Canada, where she worked for many years before she retired), but he continued to have a relationship with his father, who spent access with his children every weekend. Mr Schacter has been on good terms with his parents throughout his life.

24Mr Schacter believes that it was his parents’ divorce that set him on several important paths in his life. He said that “it drove me towards that which I really craved – a sense of family and belonging – and it drove me to religion ultimately”. This was an important event in his young life. Around the age of 16 he started speaking with spiritual leaders in the orthodox Jewish community. He was powerfully attracted to their message. He became orthodox himself, something neither of his parents were, and of which they did not approve. I do not accept that the divorce had this effect on Mr Schacter. On the evidence of Mr Schacter’s parents, theirs was an ordinary family that went through an ordinary divorce, not without moments of discord, but that was by no means high conflict. Mr Schacter was not abandoned by either of his parents, and his life continued in largely the same course it had before the separation.

25Two other lifelong characteristics emerged in childhood: a devotion to work and a love of collecting. Mr Schacter got his social insurance number when he was only 11 years old, and he worked summer jobs for pocket money. He particularly remembers working for three weeks every summer at the Food Building at the CNE. In 1975 he worked as a kitchen assistant at a summer camp (at age 14). In 1976 he worked part-time at a local ESSO station and part-time at a Shoprite Catalog store in the Lawrence Plaza.

26One day, while working at the gas station, he met a rabbi, Dovid Sapirman, who engaged him in polite talk. The very next day, Rabbi Sapirman walked into the Shoprite store and they talked again. Mr Schacter recalls that he sold Rabbi Sapirman a bathroom scale. And he said that Rabbi Sapirman asked him three questions:

Are you Jewish?
Would you like to learn more about your culture?
Would you be open to coming to my house to spend a Sabbath?

Mr Schacter answered “yes” to all three questions. And, testified Mr Schacter, “this was the start of the journey to where I sit today”. This journey was into traditional orthodox Judaism, which Mr Schacter sometimes referred to as “ultra-orthodox”.

27What drew him to orthodoxy? “I respond well to structure and rules and tradition,” he said. And second was the sense of family: “these people have very large families – based on the first commandment – be fruitful and multiply – they take it literally and have 8-16 children”. Mr Schacter loved the interplay at Sabbath meals where he was amidst the social interplay in such large families. Mr Schacter went for meals at the homes of many different families in the community – “dozens and dozens of homes”. He was invited often because the community knew that his family was not observant, no one should have to eat alone on the Sabbath, and persons “returning” to the orthodox faith hold a place of high honour and esteem in the community.

28Mr Schacter reports that his parents were “mortified” and “horrified” and “very antagonistic” towards his choice to follow ultra-orthodoxy. But, though his parents were strongly opposed, he continued on his path: “the more I learned, the more I found it fit my belief system”. Mr Schacter saved his money and, with a friend, Aron, travelled to Israel. There he stayed with Aron’s family, studied, and worked for a time on a kibbutz. He returned for the start of the 1980-81 academic year at the University of Toronto. “Oddly”, he said, he chose St Michael’s College: there were “lots of priests and crosses there” but he had “travelled the world” with his mother and “came from an open-minded household…. But I was becoming more drawn-in and closed-minded.”

29The year did not go well at U of T. His math was not advanced enough for his program in economics and so he transferred to general arts. There he felt lost in such an enormous faculty. He finished the year but did not return. He decided, instead, to go to yeshiva in Israel.

30His parents hated the idea: “my parents went crazy – they were so opposed”. His father told him that he would pay for him to go to any university in Canada or the USA, but that he would not support him going to yeshiva in Israel. Even the intervention of Rabbi Mandel was unable to persuade Mr Schacter’s parents: when asked what he thought of Rabbi Mandel’s arguments, Mr Schacter’s father said “I hate it; I hate every word he says.” He was implacable in his opposition: “if you still persist in going to yeshiva, do not count on me for any moral or financial support.”

31Mr Schacter went to yeshiva in Israel anyway. Although his mother was opposed, she found him an inexpensive flight to Israel. Mr Schacter used all his money and went to Israel for one academic year “of intensive learning”. Mr Schacter’s father softened during the year and started sending money orders when he realized that his son had run out of funds.

32Mr Schacter testified that his mother had been worried that he would come back from Israel “a fanatic”. He then testified that, after one year of intensive learning, “I became what I promised my mother I would not become.” He returned before Passover in 1982, which he did not spend with his family because they did not keep kosher: “I am not judging anyone – live and let live – though easier said than done”.

33Mr Schacter had no money when he got back from Israel and he needed a job. Through his family he found work at Baycrest for four months, providing attendant support for disabled patients: “I really liked working with people in need.” He also worked in his father’s butcher shop, generally on Sundays. “I loved working with my dad – it was a great time to bond with him.” He continued to help out in the butcher store, especially when the store was particularly busy, until around 1986.

34There was further conflict with his parents over what Mr Schacter should do after his year at yeshiva in Israel. In discussion with rabbis, it was suggested that he had “built a great foundation” and that he should go back to yeshiva and learn more. His parents, on the other hand, said that “it was great he got in touch with his roots but it was time to go to university to make something of yourself.” They seemed to think his studies in Israel were drawing him into a “cult”, a position he firmly rejected: “it is not a cult because it draws on three and a half thousand years of Torah Jewish observance.” In conversations with Dr Saul Levine, Head of Psychiatry at Sunnybrook Hospital, Mr Schacter clarified his goals: he needed to go back to university to complete a degree: and so he did, with financial help from his father, graduating in 1985 from York University with a BA in sociology with a minor in psychology.

35When attending York University, Mr Schacter arranged his courses to be free in the afternoons, when he worked as a substitute teacher in private Jewish schools where a teaching certificate was not required. During the 1985-86 academic year, one of his postings was as a phys-ed. teacher at Ner Israel Yeshiva on Mondays. He also became a private tutor during this period, and a supply teacher when there was a gap in his tutoring schedule.

36Mr Schacter worked summers during his university years: in 1983, full-time as a supply clerk at Eaton’s; in 1984, for a Jewish community outreach program under Rabbi Mandel; in 1985, as a counsellor at an orthodox day camp; in 1986, as a camp counsellor again and as a bus driver (leaving home around 7:30 am and usually not returning until 6:00 pm).

37When Mr Schacter completed his undergraduate degree, his parents approached him about his long-term plans. He thought he would like to be a teacher or a social worker. He decided on teaching because he got early acceptance into that program. He graduated in 1986 with a B.Ed., which qualified him for his teachers’ certificate. He continued part-time to obtain an M.Ed. between 1986 and 1989, so that he could simultaneously work as a supply teacher.

38Starting in the mid-1980’s, Mr Schacter started teaching full-time, largely as a primary school teacher (there was at least one year when he taught a grade 7 class). He was a secular studies teacher: morning classes were religious in orientation, and afternoon classes, taught by secular teachers, were ordinary academic subjects,

39Mr Schacter was well-regarded as a teacher – he was young and enthusiastic, related well to his students and seemed to inspire them to study hard and learn well. He received letters of appreciation from parents and commendations for the excellence of his work. But for the allegations in this case, and suspicions that Mr Schacter engaged in similar conduct with other young students, Mr Schacter would be fairly described as an inspiring and popular teacher, with perhaps a bit of a reputation for being a tough disciplinarian.

40Mr Schacter testified that he “thought I was pretty well liked” and that he won “teacher of excellence awards” between 2002 and 2010. His colleague, Sharon Wannicott, testified that she considered Mr Schacter an able and well-liked teacher. Mr Schacter continued in his employment as a teacher in a private orthodox school, his employment surviving troubling allegations by Felix in the 1990’s. I see no reason to doubt Mr Schacter’s self-assessment that he was “pretty well liked” and respected as a primary school teacher.

41On September 25, 1996, Mr Schacter married Leba Sheri Breatross. Ms Breatross had three children by a previous marriage: two boys and a girl. The marriage lasted 11.5 years and was childless. The family lived at 31 Candy Courtway, across from the Patricia St. campus of the Eitz Chaim School, which was next to the B’nai Torah synagogue, where Mr Schacter prayed and attended services.

42After Mr Schacter’s marriage ended, he moved back to his mother’s house at 17 Prince Charles Drive. I did not hear evidence from Mr Schacter’s ex-wife or her children. I know nothing of the marriage other than its duration.

Allegations Concerning Felix

43Felix was a student in Mr Schacter’s grade 2 class in the 1988-89 academic year. Mr Schacter described him as a “weak” student. He also said that Felix was “pretty much ignored at home”, and that he took on the role of a mentor / big brother to the boy – with the permission of Felix’s parents. He would take Felix out for pizza, roller blading and go-karting. Mr Schacter insisted that nothing untoward happened between him and Felix.

44Then one day, in 1993, just as he was about to leave for school, Mr Schacter was arrested by a “hulking guy in a suit” who said “I have to place you under arrest”. The officer took Mr Schacter to the 32 Division police station, where he was put in a jail cell. Mr Schacter said that he had no idea why he was being arrested.

45Police let him make two phone calls – one to the family lawyer and the other to the principal of his school, Rabbi Shlomo Jacobovits. The Rabbi told Mr Schacter “we cannot discuss it with you” but that the allegation “is from the most unreliable student in the school”. Rabbi Jacobovits assured Mr Schacter, “you have the backing of the school and the directors”. The school would not tell him who the complainant was, but police did: it was Felix’s family, who had come forward on Felix’s behalf.

46Mr Schacter was arraigned and then released on bail.

47The case was resolved at the preliminary hearing on September 22, 1993. Mr Schacter said that he “didn’t know what was going on”, but that he spoke with his lawyer during the evidence, and his lawyer said “I am not going to cross examine this witness. I am going to talk to the Crown after lunch. We are going to make submissions and the case will be discharged”. It was somewhat difficult to follow this part of the evidence, but I infer that it is probable that the complainant testified at the preliminary hearing and recanted his allegations during his evidence in chief – or something of the kind made it clear to defence counsel that cross examination would not be necessary to secure withdrawal of the charges.

48After the charges were withdrawn, Mr Schacter returned to his teaching position at the school and finished teaching the academic year.

Allegations Concerning Adam

49Adam’s allegations date back to 1982-84. They are set out below. Mr Schacter denies them entirely. Mr Schacter is about ten years older than Adam – placing Mr Schacter in his early 20’s at the time Adam alleges the offences took place (when Adam was between the ages of 11 and 13).

50Mr Schacter testified to Adam coming to his house once, when Adam was about 17, for a social visit. There is a photograph from that day. There is no allegation that anything improper took place on this occasion.

51Mr Schacter had a continuing social relationship with Adam after the period when the offences are alleged to have been committed. Mr Schacter would see Adam at synagogue and at community events from time to time. They were always friendly with each other. Mr Schacter remembered particularly, after Adam was a grown man, going over to Adam’s house for dinner several times. He described Adam’s family as “three beautiful children and a wonderful wife who was a good cook.” He ate there several times over the years. He also recalled Adam meeting him at a shiva and inviting him back for a drink and conversation, and he recalls they spent a long time on the porch speaking with each other. This was in 2009.

52In 2012, he saw Adam at a wedding, and Adam asked him for his contact information (email). Mr Schacter had left teaching and had started working in the insurance business, and thought that perhaps Adam would be interested in buying some insurance with him. It is not clear why Mr Schacter believed this: in the emails exchanged to set the meeting up there was no mention of insurance.² Eventually, at Adam’s suggestion, they met in a park. Mr Schacter brought some business papers and his briefcase.³ He was surprised that this was not a business meeting. Adam was very angry. He was accusing Mr Schacter of impropriety – Mr Schacter testified that there was a sexual innuendo to the accusation but that it was vague. Mr Schacter said that these things had all appeared in a different light for him when he was explaining to his 11 year old son about sexual matters before “streetproofing” his boy before he went away, when he realized what had been done to him when he was that same age. He testified that he replied to Adam that he “didn’t know what he was talking about”. Adam said that he had had problems in his work and in his personal life which he thought may have been caused by these things. He had spoken to a lawyer and had not yet decided what he was going to do about it.

