SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 17-5130

DATE: 2021/05/04

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Her Majesty the Queen

– and –

Michael Belanger

Tim Wightman, for the Crown

Bruce Engel, for the Accused

Heard: January 27-31, February 3, 4, 7, November 10, 11, 13, 2020, March 5, 2021

BY COURT ORDER MADE UNDER S. 486.4(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, INFORMATION THAT MAY IDENTIFY THE PERSON DESCRIBED IN THIS JUDGMENT AS THE COMPLAINANT MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST, OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY MANNER.

reasons for decision

BLISHEN J.

Introduction

[1] Michael Belanger is charged with sexual exploitation contrary to s. 153(1.1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 and sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Code, with respect to each of two complainants S.A. and C.L.-K. He is further charged with committing an assault on S.A. contrary to s. 266 of the Code.

[2] The sexual offences against S.A. are alleged to have occurred between November 1, 2008 and September 15, 2011 when she was 15 to 17 years old. The sexual offences with respect to C.L-K. are alleged to have occurred between July 31, 2006 and August 6, 2006 when she was 17 years old.

[3] Mr. Belanger was employed by the YM/YWCA both as a program supervisor and camp director at Camp Otonabee commencing in 2002 and as a leader and site supervisor of an after-school program at Connaught Public School, commencing in the spring of 2005. Mr. Belanger’s employment with the YM/YWCA terminated at the end of the school year in 2012.

[4] S.A. first met Mr. Belanger as an 11-year-old grade six student participating in the after- school program led by Mr. Belanger. She was encouraged by him to become a volunteer in grade 7. She continued as a volunteer until she was hired as a staff member when she was 15 years old in grade 10. At that time, Mr. Belanger was 32 years old and the site supervisor. S.A. continued as a staff member until she finished high school in 2011 when she was 17 years old.

[5] C.L-K. first met Mr. Belanger when she was 12 or 13 years old and attending Camp Otonabee. Mr. Belanger was the supervisor for her age group. In the summer of 2006, when Mr. Belanger was the director of Camp Otonabee, he hired C.L.-K. as a staff member. She continued as a staff member at the camp and at the after-school program. She was employed by the YM/YWCA in various capacities until she resigned in June 2018.

[6] Both complainants described Mr. Belanger making them feel “special” and telling each of them she was his “favourite”. They indicated they received special attention and privileges from Mr. Belanger when he was their supervisor. Both also describe Mr. Belanger complimenting them about how they looked. When they became staff members, he began making comments about what he would like to do with them sexually.

[7] With S.A. in particular, Mr. Belanger engaged in sexualized conversations, provided sexual advice and indicated how she could please her boyfriend. S.A. considered their relationship to be like a teacher/student. C.L-K. described her relationship with Mr. Belanger as like a father/child.

[8] S.A. described a number of incidents of sexual contact between herself and her supervisor, Mr. Belanger, after she was hired as a staff member at the after-school program, sexual contact which continued until she graduated from high school. Some incidents she alleged occurred after staff meetings at a local pub or during gatherings at Mr. Belanger’s home.

[9] C.L.-K. described a specific incident that occurred in Mr. Belanger’s cabin in 2006 when she was a 17 year old counsellor and was forced to give Mr. Belanger a “blow job”. C. L-K. described another incident of sexual contact initiated by Mr. Belanger that summer at a picnic table.

[10] Mr. Belanger acknowledged his relationship with both complainants who he described as “cool”, “awesome” and “friends” during the time they worked for him as staff members. He acknowledged some conversations of a sexual nature with S.A. and a series of sexualized e-mail exchanges with her in December 2011, just after she turned 17. He denied any sexual contact with either S.A. or C.L.-K. when they were under 18. He acknowledged one incident of oral sex with S. A. but indicated this occurred when she was 18 and was consensual. He also acknowledged kissing C. L-K. on the dance floor on one occasion after she was 18.

Evidence

[11] In addition to the testimony of both complainants, at the end of the Crown’s case, a third young woman, P.S. testified on a voir dire as to her involvement with Mr. Belanger while working at the after-school program and briefly at a Y Camp in the spring/summer of 2007, when she was 16. The Crown sought to introduce the testimony of the two complainants and P.S. as probative similar fact/discreditable conduct evidence. On February 28, 2020, a written decision was released finding on a balance of probabilities, in the context of this case, the probative value of the testimony of the complainants and P.S. in relation to: the actus reus of the offences charged, Mr. Belanger’s position of trust and authority, the mens rea of the offence of sexual exploitation and the credibility of the complainants, outweighed its potential prejudice. It was admitted as similar fact evidence.

[12] The final Crown witness was Cathy Turnbull, who was in charge of Human Resources and Employment Records at the YM/YWCA when the charges were laid. She testified as to the employment history of the two complainants, P.S. and Mr. Belanger at the YM/YWCA. Their employment records were files as Exhibits.

[13] The only witness for the defence was Mr. Belanger.

Testimony of S.A.

[14] S.A. was born on […], 1993. She first Mr. Belanger when she was 11 years old in grade six and attending the after-school program run by the YM/YWCA at Connaught Public School in Ottawa where Mr. Belanger was a program leader. He was 29 years old at that time.

[15] When she was in grade seven, S.A. asked Mr. Belanger if she could become a volunteer. Mr. Belanger was enthusiastic. No interview or resume was required. At that time, Mr. Belanger had the lead role as a program supervisor. He was the authority figure, the one to make decisions and the one to whom S.A. reported.

[16] S.A. continued as a volunteer until she was 15 years old and in grade 10 at Glebe High School. At that time, Mr. Belanger offered her a job as a paid employee at the YM/YWCA in the after-school program, without an interview or resume. He continued to be the program supervisor and S.A.’s “boss”.

[17] As previously noted, S.A. continued as a paid employee of the after-school program until the end of grade 12 in 2011, when she was 17 years old. She then worked as a counsellor at Camp Otonabee, day camp where Mr. Belanger was a supervisor, for the summer until leaving for the University of Toronto in early September 2011.

[18] S.A. testified that when she was a participant and a volunteer, Mr. Belanger always treated her as “the favourite of the kids”. She felt special and spent most of the time with Mr. Belanger at the program. This continued when she became a staff member. She testified that while he was her “boss” and role model, Mr. Belanger paid special attention to her and talked to her more than other staff members.

[19] Mr. Belanger began to attend family dinners at S.A.’s home every Tuesday evening. They walked to her home together from the after-school program. Mr. Belanger developed a close relationship and rapport with her parents and her two younger sisters. He babysat the three girls from time to time and was invited to dinner parties by their parents. The entire family attended Mr. Belanger’s wedding in May 2008. S.A.’s younger sister, E.A. was the flower girl.

[20] When babysitting the girls, Mr. Belanger initiated a wrestling game which he called “Crash Royale”. On one occasion, a friend of the girls fell and hurt her head while playing the game. After that, they played the game less frequently. Mr. Belanger indicated to S.A. this was now more a “secret” game between the two of them. S.A. recalled an occasion when they played the wrestling game in Hintonburg Park. It was a warm and sunny day. There were people around when they were wrestling. Mr. Belanger ended the wrestling when she was on top and people began watching. Under cross-examination S.A. testified she enjoyed the wrestling and didn’t think it was inappropriate at the time.

[21] When S.A. became a paid employee, Mr. Belanger began to invite her to attend staff meetings after work at Daniel O’Connnell’s Pub on Wellington Street. Although she was underage and the youngest staff member, Mr. Belanger bought her beer. S.A. testified the meetings were very brief and the gatherings mostly involved socializing. In addition to the staff meetings at O’Connell’s Pub, Mr. Belanger had staff parties at his house. They would play a game called “Rock Band” and alcohol would be available.

Attempted Kiss

[22] On one occasion, S.A. became intoxicated at one of the “staff meetings”. At the end of the night she was alone with Mr. Belanger who complimented and flirted with her. She recalls feeling very special. She stayed in the pub with Mr. Belanger as the other staff members were leaving because Mr. Belanger offered to walk her home and reassured her that “it would be fine”.

[23] As they were walking towards S.A.’s home, Mr. Belanger suggested they go into the lobby of an apartment building on Wellington Street to warm up. S.A. did not see the need, but Mr. Belanger was insistent. They began discussing personal issues. Mr. Belanger talked about his sexual history and when he first kissed a girl. He asked S.A. about her experiences and her love life. She said she had never done anything sexually and did not have a boyfriend. As they were sitting on the step in the lobby with their legs touching, Mr. Belanger tried to kiss her. She testified she raised her right hand to block him; he pulled away and broke eye contact. He made her feel guilty, so she apologized for denying him a kiss by saying “I am sorry.” S.A. testified she felt she “owed him this type of affection for how he had been treating me”; for the compliments and the extra time spent with her. She believes this occurred soon after she was hired by Mr. Belanger as a staff member.

[24] After the attempted kiss, S.A. testified her relationship with Mr. Belanger changed from “special friend” to more of a “teacher/student” dynamic. She felt he had more of a desire and a goal in the relationship. From that point on, whenever they were in alone, Mr. Belanger initiated sexualized conversations about personal topics, sexual experiences and history. S.A. explained her “so called problems” with sex and relationships and Mr. Belanger provided advice as to the actions she should take and at times indicated what he would like to do. She testified she exaggerated or made up difficulties with her boyfriend in order to maintain the teacher/student dynamic. She did not want the relationship to evolve further.

Kiss Incident

[25] Approximately a month after the attempted kiss in the lobby, Mr. Belanger drove S.A. home in his Jeep, she believes from a staff meeting and parked down the street from her house where her parents would not be able to see them. S.A. testified the top of the Jeep was up as it was cold out. Mr. Belanger again initiated a conversation regarding personal sexual history. He began complimenting S.A. and she observed he was rubbing his penis. With his seatbelt unbuckled, he leaned over and kissed her on the lips. She was buckled in, leaning against the closed door and had no where to go. She felt trapped. Her previous indication that she did not want a kiss did not, as she put it, “carry over”.

Park Incident

[26] S.A. testified another incident occurred late in high school, when she was 16 or 17 years old. At the end of staff meeting at Daniel O’Connell’s Pub, after consuming alcohol, S.A. was again alone with Mr. Belanger who, as had been the case previously, reassured her he would walk her home. On the way home, they stopped at a picnic table in Hintonburg Park. They sat on a picnic table with their feet on the bench. As was the pattern, Mr. Belanger initiated a conversation about sexual history and asked S.A. about her sexual experiences. S.A. indicated her boyfriend did not want to touch her “boobs”. Mr. Belanger commented that “any boy would be lucky to touch boobs.” He would want to touch her boobs and would do so if she wanted. After refreshing her memory from her statement, S.A. recalled Mr. Belanger’s specifically stating: “if I had access to those boobies, I wouldn’t take my mouth off of them.” He stated boys her age weren’t great and she should be dating an older guy. When talking about “boobies” Mr. Belanger said he had a “half chub” and “did she want to see it.” She did not know what that meant. Mr. Belanger explained it was a half erection. She indicated no she did not want to see it, but he undid his pants and pulled out his penis. He grabbed and lifted S.A.’s hand, brought it over and placed it on top of his penis with his hand on top of hers. He reassured her this would be ok. After less than a minute, Mr. Belanger stopped holding S.A.’s hand on his penis. She heard him zip up his pants. She testified she felt betrayed.

Sexualized Conversations

[27] S.A. testified there were many sexualized conversations initiated by Mr. Belanger both in person and in emails. She estimated between 10 and 40 from the time she was hired as a staff member until finishing high school.

[28] The conversations were usually initiated by Mr. Belanger at night after socializing and after alcohol consumption. He told her the story of how he lost his virginity to someone older than him at camp in a bunkbed. He made it seem normal to S.A. to lose your virginity to someone older. It made her feel she might be compelled to reciprocate. He told her about the positions he enjoyed and what he would masturbate to.

[29] In addition to telling her about his sexual experiences, he asked S.A. about her love life; who she was seeing; what she was doing and not doing. He indicated what she should be doing and gave her examples. She stated, “one that comes to mind is that he would always ask, you know, if I am masturbating, or how far I have gone with my boyfriend or what I would like my boyfriend to do.” She provided him with responses that were mainly untrue, but she believed were what he wanted to hear. She aggrandized her sexual experiences.

[30] Mr. Belanger made her feel she had to prove something, and she was not normal if she did not want or engage in sexual activity such as masturbation, having her breasts fondled, blow jobs, hand jobs, sex. From time to time S.A. used the fact she had a boyfriend as an excuse not to do something. She stated, “I could use my boyfriend as an excuse to not have to kiss or touch Mike, ‘cause I could say that that would be cheating instead of trying to figure out another excuse.”

[31] According to S.A., as time went on the conversations became more aggressive. There was constantly a desire to go further. There was further sexual contact. Mr. Belanger would expect a kiss, touching or a story on her part. He told her things she should do such as “watching porn, masturbating, touching him, kissing him, kissing other boys in my grade, doing other things to other boys in my grade, letting other boys do stuff to me that would include touching breasts and fingering and stuff.”

[32] S.A. testified she felt scared but at that time did not tell anyone what was happening. She was worried things would get worse or become more aggressive. She was also afraid she would lose her job at the Y where Mr. Belanger continued to be the program supervisor.

[33] In addition to the conversations of a sexual nature, S.A. testified when Mr. Belanger had the house to himself, he sent her email invitations to come over for a “fun time”. She deleted the emails at his request and did not tell her parents. Mr. Belanger told her not to tell and indicated “your father would kill me.” She did keep one exchange of emails which will be referred to below.

Other Sexual Contact

[34] After the park incident, S.A. testified there were up to 10 other incidents of sexual contact. Mr. Belanger would touch her breasts; get her to straddle him; dry hump on top of her; get her to touch his penis and have oral sex. Those incidents normally took place after a party which began at Daniel O’Connell’s Pub and ended at Mr. Belanger’s house or at a party at his house, when his wife Kelly was out.

[35] S. A. testified they would be sitting on couches in the living room. Mr. Belanger would offer her a beer and put something on TV which, on at least one occasion, was pornography. He would request she come closer by a hand gesture, by patting the seat next to him or by saying “kiss me” or “come here”. There would be kissing which would turn into her straddling him. Mr. Belanger would grab her wrist or arm and pull her on top of him. She stated when they were dry humping, he picked her up and placed her on the couch on her back. He would ask her to touch his penis over and then under his clothes. He would touch her breasts and finally would request that she give him a “blow job”. He would put his hand on her head and push it down towards his penis, leaving his hand on her head for some time.

[36] S. A. testified she felt trapped, used and scared - that she had no choice. Mr. Belanger continued to be her supervisor and a family friend. When she made excuses to leave, Mr. Belanger indicated it would be fine; she should stay longer. He told her his wife, Kelly would not be home, and, in any event, she was okay with what was happening. He indicated Kelly would be “down for a threesome with us” and they had done this before. S.A. testified the only thing that seemed to work at times was deflecting, delaying and distracting.

Teal Pullover Incident

[37] S.A. described an incident of sexual contact that occurred when she was wearing a teal pullover after a staff party at Mr. Belanger’s home. She indicated she would have been, “17 ish” when this occurred. When asked why she used the term “17 ish” she said she was unsure “whether it would have been earlier.” She further indicated the incident occurred near the end of her time as a staff member in the after- school program. In relation to a series of emails exchanged between her and Mr. Belanger in December 2010, she thought the teal pullover incident came after or around the time of the emails, when she was 17. Under cross-examination, S.A. thought it was after the email exchange in December but when asked whether it could have been later when she was 18 after admission to U of T, she indicated, “I don’t know.” She was “not sure”. In re-examination after refreshing her memory from the transcript of the preliminary hearing, she was asked “So when did it occur?” and she stated, “When I was below 18, while in High School.”

[38] S.A. indicated the staff party at Mr. Belanger’s home began in the afternoon and continued into the evening. She specifically remembers another staff member, N.M., being there. There was drinking, socializing and they were playing the video game, Rock Band. Mr. Belanger’s wife, Kelly was not present nor were their children. Near the end of the night, she leaned over to N.M. and asked him to please stay as she did not want to be alone with Mr. Belanger due to the escalation of sexual activity. She believed this night would be particularly aggressive given that Kelly was not present, and Mike had the entire night to himself. When she asked N.M. to stay, Mr. Belanger told him she would be fine, and he left.

[39] After all the other staff members had left, S.A. was sitting on one couch and Mr. Belanger was sitting on another. He indicated with a hand gesture or by patting the seat next to him to come and join him on the couch, which she did. He pulled on her arm to indicate that she should straddle and kiss him. They kissed for a while and started dry humping when she was straddling him. He turned her onto her back and lay on top of her. The dry humping lasted about five minutes. He then pulled out his penis and put his hand on her head to push it down indicating that she was to give him a “blow job” which she did. The “blow job” lasted for approximately five minutes. Mr. Belanger then began masturbating while looking at her. He asked where she would like him to “finish” and gave her the choice of ejaculating on her face, her breasts or her stomach. She chose her stomach, pulled up her teal pullover and he ejaculated on her. S.A. testified she felt trapped.

[40] After Mr. Belanger ejaculated on her stomach, S.A. went to the upstairs bathroom to clean up. She then came downstairs, said goodnight and walked home.

[41] S.A testified that after this incident, she felt extremely ashamed and absolutely terrified as in her mind a line had been crossed. She was concerned as to what line would be crossed next. She indicated this was different from the usual pattern of sexual activity when once Mr. Belanger was close to ejaculating, he would go upstairs to the bathroom to “finish himself off”.

[42] Under cross-examination, S.A. indicated this was one of the last times she had oral sex with Mr. Belanger and the first time he had ever ejaculated on her.

White Dress Incident

[43] S.A. testified about another specific incident when she was wearing a white dress, during another staff party at Mr. Belanger’s home. She believes it was in the summer, although it could have been late spring or early fall. It was warm outside. Mr. Belanger’s wife was not there. She remembers Mr. Belanger complimenting her on her white dress. Like the teal pullover incident, everyone else left and S.A. and Mr. Belanger were alone. They were sitting on couches. Mr. Belanger pulled her arm indicating she should straddle him. That turned into dry humping with her lying down on the couch and Mr. Belanger on top of her. He then invited her upstairs to the bedroom to have sex. She said that would be too much for her. He looked disappointed. He left her on the couch and went upstairs to, as she put it, “finish off”. Mr. Belanger came downstairs, they said goodnight and she walked home.

[44] S. A. was not sure when this incident occurred, although she believed it was before the teal pullover incident.

Emails

[45] S.A. testified that from time to time Mr. Belanger would send her emails or text messages stating he had the house to himself and she should come over for “fun times”, which she understood to mean sexual contact. These messages would usually be sent at night and be an extension of a previous conversation, to follow up a request for sex by Mr. Belanger. If she did not respond quickly, he would send another message.

[46] S.A. testified she felt the need to prepare herself to either write a story to fend off his requests or lie. Often, if she wrote an erotic story, usually involving her, that would be satisfactory for him. At times he would request a specific subject or scenario. S.A. testified she deleted the email chains at Mr. Belanger’s request. He told her he did not want her parents to find out and repeatedly indicated never to tell her parents.

December 2010 Email Exchange

[47] S.A. did keep one string of emails from December 2010 when she was 17. It began with a Thanksgiving story sent by S.A. to her friends and contacts, including Mr. Belanger. On Thursday, December 16 at 9:41 p.m. Mr. Belanger responded. The emails between S.A. and Mr. Belanger then continued until Friday, December 17 at 12:35 a.m. The email chain was filed as Exhibit 4.

[48] The emails begin with a discussion of S.A.’s boyfriend not touching her breasts which had been a previous topic of conversation. Mr. Belanger responds, “seriously why do you even have to lead a boy to a boob. We are basically conditioned to love them from the time our balls drop until we take our dying breath. You should just listen to me and I will explain. Boobs = boner, boner=loss of control. End of story period.” He then asks: “no one can read these emails right?” and she reassures him. The emails continue with Mr. Belanger stating he was thinking of her “boobs”. He states “man you need to use me to teach you absolutely everything about havin’ fun naked. Seriously, we would both have a bunch of fun.”

[49] The emails continue with a discussion of S. A’s boyfriend. She testified she was trying to use her boyfriend as an excuse for not doing anything with Mr. Belanger who was suggesting a “mutual fun ‘arrangement’”. At one point during the exchange S.A. says she’s attracted to him but testified this back and forth was part of the dynamic between them.

[50] Mr. Belanger goes on to say he thinks she is “friggin’hot” and daring her to name her three favourite things that attract her to him. He then repeats his concern about her parents finding out stating: “just imagine how hard your dad would kill me if he ever read these…make sure you delete and when I get you naked…don’t film it? LOL.”

[51] S.A. complies and lists three things about him. She testified that if she didn’t, she was worried he would berate her as he had done in the past by calling her stupid or not courageous. She felt ashamed and that she had to prove something to him.

[52] Mr. Belanger continues the emails by once again suggesting she should “cut out of school and come hang out a bit before work and when my kids are asleep….you know, good ole naked time…there is a nice window of opportunity.” He repeats his invitation to come over stating: “OK so tomorrow afternoon, naked time sweet! You should just come to my place tonight, through the basement and I should just at least touch a boob of yours, maybe a little nibble. You’ll be hornier than ever….” He then requests a sexy picture of her.

[53] S.A. tries to brush this off and deflect by saying she does not know the first thing about taking sexy pictures and indicates that “Tomorrow is school! I can’t just skip the last day!”

[54] Mr. Belanger explains how to take a sexy photograph and persists in asking her to come over the next day, suggesting she call the work phone. The conversation continues with a discussion of the sexy picture. S.A. tries to deflect, delay and distract which she testified was the method she had developed to try to deal with Mr. Belanger’s advances. He repeats his request that she come over that night for a preview of the following day and once again states “12-2, kids asleep, bed ready to be used and two horny people.”