53Mr Schacter was very upset about this conversation. He had thought that he and Adam were friends. He says that he did not know what it was that had Adam so angry, but that he was concerned. When he went home he spoke to his mother about it. He told her that he did not know what Adam’s complaint was, but he wondered whether he should speak with a lawyer himself. His mother could not offer much counsel: neither of them had any experience with this sort of thing. His mother corroborated this conversation and I accept that he told her a gist of his conversation with Adam and told her that he did not know what it was really all about. Mr Schacter was concerned but did nothing until he heard further from Adam: “I thought he was remembering something incorrectly.”

54Mr Schacter did not explain why he said that he had had no experience with this sort of thing when he had been accused of sexual impropriety in the 1990’s, had engaged a lawyer at the time, and had his case go as far as a preliminary inquiry before the charges were dropped. Mr Schacter was not cross-examined on this point, but I was left wondering why he said he had no experience responding to allegations of sexual impropriety when he had experience with precisely that, albeit almost twenty years earlier.

55There followed an exchange of emails, and Mr Schacter did consult a lawyer, who responded to one of Adam’s emails. Then the matter seemed to be dropped. Adam did nothing about his grievances. The men saw each other sometimes at events but they did not speak again. Once they were even seated at the same table at a wedding, but again they did not speak. There was obviously anger there, Mr Schacter said, but they never spoke of it again.

56In cross examination Mr Schacter confirmed seeing Adam at the wedding. When he was asked if he spoke with him, instead of answering this question, he gave a long explanation as to why he did not speak with Adam: Adam was obviously very angry with him. Instead he provided a narrative to explain why he did not speak with Adam:

I was very preoccupied. A gentleman at the wedding with early onset Parkinson’s was wheeled in next to me. I did not get his name. But this poor man did not have a PSW (personal support worker). And I have experience working in these circumstances. I got him and his wife food and I fed him and gave him his meds. I could not do dancing because of my ankle. So over those hours there was no time to talk to [Adam].

Mr Schacter provides an embellished story to justify conduct he was being asked about. Here, over a period of hours, at a wedding “there was no time to talk to Adam”. And the circumstances were because of Mr Schacter’s kindness, his charity to an unfortunate sick man. This struck me as such nonsense. It may well have been that Mr Schacter occupied himself with a sick man all evening to avoid an exchange with Adam, given their last conversation. But the reason they did not speak was because of their last conversation.

57When pressed by Crown counsel, Mr Schacter changed his answer. His lawyer had written to Adam, “instructing him” to have no further contact with Mr Schacter. Mr Schacter presumed that if Adam was to have no contact with him, then he was to have no contact with Adam. Mr Schacter did not explain to me why, if the reason he had not spoken to Adam was this exchange of correspondence between lawyers, he told me the story of his preoccupation with a sick man who needed his help.

58The thrust of Mr Schacter’s evidence about Adam was that he had a good, friendly and social relationship with Adam for many years until 2012. He implies that this good relationship is inconsistent with Adam’s allegations of childhood abuse. As is shown in Adam’s account, this implication does not follow.

The Child Pornography Charges

59In 2015 Mr Schacter was arrested in connection with the child pornography charges, and he testified that he had been focused on clearing his name ever since. He lost his insurance job, and he had not worked in the previous three years at the time he testified; he was still living with his mother in her house.

60When these charges were laid, police made an appeal for possible victims of sexual abuse by Mr Schacter. At that point Adam and the other complainants came forward. Mr Schacter believes that all this was a response to the police request for victims and a belief by some in his community that Felix’s allegations had not been taken seriously or appropriately. Mr Schacter asserts that the allegations against him have been concocted as a sort of conspiracy to punish him for what Felix alleged he did, and his community’s allegedly inappropriate reaction to Felix’s allegations.

61Mr Schacter says that he was unaware of the allegations of Bobby, Charles and David until after they came forward, after the pornography charges were laid. He denies all of the alleged conduct, and gives evidence that, he says, establishes that he could not and did not do the things alleged against him. This evidence is reviewed later in these reasons, after considering the evidence of the complainants.

Working with Sharon Wannicott

62Mr Schacter recalls that he first met Sharon Wannicott when he transferred into her school in 1989-90. They were both teaching grade 3 classes, “parallel classes”, and they did lesson plans, marking and report cards together, they shopped together for prizes for their students (such as hockey and baseball cards – Mr Schacter was firm that he only used hockey cards because hockey was such a passion for him): the two teachers became close professionally.

63Ms Wannicott became a friend and close professional colleague. I consider her evidence about Mr Schacter later in these reasons.

Credibility Finding

64I did not believe Mr Schacter. I provide particulars when I review details of his evidence as it relates to the allegations of the complainants, later in these reasons. Here I provide my general assessment of Mr Schacter as a witness.

65Mr Schacter is a story-teller. As may be seen from my summary of his evidence, above, Mr Schacter uses narrative arcs and rhetorical devices to describe his own history. He speaks in the first person about himself and his life, as one would expect, but there is an omniscient narrative tone to his evidence: he is at once the subject-matter of the tale, and an omniscient observer of his own life. The overall effect was unsettling. He seemed an actor in a play, slipping into and outside of the narrative.

66It was all very polished and well-rehearsed. This, in itself did not trouble me: Mr Schacter is defending very serious charges, and I am not surprised that he would come to court well-prepared, with things he would want to convey to the court in his own defence. But the fabulist structure and tone of his evidence was disquieting. At times he seemed to be saying that he could not have done these things because of his religiosity – his respect for rules and his serious observance of the doctrines of his faith. At other times he seemed to be using his faith as a shield: there was somehow a different set of values in his community about the way in which adults could touch children – with no acknowledgment that there is a difference between sexual touching and non-sexual touching, even when they may resemble each other to some extent. And then there was over-arching decontextualisation of events: Mr Schacter was accused of sexual impropriety with Felix in the 1990’s. Although the charges were dismissed, he must have known he was under a cloud of suspicion in some quarters, and yet he saw nothing untoward in continuing conduct that could be construed as consistent with the earlier allegations.

67As I explain below, it is very clear that Mr Schacter is lying about aspects of his evidence. These are not matters that could be questions of misinterpretation or misunderstanding. He is attracted to young boys, and obviously so, and yet he denies it. He did have bananas in his house, and yet he denies it. He did take young boys out for special treats, and yet he denies it. He did have children over to his house, and yet he denies it.

68Mr Schacter’s tone and demeanour in the witness stand would have left me unsettled and with questions about the reliability of his evidence, standing alone. But not enough, in the absence of clear lying, to lead me to reject his evidence outright. However, that tone and demeanour, combined with my conclusion that he has out-and-out lied about important aspects of the evidence leads me to conclude that he is lying wherever it suits his purpose, to save himself from the overwhelming mass of evidence against him. I reject his evidence where it conflicts with that of the complainants, and I am not prepared to place any credit in it.

Evidence of Shirlee Schacter

69Shirlee Schacter is Mr Schacter’s mother. She confirmed Mr Schacter’s basic family history as I have set out above. She confirmed that she worked for Air Canada for 27 years, from 1973 to 2000. She said that she got six weeks’ vacation per year and that she took frequent vacations with the children: “I wanted to show the children the world, as best I could: we did many trips together, the three of us.” This stopped when the children got older, something Ms Schacter did not regret because she did not like travelling herself (“I have many phobias: motion sickness, turbulence, claustrophobia”).

70Ms Schacter’s evidence dove-tailed much too closely with her son’s. She described herself as “not much of a social person”. The one night of the week she would go out would be Friday nights; the rest of the time she would stay in. She confirmed that she did not like having people in her house. “They (the children) never had any friends in to play. That was my rule. I did not have this open-door policy.” Then she confirmed that she had a “male friend” (Don) who used to spend the weekends: “that was an exception I made”. Ms Schacter also said that she made exceptions for her own daughter and her own sister, but that they had to call in advance. Ms Schacter also said there were exceptions for a rabbi, who has come to the house to pray with her son since he felt excluded from temple (after the child pornography charges were laid). And she also recalled an exception for a teacher, a colleague of her son’s, who would come over to work together on marking and report cards (Sharon Wannicott). Aside from these exceptions, she said, she did not allow people in her house: “I never had people to my house”. Not seldom. Not infrequently. “Never”.

71Ms Schacter was asked in cross examination why she made an exception for Sharon Wannicott, Mr Schacter’s colleague. Why was she allowed in the house if there was such a strict rule? Why was an exception made? Ms Schacter responded:

They had work to do together and it was important work, so it was good for him to collaborate.

Then the Crown asked, “You’d agree that it would be good for him to have friends in the house?

One was for business reasons; the other was for playing.

Then she continued:

If he was working… he did extreme hours to try to be the best teacher in the whole world – which he was – he was an amazing teacher – so if he had to do something, that he was so dedicated – of course I had to make an exception.

The Crown persisted, asking “So you did not view his social development as being important?” Ms Schacter responded:

But I did not think it was lacking – having someone in the house – he could meet friends outside.

As shall be seen, this answer was patently false. Ms Schacter knew full well that Mr Schacter’s “social development” was lacking. And she worried about it. But this is not revealed clearly until close to the end of her evidence. The Crown persisted in this line of questioning, pointing out that Mr Schacter could easily have met with Ms Wannicott elsewhere – at the school, for example. Ms Schacter really had no answer for this question: she wilted somewhat as she responded that she always knew ahead of time when Ms Wannicott was coming over, so she could make herself look presentable.

72Ms Schacter did recall one other exception – the “one time” that Adam came to visit. He just showed up at the front door and wanted to see her son. Ms Schacter says she recalls that she was expecting her daughter, who was going to drop off a grandchild. Ms Schacter opened the door expecting to see her daughter, and there was this young man: he was “big” with “facial hair and a beard”, perhaps 17 years old. This was Adam. He came in and visited with Mr Schacter for about an hour. Ms Schacter gave them some refreshments. She took Adam’s picture.

73After Adam had gone, Ms Schacter testified, she had a chat with her son. She said to him “you know I don’t want anyone in the house again”. She paused in her evidence and then looked me straight in the eye, and said “and he assured me that he would not do it again.”

74I kept a straight face. Sometimes that is hard for a judge. But it is important. I did not want Ms Schacter to be affected by my reaction to her answer: it is unnerving enough to come to court to testify before a judge, and all the more so in such terrible circumstances. Ms Schacter so badly wanted me to believe that she never ever let her son have anyone to the house that she was prepared to give evidence that made her look ridiculous. And she is anything but ridiculous – a single mother who worked hard to raise her children and support herself, with modest support from her former husband, and a person who has been engaged in her community, generous with her volunteering: she was prepared to depict herself as beyond merely eccentric in order to try to help her son in this case.

75The visit from Adam was about thirty years ago. Ms Schacter has a most remarkable recollection of this short visit, a guest to see her son, once, for an hour, thirty years ago. On the basis of Ms Schacter’s testimony, there would have been nothing particularly memorable about this event (aside from its being a variation of her “rule” against visitors). She purports to have a much stronger recollection of it than she does the regular visits of her son’s co-worker, Sharon Wannicott. Her recollection of Ms Wannicott’s visits was impressionistic and general – the most I would expect a mother to recall of a regular visitor to see her son. I am amazed that she had any recollection of Adam’s visit when he was 17, but accept that she may have some vague recollection because of the picture: a memento can bring things back to mind. But Ms Schacter’s graphic recall of the events of that day is beyond belief. I am certain that she discussed these events with her son before testifying: whether she believes that she actually remembers this I cannot say – she seemed sincere. But I am sure that she is remembering what her son has “reminded her” about this event.

76There is not much moment to Ms Schacter’s overly precise recollection of Adam’s visit when he was in his late teens. Nothing untoward took place during that visit. Adam’s evidence of that day did not conflict with Ms Schacter’s or with Mr Schacter’s. What is significant, for me, is the close correspondence in the evidence of mother and son, and the incredible extent to which they both say they remember that day from 30 years ago. I think Mr Schacter has created a story of the day – one that is largely true but which is filled with detail to support his overall narrative that he never had guests to the house. He has related this narrative to his mother, and it is that narrative that she is telling me. I doubt she has much memory of the visit one way or another.

77I simply do not believe no one was welcome in the Schacter home. It may be true that it was not a hive of social activity. But I do not accept that there was no opportunity for the alleged assaults because Ms Schacter had a “rule” that forbade guests in the house, and she was always home to enforce that rule whenever her son was at home. It may be that these events did not often take place when Ms Schacter was at home. It may be that she cannot acknowledge these events now, realizing what is alleged to have happened under her roof.

78No doubt Ms Schacter is heartbroken that her son has had to endure the infamy and penal hazard of these proceedings. No doubt, she, herself, is also mortified. No doubt she does not want to believe that he did these things, and perhaps in her heart she believes that he did not. But the hard truth is that he clearly did do these things, and he did some of them in her house. The extent to which it may have been going on under her nose, without her realizing it, is only something that she herself can say.

79There was a point towards the end of her testimony where I felt I understood the perspective she has long had about her son. She was cross-examined about his prosecution and conviction for child pornography. She was asked if she had ever discussed with her son his possession of child pornography. She responded that “her understanding” was that it was not pornography. When asked “were you concerned that he had pictures of boy models in his possession”, she responded, “I thought they were harmless”. Then the Crown asked, “Well, why do you think he would need it?” Ms Schacter answered:

Well I don’t know. It is not that he is inclined that way. I know that. It could be something to do with his childhood and not having close friends then when he was a young boy. Maybe they took the place. I don’t know.

And then soon after:

He is a nurturer kind of guy – I can tell you that – but he would never be that.

80He did not have close friends when he was a young boy. That answer flies in the face of her earlier response when asked by the Crown if she did not consider her son’s social development and adjustment to be as important as working together with Sharon Wannicott. Then she had said that she did not feel his development was lacking. The two answers are inconsistent. And the second one is the correct one: Ms Schacter knew, and knows, that her son has always had social adjustment issues and an absence of close, age-appropriate, friends in his life. She viewed the children who came to the house as surrogates for him, friends. She never suspected what was really going on, of course. Now she denies that the bad things happened because it is too horrible to contemplate.

81The Crown put it to Ms Schacter that she came to court to lie for her son. She denied that. The Crown also put it to her that she could not bear having her community think ill of her family. She agreed on that point and added that she imagined anyone would feel that way. She was cross examined on a statement she made to police at the time of her son’s arrest where she indicated that she would mislead her neighbours about what it was all about, because she did not want everyone to know what was being alleged.

82I do not put much weight on this one comment in the heat of the awful moment of her son’s arrest. And while I do think Ms Schacter is mortified at the prospect of her son’s convictions for crimes, some of which he committed under her roof, I do think her primary concern is for her son. I think she honestly believes that he is “not inclined that way”. She is wrong in this, and obviously so. But I conclude that her fervent belief in her son’s innocence has led her to concoct her evidence, to make herself look bizarre and ridiculous, in a futile attempt to support her son’s attempt create doubt that he had the opportunity to commit the crimes alleged.

83Adam testified that Ms Schacter and her friend “Don” were present some of the times that he came to visit. I am convinced he was being truthful in this. And I am convinced that Ms Schacter remembers these occasions at least as well as she recalls the time Adam came over when he was about 17. Ms Schacter’s evidence is unreliable, because she is in denial about what happened. But it is also dishonest about some things that she does know and recall. I have concluded that I cannot rely upon any part of Ms Schacter’s evidence because it is untruthful and unreliable.

Evidence of Lunard Schacter

84Lunard Schacter is Mr Schacter’s father. He is a hale 83 years of age, and still works five days a week in the meat business, which has been his lifelong profession.

85Mr Schacter, Sr., was a forthright, cheerful witness, obviously uncomfortable to be in court, but doing his best to tell the truth. He confirmed the personal history of the family, including his weekly access with his children after separation, and his continuing good relations with his son. They disagreed over Mr Schacter’s religious orthodoxy, but in all other respects Mr Schacter, Sr., was a supportive and loving father.

86Mr Schacter, Sr., confirmed that his son worked in his butcher shop on many Sundays. There are no records from so long ago, and in any event everyone (including his son) was paid in cash.

87I accept this evidence, though I also find it adds nothing to the defence: it does not establish that Mr Schacter had no opportunity to see Adam some Sundays, as Adam testified.

Evidence of Sharon Wannicott

88Sharon Wannicott taught at the same school as Mr Schacter, both of them teaching grade two for several years. Ms Wannicott became a friend and close colleague of Mr Schacter’s.

89Ms Wannicott is obviously partial to Mr Schacter – she likes and respects him as a teacher. But notwithstanding this partiality, I conclude that Ms Wannicott was doing her best to tell me the truth, as best she recalls it, and I accept her evidence.

90Ms Wannicott testified that there was some physical contact between rabbis and young children at the school. They would carry children, raise them in their arms, kiss them on the head and cheeks, sit them on their laps, and give them “pats on the back”. When asked about a “pat on the bum” she said firmly, “never”.

91Ms Wannicott testified that Mr Schacter was an excellent teacher, always well prepared and energetic, interested in his students. The two planned lessons together, graded tests and filled out report cards together. They shopped for prizes together for their students – they were very close professional colleagues.

92Of course, Ms Wannicott, as a dedicated and caring teacher, saw nothing that concerned her that Mr Schacter might be touching students inappropriately. She was not aware of Mr Schacter seeing children away from the school, and she agreed that it would be improper for a teacher to have a student over to his house.

93A key aspect of Ms Wannicott’s testimony that bears on the case is her evidence of where Mr Schacter spent the lunch hour. She testified that he ate with the other teachers, in the staff room. I have no reason to disbelieve her. She did not suggest that she remembered for certain that Mr Schacter ate in the lunch room every single day. But as a general rule, all of the teachers ate in the lunch room, and he was no exception.

94Ms Wannicott confirmed the layout of the library and the office within the library. It corroborates the evidence of Mr Schacter on these points, and I accept it. The library was a public area, travelled, and it would not be a safe place for Mr Schacter to have done the things that Charles says that he did to him.

95This case does not turn on the precise place one draws the line for acceptable and unacceptable physical contact between a teacher and student. The contact alleged by the complainants was well across the line. I accept that lap-sitting and back-patting could be acceptable, depending on how, where, when and why they were done. I agree with Ms Wannicott that bum-touching would not be acceptable, though not every contact between a hand and a bum would therefore necessarily be a sexual assault. None of this would excuse a teacher from massaging a child’s back and buttocks, skin-on-skin. And for a teacher who had already been accused of sexual impropriety with a young boy, and a teacher who is, in fact, sexually attracted to young boys, the context shifts.

96I accept Ms Wannicott’s evidence, and I accept that she does not believe that Mr Schacter would or did do the things complained of. She sincerely believes that Mr Schacter was a good teacher, and the colleague she knows and respects would not have done the things alleged.

Part II – Evidence of the Complainants

(a) Adam

97Adam was born in 1971 and was 47 years old at the time of trial. He is married with four children.

98In 2015 – when Adam was 44 years old, he found out about Mr Schacter’s arrest for child pornography, and he read a press release from Toronto police requesting information from anyone believing themselves to have been victimized by Mr Schacter. Adam testified that, having read this, “I decided that this was the time, after many years of holding off, that this was it.” He decided to come forward with his allegations. The allegations date back to 1982, starting when Adam was 11 years old. In the years since, Adam had only once confided these things: he told one friend about it when he was 23 years old, back in 1994. He did not tell anyone else until he told his wife about it, after the preliminary inquiry in this case.

99Why had he not come forward earlier? He said,

For many years I didn’t even think about it. The first time it really registered was when I took my 11 year old son to camp – about what to be careful about and cautious about – and it registered for me that I had not done the same thing for myself.

This was about in 2006.

100Why did he not come forward in 2006, after he had this talk with his young son?

I had concerns. I had fears. I had a young family. I wasn’t ready. I had not even dealt with it myself at that time. I needed to work things out for myself before I could do anything more.

101Did he work things out?

Yes I did, for many years.

102Adam went to police after reading the press release online. He does not recall precisely when, but probably “within weeks”.

103Adam was between 9 and 10 years old when he first met Mr Schacter, who was a young man, welcomed into the orthodox community as someone “returning” to the faith, and he became friendly with many families. He was funny, engaging, charismatic, and great to be around. He was a breath of fresh air inside the rather rigid and boring prayer services of the synagogue (for a young boy like Adam). Eventually, as was the custom at synagogue, he was invited to Adam’s family’s home for a meal.

104Mr Schacter became a well-known community member for Adam – fun and playful. He came to Adam’s family for dinner many times, perhaps 25 times over about two years. And sometimes Mr Schacter would be his substitute teacher which was fun, almost like having a friend as your teacher. Adam recalls one day, after Mr Schacter had been substitute teaching, and he invited Adam and possibly some other boys over to his home. Adam says he has a memory of other boys going over with him, and then a memory of being there alone with Mr Schacter, so perhaps the other boys came over for a while and then left.

105Adam was 11 years old and in grade 6 the first time he went to Mr Schacter’s house.

106Adam was asked if there was anything sexual the first day he went over. He responded that “one of the first times” he went over, we watched a lot of TV. And “he asked me to engage in masturbation”. Those were not the words Mr Schacter used at the time. When asked to describe the event in detail, Adam said:

At some point he had his pants down to his knees. He got a container of Vaseline. He had some Kleenex. He began masturbating. He sat on the floor. He took my hand and described how to masturbate him: “Wrap your hand around me, move it, up and down.” He did not use any complicated sexual terms.

“And did you do so?” asked the Crown: “I did.”

107This lasted for about five minutes. Mr Schacter’s penis was erect. It was the first time Adam had “seen a grown man… pubic hair… it was quite frightening.” The Crown then asked: “did he ejaculate that instance?” The answer: “he did. It was the first time I witnessed ejaculation. I did not know what it was. I recall being nauseous and confused and I remember trying to leave as quickly as possible.” Adam didn’t bolt for the door. He wanted to leave, but he waited as Mr Schacter cleaned himself off and then he left. He rode his bike home as quickly as he could and went straight up to his room, trying to avoid his mother. He did not tell his parents what had happened.

108This was the first time. There were “many other times” over the ensuing two years, perhaps 25. Many took place up in Mr Schacter’s bedroom. A few times they happened in the guest room on the second floor, across the hall from Mr Schacter’s bedroom. Sometimes things would happen in the living room on the main floor. “As time went on, the main location was his bedroom.”

109Adam testified that these liaisons took place most often on Saturdays, after synagogue services and after lunch. “We had a prearranged time when I would come over and visit… about 1:30. Services end at 11. Lunch would take an hour and a half, maybe two, and then everyone would take a rest and I would head over and walk to Schacter’s”. It was about a fifteen minute walk, 5-6 minutes by bike. These meetings were not only on Saturdays. Sometimes they happened on weekdays after school, and sometimes on Jewish holidays or fast days.

110What did they do when they were together at Mr Schacter’s house? They watched TV, “a lot of TV”. Sometimes they watched pornography. Very often, Mr Schacter would have Adam undress: he would have me lie on his bed and just watch me. Or he would lie on top of me – many, many times.” When did they watch TV, and what did they watch? Adam recalled that they watched CHIPS, Laverne and Shirley, Archie Bunker, Green Acres, Hercules – many shows.” This would happen on Sunday afternoon, or on a weekday in the afternoon when there was no school. “Keep in mind that a lot of this happened during the summer and I did not go to summer camp. I was in the city the whole summer and there were a lot of opportunities.”

111Adam said that it was not Mr Schacter’s house; it was his mother’s home. “I would meet her there and greet her politely. When she was home we proceeded upstairs. When she was not home we tended to be on the first floor.”