[55] The conversation continues and Mr. Belanger once again repeats his request that S.A. come by the next day “12-2…lots of fun time…”. He then requests a story: “tell me what I should think of you while I stroke my cock…if you are not going to shoot me off yourself, you owe me that much at least. And don’t try to play all innocent…be creative…”

[56] S.A. had sent erotic stories in previous emails, but it appeared to her he wanted her to be more sexually adventurous and get out her comfort zone. She complied and made up a story of a graphic sexual encounter between them. Although she felt ashamed, dirty and that he was taking advantage of her, she wrote the story to placate him, hoping his previous requests for her to go over that night and/or the next day would be forgotten. This strategy had worked before. However, Mr. Belanger responded by continuing the story and asking her to continue, stating “your turn…” S.A. testified at that point she was terrified things would escalate as her tactic was not working as well as it had in the past. She then told Mr. Belanger “I must get to bed because this is too much. See you at work.” He does not let it go and concludes the exchange with “show up tomorrow around noon…and I will make it worthwhile and not a wish at all.”

[57] During this email exchange, Mr. Belanger asked S.A. to come to over to his residence for sexual activity seven times.

[58] S.A. testified she felt things were out of control. Her boss/supervisor/family friend had made a demand and she felt she had to comply. She was worried and had to come up with an excuse to avoid the encounter. She felt exhausted and scared it would not work. She thinks she used school as an excuse and did not go over to his house the next day as he had requested.

Storage Room Incident

[59] S.A. testified about an incident that occurred with Mr. Belanger in a storage room when she was a staff member at the Connaught after school program.

[60] Mr. Belanger invited her into the storage room by saying something like “come look at this.” He held the door open; she went in and he followed. He then pushed her towards the wall by using both his hands, one on each of her upper arms so she had to take some steps backwards. He pressed his stomach against her front. She felt she could not move. Mr. Belanger was between her and the exit doors. She felt trapped and caught and testified she “felt like prey”. Mr. Belanger looked down at her and she could feel his breath. After approximately 30 seconds to a minute, he stopped, said something about getting back and they left the storage room. This occurred during regular work hours of the program when she was a paid employee.

Contact after 18th birthday

[61] After working for the summer at Camp Otonabee day camp, where Mr. Belanger was a supervisor, S.A. left Ottawa and began attending the University of Toronto in early September 2011. She turned 18 on […], 2011. She felt she was escaping to a different city to avoid Mr. Belanger and their relationship. She felt relieved, safe and free in Toronto.

[62] S.A. testified she remained in Toronto for her birthday in September but did come back to Ottawa for Christmas 2011 and after exams in April/May 2012 for the summer. She did not recall reaching out to Mr. Belanger but acknowledged receiving an email from him in December 2011 which was filed as Exhibit 6. She responded she would drop into work (the Connaught after school program) because she missed seeing the kids. There may have been some electronic communication between them but other than the text in December 2011, S.A. did not have an independent memory of contact.

[63] Sometime in the summer 2012, S.A. recalls attending Mr. Belanger’s house for a reunion party with staff members from the after-school program. Her sister, C.A. was with her on this occasion. During the party, S.A. described Mr. Belanger touching her approximately five times when no one was watching. He put his hand on the inside of her leg; came up behind her and pressed himself against her. He stopped when someone seemed to be looking. She felt unsafe and isolated.

[64] Under cross-examination, S.A. stated, “it reminded me that I, that it wasn’t over and just because I moved away, he would not stop, and I felt scared for my sisters and wanted to protect them from him.” It was these incidents that prompted S. A. to disclose what had been happening with Mr. Belanger to her sister C.A. While walking home from the party together, S.A. told her sister Mr. Belanger had been teaching her about sex for a long time and they had kissed and had done other sexual things.

[65] S.A. testified that telling her sister gave her a lot of courage. C.A. helped her realize what had been happening was not normal. She was also concerned about her sisters as she was returning to university in Toronto and would not be there to protect them. She felt at that point she was in some respects placing the burden on C.A. She remained terrified that C.A. would tell her parents and that Mr. Belanger would find out. She testified Mr. Belanger “still felt like an authority figure and still wanted the same things.”

[66] Sometime later in the summer of 2012, after telling her sister what had been happening, S.A. recalls Mr. Belanger reaching out to her via text message asking her to come over. At that point she had enough courage to say no and refuse. She had by then realized the relationship was not in any way normal. There was no further sexual contact between them.

[67] S.A. did recall asking Mr. Belanger for a letter of reference in 2015 as he had been her only long-term work supervisor.

[68] In 2015 or 2016, S.A. told her parents about what had happened with Mr. Belanger and her father, who worked with Mr. Belanger at that time, confronted him at work. In March 2017, S.A. provided a detailed interview to the Ottawa Police Service and charges were laid.

Testimony of C.L.-K.

[69] C.L.-K. was born on […], 1989. She recalled first meeting Mr. Belanger when she was an 11 or 12-year-old camper at Camp Otonabee, a day camp run by the Ottawa YM/YWCA. Mr. Belanger was a camp counsellor.

[70] C.L.-K. continued as a camper in subsequent summers. She testified Mr. Belanger called her his “favourite” and gave her preferential treatment and privileges. He told her she was “special” and continued to compliment her. In front of other counsellors, he would say she was his favourite and make comments such as “She is so fun. She is great”. C.L.-K. enjoyed the special attention and took advantage of the situation.

[71] When C. L.-K. was 14 or 15 years old, she moved into a leadership program at camp. When she was 16, she was hired as a counsellor for the day camp. During the summer of 2006 when she turned 17, C.L.-K. was hired as a counsellor for the overnight program. Mr. Belanger was the director of the day camp and acting director of the overnight camp. He continued to treat C.L.-K. as special and his favourite. She testified he made comments to other people such as “We have been friends for so long. She is special; she is awesome; look how cool she is.”

[72] During the summer of 2006, C.L.-K. was a counsellor for a cabin of 11 and 12- year- old boys. She was responsible for them until bedtime. At night a male counsellor slept in the boys’ cabin. C. L.-K. had a bed in another cabin.

Cabin Incident

[73] One night during the summer of 2006, Mr. Belanger invited her and other staff members to his cabin to watch a movie rumoured to have been shot at the camp.

[74] C.L.-K. arrived at Mr. Belanger’s cabin between 10:00-11:00 p.m. after settling her campers down for the night. When she arrived, Mr. Belanger was alone. They sat on the couch to the right of the door, facing the TV. C.L.-K. sat on Mr. Belanger’s left and they began watching the movie. She testified she fell asleep and when she woke up, her head was on his lap. His pelvis was moving, and she could feel his hand touching her hair. C.L.-K. indicated the movement of his pelvis felt strange, so she kept her eyes closed. When it did not stop, she pretended to wake up slowly. She looked up at Mr. Belanger. She noticed his penis was out. He indicated either by words or actions that she should put his penis in her mouth. She indicated, “No” but he put his hand on the back of her head and pushed it down onto his penis. While his penis was in her mouth, he continued to thrust his penis up and down leaving his hand on the back of her head. She felt the sensation of him ejaculating in her mouth. He then removed his hand from her head and stopped moving his pelvis. C.L.-K. testified she felt confused and ashamed.

[75] The next thing she remembers is standing with her back facing the door and Mr. Belanger standing looking at her. She was crying. He hugged her and said things like “I love you” and “Don’t tell anyone”. He said he cared about her and tried to calm her down. He indicated she would always be his favourite. He also made some sort of apology, but C.L.-K. could not remember the exact words.

[76] C. L.-K. left his cabin and went back to her sleeping cabin. She began crying as she left, and testified she cried all night. She continued to be confused as Mr. Belanger had become like a father figure to her.

Picnic Table Incident

[77] A couple of days later, Mr. Belanger invited C.L.-K. to go for a walk. He told her he was upset, and they needed to talk. They met after dark and walked for a while ending up at a picnic table close to the field. After they sat down, Mr. Belanger began complimenting C. L-K. as he had in the past. He said he wished she was older, or he was younger. If they were the same age, she was the type of girl he would marry. These comments confused C. L.-K., and she got up to leave. He took her arm and pulled her in. She felt his penis was hard because he was holding her tightly from behind. He then put his hand down her pants underneath her underwear and made comments such as “You know I could marry you. You are wonderful. You have always been my favourite”. Mr. Belanger told her not to tell anyone about what happened. C.L.-K. left the picnic table area and does not recall specifically what she did after that.

[78] She never spoke to Mr. Belanger about these incidents and did not report them at that time.

[79] After the picnic table incident, she continued to see Mr. Belanger at camp. It appeared to C. L.-K that he had “backed off” and had received the message that she did not “like him back.” She was more distant as well. She continued to consider him her boss. As the acting director, he often gave orders or directives for the overnight camp counsellors. He presented as friendly but authoritative, with clear expectations.

After School Program

[80] In the summer of 2006, Mr. Belanger encouraged C.L.-K. to become a staff member at the Connaught after school program where he was a supervisor. She was hired by Mr. Belanger without an interview. At that point, she testified things went back to some kind of a normal employee/supervisor relationship, but she also continued to consider him a father figure.

[81] C. L.-K testified that at that time she felt things had happened which she did not feel good about but probably they were her fault. They were just moving on now. She cared about Mr. Belanger and had known him a long time. C.L.-K. continued to work at the program during the 2006-2007 school year.

[82] In the fall of 2007, C.L.-K. continued as a staff member at the after -school program. Mr. Belanger named her his assistant supervisor. There was no extra financial compensation as it was not a real position. Mr. Belanger continued to be in charge of the program.

[83] C.L-K. attended Mr. Belanger’s wedding in May 2008. Her mother knew Mr. Belanger and liked him. She wanted to attend the wedding, bought a gift and attended with C.L.-K. Mr. Belanger sent them a personal thank you note for the gift.

[84] C.L.-K. testified she attended “staff meetings” at Daniel O’Connell’s pub. The first time she attended one of the “meetings” she was 17. Although she was underage, Mr. Belanger bought her beer and she became intoxicated.

[85] Sometimes she and Mr. Belanger would meet alone at the pub to talk about the program and do some planning. C.L.-K. testified these meetings all seemed to come back to his personal life and her personal life. He asked her how things were going with her boyfriends and dating. Mr. Belanger complained about his wife saying she would not let him go out alone; she was too bossy or too organized. He talked about her a lot. Mr. Belanger told C.L-K. his wife did not mind and in fact approved, of him sleeping with others. He indicated this wife agreed he could have sex with C.L.-K. if she chose to. Although she felt strange about these comments, Mr Belanger made her feel perhaps this was a normal thing. Nevertheless, C. L.-K. did not like the comments and ignored them.

Kiss on the dance floor

[86] C.L.-K. testified that on one occasion, sometime in 2011, there was an after-work staff party at Daniel O’Connell’s pub. She was intoxicated. Everyone got up to dance. She was dancing near Mr. Belanger who initiated a kiss which lasted for about 30 seconds. She was very drunk at the time but the next day again felt shame and confusion.