112Adam recalls considerable detail of the Schacter home. He recalls a “long couch” that was dark coloured, rust or brown. The living room on the main floor was to the left (from the front door) and had two couches. One was along the far left wall, and you could lie lengthwise on it to watch TV. He recalls the position of the rooms on the main floor and on the second floor. He recalled that Mr Schacter lived on the second floor and his mother had her bedroom on the first floor. And he remembered that Ms Schacter had a waterbed.

113Adam was not challenged on any of his description of the house. I accept it is accurate, both generally and in the details he recalls. I conclude from the extent of the details and the accuracy of the description that Adam was very familiar with the house and had been there frequently. Everyone who testified on this point agreed that the last time Adam was inside the Schacter home was when he was about 17 years old, roughly thirty years ago. I am satisfied from the quality and extent of Adam’s recollection of the house and its contents that he was in the house many times, and not just once, for an hour, as testified to by Mr Schacter and his mother.

114There was no sexual activity between Adam and Mr Schacter after Adam changed schools in September 1984. However they continued to have contact. Mr Schacter would sometimes come to Adam’s new school and would call him and ask him to bring him some food from the cafeteria. This evidence was challenged on the basis that Mr Schacter was a part-time phys ed. teacher at this school at the time, and so had a reason to be there, and that he would never have asked Adam to get food for him. I accept Adam’s evidence. Mr Schacter may well have had part-time duties at the school – that is not clear to me – and he may well not have liked the food from the cafeteria – but the calls and the requests for food were a basis on which he could see Adam briefly – that was the purpose of the visits in the months following the end of their sexual liaisons.

115Adam says that he went to Schacter’s house in 1993, after Mr Schacter was arrested respecting Felix’s allegations. Mr Schacter was very upset. He had been in jail briefly and was terrified. He begged Adam not to say anything about what the two of them had done. When cross-examined on this point, Adam said that he had buried these things and had not wanted to deal with them. He said that when he looked at Mr Schacter at that time, he saw a friend, not a pedophile or a criminal. He said it took years of therapy and the experience of raising his own children, to enable him to see the events of his childhood with Mr Schacter in a proper light.

Credibility Assessment

116I believed Adam’s evidence entirely. Adam was measured and careful as a witness. He seemed sad and angry, but also he seemed as a person who had reflected long and hard over these events. It was clear to me that he felt that he had things to account for, to himself, about what had happened and his response to it, and his explanation about his self-reflection struck me as completely genuine.

117An eleven year old boy does not have the same sense of his own moral agency and responsibility as does an adult viewing the same events. This accords with common sense and common experience. As an eleven year old boy, Adam was frightened and uncomprehending the first time Mr Schacter treated him sexually. He knew nothing about sex. But he knew that he liked and admired Mr Schacter and enjoyed being with him. He continued to see Mr Schacter, chose to continue to see him, and these sexual events continued to happen. Mr Schacter persuaded him to do things, but never forced him against his will. Mr Schacter never caused him physical pain and was always nice to him.

118These events continued for roughly two years, and stopped at the same time that Adam changed schools for grade 9 (around age 13). Adam said that they would still see each other sometimes, but their closeness faded. It was not clear to me whether Adam thought this was his choice, Mr Schacter’s choice, or just a gradual fading away of the connection. But they remained on good terms and considered each other friends. Adam readily acknowledged that he visited Mr Schacter’s house when he was around 17 years old, and confirmed that the picture placed in evidence by the defence was taken during this visit. Adam also confirmed that he travelled with Mr Schacter (and others) for two days in Israel when Adam was around 19 years old. He also confirmed that he had had friendly relations with Mr Schacter over the ensuing years, including inviting Mr Schacter to his home to eat with his family, including his young children.

119The implication of this line of questioning seemed to be that Adam would not have had a continuing friendship with Mr Schacter if Mr Schacter had done the things he is alleged to have done to Adam. This implication is based on an unwarranted assumption about how a young victim of childhood sexual assault would react in these circumstances, and I reject it.

120From Adam’s perspective, at the time it happened, these were things that he and Mr Schacter did together. They both did these things. This was not something “done to him” by Mr Schacter. And this makes sense. An eleven year old is a moral agent – just not an adult moral agent. Part of the project of educating the young is instilling in them a sense of right and wrong and a desire and capacity to choose to do right rather than wrong. And part of this project is inculcating a sense of moral responsibility: the self-recognition that one is responsible for one’s own moral choices. Adam, at age eleven, was being taught these things, as are all young children. And he was no infant: on his testimony he was ignorant of sexual matters and was unable to make moral choices about his activities with Mr Schacter, but that does not mean that he would have been self-aware of how vulnerable he was, and the extent to which he was truly not responsible, morally, for what happened.

121Adam described how his awareness shifted during a conversation with his own eleven year old son. The boy was going to summer camp. Adam wanted to equip his son with knowledge so that he could protect himself. Explaining – at an age-appropriate level – the nature of the risks, and what they mean, Adam could finally see himself, as an eleven year old boy, with Mr Schacter. All those years he had imagined himself as having made choices to be sexual with Mr Schacter. All those years he had struggled with his own moral culpability and shame for what had happened. And all of a sudden, seeing his young son standing there, a vague reflection of his own young self at the same stage of life, it hit him fully that he did not bear responsibility for what had happened. He had not “done things with” Mr Schacter. Mr Schacter “had done things to” him. He had been a victim, not a co-participant.

122I was convinced by this account. It makes sense. And it explains why Adam suddenly in 2012 went from being friendly towards Mr Schacter (two friends with a shared past) to being very angry and threatening towards him (a victim confronting the man who victimized him).

123And still, the burden of decades of guilt and questioning, shame and feeling isolated about these issues, did not melt away overnight. Adam confronted Mr Schacter. He sought legal advice. But still he did nothing further. He told no one (other than the lawyer, and the one friend in whom he had confided more than twenty years earlier). But then he read about Mr Schacter’s arrest and the police appeal for victims. This publicity helped him turn the corner, and he went to police and told them what had happened.

124Adam never spoke to any of the other complainants about these things or about their allegations. He is more than ten years older than the other complainants. He was aware of Felix’s allegations because Mr Schacter himself told him about them, back in the early 1990’s. He had heard rumours of other improper behaviour by Mr Schacter but he did not know the details. He first confronted Mr Schacter in 2012, more than three years before the child pornography charges and the public appeal by police for victims, at a time when Mr Schacter was no longer teaching, and when, to Adam’s knowledge, there were no current rumours circulating in his community about Mr Schacter. On the evidence, there is no precipitating event for this confrontation, other than the truth of the allegations and Adam’s explanation of the realization that finally came to him after his “streetproofing” conversation with his own son.

125Adam was pressed about his views of his community’s response to allegations against Mr Schacter. I was impressed with his answers. He was not angry at his community about what happened to him. He had made no report to persons in authority. His cries for help had not been ignored. Mr Schacter was not placed in a position of trust over him that was used to abuse him. Rather, he described his community as being insular, perhaps a little bit innocent. He agreed that as a small and vulnerable community, there was an instinct to avoid the opprobrium of the larger community, but this instinct was not without basis.

126Adam discussed these matters once, when he was 23, after he had heard about Felix’s recanted allegations. He learned (information that is hearsay in this trial) that there were other boys who said that things had been done to them, and he concluded that there were other victims. But he still did not see himself as a victim.

127Adam agreed that he had given an interview with the Globe & Mail after Mr Schacter’s arrest on these charges. His words, as reported in that article, did suggest that he considered that his community had not dealt with these issues appropriately. Adam agreed that the article could be read that way, but he was not convinced that this was not a spin the reporter had placed on his words. He feels that his community was insular and not equipped to deal with these issues well, back in the 19080’s, but that things have changed considerably since: he is on no mission to attribute blame to anyone other than Mr Schacter.

128Adam’s evidence was forthright and direct. He was not shaken in cross-examination. He did not seem to embellish his account – most of the incidents of sexual touching were less invasive than the first time, which I have described in detail. There is no defence theory to explain a negative animus giving Adam a motive to make his allegations to Mr Schacter in 2012, 3 years before the child pornography charges, and ten years after the allegations made by Felix had been withdrawn. I believe Adam and accept his evidence.

Bobby

129Bobby was born in 1981 and was 37 years old at the time of trial, married with two children.

130In 2015, Bobby read an article that said that Mr Schacter had been charged with child pornography and that police were appealing for victims to come forward. The article was an internet newspaper article, not a Facebook post. About a week after reading the article, Bobby went to meet with police and gave them a videotaped statement.

131About two months before he read the article, Bobby had told his parents and his wife of the childhood sexual abuse he had suffered at the hands of Mr Schacter in grade school. Aside from this, the only time Bobby had told anyone else about this before he came forward to police was back when he was 19, when he told a female friend about it.

132Mr Schacter was Bobby’s second grade secular studies teacher in the 1988/89 academic year, at the Eitz Chaim School.

133Bobby liked Mr Schacter as a teacher. He was engaging and made learning a lot of fun. “Generally I found his classes were always very exciting. There was never really a day I didn’t want to attend the class – prior to the incident.” In cross examination, Bobby confirmed that “as a teacher everything was great”, and that at the end of the year some of the parents wrote a nice letter about Mr Schacter.

134The incident took place at Mr Schacter’s home. Mr Schacter had a rewards system. There was a big chart set up in the classroom. You could earn stars or stickers for good behaviour: good marks, overall being a positive part of the class. If you accumulated enough stars and stickers you were entitled to “what felt like very big prizes”. Mr Schacter would take you to a video game arcade or out for a kosher hamburger.” And if you won the “VIP Reward” you got to spend an afternoon at Mr Schacter’s house. In cross-examination Bobby testified, “I really wanted the VIP reward. VIP was a bit synonymous with him [Mr Schacter]: his license plate was ‘MR VIP’.”

135Towards the end of the year I had done enough to earn this VIP reward. “I got a certificate and I got to go to his house – I was very excited to receive this.” Bobby had never been to Mr Schacter’s house before, and was very excited to go. Bobby’s parents knew about this and dropped him off at Mr Schacter’s house. In cross-examination, Bobby said that he did not actually recall his parents dropping him off, “but I know that at 7 years old I did not go there on my own.”

136Mr Schacter toured Bobby around his house and showed him things like his hockey memorabilia and his collections. Then Mr Schacter let Bobby play on his Nintendo game console. Mr Schacter asked Bobby to sit on his lap, but Bobby said he did not want to. Bobby sat on the floor, and Mr Schacter sat on the couch behind him.

137Then Mr Schacter suggested they take a break for a snack and they went to the kitchen. Mr Schacter suggested “that he had the best snack, and it would be amazing. Let me show you how to prepare it. He peeled a banana and covered it in peanut butter.” Mr Schacter then proceeded “to lick the peanut butter off the banana in a strange way.” He kept saying “how great it was and that I should try it.” The “strange way” was running his tongue around the sides of the banana and then up around the top of the banana.”

138Bobby did not want to eat the banana. He testified that he was made uncomfortable by what Mr Schacter was doing. And Mr Schacter “was okay with me not eating it”. They went back into the living room to resume the Nintendo. Mr Schacter asked multiple times for Bobby to sit on his lap, and eventually Bobby did so. Mr Schacter’s legs were apart, and Bobby was sitting on the couch between Mr Schacter’s legs. “I did not want to sit there” but this was “normal” for Mr Schacter – “he did it all the time in class”. A lot of students would sit on his lap when he asked them to, in class.

139Did anything happen while Bobby was on his lap? “He started to rub the outside of my legs over my pants.” After a while “he switched to the inside of my thigh and started moving up towards my belt.” Then “he attempted to put his hands under my belt and down into my underwear”. This was at the front of the pants, at the genital area. Bobby “would say that he got his fingers in, but not his whole hand.” His fingers did touch Bobby’s penis, and this lasted “less than a second”. At that point, Bobby “freaked out, jumped down and got off the couch.” He decided that he wanted to go home.

140Bobby said, “I did not understand at the time what even was happening. I knew I did not like it and did not want it to continue. And then when the move was made – with hands going inside my waistband – that is when I knew for sure that I did not know what was happening but I knew it was not right.”