Parties at Mr. Belanger’s home

[87] At times C.L.-K. attended staff parties at Mr. Belanger’s home where they would drink and play the Rock Band video game. C.L.-K. recalled two specific occasions.

[88] On the first occasion she was with Mr. Belanger and three other male staff members. She recalls, after a night of drinking and partying, she spent the night sleeping on the couch on the main floor with another staff member, R. J., sleeping on the adjacent couch.

[89] C. L.-K. has a specific recollection of a second party at Mr. Belanger’s home when she and other staff members gathered to play Rock Band. Again, she was there with Mr. Belanger and three other male staff members who were participating in a drinking challenge to see who could drink a case of 24 beer. C.L.-K. had not brought alcohol, as she did not wish to stay long. However, Mr. Belanger gave her some Crown Royal. She recalls drinking about half of the one-litre bottle. While they were sitting in the kitchen, Mr. Belanger asked C.L.-K. whether she would like to go upstairs to sleep in his bed for the night instead of sleeping on the couch. She indicated no; she would sleep on the couch. Later in the evening he changed the proposition to “why don’t you go up to bed and I will be with you after.” He persisted, indicating he had always cared about C.L.-K. and his wife did not care if he was with other people as she wants to have “an open relationship”. C.L.-K. testified she became visibly angry and told Mike he could not talk to her like that. She went to the couch and fell asleep.

[90] C. L.-K. testified Mr. Belanger would hold grudges and she was afraid of some kind of reprisal so she wrote him an apology note indicating she hoped things would be ok at work on Monday.

Disclosure

[91] In June 2012, Mr. Belanger left both the after school and camp “Y” programs. C. L.-K. continued to work at the camp in 2012 as a senior program staff, in 2013 as a full-time program instructor, and in 2015 as a full-time coordinator of outdoor education and camping until she resigned in June 2018.

[92] In 2017 C. L.-K. was living and working as full-time camp coordinator. In mid September 2017, Mr. Belanger’s best friend Peter and his wife, who had both been camp staff and supervisors, returned to live and work at the camp after a three-year absence. Given the close relationship between Peter and Mr. Belanger, C. L.-K. no longer felt safe. She thought she had put what happened behind her and had no intention of coming forward but when Peter and his wife came back, she went to the Ottawa Police in Nov. 2017.

[93] Sometime after her interview with the police, C. L.-K. learned the case regarding Mr. Belanger was already active and S.A. was the other complainant. C. L.-K. felt guilty for not disclosing what had happened with Mr. Belanger which could have protected S.A. She sent a Facebook message to S.A. (Exhibit 5) saying she was sorry. S. A. responded they shouldn’t talk before the trial but after she would love to talk in person and share experiences as it could be very healing. C. L-K. agreed. No details were discussed and there was no further contact between them. There is no evidence of collusion.

Testimony of P.S.

[94] P. S. was born on […], 1991. When she was in grade 9 or 10 at Lisgar Collegiate, she was in charge of picking up her six or seven-year-old sister E. S. from the after-school program at Connaught Public School, where Mr. Belanger was the supervisor. She believed he was in his early to mid 30s.

[95] Mr. Belanger told her he had noticed her picking up E. S. and “out of the blue” one day offered her a job at the after-school program. He indicated he had something open and she would be a good fit. There was no application required, no resume provided and no interview. P. S. was surprised and told Mr. Belanger she would think about it as she already had a job as a cashier.

[96] After a few days, she accepted Mr. Belanger’s offer. She began working as a staff member at the after-school program in late spring or early summer of 2007 when she was still 15 or had just turned 16. Mr. Belanger ran the program as the supervisor and facilitator. All staff members reported to him.

[97] P. S. worked at the program until the end of June 2007. Mr. Belanger then offered her a continuing summer position at MacSkimming summer day camp run through the YM /YWCA, where he was coordinator. She accepted and became a full-time camp counsellor for the month of July 2007.

[98] She testified that usually the after-school program staff met after work on Fridays to talk and have pitchers of beer at Daniel O'Connell's pub. This was part of the staff “after work culture”. She was only 16, three years under the drinking age, but Mr. Belanger encouraged her to come, reassured her and assuaged her concerns. He said she looked mature, older than her age and if she was with other staff members, would get served. P. S. wanted to fit in, so she went and was served beer.

[99] During the after-work staff gatherings at the pub, Mr. Belanger veered towards increasingly personal comments, shared information about his personal sex life and began making sexually suggestive comments to her.

[100] P. S. has a clear and distinct memory of one occasion in June 2007, when only she and Mr. Belanger were left at the school on Friday after the program. She assumed they would not be going to the pub, but Mr. Belanger suggested they still go. They went to O'Connell’s and shared about three pitchers of beer. P. S. testified she became increasingly drunk. Mr. Belanger began talking about sex and commented that her breasts looked good in the t-shirt she was wearing; he liked the way she looked and stated that when he hired her, he was hoping to have sex with her. P. S. felt overwhelmed and stupid, realizing she was a 16-year-old drinking alone with her boss. She refused his offer of a ride and walked home.

[101] When P.S. got home, she called her boyfriend and told him what happened. Her boyfriend’s mother suggested P. S. make notes, which she did within two days of the incident. After refreshing her memory from her notes, P.S. indicated the incident took place on June 1, 2007 at approximately 6:30 p.m. Mr. Belanger began speaking about his frequent sexual encounters at camp and stated, “if you had been at that camp, I would have nailed you so fast”. He stated he knew he was going to have problems “when I hired you because I've always felt attracted to you”. He further indicated if she was free during the days and wanted to hang out, they could. He stated, “I could please you like you've never been pleased before…if you have sex tonight, I know you will think of me”. He made more comments regarding her boyfriend, focusing on her being young and inexperienced. He stated he could offer her more sexual pleasure than her boyfriend.

[102] P.S. continued to work at the after-school program but felt uncomfortable. Mr. Belanger continued to make suggestive comments and comments about how she looked. The sexual innuendos continued while she worked for Mr. Belanger at the MacSkimming camp during July 2007.

[103] P.S. related an incident when she was in a supply closet located in the camp lodge, getting supplies for activities. Mr. Belanger came in and grabbed her by the waist by putting one hand on her left hip firmly. He stared at her intensely for a few seconds in what appeared to her to be a lustful manner, as if he was going to kiss her. P. S. felt shocked, nervous and did not return his gaze. He let go and she left the supply closet. No words were spoken.

[104] On another occasion, while working at MacSkimming camp, P. S. accepted a ride home from Mr. Belanger in his Jeep. He pulled into the area in front of her parents’ home and made a point of mentioning his girlfriend was out of town that weekend if she wanted to come over. Again P.S. felt very uncomfortable. She knew it was an inappropriate offer to make to an underage employee.

Testimony of Michael Belanger

[105] Michael Belanger was born on February 18th, 1976.

[106] He confirmed his work history with the YM/YWCA as outlined in Exhibit 11. This included his role as program leader and site supervisor for the after-school program at Connaught Public School in Ottawa when S.A. was involved in the program, as a participant and volunteer. He hired her as a staff member when she was 15 or 16 and she continued as a staff member until the end of the 2011 school year. He was in charge of hiring, paying the staff and running the program.

[107] Mr. Belanger confirmed that commencing in 2002, he was a counsellor at the Camp Otonabee day camp attended by C.L.-K. and her brother. During the summer of 2006 when C.L.-K. turned 17 ([…]) and he was 31, Mr. Belanger was camp director and hired C.L-K. as a counsellor for the overnight camp program. Although C.L.-K. did not report directly to him, as camp director he was responsible for all staff.

[108] In 2007, he hired P.S. as a staff member for the after-school program and offered her a staff position at the camp program he ran at MacSkimming outdoor education centre during the month of July 2007.

[109] In May 2008 he and his girlfriend Kelly were married. S.A. and her family attended the wedding, as did C. L.-K and her mother. In August 2008 Mr. Belanger and his wife moved to Hintonburg, just down the street from S.A.’s family. Mr. Belanger and his wife had twins on […], 2009. and a third child on […], 2012. Mr. Belanger left his employment with the YM/YWCA after-school program and camp in early June 2012.

C.L.-K.

[110] Mr. Belanger met C.L.-K. when she was a 12 or 13-year-old camper and he was running the program for that age group. She continued as a camper until he hired her as a counsellor in 2006. He denies paying her any special attention, calling her his favourite or giving her preferential treatment. He describes her as a “cool camper” and stated “we became friends” when she became a staff member but denies she was an important person in his life.

Cabin Incident

[111] Mr. Belanger testified that when he was the director of the camp in 2006 and lived on site, he invited a group of counsellors to come to his cabin to watch a horror movie which had allegedly been filmed at the camp. After the other counsellors left, C.L.-K. came to the cabin around 11:30 p.m. and he invited her in to see the movie. Mr. Belanger testified she was just a friend coming over to say hi and watch a movie.

[112] C.L.-K. fell asleep on his lap before the movie was over. Under cross-examination Mr. Belanger indicated that she rested her head on his leg or thigh area. He was not sure how long she was asleep on his leg, but it could have been up to an hour. He did not wake her up or ask her to move. When she woke up, there may have been some chitchat at the door and a hug before she left. This was nothing out of the ordinary according to Mr. Belanger. It was normal for camp. C.L.-K. was not upset when she left and nothing inappropriate happened.

Picnic Table Incident

[113] Mr. Belanger testified that he and C.L.-K. met at picnic tables probably about 200 times during their time at camp together. He denied that he met with her at a picnic table at night a couple of days later. Nothing inappropriate happened with C.L-K. at a picnic table.

After School Program

[114] In the fall of 2006 C.L.-K. began working as a staff member in the Connaught after school program. She continued in that capacity for several years with Mr. Belanger as the site supervisor.

[115] Mr. Belanger testified that he considered C.L.-K. one of his best friends. He invited her and other staff members to come to parties at his home; she attended staff gatherings at O’Connell’s Pub; and she and her mother attended his wedding in May 2008. Mr. Belanger confirmed that at times during the staff gatherings at the pub he would become intoxicated and beer would be served to some underage staff members.

Kiss on the dance floor

[116] Mr. Belanger testified that in 2010 or 2011 there was a staff gathering at O’Connell’s pub. Everyone drank a lot. Mr. Belanger testified his judgment began to be impaired. They all got up to dance and were having fun. It was “awesome”. Mr. Belanger and C.L.-K. began to dance together and started kissing. The kiss lasted for approximately 20 seconds and was more like making out on the dance floor. It was a passionate kiss. He indicated she then said in his ear “I’d rock your world if we ever had sex”. He was surprised and doesn't recall what he said. They stayed for a while longer and then left the pub separately.

[117] Mr. Belanger agreed that at this time he was physically attracted to C. L.-K. and wanted to kiss her. He agreed under cross-examination, he was hoping something sexual would happen between them.