141Bobby called his mom to come to pick him up. He waited at the curb because he did not want to stay in the house. Bobby did not tell his mother because he was “very confused” and “did not know what had happened to me.” He did not know anything at all about sexual activity – he was eight years old at the time – he just did not know what it was aside from knowing that he did not like it. “I did not realize what had happened to me until a number of years later.”

142Bobby was asked why he did not go to police once he did figure out what had happened to him. “The main factor would be the way my community would react to it. One, I was afraid that I had done something wrong: the way I was taught, there was a negative association with sexual activity. And I thought that maybe I had done something wrong. And the second factor – later in grade school – when another child made an accusation, and was not believed at all, that reinforced my decision to keep it private.”

143Bobby knows two of the other complainants. Adam’s family has been friends with his family for around 40 years. However, Adam is about ten years older than Bobby. They were not in school together. They never discussed Mr Schacter or their allegations about him.

144Bobby also knows Charles. They were at the same high school for two years – a year apart (Bobby is a year older than Charles). Charles works in the construction business, and Bobby met him once on a high-rise construction site in 2014. They saw each other another time at a community skate with their children. Bobby said that he had never discussed Mr Schacter with Charles – either generally or in respect to allegations of sexual abuse.

145Bobby was in the same class as Felix. They were friends. Bobby is “aware of an incident with him”. He said that he knew that Felix came forward with an allegation about Mr Schacter that related to the 1988/89 school year. And he knows “that nothing came of the allegation.” When asked how he reacted to this he said “at the time I had no reaction.” Then when asked if later he had a reaction to these events he said “no”. He was asked to confirm, “No reaction at all?” to which he replied “no.” He was then asked if he was upset “at the system” for “not doing something.” Again he said “no”. And then he was asked “did you think he was forced to retract?” to which he replied “in adult life I was told that he was forced to retract his statement by outside sources. I believe it is possible.” And then when asked “do you believe it happened?” the answer was: “I don’t know.”

146This line of questioning continued. In sum, Bobby agreed that this had been a topic of conversation in his community after Bobby had reached adulthood. He heard the story from multiple former classmates, with many believing that Felix had been forced to recant. For his part, Bobby “did not think it was the right thing to do.” When asked “was that the general belief”, he responded that he could not speak for what other people believe.

147Counsel pressed on with this line of questioning, suggesting that Bobby showed a degree of anger when he told police about the way Felix was apparently treated. He responded that he believed the police needed to understand the history and context. Based on the story Bobby had heard, Felix’s father’s livelihood was threatened, which led to the recantation. He said “I do not agree that morally that was the right thing to do.” And Bobby believes this story. When asked on the basis of what, he said “because I choose to believe it. In your own mind you can believe whatever you choose to believe – the standards of the courtroom do not apply to personal beliefs.”

148Bobby was straightforward in his evidence. When challenged about his negative views of Mr Schacter, he did not deny them or back away from them. He has his own personal experience, and he has heard a lot of gossip, which he chooses to believe. This choice is not unthinking: he has his own experience to draw upon. And he is correct when he says that his own private opinions are not governed by the rules of evidence and the burden of proof in a court of law.

149I do not accept the defence theory that Bobby came forward with a false allegation because he was unhappy with how his community had responded to Felix’s allegations. Felix’s allegations were withdrawn in 1993. The child pornography allegations surfaced in 2015. It passes imagining to suppose that Bobby would take it on himself to invent an allegation out of anger about an event that had taken place, not to him or to a member of his family, or even to a close friend, more than twenty years previously.

150I am convinced that the events described by Bobby happened as he related them. The only other complainant Bobby knows is Charles, and he does not know him well: I accept that they did not discuss any details of their allegations.

Charles

151Charles was born in April 1982. He is married with two children.

152On a Saturday night in December 2015, Charles was sitting with his wife and a friend at his kitchen table. His wife showed him her phone on which was displayed a police bulletin about someone charged with child pornography; police were asking victims to come forward. Charles says that “as soon as I saw the picture on the phone, I knew who it was.” He called police immediately, that night: December 18, 2015.

153Charles had not discussed these events with his wife prior to December 18, 2015.

154Charles said that he first came to know Mr Schacter as an assistant teacher for Charles’ grade two teacher, Mr Woodridge, in the 1989/90 academic year. Mr Schacter also worked in the library, was in charge of first aid, and had supervisory duties over lunch and recess.

155Charles said that Mr Schacter “made me feel uncomfortable” in the grade 2 class, “when taking up tests or homework, he would lean over us from behind and his chest would touch our back.” Charles said that Mr Schacter would lean into him in this way “and smell my hair.” Even as young as he was, “he was a teacher and not my mother and it made me feel uncomfortable.”

156Charles reported a different incident with Mr Schacter some years later, “late 1992 or early 1993”. It happened during a recess. It was sunny but there was still snow and ice in the parking lot. Charles “slipped and fell” in a puddle and got his pants wet. He wanted to go inside, warm up, and dry off. He went into the school building and wanted to go to the washroom near the entrance, where he encountered Mr Schacter, who asked why Charles was inside. Charles told him. Mr Schacter told him that he would have to check to see if his pants were wet “on the inside”. Mr Schacter put his hands down his pants, on to his bum, and inserted a finger into Charles’ anus. Then he said he had to “check the front”, and put his hands down the front of Charles’ pants and touched his penis. Mr Schacter then took his hand out of the pants and allowed Charles to go upstairs to dry off.

157Charles said that the next day Mr Schacter warned him not to tell anyone about what had happened. Mr Schacter was a teacher and was known as the strictest disciplinarian in the school, and Charles was afraid not to do what Mr Schacter told him. He told no one what had happened.

158Charles said that there were other incidents, in the library. Mr Schacter worked in the library, and sometimes Charles would go there “and hang out” with Mr Schacter, who would invite him to sit in his lap. Then, with Charles on the lap, Mr Schacter “would wiggle or gyrate with his erection pressed up against me”. This was when Charles was in grade 4, the 1991/92 academic year. Charles said it was “a fun place to go” – Mr Schacter would show him sports cards or maybe a police badge. And it was a place where Charles felt safe if he was having conflict with other students. Charles said that he went to see Mr Schacter in the library “3-7 times a week”.

159Charles did not realize that Mr Schacter had an erection, or understand what an erection was, but he could feel something hard “pressing at his butt”. He said that he would be looking at a magazine or baseball cards when this was happening, and he did not think much of it at the time.

160Charles said that he only realized later that Schacter was using him for sexual gratification. These sessions would “end abruptly” with Mr Schacter “pushing me off his lap” apparently having decided that “library time was over”. Charles testified that he believes that Mr Schacter used him to masturbate to the point of ejaculation, after which he had Charles get off his lap and leave so that he could clean himself up.

161Charles traces this to an incident where he had a confrontation with Mr Schacter and swore at him. He had been going through a very difficult time because his mother was very ill. After the swearing and a trip to the office, Mr Schacter seemed to understand better that Charles was going through a very difficult time at home, and seemed to try to take him a bit more under his wing.

162Charles was never at Mr Schacter’s home, but he does recall being invited once, and that Mr Schacter told him he wanted to show him “a cool trick with a banana”.

163Charles also confirms that Mr Schacter called his parents once to invite Charles out “on a date”. This was an odd turn-of-phrase, in my mind. In any event, Charles’ father would not let Charles go out with Mr Schacter and warned him to stay away from him. There were rumours about Mr Schacter, and at this time Charles started to understand that some adults, including his parents, suspected Mr Schacter of improper behaviour.

164Charles knows Bobby, who was one grade ahead of him at school. He does not know the other complainants or Felix and he does not know Lauren Brooker. Charles said that he had seen Bobby three times since making a report to police: once at a construction site, once at a skating rink, and once he saw Bobby crossing Bathurst Street, but he does not know if Bobby saw him that time. Charles says that he told Bobby he had given a statement to police about Mr Schacter, and that Bobby said that he had as well, when they spoke at the skating rink.

165In cross-examination, Charles confirmed having a negative animus towards Mr Schacter – he believes Mr Schacter touched children sexually and he knows that Mr Schacter touched him. When the police appealed for victims, Charles wanted to see Mr Schacter brought to justice, and he made his own public appeals in his community, via Facebook, encouraging others to help “bring this man to justice”. He used disparaging terms and descriptions of Mr Schacter (for example, referring to his “pock-marked face”), and when asked about it in cross-examination, responded that the statement was factually accurate (a response that did not explain why he had resorted to this sort of name-calling).

166Charles also agreed that he believes that his school should have known what was going on: “I stand by the fact that it was horrendous”. Charles felt that Mr Schacter targeted children in distress – where there was divorce or illness in the family, and the children would be open to special “support”. He said that this was his experience, during his mother’s illness. He believes that Mr Schacter did this with other children in situations of distress, but did not provide examples.

167Charles was the most markedly hostile witness towards Mr Schacter. It was quite clear from his demeanour that he detests Mr Schacter and feels that he has good reason to do so.

168I am satisfied that Mr Schacter touched Charles as described in Charles’ testimony, but I am left in doubt about some of Charles’ evidence. I accept that Mr Schacter put his hands down Charles pants after Charles fell in a puddle, and touched Charles’ buttocks and his penis. I am not satisfied that Mr Schacter inserted his finger in Charles’ anus. I am satisfied that Mr Schacter pressed up to Charles once in class, in a manner that was inappropriate. And I am satisfied that one incident happened in the library where Charles was on Mr Schacter’s lap and Mr Schacter had an erection. I am not satisfied that this event continued until ejaculation or that this was a frequent repeated course of conduct. My specific reasons for these conclusions are set out below. My general reasons, based on my findings of credibility are as follows.

169Charles was obviously partial and I felt he was exaggerating in his evidence. His account of events in the library, happening numerous times, seemed to me incredible. The library is a quasi-public space in the school, and there would have been substantial risk of discovery if Mr Schacter had done what Charles claimed. Charles was aware of his father’s disapproval of Mr Schacter, and I think it unlikely that he would not have reported this behaviour much earlier than he did, if it had taken place to the extent described. And Charles indicated a conflicting set of reactions towards Mr Schacter dating back to the time he said these assaults took place.

170As I note above, I can accept some, none, or all of any witness’ testimony. I am satisfied that Mr Schacter did touch Charles inappropriately, and it is this touching that underlies Charles’ strong negative animus towards Mr Schacter. The conduct described (lap-sitting, physical proximity in the classroom, sliding a hand down pants) are consistent with the pattern established in the evidence of Bobby and David.

David

171David was born in March 1994. He now lives in Massachusetts. He first left the Toronto area in 2012, and moved away permanently about 1.5 years before trial (near the end of 2015).

172David learned through a Facebook post (he believes may have been from his brother) linking a news article from CBC or CTV that police were looking for people who had been victimized sexually as children by Mr Schacter. David felt that his experience “was appropriate for stepping up”.

173David phoned Toronto Police, and after a brief conversation, he was asked to give a statement to Homeland Security in the USA, where David was living at the time. David gave a recorded statement to Homeland Security on October 27, 2015.

174Mr Schacter was David’s second grade secular studies teacher at Eitz Chaim School in Toronto, during the 2001-02 academic year. Mr Schacter taught David half days, in the afternoons, five days per week.

175David testified that students would go to Mr Schacter’s desk to have their work reviewed. He said that Mr Schacter would put his hand under David’s shirt and massage his back. “At the time I did not consider it back – just thought of it as a back rub for a kid.” On fewer occasions, “but more than a few times”, Mr Schacter “would move his hand down and into my pants and have his hand on my rear. I recall it being a little more alarming but I did not comprehend that it was inappropriate.”

176Both when touching his back and when touching his rear, Mr Schacter’s hand was under the clothing, and was following a “rubbing or stroking motion.” David also testified that “definitely on several occasions he would put you in his lap.”