Party at his house

[118] At around the same time, Mr. Belanger recalled a party at his house when his wife and children were not there. C.L.-K. was present with other staff members. A great deal of beer was consumed, and he was drunk. He was “flirty” with her and made an offer that she could sleep upstairs, indicating he could come up and join her. Under cross-examination he indicated that he may have said his wife would not mind. C.L.-K. refused the offer; said no but did not seem “super upset”. There was no physical contact at that time or after. Mr. Belanger continued to consider C.L.-K. one of his best friends.

Reaction to him leaving

[119] Mr. Belanger testified that when he left the Y after school and camp programs in June 2012, C.L.-K. was not happy. He testified she was extremely angry with him and felt he had betrayed the kids. There was a goodbye patio party at his home in June 2012 and C.L.-K. did not attend. However, when he went back to camp to visit, he saw C.L.-K., they would give each other a hug and at times she would consult with him about the program. When she planned to leave the camp program, she asked Mr. Belanger for a reference letter.

S.A.

[120] Mr. Belanger confirmed he first met S.A. when she was in grade 6 and enrolled in the Connaught after-school program with her sister. He described her as “awesome, polite, cool”. She read a lot of books and they “had a lot in common”. She was 12 or 13 and Mr. Belanger was 30.

[121] In 2007, S.A. became a volunteer for the program and continued in that role until she was hired by Mr. Belanger as a staff member when she was 15. As a staff member, S.A. began to attend the after-school staff meeting on Fridays at the O’Connell’s Pub, which was close to both Mr. Belanger’s and S.A.’s residences on the same street in the Hintonburg area of Ottawa.

[122] Mr. Belanger considered S.A. a friend. He also became friends with her parents. He testified her dad was “awesome” and “one of the coolest guys I ever met”. He began to go to the A. family home for dinner every Tuesday night. They would have amazing conversations. He also babysat S.A. and her two younger sisters from time to time, both during the daytime and overnight. The entire family attended his wedding in May 2008. S.A.’s younger sister was the flower girl.

[123] Mr. Belanger acknowledges initiating a wrestling game with the girls called either Crash Royale or Battle Royale, which he described as similar to tag team wrestling. This was not like real wrestling, although it did involve rolling around on the ground and physical touching. At times it could get aggressive and they would get sweaty. He indicated the girls enjoyed this game as did he. He denies ever playing this game alone with S.A.in Hintonburg park.

Kiss

[124] Mr. Belanger denies attempting to kiss S.A. soon after she became a staff member, in the lobby of an apartment building on the way home from a meeting at the pub. He also denies kissing her in his Jeep after driving her home from a staff meeting about a month later.

[125] Mr. Belanger testified that in the late fall of 2011, when she was back visiting from university in Toronto, he and S.A. were walking from home a staff gathering at the pub. They stopped at the back corner of a convenience store and kissed. They “made out” for a minute or two, talked for a couple of minutes, and walked home. According to Mr. Belanger, this was their first sexual contact. S.A. turned 18 on […], 2011.

Park Incident

[126] Mr. Belanger denies the incident described by S.A. when she was 16 or 17 years old at a picnic table in Hintonburg Park on the way home from a staff meeting at the pub. He denies indicating that he had a “half chub” and “Did she want to see it?” He denies any incident such as this in a park.

Sexualized Conversations

[127] Mr. Belanger testified S.A. was the one who initiated sexual conversations by asking a lot of questions regarding her boyfriend and sexual issues. He indicated he answered her questions regarding sexual conduct and told her stories of his experiences at camp in order to make her more comfortable and put her at ease. He stated he was “trying to be helpful” and “trying to be nice”.

[128] Mr. Belanger acknowledged he should have told her parents. He had no explanation as to why he did not, other than these were private conversations and serious stuff for a female teenager. He never referred her to an older female friend or colleague and continued to discuss sexual matters with S.A. Under cross-examination, Mr. Belanger agreed he was actively engaged in these conversations.

December 2010 email exchange

[129] Mr. Belanger testified about the email exchange (Exhibit 4), when he was 34 and S.A. was 17 and working for him at the after-school program. He stated he was an active participant and acknowledged engaging S.A. in what he described as “fantasy talk” which lasted for 3 hours. When asked why he did this, he answered he was trying to be cool, get attention, impress S.A. and be a “BMOC”. He enjoyed the attention and thought he would “play along”. He found it exciting and wanted it to continue.

[130] Under cross-examination, Mr. Belanger acknowledged that at this time, not before, he was sexually attracted to S, wanted to have sex with her and was in fact, trying to see if she would be prepared to have a sexual, “mutual fun” arrangement. He in fact (not fantasy) wanted to have sex with S.A. He invited her to come to his house for sexual activity seven times over the course of the three hour email chain.

[131] Mr. Belanger knew what he was doing was wrong. He made it clear to S.A. she was responsible for deleting the emails. He indicated “Just imagine how hard your dad would kill me if he ever read these…make sure you delete”.

[132] According to Mr. Belanger, there was no sexual contact between him and S.A. either before or after this email exchange, until the kiss at the convenience store just after she turned 18.

Teal Pullover Incident

[133] Mr. Belanger testified that after the twins were born ([…], 2009), it was very difficult for him to throw parties, so he remembers them.

[134] He recalled a Rock Band party in May 2012 which S.A. attended with other staff members when she was home from university. He was drinking beer as was S.A. He indicated this had to be in 2012, because it was the time his wife and children were visiting her parents in Kanata, as his father in law had stage four cancer. He did not go with them at his father in law’s request. Instead, with his wife’s agreement, he planned a Rock Band party

[135] Mr. Belanger testified at the end of the night, “S.A. and I did have a moment” after “everyone had a couple of pops”. The others left. S.A. asked if he needed help cleaning up and he agreed. She had been to parties at his house before and was always helpful. After the cleanup, they were sitting on the couch beside one another and started kissing. Mr. Belanger testified they were “both into it” and were “making out”. There was no pulling away or reticence. S.A. “went down and gave me a blow job”. He did not guide her head down. She then leaned back with “her shirt up and I ejaculated on her stomach”. She was wearing a teal coloured sweater. Mr. Belanger testified they were both surprised this happened. They talked a bit; he gave her a hug and she left. According to Mr. Belanger, this was only the second sexual contact between them, after the kiss at the convenience store, and it was the last.

White Dress Incident

[136] The only time Mr. Belanger recalls S.A. wearing a white dress, was during a patio party at his home with her sister. He testified there was no kissing or touching on that occasion.

Contact after teal pullover incident

[137] Mr. Belanger testified he and S.A. remained friends but as she was at university there was not a lot of communication between them. He had a third child at the end of June 2012 and spent a lot of time at home with the children. He left his job at the Y in June 2012, shortly after the teal pullover incident. They never discussed the email exchange or the incidents.

P.S.

[138] Mr. Belanger testified he hired 16-year-old P.S. to work at the Connaught after school program late in the 2007 school year, after meeting her when she came to pick up her younger sister who was in the program. She continued working for him at the MacSkimming outdoor camp in July 2007.

[139] Mr. Belanger testified they flirted with one another and P.S. also flirted with another staff member. He indicated this was just “innocent little flirting”. They did not engage in sexualized talk. He acknowledged he found her attractive and wanted to see if she felt the same way. She was 16 and he was 31. He recalled her coming to the pub with staff only once after work at the after-school program.

[140] When P.S. worked with him at the MacSkimming camp in July, he does not recall being alone with her in his Jeep at anytime.

[141] He denied ever inviting her to his home when his wife was away. He also denied the incident she described in the storage room at MacSkimming camp.

Positions of the Crown and Defence

[142] The Crown argued both S.A. and C.L.-K. were credible witnesses while Mr. Belanger was not and based on all the evidence, including the similar fact evidence of the complainants and P.S., Mr. Belanger is guilty of all offences charged.

[143] The Crown argued all the elements of the offence of sexual exploitation of S.A. under s. 153 of the Criminal Code have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the teal pullover incident, including that S.A. was a “young person” of between 16 and 17 years, as defined in subsection 153(2) of the Code and Mr. Belanger was her trusted supervisor, boss and family friend. It is further argued that all the elements of a sexual assault on S.A. have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the park incident and all the elements of an assault have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the storage closet incident.

[144] The Crown argued regarding C.L.-K. all the elements of sexual exploitation have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the cabin incident and on the offence of sexual assault with respect to the picnic table incident, both of which occurred when C. L.-K. was a 17 year old counsellor at Camp Otonabee and Mr. Belanger was director.

[145] The Defence argues the Crown has not met the burden of proving any of the offences against Mr. Belanger beyond a reasonable doubt.

[146] Mr. Belanger denies any of the sexual contact described by S.A. except the teal pullover incident which he maintains was consensual and occurred in May 2012, when she was 18. It is his position that the only other sexual contact between them was a consensual kiss at a convenience store shortly after S.A. turned 18. He also denies the incident in the storage closet as described by S.A.

[147] Mr. Belanger denies any sexual contact with C.L.-K. in his cabin or at a picnic table at camp when she was 17. He acknowledges a passionate consensual kiss on the dance floor sometime in 2010 or 2011 when she was 21 or 22.

Law and Analysis

Credibility

[148] As in all criminal cases, Mr. Belanger is presumed innocent, unless and until the Crown has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All the essential elements of all the offences alleged must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[149] In a case such as this where the accused testifies and credibility is important, the rule of reasonable doubt applies to that issue.

[150] As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W. (D.) 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742

“ The trial judge should instruct the jury that: (1) if they believe the evidence of the accused, they must acquit; (2) if they do not believe the testimony of the accused but are left in reasonable doubt by it, they must acquit; (3) even if not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, they must still ask themselves whether they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused on the basis of the balance of the evidence which they do except.”

S. A.

[151] S.A. was a compelling witness. She provided her evidence in a clear, straightforward manner. She became emotional and overcome at times in relating the details of her sexual relationship with Mr. Belanger but was able to recover and carry on with her testimony.

[152] S.A.’s testimony about the specific incidents: the attempted kiss, the kiss in the jeep, the park incident, and the teal pullover incident provided significant detail as to the context, where the events occurred, how they unfolded and what was said. She was clear and consistent as to those details in examination in chief and was unshaken under vigorous cross-examination which continued over two days.

[153] S.A. provided clear, consistent evidence of an escalating pattern of behaviour over many years including increasingly aggressive sexualized conversations, other sexual activity, a series of sexually charged emails in Dec 2011 and culminating in the teal pullover incident.

[154] S.A. acknowledged some difficulty remembering times and dates of the incidents. She testified both in chief and cross-examination that all the events seem to mesh into one another. She stated she was trying to forget the incidents and repress the memories as she felt ashamed and guilty. Nevertheless, near the end of a lengthy cross-examination she repeated: “I have distinct memories of these events happening. Sometimes I don’t know when they happened or in what sequence.”

[155] When asked near the end of cross examination if the teal pullover incident could possibly have been when she was 18, after admission to U of T she indicated she wasn’t sure. In re-examination after refreshing her memory from the transcript of the preliminary hearing, she stated as she had in direct examination, that it occurred when she was below 18 while in high school.

[156] S.A. was initially very fond of Mr. Belanger. She agreed that in the early years, she had a crush on him. She trusted him and as time went on their relationship evolved into that of a teacher/student. Although she felt ashamed and did not wish to engage in sexual conversations or activity with Mr. Belanger, she felt she had no choice. As her teacher, he made her feel this was in some way normal. He continued to be her boss and a family friend. The entire family attended his wedding. SA had no motive to fabricate or exaggerate the events about which she testified.

[157] The similar fact evidence of C.L.-K. and P.S. corroborates S.A.’s evidence as to Mr. Belanger’s pattern of behaviour and supports her credibility.

[158] In assessing the testimony of adults testifying about historic events that occurred when they were children, the courts have recognized the necessity of taking a realistic and flexible approach.

[159] The leading authority in this area is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W. (R.), 1992 CanLII 56 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 122. In that case, the accused was charged with historical sexual offences against three young girls. The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the convictions, in part because the evidence of two of the children was “fraught with inaccuracy”. The Crown appealed. In considering the inconsistencies in the complainants’ evidence, and their credibility, McLachlin, J. (as she then was), stated the following:

In general, where an adult is testifying as to events which occurred when she was a child, her credibility should be assessed according to criteria applicable to her as an adult witness. Yet with regard to her evidence pertaining to events which occurred in childhood, the presence of inconsistencies, particularly as to peripheral matters such as time and location, should be considered in the context of the age of the witness at the time of the events to which she is testifying. (at para 26)

[160] In R. v. R.P., 2012 SCC 22, Justice Deschamps, writing for the majority, in considering the reliability and credibility of a witness’ testimony, noted: “It is up to the judge who sees and hears a witness to determine what effect the passage of time might have had and how vulnerable the witness was in light of his or her age and the factual context.”(at para 17).

[161] S.A. was testifying as an adult 10-12 years after the alleged incidents, incidents which caused her to be ashamed, trapped and terrified. Mr. Belanger’s pattern of behaviour and the sexual activity alleged, took place over several years in the context of a relationship which began when she was a vulnerable child of 11 or 12. Her age and the context are relevant factors to consider. Although S.A. had difficulty remembering the dates and times of specific events, despite those difficulties, I found her a compelling, credible witness.

C. L-K.

[162] As with S.A., C. L.-K. provided clear and consistent evidence as to her relationship with Mr. Belanger and his behavior towards her. In both examination in chief and under vigorous cross-examination, she was consistent in her description of the sexual activity in the cabin and at the picnic table. She was able to provide significant detail as to exactly when these incidents took place, where, the context and what happened.

[163] There was a gap in C. L.-K.’s recollection of the cabin incident. She does not remember what occurred after Mr. Belanger ejaculated in her mouth until she was standing at the door. She testified that when under stress she sometimes suffers from panic attacks, can dissociate and have memory lapses. Nevertheless, she provided logical, rational details as to the oral sex in Mr. Belanger’s cabin that night. As with S.A. it is to be noted that she was testifying about events which occurred 14 years earlier in the camp director’s cabin when she was a vulnerable 17-year-old. I do not find the gap in her memory of the cabin incident to undermine her credibility.

[164] As with S.A., C. L.-K. was very fond of Mr. Belanger. He was like a father to her and she trusted him. He complimented her and said he loved her. Mr. Belanger made her feel special. She and her mother, who was fond of Mr. Belanger, attended his wedding in May 2008.

[165] C. L.-K. recalled the kiss on the dance floor at the pub years later. She indicated, they were drunk, it was initiated by Mr. Belanger and afterwards she felt ashamed and confused. She was clear that on another occasion at a party at his house she resisted his suggestion that she go up to bed and he would join her. Despite these events, C.L.-K. continued to consider him a friend and mentor.

[166] Although she was upset when Mr. Belanger left the camp and after-school program in June 2012, C L-K continued to see him when he visited camp on occasion and requested he provide her with a reference letter when she left her employment with the YM/YWCA. As with S.A., C.L.-K. had no motive to fabricate.

[167] C.L.-K. acknowledged contacting S.A. via Facebook to offer support when she discovered that S.A. was “the other girl”. In the exchange between them filed as Exhibit 5, there is no evidence of any discussion of the details of the incidents alleged. There is no evidence of collusion.

[168] The evidence of S.A. and P.S. supports C.L.-K.’s evidence as to Mr. Belanger’s pattern of behaviour. In addition, the evidence of S.A. that Mr. Belanger pushed her head down to his penis during the teal pullover and other incidents of oral sex is the same as the description provided by C. L-K. of what happened during the cabin incident.

[169] I found Ms. L.-K. a credible witness.

P.S.

[170] As with S.A. and C.L-K., P.S. testified in a clear, straightforward manner. She testified as to a pattern of behavior by Mr. Belanger similar to that described by S.A. and C.L.-K. Mr. Belanger hired her without an interview or resume, complimented her, invited her to staff meetings at the pub, bought her beer when she was underage, had sexualized conversations with her and invited her to his home when his girlfriend was not present. Her evidence was consistent in examination in chief and she was unshaken during cross-examination.

[171] P.S. was able to relate in detail one conversation with Mr. Belanger after a meeting at the pub. She was able to clearly recall the date, time, location, context and what happened. Although she felt drunk for the first time in her life as a 16-year-old, she had a clear and distinct memory of Mr. Belanger initiating a discussion about sex and his sexual encounters at camp. He complimented her breasts, the way she looked and indicated he knew when he hired her, he was going to have problems. He stated if she had been at camp “I would have nailed you so fast”. That night after she got home from the pub, she called her boyfriend to tell him what happened. Based on the advice of his mother, she made notes approximately two days later. She had an independent memory of the conversation and what Mr. Belanger said but in refreshing her memory with her notes, she was able to relate exactly what Mr. Belanger said on that occasion.

[172] P.S. also related in detail an encounter with Mr. Belanger in a storage closet at the MacSkimming Camp similar to that of S.A. at the after-school program.

[173] There was no evidence of any motive to fabricate or collusion by P.S. She was a clear, consistent, credible witness.

Michael Belanger

[174] Mr. Belanger testified in a straightforward manner. He acknowledged his roles as program supervisor at the after-school program and camp director when S.A., C.L.-K. and P.S. were 15 to 17-year-old staff members.

[175] During both examination in chief and cross-examination he adamantly denied any nonconsensual sexual contact with C. L.-K. or S.A. or any sexualized conversation as related by P.S. He also denied the incidents in the storage closet at the after-school program described by S.A. and at MacSkimming described by P.S.

[176] Mr. Belanger indicated the only sexual contact he ever had with C.L.-K. was a consensual kiss and “making out” on the dance floor when she was 21 or 22.

[177] Mr. Belanger was equally adamant he only had sexual contact with S.A. twice. The first time was a consensual kiss at the back of a convenience store in December, 2011, just after she turned 18 and the other was the teal pullover incident which he testified was consensual and initiated by S.A. in May 2012 when she was 18.

[178] Although he found her attractive, he completely denied any sexualized conversations with P.S. other than what he called “innocent little flirting”, when she was a 16-year-old staff member and he was her 31-year-old boss.

[179] There are difficulties and inconsistencies in Mr. Belanger’s evidence as follows:

1. Although he testified C.L.-K. was “a cool camper” and “we became friends” when she was a 17-year-old counsellor; she attended his wedding in May 2008 and he sent a personal thank you note, he denied paying C.L.-K. any special attention and indicated she was not a special person in his life when she was a camper or counsellor in 2006.

2. He recalled watching the horror movie late at night alone in his cabin with 17-year-old C. L.-K. who fell asleep. He initially said she fell asleep “on my lap” which was how it had been described by C. L.-K. but in cross-examination he changed that to indicate it was on his thigh or leg.

3. He testified C. L.-K. was asleep on his lap for up to an hour. She was a 17-year-old counsellor and he was the 31-year-old camp director. When she woke up, they hugged, and she left. According to Mr. Belanger this was nothing out of the ordinary and was just normal camp behavior.

4. S.A. indicated the park incident took place after a staff meeting at the pub when she and Mr. Belanger were on their way home through Hintonburg park. As a staff member she felt obliged to attend the staff meetings at the pub.

Mr. Belanger testified in chief that when S.A. came home from university in Toronto, she would reach out to him and want to hang out with staff and go to the pub which supports her evidence that she often attended the pub with staff . However, a few minutes later he provided inconsistent testimony while still under direct examination about the park incident. He stated the park incident didn’t happen and Stephanie rarely came to the pub.

5. Mr. Belanger agreed there were discussions with S.A. about sex but indicated they were initiated by her asking questions about her boyfriend and sexual issues. He stated he told her stories of his sexual experiences to make her comfortable and put her at ease. He was trying to be helpful and nice. He never told her parents. This evidence corroborates that of SA that he became her teacher. Under cross-examination Mr. Belanger admitted he was engaged in these conversations. This was not the behavior of a helpful, program director/mentor in his 30s with a young teenage staff member but can be considered an example of grooming behavior.

6. In testifying about the Dec. 2010 email chain, when he was 34 and SA was 17 and working for him at the after-school program, Mr. Belanger indicated he engaged in this 3 hour long email chain just to be cool, get attention, impress S.A. and be a “BMOC”. This was “fantasy talk” only and he was playing along. He downplays the conversation.

Under cross-examination Mr. Belanger acknowledged he was in fact sexually attracted to S.A. and wanted to have sex with her. This was not just fantasy talk. During this 3-hour email chain he repeatedly invited her to his house for a “mutual fun arrangement”, “good ole naked time”, “wicked fun” – a total of 7 times.

The emails became aggressive. He states, “Man you need to use me to teach you absolutely everything about havin’ fun naked”. When S.A. tries to deflect and admits being attracted to him but indicates she’s not sure they ever agreed to the “other part” referring to a mutual fun arrangement, he responds “OK just to be clear we totally did a pinky swear on what I had said. Man it would be a damn good time.” He states he’s not “messing” with her. Again, S.A. tries to distract and deflect. Mr. Belanger then states, “Don’t try to make excuses now…OK so tomorrow afternoon, naked time sweet!”

After more attempts by S.A. to distract and deflect, Mr. Belanger asks, “tell me what I should think of you while I stroke my cock…if you are not going to shoot me off yourself, you owe me that much at least. And don’t try to play all innocent…be creative…” S.A. capitulates by telling him a graphic erotic story which he continues. At that point the exchange ends with Mr. Belanger repeating for the final time that she was to “show up tomorrow around noon…and I will make it worthwhile…”

This series of emails was anything but fantasy talk and was much more than an attempt to get attention. It was a relentless pursuit of a 17-year old with the end goal of sexual activity beyond a “hand job” or “blowjob”.

He repeatedly asked S.A. to ensure the emails were deleted and that her parents not find out.