177How often did this happen? David said that when he first spoke to Homeland Security, he told them that it happened “thousands of times”. That was an exaggeration: Mr Schacter was David’s teacher for one year only, and there were not “thousands” of times that this could have happened. He testified that he would revise this statement to “dozens of times”. He recalls this as happening consistently throughout the school year.

178David explained that he did not understand that there was anything wrong with this at the time. He had a feeling of heightened alarm when Mr Schacter touched his rear end, but not for any reason that he could articulate at the time, and he certainly did not understand that it was sexual – he had no conception of sexual touching at the time – he was only eight years old. He said “as I became older I became aware of what is and is not appropriate for interaction between an adult and a child and sometime in my development became aware that it was definitely inappropriate.” He was asked why he did not go to police once he understood it was inappropriate: “That is something I believe I should have given more thought to – it definitely struck me several times – the idea of stepping forward – sitting here now I am a little bothered that I never came forward earlier but I didn’t.”

179David told his parents about these events after the police request for victims in 2015. They discussed it among themselves. “I thought that I had said something to my parents about it at some point in the past.” But they did not recall his ever having mentioning anything of the kind. “I trust that if I had explained it clearly, they would have had a response. So it is possible I may not have said anything.” It is not clear on the evidence when it was that David thought that he first might have broached this topic with his parents.

180David was asked if he observed Mr Schacter do the same thing to other students. He said “I believe I did but I cannot say with absolute certainty that that is something I observed. It is not something I remember.”

181David does not know any of the other complainants, aside from Charles, who he “knows by name” but does not know personally. He has never spoken with any of the complainants or heard anything about their allegations. He does not know and has never spoken to Rochelle Brooker.

182In cross examination, it was suggested to David that he has a strong negative animus towards Mr Schacter. His brother had been a student at the school and had had difficulties with Mr Schacter. David’s mother was involved with the school and had a run-in with Mr Schacter and found him “difficult”. David had said he was “happy” to come forward against Mr Schacter. Counsel suggested that David believed the school had failed by permitting Mr Schacter to continue teaching young children: David agreed that there had been a failure that allowed Mr Schacter to victimize children over such a long period of time. All of this was to suggest that David concocted his allegations out of ill will towards Mr Schacter and a belief that the school should have done something about him. I reject the imputation. David alleges seriously inappropriate behaviour, over an extended period, but far from the most serious kinds of allegations that could be made by a vengeful person concocting false allegations. I accept that David was unsure whether police would be concerned enough about his allegations to proceed with charges in respect to them. David had moved from the country permanently. He and his siblings were finished with the school, and Mr Schacter had left the profession of teaching.

183In cross examination, David agreed that after he had come forward, he spoke to another of Mr Schacter’s students, one of his classmates, and encouraged him to come forward as well. In cross he stated that this student was closer to Schacter than others, that this student and Mr Schacter would compare hockey card collections and seemed to spend more time together: “they were very close”. Defence counsel put it: “you suspected there was something there”, to which David responded: “I did and I do.” David’s suspicion is not admissible for the truth of its contents, of course. But I weigh it in evaluating the argument by the defence that David, borne of a negative animus towards Mr Schacter, was encouraging others to come forward with allegations. I do not accept that argument. I find that David had reason to believe that something may have happened with his grade 2 classmate and encouraged that classmate to come forward if something had been done to him. No allegations from the classmate are before me and I make no finding as to whether David’s suspicions were correct. But on the evidence before me, I find that the suspicions were and are sincere and are based on the observations David recounted to me.

184David agreed in conversation that he had spoken to others “many times” about Mr Schacter and that there was “gossip” about some boys going over to Mr Schacter’s house. He does not recall hearing directly from anyone who had, himself, gone over to Mr Schacter’s house. When asked whether this is not “gossip”, David agreed that it was. When asked if this was not forbidden by orthodox belief, David replied that he considers himself an atheist. And when asked if he had reposted the article about Mr Schacter’s arrest and the police request for victims to come forward, David agreed that he had reposted the article on his Facebook page, which had about 600 followers at the time.

185I take no more from this line of questioning than this conclusion. David had the experiences he recounted. He believes that there are more victims of Mr Schacter, and he wants to encourage others to come forward if anything had happened to them. I see nothing in this as providing a basis to doubt the sincerity of David’s evidence.

186David’s evidence was straightforward, consistent, and not emotional. He felt that Mr Schacter’s conduct towards him had been wrong, but it was clear that he did not feel devastated by the events. He is no longer a part of the orthodox community himself, now being an atheist, but he does not have any mission to embarrass it: he has moved on.

187David is much younger than the other complainants, does not know them and has not spoken to them. I reject the suggestion that David has some personal animosity because of difficulties other members of his family may have had with Mr Schacter.

188I accept David’s evidence entirely. It was straightforward, not exaggerated (aside from an original statement to Homeland Security where he used the word “thousands” as a euphemism for “a lot”). He was an excellent witness.

Part III – Evidence of Lauren Brooker

189Ms Brooker’s full name is Rochel Lauren Brooker. Her surname before marriage was Saul. Therefore, on documents dating back to 2004 (the time of the events that she witnessed), her name appears as Rochel Saul. She was 34 years old at the time of trial. She is a teacher.

190Ms Brooker read an article that a friend of hers had posted on Facebook about Mr Schacter. The article asked people to contact Toronto Police if they had information. Ms Brooker believed that she did have relevant information and so contacted police.

191Ms Brooker spent two years in Toronto pursuing education to become a teacher. During the course of this training, she did teacher training, some of it in Mr Schacter’s class, in 2003/04.

192Ms Brooker described her information as:

… an incident I had seen when student teaching in his [Mr Schacter’s] classroom. The children were doing school work at their desks and then going to Mr Schacter’s desk to get their work graded or checked. And I saw Schacter touch one of the kids on his back and then lower his hand to his behind and then rub the child’s behind over his clothes.

This incident lasted “only a few seconds”. The motion Schacter used “was like a rub and a squeeze”.

193Ms Brooker saw the incident once and thought it looked odd, suspicious, but she brushed it aside. She was not sure what she had seen and “thought maybe I saw something that didn’t happen”. But “then I saw it a second time and saw it more clearly and that time I knew I needed to speak to someone about it.” Both times were to the same little boy. She does not recall any reaction the boy may have had and presumes from that that there was no significant reaction, or else she would have remembered it.

194Ms Brooker was a student teacher, and young. She went to her program director for advice, and, following that advice, she met with a senior school official, Rabbi Steinman, and told him what she had seen, and she sent an email to the school. From looking at the email, Ms Brooker can say that she sent it on May 21, 2004, fifteen days after the incident.⁴ She explained the delay in sending the message on account of the time she took to seek advice and to formulate the email – and she does not recall whether the email was sent before or after she met with Rabbi Steinman.

195Ms Brooker does not know any of the complainants or Felix. She has never spoken with any of the complainants about their allegations or about her evidence.

196Ms Brooker made a contemporaneous report of what she saw. She saw it twice, and only on the second viewing was she convinced that she was seeing inappropriate conduct by a teacher. It would be a serious matter for a young student teacher to make such an allegation against a teacher, and I accept that the period between observation and report – no more than two weeks – is reasonable.

197Ms Brooker is independent. She has no axe to grind with Mr Schacter, with his school, or with the Toronto orthodox Jewish community. Her evidence was not shaken on cross examination and I accept it. Mr Schacter did not suggest that Ms Brooker was lying, but that she had misinterpreted what she may have seen. I do not accept this. Ms Brooker saw it twice. She was an adult, capable of interpreting what she saw reasonably and she was not convinced she had correctly interpreted what she saw until she saw it repeated. I accept her evidence

Part IV – Defence Evidence Does Not Raise a Reasonable Doubt

198I have already explained why I find the evidence of Mr Schacter and his mother not to be credible. I find that Mr Schacter mythologizes his own life, seeing himself as a person who is the product of events over which he has had little control, particularly his parents’ separation and divorce, and the comfort and sense of belonging he found in what he describes as ultra-orthodox Judaism and the rules of his faith, which he says bind him strictly. He was driven to his faith by circumstance and he found comfort in the order and structure of this life. As a highly observant orthodox Jew, he says, he could not possibly break the rules and do the things he is accused of doing. This is inverse propensity reasoning: this court cannot reason that, because Mr Schacter is sexually attracted to young boys, it is more likely that he committed the crimes of which he is accused. Neither can this court reason that, because Mr Schacter is observant and orthodox, it is less likely that he committed the crimes of which he is accused. Just as people can have a sexual attraction to children upon which they do not act, people can be very religious and yet commit crimes that are contrary to their religion.

199Since I do not believe Mr Schacter or his mother, and since the rest of the defence evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt in respect to most aspects of the Crown case, it follows that the defence case does not give me a reasonable doubt of guilt. In this section I address specific aspects of the evidence through this lens.

Prizes and Trophies

200Complainants described an elaborate system of rewards and prizes used by Mr Schacter as a teacher. Mr Schacter corroborated some, but not all, of this testimony. He agreed that he used a reward system – prizes, certificates, and trophies, to encourage and reward good behaviour, from academic excellence to good behaviour. There were weekly and annual prizes, and a system of gold stars and small prizes such as hockey cards, lottery tickets and certificates. There “was always a prize table on Friday” when awards for the week would be given out.⁵ There would also be year-end prizes, such as trophies, presented at a year-end dinner.

201Mr Schacter denied ever taking a student out of school for a prize. He denied ever taking a student to his home as a prize. He denied ever taking a student to an arcade to play games or to a fast-food restaurant for a hamburger as a prize. Indeed, he denied ever using food as a prize in any way.

202I accept that Mr Schacter had a structured rewards program – this was described by him and by the complainants, and the photographic evidence supports it. I also accept that this rewards system would have been generally known at the school, and that this generally known program did not include visits to Mr Schacter’s home or special trips to restaurants or arcades. However, I also find that Mr Schacter did tell some students that they had won special prizes, and that these prizes included buying them a hamburger at a restaurant, taking them to an arcade, and taking them back to his home. I am satisfied that Mr Schacter used the formal program of prizes as a cover for his “special” prizes in order to persuade some of the boys to spend time with him alone, and in some cases to go back to his home. These were very young children, but Mr Schacter still needed to provide them with some explanation to persuade them to come with him outside of school hours, and an explanation that would make them excited and pleased to go with him, rather than apprehensive. Calling these occasions “special prizes”, reinforced by the regular prize system, served this purpose.

203I do not know whether these special prizes were known to all students in the class, or just particular boys targeted by Mr Schacter. I accept that Ms Wannicott was not aware of them and would have considered them inappropriate. However, I am satisfied that Bobby was told he was receiving is special prize and believed this, and on this basis was went to Mr Schacter’s home.

Allegations of Events that took place in the Library

204I heard evidence about the library from Mr Schacter. He told me that it was on the second floor, opposite some classrooms. Entrance to the library itself was through a hinged door that could be closed.

205Mr Schacter agreed that, at times, he did have duties associated with the library. Equipment such as slide and film projectors was located in a room in the library area that Mr Schacter described as “his” office, and he had some responsibility for ensuring that this equipment was properly signed out.

206The library area was about 12 metres by 15 metres.⁶ Within this area were about 6 round tables, chairs, shelves and books, and a self-contained office. Mr Schacter would conduct “remedial lessons” for students sent to him for this purpose by other teachers, with sometimes as many as 8-10 students present at any one time for these lessons.

207Mr Schacter testified that he worked in the library from about 8:30 am (school started at 8:45 am and he was supposed to “be at his post” fifteen minutes ahead of that time). He did his library work from 8:30 until noon. The other librarian would come in at 12:00 and would work in the library until 4 pm. Mr Schacter was asked whether he was ever in the library after 12 noon. He testified that he ate his lunch in the staff room – which was not close to the library – and he did not spend the lunch period in the library. This evidence was corroborated by Ms Wannicott: in her recollection Mr Schacter ate his lunch with the other teachers in the staff room. I accept this evidence. I also accept Mr Schacter’s evidence that the other librarian generally came on duty at around 12 noon. Thus I accept that Mr Schacter was not generally alone in the library to spend time with students there over the lunch period. This does not mean that this never happened, but I am satisfied that it would have been out-of-the-ordinary for Mr Schacter to be the only adult in the library over the lunch hour. Thus I do not accept Mr Schacter’s testimony that he was “never” in the library with children over the lunch hour, but I do accept that this would not have happened regularly. I also find that Mr Schacter was in the library conducting “remedial work” with students during mornings, and that there were some times, perhaps infrequently, when he was alone in the library with a student, at least once that student being Charles.