It simply defies logic and belief that this was the first email exchange of this nature and it strains credibility that there had been no sexual activity before and was none after until a consensual kiss a year later.

7. In describing the teal pullover incident, Mr. Belanger indicated he was surprised when S.A. went down and gave him a “blowjob”. He described it as Oh my God - what just happened? Again, given the email exchange, his admission that he wanted to have sex with S.A. in Dec 2011 and the nature of the sexual activity which included S.A. lifting her pullover so he could ejaculate on her stomach, it strains credibility that he was completely surprised and that this was only the second occasion of sexual activity after a kiss a year earlier.

8. Mr. Belanger testified parties were infrequent given family commitments after his children were born in 2009, so he remembers them. Yet he agreed there were Rock Band parties with staff at his home, a poker party in 2009, the drinking game party described by C. L.-K. in 2010 or 2011, the Rock Band party in May 2012, when he testified the teal pullover incident occurred and a patio party in June 2012. Mr Belanger did not mention, nor did C.L.-K. or S.A. any party at his home when his wife was present. On all the evidence, I find there were numerous parties where Mr. Belanger could drink and party alone with friends and staff, including teenagers, without his wife.

9. Mr. Belanger indicated he loves and respects his wife and her parents, yet he testified the teal pullover Rock Band Party took place when his wife and children were visiting her parents in Kanata and her father was dying from Stage 4 cancer. His wife was understandably very upset and was also 8 months pregnant. Their 3rd child was born in […] 2012. Despite these difficult circumstances, Mr. Belanger testified he stayed home, had a party, drank a lot, and had a teenager give him oral sex after everyone left. This behaviour is inconsistent with Mr. Belanger’s portrayal of himself as a loving husband and father.

[180] For all the reasons outlined above, I do not find Mr. Belanger a credible, reliable witness.

Offences charged

[181] The relevant sections of the Criminal Code in this case are as follows:

Sexual Exploitation

The sexual exploitation counts in this case are governed by section 153 (1) (b) of the Criminal Code as follows:

• 153 (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who

o (b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.

Pursuant to subsection 153 (1.2)

A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including

(a) the age of the young person;

(b) the age difference between the person and the young person;

(c) the evolution of the relationship; and

(d) the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person

[182] Section 153 (2) defines a “young person” as someone who is 16 years of age or more but under the age of 18 years.

[183] Based on the indictment in this case, the Crown is required to establish 4 essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(a) the complainant must be a “young person” of at least 16 years of age and under the age of 18 years when the conduct occurred;

(b) the accused must invite or counsel the young person to directly touch him with part of her body;

(c) the touching must be for a sexual purpose; and

(d) the accused must stand in a position of trust or authority toward the young person. See R. v. Audet, 1996 CanLII 198 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 17

[184] To “invite” means to request, suggest or ask, either in words, by gestures or both that something be done. To “counsel” means to advise someone to do something or recommend that she do it.

[185] In considering whether there is a position of trust or authority the nature of the relationship is what is important. Due to the nature of that relationship the adult has an obligation or responsibility toward the young person (trust) or the power to enforce obedience or influence the conduct and actions of the young person (authority) or both. Parents, teachers, employers and youth group leaders can all be in positions of trust or authority depending on the circumstances which can include the age difference and the status of the accused in relation to the young person.

[186] In addition to knowingly communicating (inviting, counselling, inciting) with a young person for a sexual purpose, the accused must intend that the communication be received as an invitation to physical contact or know there was a substantial and unjustified risk the victim would receive the communication as an invitation to physical contact. See: R. v Careen, 2013 BCCA 535.

Assault

[187] Section 265(1) of the Code states that a person commits and assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose;

[188] The section applies to all forms of assault including sexual assault.

[189] Section 265(3) indicates:

For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of:

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

Sexual Assault

[190] A sexual assault is an assault within any of the definitions of assault under section 265(1) of the Criminal Code committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. See: R. v. Chase, [1978] 2 SCR 293 and R. v. S. (P.L.), 1991 CanLII 103 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 909.

[191] The actus reus of sexual assault comprises three elements: ( 1 ) touching; ( 2 ) the sexual nature of the contact; and ( 3 ) the absence of consent (R. v Ewanchuk, 1999 1 S.C.R. at para 25; R. v. JA, the 2011 SCC case at para 23; R v. Barton, 2019 SCC case at para 87 ).

[192] Section 273.1 supplements the definition of consent in s. 265 for the purposes of a sexual assault under s. 271, by adding to the circumstances set out in s. 265(3) where there is no consent to an assault in general.

[193] Section 273.1 (2) (c) indicates no consent is obtained if:

(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority

[194] While Section 265 (3) and section 273. 1 (2) (c) resemble one another, the latter section is broader. In R. v. Lutoslawski, 2010 ONCA 207 the Ontario Court of Appeal indicates:

“…Section 273.1(2)(c) speaks not only to the abuse of a position of authority but also to the misuse of a position of power or trust The section addresses the kinds of relationships in which an apparent consent to sexual activity is rendered illusory by the dynamics of the relationship between the accused and the complainant, and by the misuse of the influence vested in the accused by virtue of that relationship. The term “exercise of authority” in s. 265(3)(d) suggests a coercive use of authority to overcome resistance to a consent. Inducing consent by abusing the relationships set out in s. 273.1(2)(c) does not imply the same kind of coercion. An individual who is in a position of trust over another may use the personal feelings and confidence engendered by that relationship to secure an apparent consent to sexual activity.”

[195] In R. v. Snelgrove, 2019 SCC 16, Justice Moldaver states the aim of s. 273.1(2)(c) is “[t]he protection of the vulnerable and the weak and the preservation of the right to freely choose to consent to sexual activity”.

[196] Inducing consent by abusing the relationships set out in s. 273.1(2)(c) does not imply the same kind of coercion contemplated by s. 265(3)(d) of the Criminal Code, which speaks to consent obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of the “exercise of authority”.

[197] The mens rea of sexual assault comprises two elements: (1) intention to touch; and (2) knowledge of, or willful blindness or recklessness as to, a lack of consent on the part of the person touched (Ewanchuck, supra at para 42; JA, supra at para 24; Barton (SCC), supra at para 87 ).

[198] In Barton, supra at para 90, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the meaning of consent for mens rea purposes as follows:

For purposes of the mens rea, and specifically for purposes of the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, “consent” means “that the complainant had affirmatively communicated by words or conduct her agreement to engage in [the] sexual activity with the accused” (Ewanchuck, at para 49). The focus at this stage shifts to the mental state of the accused, and the question becomes whether the accused honestly believed “the complainant effectively said ‘yes’ through her words and/or actions” (Ibid., at para 47).

It is important to note that pursuant to subparagraph 273. 2 ( a ) (iii) of the Criminal Code , an accused person is barred from advancing honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent where his belief arose from “any circumstance referred to in subsection 265 ( 3 ) or 273.1 (2 ) or ( 3 ) in which no consent is obtained”.

[199] Further s. 273.2(b) and (c) of the Criminal Code indicate that it is not a defence that the accused believed the complainant consented to the activity where:

(b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting; or

(c) there is no evidence that the complainant’s voluntary agreement to the activity was affirmatively expressed by words or actively expressed by conduct.

Analysis

Pattern of Behaviour

[200] In R. v. L.B., 1997 CanLII 3187 (ON CA), [1997] O.J. No. 3042 (C.A.), Charron, JJ.A., as she then was, noted in considering whether evidence in a sexual assault case amounted to admissible similar fact evidence:

“In cases of sexual assault, the similarities or dissimilarities between the sexual acts that are alleged are, of course, relevant, but often not as compelling as the circumstances surrounding the incidents.

The fact that in each case the accused established a father- daughter relationship with the girl before the sexual violations began might be argued to go to showing, if not a system or design, a pattern of similar behaviour suggesting that the complainant's story is true.

It is therefore important to consider not only the acts themselves but all the circumstances in order to assess what similarities, if any, exist between the discreditable conduct and the alleged offence, and whether these similarities give the evidence probative value. (paras 37-39).

[201] In R. v. G. (M.A.), 1997 CanLII 3187 (ON CA), 1997, 9 C.R.(5th) 38, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted a number of features shared between independent allegations that were significant enough to undermine the likelihood of coincidence,

[e]ach [witness] described predatorial behavior that was facilitated by the appellant’s exploitation of the student teacher relationship. Like the complainants, the witnesses on the prior conduct described what could be regarded as a pattern of “grooming” by the appellant through his unorthodox displays of affection toward his students, and the atypical extent to which he cultivated personal relationships with his students by for example, encouraging them to regard him as their confidant.

S.A

[202] Mr. Belanger hired S.A. as a staff member at the after-school program when she was 15 or 16 without an interview or resume. She began to attend “staff meetings” at the pub and he bought her beer although she was underage.

[203] The special attention and cultivation of an atypical personal relationship continued when S.A. was a staff member. Mr. Belanger ingratiated himself into her family, became a friend of her parents and babysat Stephanie and her two younger sisters from time to time. The family attended his wedding in May 2008 and S.A.’s sister was the flower girl.

[204] He became S.A.’s confidant and then her teacher regarding sexual matters. He engaged her in conversations about sex, gave her advice as to what she should do with her boyfriend and what he would like to do with her.

[205] This grooming behaviour continued and eventually led to sexual contact. I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the attempted kiss and kiss in the Jeep described by S.A. occurred after she became a staff member and led, as she indicated, to more sexualized conversations, a development of the teacher/student dynamic between them and eventually more sexual activity. He told her his wife was fine with this and in fact she thought they could have a threesome.

[206] The email chain in Dec 2011 demonstrates increasingly aggressive attempts by Mr. Belanger to have 17-year-old S.A. come to his home for sex. S.A. felt powerless, terrified, trapped and ashamed with no control over the situation. She tried to as she put it “deflect, distract and delay” and developed various tactics to do this such as referring to her boy friend, changing the topic and telling him erotic stories. At times if she did not comply Mr. Belanger would say she wasn’t courageous, and she felt she had to prove herself.

[207] Mr. Belanger was clear that S.A. was not to tell anyone, in particular her parents, of the nature of their relationship. He indicated her father would kill him if he knew of the emails and made it clear she was to delete them.

C. L.-K.

[208] The relationship Mr. Belanger had with C. L.-K., first when she was a camper and he was a counsellor and later when she was on staff and he was camp director was also unorthodox and atypical. As with S.A. he called her his favourite, told her she was special and gave her preferential treatment and privileges. When she was hired as a counsellor, he continued to treat her as special and considered her a close friend. She considered their relationship like that of a father/daughter. On Mr. Belanger’s own evidence when C.L.-K. was 17 and he was 30, he invited her into his cabin late at night and she fell asleep on his lap for up to an hour.

[209] After camp, Mr. Belanger hired C. L.-K. as a staff member for the after-school program and she began to attend the “staff meetings” at the pub. As with S.A. he bought her beer although she was underage. When she was 18, Mr. Belanger made her his “assistant supervisor” and had meetings with her alone at the pub. The meetings would always come back to his personal life, her personal relationships and boyfriends. As with S.A., he told C. L.-K. his wife approved of him sleeping with others and agreed he could have sex with C. L.-K. if she agreed.

P.S.

[210] The relationship with P.S. was shorter and did not evolve as did Mr. Belanger’s relationship with C. L.-K. and in particular, S.A. However, the pattern of engaging young teenage staff members in sexualized conversations and making suggestive comments is very similar and supports the credibility of S.A. and C. L.-K. in that regard.

[211] Mr. Belanger hired P.S. as a staff member at the after-school program without an interview or resume. He invited her to attend staff meetings at the pub and bought her beer when she was underage. As with S.A. and C.L.-K., he reassured her this would be acceptable.

[212] On June 1, 2007 when Mr. Belanger was alone with P.S. at the pub, he had a sexualized conversation with her, about which she made notes, after she had consumed a significant amount of beer. He complimented her breasts; spoke about his frequent sexual encounters at camp and indicated “if you had been at that camp, I would have nailed you so fast”. He stated he could please her like she'd never been pleased before and made comments regarding her boyfriend, focusing on her being young and inexperienced, indicating he could offer her more sexual pleasure than her boyfriend. He indicated that if she was free during the days and wanted to hang out, they could.

[213] P.S. continued to work at the after-school program and later at the MacSkimming camp during July 2007. Mr Belanger continued to make suggestive comments and comments about how she looked. The sexual innuendos continued until she left her employment at the camp in July 2007.

[214] On one occasion, after she began working at MacSkimming camp, Mr. Belanger drove P.S. home in his Jeep and mentioned his girlfriend was out of town if she wanted to come over. These comments by Mr. Belanger made P.S. feel very uncomfortable as she knew this was inappropriate for a boss in his 30s and a 16-year-old teenage staff member.

[215] The interaction described by P.S. in the supply closet at MacSkimming camp, is similar to the incident described by S.A. in the storage closet at the after-school program.

Conclusion - Pattern of Behaviour

[216] As in R. v. G (M.A.), I find in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Belanger engaged in a pattern of predatorial grooming behavior with three teenage girls, exploiting his position of trust and authority as their supervisor at the after school program and as camp director.

Offences

S.A.

Sexual Exploitation - s.153 (1.1) of the Criminal Code

Teal pullover Incident

[217] The Crown argues Mr. Belanger is guilty of sexual exploitation of S.A. based on the teal pullover incident.

[218] Although S.A. was a credible witness, I found her evidence with respect to the timing of the teal pullover incident unreliable. She stated: it took place when she was 17”ish” by which she clarified she meant maybe earlier; she thought it was after the email exchange or around that time; she didn’t know and wasn’t sure if it could have been when she was 18, after she went to U of T. After refreshing her memory, she repeated it was before she was 18 and still in High School. On a balance of probabilities, I would find this incident happened when S.A. was 17 and still in high school. That however is not the burden of proof in a criminal trial. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that S.A. was 16 or 17 years of age for a conviction on the charge of sexual exploitation with respect to the teal pullover incident and that burden has not been met.

Attempted Kiss and Kiss in Jeep

[219] S.A. gave clear, compelling, detailed evidence of an attempted kiss and an actual kiss that took place soon after she began working as a staff member at the after-school program, when she was 15. Again, I cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that she was 16 or 17 as required under s. 153(2) of the Code when these incidents occurred.

Park Incident

[220] S.A. testified that the park incident occurred late in high school when she was 16 or 17 years old after a staff meeting at Daniel O'Connell's pub when Mr. Belanger was walking her home through Hintonburg Park. As outlined in the evidence summary above, Stephanie provided significant detail as to exactly what happened including Mr. Belanger undoing his pants pulling out his penis grabbing and lifting her hand and bringing it over to place on top of his penis with his hand remaining on top of hers. She testified she felt betrayed.

[221] Although S.A. indicated her memories of the timing of some of the sexual encounters are “meshed together”, she was consistent that the park incident took place later in high school when she was walking home from an after-school program staff meeting, through Hintonburg Park with Mr. Belanger. I find beyond a reasonable doubt that she was a “young person” as defined under s. 153 (2) of the Criminal Code at the time of the park incident.

Other Incidents

[222] In both her examination in chief and cross-examination S.A. described up to ten other incidents of escalating sexual contact that occurred after the park incident. She testified in chief some of these incidents took place while she was 17 and some before the Dec. 2011 email chain. Under cross examination she indicated she was not sure about the number or timing of these incidents.

Conclusion

[223] Based on all the evidence, including the credible similar fact evidence of a pattern of grooming behaviour, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that all the essential elements of sexual exploitation pursuant to section 153 ( 1 ) (b) of the Criminal Code have been met with respect to the park incident as follows:

(a) S.A. was a young person of at least 16 years of age and under 18 when the park incident occurred.

(b) Mr. Belanger knowingly invited her to touch his penis for a clear sexual purpose while he was in a position of authority as her boss and supervisor at the after-school program and in a position of trust as her supervisor, mentor, “teacher” and family friend.

(c) Mr. Belanger intended his invitation to touch his penis, be received as an invitation to physical sexual contact.

Sexual Assault – s. 271 (1) of the Criminal Code

Park Incident

[224] All the essential elements of a sexual assault have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the park incident.

[225] Mr. Belanger intentionally applied force to S.A. by grabbing her hand and putting it on his penis for a sexual purpose without her consent. He abused his position of trust and authority as her much older supervisor, confidant, mentor, teacher and friend to induce her to engage in the activity.

Teal Pullover Incident

[226] I further find that all the essential elements of a sexual assault have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the teal pullover incident.

[227] Although the Crown has not been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual activity took place within the time frame outlined in the indictment, that is not an essential element of the offence of sexual assault in this case.

[228] Section 601(4.1) of the Criminal Code provides:

“[a] variance between the indictment or a count therein and the evidence taken is not material with respect to… the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed, if it is proved that the indictment was preferred within the prescribed period of limitation”.

[229] As a general rule, the Crown is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged offence occurred within the time frame outlined in the indictment.

[230] In R. v B (G), (1990) 1990 CanLII 7308 (SCC), 56 CCC (3d) 200 the SCC noted that:

While time must be specified in an information in order to provide an accused with reasonable information about the charges brought against him and ensure the possibility of a full defence and a fair trial, exact time need not be specified. The individual circumstances of the particular case may, however, be such that greater precision as to time is required, for instance, if there is a paucity of other factual information available with which to identify the transaction

A. If the time specified in the information is inconsistent with the evidence and time is not an essential element of the offence or crucial to the defence, the variance is not material and the information need not be quashed.

B. If there is conflicting evidence regarding the time of the offence, or the date of the offence cannot be established with precision, the information need not be quashed and a conviction may result, provided that time is not an essential element of the offence or crucial to the defence.

C. If the time of the offence cannot be determined and time is an essential element of the offence or crucial to the defence, a conviction cannot be sustained.

[231] I find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Belanger intentionally applied force by pushing S.A.’s head down towards his exposed penis for a clear sexual purpose. Although S.A. testified she did not do this willingly and felt trapped and terrified, the defence argues this was consensual sexual activity. S.A. did not protest or actively resist at the time. However, silence, passivity or ambiguous conduct do not make communicated consent. See: R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33 at para 98.

[232] As indicated above, the apparent consent to sexual activity can be rendered illusory by the dynamics of the relationship between the accused and the complainant and by the misuse of the influence vested in the accused by virtue of that relationship. R. v Lutoslawski, supra.

[233] Inducing consent by abusing the relationships set out in s. 273.1 (2) (c) does not contemplate the same kind of coercion as under s. 265 (3) (d) where the complainant submits or does not resist due to “the exercise of authority”.

[234] In this case, although I cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that the teal pullover incident occurred when S.A. was between 15 and 17 years old as outlined on the indictment, I do find beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened at the latest by May or June 2012 when S.A. was 18 years old and had only been away from Ottawa and Mr. Belanger for a few months.

[235] S.A. went to university in Toronto in September 2011 but came home in December 2011 and visited the after-school program where Mr. Belanger continued to be the supervisor. Although she was no longer employed in the program and Mr. Belanger was no longer her work supervisor, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that after years of grooming, including the sexualized conversations, emails and previous sexual activity, the teacher/mentor and student relationship continued as did Mr. Belanger’s position of power and control over S.A. He used that position, cultivated by him over the years S.A. was at the after-school program, to induce her to engage in the sexual activity described by her in the teal pullover incident. As in the past, she felt she had no choice and was trapped. Mr. Belanger had the power and control and she had to submit.

Assault in the Storage Closet - s. 266 Criminal Code

[236] I find that all the essential elements of an assault have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the storage closet incident.

[237] Based on all the evidence including the detailed, credible evidence of S.A. as to where, when, what occurred, the context and the similar fact evidence of P.S., I find that Mr. Belanger intentionally applied force to S. A. He placed both his hands on each of her upper arms, pushed her backwards towards the wall and pressed his stomach against her front, without her consent. Mr. Belanger was between her and the exit doors and she felt trapped.

C. L-K.

Sexual Exploitation – s. 153 (1.1) Criminal Code

[238] I find that all the essential elements of sexual exploitation have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the cabin incident.

[239] Based on all the evidence, including the detailed, credible evidence of C. L.-K as to where, when, what happened and the context along with the similar fact evidence I find the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

(a) C. L.-K was a “young person”, 17 years of age during the summer of 2006 when the cabin incident occurred.

(b) Mr. Belanger knowingly invited her to give him oral sex by pushing her head down to his exposed penis for a clear sexual purpose. She provided him with oral sex until he ejaculated in her mouth.

(c) Mr. Belanger was in a position of trust and authority towards C. L.-K. as the camp director when she was a staff member.

(d) When Mr. Belanger pushed C. L.-K.’s head to his exposed penis, he intended it to be an invitation to give him oral sex.

Sexual Assault – s. 271 (1) Criminal Code

[240] Based on all the evidence, including the detailed, credible evidence of C.L.-K. and the similar fact evidence. I find the Crown has proven all the essential elements of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the picnic table incident as follows:

(a) Mr. Belanger intentionally applied force to C. L.-K. by holding her tightly from behind and putting his hand down the front of her pants underneath her underwear.

(b) His actions were clearly for a sexual purpose. His penis was hard, and he made comments such as “You know I could marry you. You’re wonderful. You have always been my favourite.”.

(c) Although C. L.-K did not actively resist, she did not consent. She was a 17-year-old teenager, Mr. Belanger was the 30-year-old camp director. He abused his position of trust and authority; took advantage of the relationship he had with C. L.-K. and misused the influence he had by virtue of that relationship.

Conclusion

[241] In conclusion, on the basis of all the evidence, I find beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Belanger guilty as charged on all counts outlined on the indictment.

Blishen J.

Date: May 4, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: 17-5130

DATE: 2021/05/04

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Her Majesty the Queen

– and –

Michael Belanger

reasons for decision

Blishen J.

Released: May 4, 2021