Lap-sitting

208Mr Schacter’s evidence about whether he had students sit in his lap was somewhat contradictory. The first time he was asked “would you ever have a student in your lap” he answered “absolutely not”. Then, immediately after that, he was asked, “did you ever have students on your lap”, he replied “yes”. He then said that this was not uncommon in the primary grades – with students in junior kindergarten, senior kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2, when you “wanted to calm a student down”. He testified that “there was nothing inappropriate about this, particularly in the orthodox tradition”.⁷

209Mr Schacter then testified that he kept the door to the library open, that he “had to have the door open”. He did not explain why he “had to have the door open”. He then testified that “kids would sit on my lap in front of the class”.

210In further explanation, Mr Schacter said “these are babies out of grade 1” (referring to his grade 2 students). There is “nothing untoward about having a child of that age on the lap”. He went on, “there’s a closeness” between student and teacher. “The rabbis also did it”. But “obviously by grade 3 we do not have kids on our lap”. He then reinforced his comment about an “orthodox tradition” of tactility: “I believe it is true that it is more acceptable in the orthodox system than it was in the public system.” He then said that “it was a very common occurrence in the lower grades”, and then added, “I was the only male teacher”.⁸

211This case is not about whether Mr Schacter ever had his grade 2 students sitting on his lap. The only allegations in this case involving lap-sitting were also allegations of Mr Schacter manipulating a child on his lap while he had an erection (Charles), and Mr Schacter putting his hand down a child’s pants (Bobby). I am not finding Mr Schacter guilty of any allegations against him for lap-sitting simpliciter. However I do note the following respecting lap-sitting.

212Mr Schacter seemed to have children on his lap a lot. This struck me as dissonant. Second, Mr Schacter seemed to have children on his lap a lot while teaching a grade 2 class. This too struck me as dissonant. Third, Mr Schacter seemed to continue this frequent lap-sitting after he had been accused of sexual misconduct by Felix and had faced charges. This struck me as folly if it was innocent behaviour. Mr Schacter’s defence to this line of questioning: he felt that his “teaching methods” had been vindicated when charges relating to Felix were dropped.

Monitoring the Halls

213Mr Schacter agreed that he was sometimes assigned to monitor the halls during recess. Students were required to spend recess outdoors. Some teachers would supervise the children outdoors (“there was always an outside teacher – they eventually gave us walkie-talkies as well”). Another teacher would patrol the halls to make sure no unsupervised children were lingering inside. Mr Schacter described that hall duty involved walking up and down the hall to keep it and the classrooms “clear”.

214Mr Schacter was asked about the “incident” with a child with a “wet bottom” (Charles). He denied that such an incident happened. He said that sometimes “kids fall in puddles” and that the protocol was to go to the office with the child “and they take care of the problem there”. You “go straight to see one of the secretaries”. This seems an odd “rule”. Ms Wannicott did not follow it. One would have thought that a teacher’s response to a child with wet clothing would depend on all the circumstances and not be the subject of some “rule”.

215The incident described by Charles occurred in a stairwell where the boy entered the building. Mr Schacter testified that “the hallway is upstairs from the stairs” described by Charles. “My job was not to do stairwells and staircases. Hall means hall.” I do not accept this evidence. There was no evidence that there were other teachers patrolling the entrances and stairs during recess. The purpose of the patrol was to ensure that there were no unsupervised students remaining in the building, not to keep just the hallways clear. The evidence does appeal to Mr Schacter’s general orientation to “rules” which – where they exist – he describes in absolute terms. I do not accept that the rule existed as described by Mr Schacter, or that he would have been unconcerned to find a child inside in a stairwell during the recess period.

Marking Work in Class

216Mr Schacter agreed that he would have students come to be with him at the front of the class while he marked their work. Sometimes they stood beside him. Sometimes they sat on his lap. Sometimes they sat straddled on one knee. When asked about the evidence that he would “rub their backs” while marking their work, he said it was “more like an arm around or a pat on the back”. He denied ever rubbing a student’s back with his hand under the student’s shirt. He then said “I only touch bare skin with surgical gloves: I was in charge of first aid.”⁹ Another “rule”. Then Mr Schacter was asked, “what about hands down pants?” to which he responded: “never, that is abhorrent”.

217Then Mr Schacter was asked whether he had ever touched a student on the bum, over clothing, he said “memory is a real funny thing… I endorse that there may have been a hand on the bum, but nothing untoward about it”. He did not explain what he meant by innocent bum-touching. His counsel, in questions and in argument, used a sports analogy to explain how there might be “nothing untoward”: athletes slapping each other on the backside in enthusiasm. I discuss this argument below.

218I am satisfied that Mr Schacter frequently touched students in class, on their backs and on their bums. The evidence to this effect is confirmed by Ms Brooker.

Gaming Systems

219Mr Schacter testified that he never had any “gaming systems” like Nintendo in his life, and so none of the complainants ever played electronic games at his house. I do not accept this evidence. Mr Schacter out-and-out lied about the bananas (see below). Bobby’s evidence was straightforward and made sense. I do not know whether Mr Schacter’s mother was simply lying on this point, or whether she was unaware that her son had a Nintendo game machine.

Visitors to His Mother’s House

220Mr Schacter testified that his mother did not allow other people in her house. In his initial testimony he said that no one was ever allowed in the house. This was cast as an inviolable “rule”. As I have already explained, the world is a place filled with inviolable rules, for Mr Schacter: that is a reflection of his love of structure and order, and part of the attraction he has always felt for his version of orthodox Judaism. However he has used this characterization of his religion, and his experience of it, as a prop to explain his extravagant claims about how his life was organized – a rule for everything and everything by the rules.

221Mr Schacter testified that no one was ever allowed to come over to the house. It was his mother’s rule and his mother’s house. It was an absolute rule. So Adam and Bobby could not have come to the house. They would not be allowed to come to the house. That was his mother’s “rule”.

222This evidence weakened over time. The Crown suggested that when Mr Schacter reflected on his testimony overnight, in the midst of his examination-in-chief, he had a chance to reflect upon it and to consider how ridiculous it sounded, and how ridiculous it made his mother appear, given that his mother was not a reclusive hermit or misanthropic. Indeed, Ms Schacter was a busy person, being effectively a single parent after separation, with a full-time job, and sole responsibility for running her household and caring for her children. She also volunteered, and she and Mr Schacter both testified that she “travelled the world” with her children, which she could do inexpensively because of her position at Air Canada. After she retired, Ms Schacter increased her volunteer commitments: she was on the Board of a local Credit Union, she volunteered at the Rumsey Road Rehabilitation Centre, she worked with a group called the “Pioneers” and another group called “Friends of Front Street”, and she even sold Avon products “on the side”. He testified that “she is even busier now than she has ever been”, which I took to mean that his mother remained a very active and engaged person after retirement. In testifying, Ms Schacter presented as an active, alert, engaged 80 year old person, friendly and open (given the difficult circumstances under which she was testifying). Given that no other characteristic of Ms Schacter was provided that made her seem odd or reclusive, the Crown suggested that Mr Schacter reconsidered his testimony overnight and then softened it when his examination-in-chief continued the following day. On reflection, the “rule” was not quite absolute. His own sister – his mother’s daughter – was not excluded from the house. She could come over. But she would have to arrange to visit in advance, and she “could not stay long”. His mother would permit it but “was uncomfortable with her in the house”. No explanation was given as to why this would be, and it made the earlier claim seem even odder. Then later in his testimony Mr Schacter retrenched a bit further. He said he sister “was extremely busy” but would sometimes “drop things off at the house” but would not advance “beyond the threshold” because the “house was in disarray”.

223Then I was told that obviously his mother would permit a repairman into the home. And then I was told that his mother had a “male friend” (Don) who stayed over on weekends and had an ongoing relationship with his mother for many years. He was allowed in the house.

224But Mr Schacter was not permitted to have people in the house. Not his friends. Not his colleagues. The one time that Adam was over at the house – and a photograph was taken – was perhaps a unique exception to his mother’s rule. I note that Mr Schacter’s mother was oddly hospitable to Adam, if she did not like having people in her house, and was even uncomfortable to have her own daughter visit. She prepared refreshments, took a photograph, and by her own evidence and Adam’s evidence, she was warm and welcoming to Adam.

225Then Mr Schacter was cross-examined about having rabbis come to the house to pray with him. He had forgotten about this exception to his mother’s rule. He said “she was not thrilled about it but she allowed it.” He went on to say that, even though his mother was against his orthodox version of religion, she was “okay with a deeply religious person coming over” and that she “accepted it as a necessity”.

226And then there was an exception for Ms Wannicott, as discussed above.

227There was no “rule”. I find that it has been invented for this proceeding.

Not Home Alone

228The Crown cross-examined Mr Schacter on his claims that he was never at home when his mother wasn’t there. At one point he actually said “When I was home she was always home”, this over a period of many years. Then when he was asked what his mother did on the weekends, “she was very busy: groceries and other shopping – she caught up on everything she could not do during the week.” Then he repeated again “but when I was home she was always home… it seemed.” By the end of this series of questions he said that she was “mostly home, yes; totally home, I am not sure.” Where Mr Schacter’s absolute assertions ran into the brick wall of common sense, he backed up, but then drove very much into the wall again. I do not accept that Mr Schacter did not have an opportunity to have boys back to the home when his mother was not there. Indeed, it would be very difficult for him to raise a doubt of the contrary without depicting his mother as very strange, something she clearly is not

229Of course, just because there were opportunities for these things to happen at the Schacter house does not mean that they did happen. Creating a doubt as to opportunity is very difficult for these sorts of allegations. What is more significant, in this case, is that Mr Schacter, in taking an untenable position over this point, undercuts his credibility in respect to everything he says. As I have already said, he is clearly prepared to exaggerate, make unsupported bald self-assertions, and to say things that are obviously untrue, to try to defend himself.

Bananas

230Bobby testified that Mr Schacter, at his house, used bananas and peanut butter to show him how to lick peanut butter off a banana, with obvious implications for grooming for sexual activity. Charles said that Mr Schacter offered to show him a “trick with a banana”. I consider the similarities in this evidence to be significant enough to persuade me that these events happened as the boys described: while it is a story that could be imagined by more than one person, I suppose, the similarities were sufficiently marked to persuade me that this was a modus operandi for Mr Schacter.

231Mr Schacter’s response was that there were never any bananas in his mother’s house; they did not eat bananas. Another “rule”. That is a rather unlikely claim, and given the other lies I have found Mr Schacter has made, of this kind, I was not prepared to accept this evidence in and of itself. Then during cross examination, Mr Schacter was presented with a photograph of the kitchen in his house. There, clear to see, are bananas. Mr Schacter immediately responded that the top level of fruit was “fake fruit”. This answer was incredible. As can be seen in the picture, this is not some artistic display of fruit in a bowl on a table or sideboard. This is fruit in the kitchen, kept with other food, indeed, kept with other fruit.¹⁰ I concluded that Mr Schacter was prepared to tell even ridiculous lies if he felt they might develop some reasonable doubt in the details of the evidence of the complainants. He got caught in the lie because he wasn’t aware that one of the photographs shows a banana until it was put to him in cross examination.

232Ms Schacter confirmed her son’s evidence about bananas. She testified that they stopped stocking bananas at the house “once he found out they gave him migraines.” Then she was asked, “what about peanut butter?” She replied, “He could not eat that for the same reason.” She did not explain why no one else in the house ate these foods. Ms Schacter was not asked about the photograph of her kitchen showing a banana, so I do not know what her response to that might have been. And Ms Schacter was not asked why she and Don stopped eating bananas.

233I find that Mr Schacter and his mother lied about bananas and peanut butter, and that they did so to try to create reasonable doubt about an aspect of the allegations against Mr Schacter.

The Waterbed

234Adam testified that Ms Schacter had a waterbed, something he saw when he was at the house several times. Ms Schacter, in her evidence, said that she had a waterbed “just for a moment”. She could not recall precisely how long. But it was set up, she tried it, she did not like it (apparently it “hurt” her), and she had it taken away.

235Adam would not have known about the waterbed if he had not been in the house. I doubt very much that he would have seen it on the visit when he was 17: Ms Schacter testified that Adam went straight upstairs that day to visit with Mr Schacter (Ms Schacter’s bedroom was on the main floor). Ms Schacter, on her evidence, did not want anyone in her house at all; it would hardly have been acceptable for Adam to have been in her bedroom when she was in the house. I do not accept that Adam would have recalled (or even have noticed) a waterbed in passing in the few seconds he was on the main floor during his visit at age 17 when Ms Schacter was present. He knew about the waterbed because it was there when he was in the house, with Mr Schacter, and Ms Schacter was not at home.

Collections

236Mr Schacter testified that he has always been a collector. He has many different collections. When asked what he collected, he said hockey memorabilia, hockey cards, coins, world paper money (banknotes), old Canadian and Israeli banknotes, stamps, Russian stacking dolls, exotic license plates (diplomatic, veterans, purple heart, gold star), “anything Gretzky”, hockey magazines (but not other magazines), a selection of watches (“every man I know has a selection of watches”).

237When Mr Schacter’s mother was asked about his collections, she confirmed that he had numerous collections: she mentioned “anything related to hockey was his main interest”, coins, stamps, banknotes (regular and foreign) and key chains. When cross examined on this point, she said that his collections were mostly about hockey and stamps, coins and paper money. She did not recall a collection of watches (she knew that he had at least two watches). She also noted that Mr Schacter “had a lot of religious books”. No other collections came to mind.

238Key chains and Russian dolls are a bit out of the ordinary line of schoolboy collections, but not so strange as to seem unbelievable. Everything Mr Schacter and his mother mentioned as part of his “collection of collections” are in understood categories of collectible items.

239When asked about his collections, of which he said “had over 100 collections to my name”, he did not mention his “collection” of pictures of young boys in underwear and swim suits. He had claimed that this was a “collection” during his examination-in-chief, when he was asked why he had been downloading such images. But it did not come to mind when asked by the Crown what he collected. It was not because he had forgotten his testimony. Mr Schacter was very well prepared for his evidence, told his personal history as a dramatic narrative, and he was careful to be thorough in his answers. Now it would not be expected that he would try to list all of the “more than 100” collections he claims to have, but it is notable that he left out a collection to which he had testified in chief. Why did he do this? He had not forgotten his earlier testimony, but he did not want to draw further attention to it, because he did not want to be cross-examined about it. For obvious reasons.

Attraction to Young Boys

240As introduced during Mr Schacter’s evidence in chief, he was charged with possession of child pornography in 2015. In May 2018 he was convicted of those charges. The pictures included boys between the ages of 6 and 12. These were pictures of boys in speedos and underwear “positioned in certain ways”. Some pictures included close-ups of the genital area. When asked why he had these pictures, if not for personal gratification, Mr Schacter started his response with his defence to the child pornography charges, rather than answering the question:

I got them from Google sites. I thought they were legal. I just started collecting them. And there are hundreds of cases where the kids are clothed.

When pressed about why he collected these pictures he responded:

I do not know. If I start with one picture and I collect more…. I did not think there was anything illegal to them. I did not view them as close-ups or not close-ups. These are something I wanted to see….

The Crown pressed on, asking “Putting aside whether or not the pictures were legal or not, why would you need to possess close-ups of boys’ genital areas?” Mr Schacter responded:

It brought me back to the feel-good period in my own life – that has also crossed my mind. Young boys in bathing suits reminded me… I did not view them as close-ups or not close-ups. These are something I wanted to see….

241The Crown then put to Mr Schacter that he is sexually attracted to young boys, to which he replied “Well, I disagree.” Well, I disagree with Mr Schacter. It is perfectly obvious that he is attracted to young boys. And the evidence that he is so is overwhelming. I expect that it would have been difficult for Mr Schacter to admit such a thing, openly and candidly, to himself. But when faced with the mountain of evidence against him to the contrary, to cling to this patent falsehood, when its falsity has been so clearly demonstrated to everyone in the room, leads me to conclude that he is prepared to tell bald-faced lies about these events.

The Sports Analogy: Bum-Tapping

242Mr Schacter did not dispute the testimony of Lauren Brooker, the student teacher, but said that she had misinterpreted what she had seen. He would occasionally give a student a “pat on the back” or a “tap on the bum” as a vote of confidence, in the same way that some sportsmen do with teammates.

243This evidence was wholly incredible. First, I credit the student teacher with enough judgment to be able to tell the difference between a “pat on the back” and “rubbing”. Second, these were eight year old boys, who were having their homework graded at the front of the classroom. Touching the child in the manner described, while doing the marking, seems dissonant at best. Third, when this happened, Mr Schacter had already been once accused of sexually touching Felix. He had been warned to keep his classroom door open. It would be the height of folly to engage in this sort of touching with that sort of history: any ambiguity in the action could lead to disastrous consequences. Fourth, as I have found, Mr Schacter is sexually attracted to young boys. And although I think there is a great deal of denial going on in Mr Schacter’s mind, given the conduct in which he engaged with Adam, which was not in any way ambiguous, I am satisfied that Mr Schacter understood this about his own nature. And finally, I do not accept that it would be generally acceptable for a primary school teacher to slap a student lightly on the bum in congratulations in the manner of some professional athletes. Mr Schacter did not suggest that the female teachers or the rabbis also did this with the children.

244I do not accept Mr Schacter’s explanation. I accept Ms Brooker’s evidence. And I conclude from this that Mr Schacter routinely touched his students in inappropriate ways, to the point that the behaviour was, to some extent, normalized in his classroom so that Mr Schacter would do it without even thinking about it – which is why he did it in front of a student teacher.

245Crown counsel put this directly to Mr Schacter: “I suggest to you that touching them on their bum is inappropriate and any adult would recognize that.” Mr Schacter disagreed:

I am not sure that I necessarily agree with that given the nature – how well I knew the boys, the nature of the school and given the different nuances in the orthodox Jewish day school in which I was employed.

This answer encompasses a great deal of Mr Schacter’s response to this case. He suggests that there is something about orthodox Jewish belief and practice that would render touching a child’s rear end qualitatively different than it would be in other contexts. Certainly that is not how the student teacher saw it. Nor is it how the complainants experienced it. Nor does it have any basis in the evidence, aside from Mr Schacter’s bald self-interested assertion.

246Then Crown counsel put the sequence of events to Mr Schacter. The events seen by Ms Brooker were in the 2003/04 academic year, after the allegations made by Felix. The Crown put it to Mr Schacter: “after what you went through with [Felix], was it not on your mind that you should not be doing anything that could be perceived as inappropriate with the children.” Mr Schacter responded, “Yes, but I didn’t perceive it as inappropriate.” This self-serving answer failed to answer the question: even if he thought this physical contact could be acceptable, would he not want to be careful not to do anything that someone else could reasonably perceive as inappropriate. He then went on, “in orthodox culture I am not sure it would arouse suspicion or negative response”.

247The fact is that it did arouse suspicion and negative response. On May 18, 2004, Mr Schacter attended a meeting with Rabbi Steinman, Rabbi Levy and Mr Levy (the latter being the school’s executive director). Mr Schacter was warned not to place children on his lap or to have close physical contact with his students. When the Crown suggested that this meeting, for which a transcript was made, was evidence that the orthodox community did not condone close physical contact with students, Mr Schacter responded, “Well, you’re taking this out of context.” He did not explain to me why the question was out of context. He did not explain to me how these warnings could be reconciled that the behaviour was acceptable in the context of an orthodox school. Then Mr Schacter said “well in the years before it was a different environment – and things changed over time.” Again, Mr Schacter provided no evidence to support this claim other than his own self-serving evidence.

248The Crown continued. After the events with Felix, Mr Schacter was warned not to do anything to provoke suspicion. He was told to keep his door open. He agreed he received this “advice”. He was told not to have unnecessary physical contact with students. He did not agree that he was told this. He was asked if it was not true that some parents were concerned about him. He said that he had heard this. The point was pressed closer: there were some parents who had suspicions about him. Mr Schacter agreed that he had heard that but believed he still had the support of the school and most parents. But knowing that some parents suspected him of serious impropriety, would it not be essential that he do nothing that could provoke suspicion. He would not grant this point: at least he would not grant that, for a concerned parent, given the events involving Felix, that having little boys sit on his bum, rubbing their backs, and patting their bums, would be provocative behaviour. No, he said, “I still thought my teaching methodology in the primary grades was sound.”

Summary

249As I have explained, there are areas where I am satisfied that Mr Schacter and his mother were lying. This, combined with the other difficulties I had with their evidence, leads me to reject their testimony outright. Thus I am not left with a reasonable doubt of guilt on the basis of the defence evidence.

Part V – Conclusion – The Case Is Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

250The defence theorizes that Mr Schacter has been targeted by his accusers because they believe he assaulted Felix, who came forward in the 1990’s. The defence theorizes that the complainants believe that their community responded inappropriately to these earlier allegations, and shielded Mr Schacter to protect the reputation of the school and the orthodox community, rather than treating the allegations as they ought to have been treated. Thus the defence characterizes the complainants as a form of quasi-vigilante justice-seekers – the complainants pursue the charges before the court to condemn Mr Schacter for what they believe he did to Felix back in the 1990’s.

251I reject this theory. The complainants did not have an opportunity to concoct their stories and I find that they did not do so. The similarities in the evidence among Bobby, Charles and David, supported by the evidence of Ms Brooker, lead me to conclude that Mr Schacter engaged in a pattern of abusing young boys by touching them on the back, the buttocks, and the penis. He took advantage of his position as a primary school teacher to gain access to these young boys.

252The evidence of the complainants – Adam’s on its own – and the other complainants on the basis of their own evidence, the similar fact use of their evidence and the evidence of Ms Brooker – satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.

253As I have explained, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of everything that Charles said happened to him. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the incident on the stairs happened and that Mr Schacter touched Charles on his buttocks and penis, with his hand inserted in Charles’ pants. I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Schacter inserted his finger in Charles’ anus. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Schacter placed Charles on his lap, in the library, for the purpose of sexual gratification. I am not so satisfied that this event continued to the point of ejaculation. I am satisfied that this happened at least once, probably several times, but I am not satisfied that it happened with the regular frequency to which Charles attested: and so on balance I find myself not sure how often it happened. The finding of guilt is based on its having happened once.

254For all of these reasons I find Mr Schacter guilty of all the charges against him.

D.L. Corbett J.

Released: April 1, 2019

COURT FILE NO.:

DATE: 20190401

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

and -

Stephen Joseph Schacter

Accused

JUDGMENT

D.L. Corbett J.

Footnotes

R. v. W.D., 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742.
Exhibit 15.
Oddly, Mr Schacter drove to the park from his house – a distance of nine houses.
Exhibit 6.
Exhibit 8 is 7 photographs showing awards and certificates given out by Mr Schacter.
These measures were approximated by the court based on visual estimates provided by Mr Schacter based on the size of the courtroom.
Mr Schacter did not explain the basis for his assertion that there is a general practice between adults and small children in the “orthodox tradition” that is distinct from other traditions. Later in his evidence he testified that it “would never be appropriate for a girl to be on a lap” unless it was on a female teacher’s lap.
By this, I understood Mr Schacter to mean that he was the only male teacher for grades 2 and below. Certainly the rabbis were all men.
This rather gratuitous comment – the question had nothing to do with treating an injured student – sounded ridiculous and defensive in the context in which it was made.
Exhibit 10.