COURT FILE NO.: CR 20/484

DATE: 20230510

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Gursharn Gill, for the Crown

Crown

• and -

CLYDE WILLIAMS

Ashley Dresser, for the Defence

Accused

HEARD: October 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2022, November 17, 2022, February 6, 7, 8 and 10, 2023.

JUDGMENT

PETERSEN J.

OVERVIEW

[1] Mr. Williams is charged with assault (contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), two counts of sexual assault (contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code) and sexual exploitation (contrary to s. 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code). He pleads not guilty to all the charges.

[2] There are two complainants. I will refer to them as “M.M.” and “D.D.” to protect their anonymity. They are mother (M.M.) and daughter (D.D.). Both women were congregants at a Pentecostal Church in Mississauga. Mr. Williams is, and was at all relevant times, the Senior Pastor at that church.

[3] M.M. alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Mr. Williams on numerous occasions between 2004 and 2007, while she was employed by the church as his Administrative Assistant. During that period, she was also a Youth Leader, then a Youth Director, and eventually an ordained Youth Pastor at the church. She served as Mr. Williams’s Armour-Bearer during Sunday services for a few years. She testified that the incidents of unwanted sexual touching occurred inside the church, except for one incident that took place in another congregant’s home.

[4] M.M.’s daughter, D.D., alleges that she was sexually exploited by Mr. Williams during the two years that preceded her 18th birthday, between July 2006 and May 2008. During those years, D.D. was also actively involved in the church. She was a member of the church’s youth hip hop dance group and played drums in the youth band. She was also training to become a Youth Leader. She alleges that, while she was 16 and 17 years old, Mr. Williams touched her sexually on many occasions in his car, and on other occasions in the prayer room and gymnasium of the church. She also testified that he digitally penetrated her vagina without her consent, in his car, on her 18th birthday.

[5] M.M. quit her Administrative Assistant position and left the church in the summer of 2009. D.D. and her sister K.K. remained as congregants and became estranged from their parents. By then, D.D. was a Youth Leader at the church. She later became the church’s Music Director. In 2011, she began to volunteer doing administrative office duties and by 2015, she had been appointed to the (unpaid) position of Executive Assistant to Mr. Williams. In that role, she was entrusted with significant responsibilities, which included counting and recording the tithings paid by congregants and depositing that money in the bank.

[6] D.D. testified that Mr. Williams instilled a “huge level of submission” in her from an early age, and that her obedience to his wishes continued into her adulthood. She claimed that he manipulated her and exercised an inordinate amount of influence over her life decisions, both as a minor and as an adult, such as her decision to conceal the location of her residence from her parents. She said he also influenced her decision, at the age of 18, to change her first name from “D” to “E”. She changed her name back to “D” in 2019.

[7] Mr. Williams testified that he provided D.D. with spiritual guidance and advice but did not have significant influence over her life decisions. He described their relationship alternately as “Pastor and congregant” and “spiritual daughter and spiritual father.” There is no question that he acted as a father figure to both D.D. and her sister K.K., especially after their parents separated. The evidence in the record establishes that they both called him “daddy” from a relatively young age and continued to do so into adulthood.

[8] Eventually, D.D. became disenchanted with Mr. Williams and began to feel burdened by her volunteer church duties. She felt exploited by the demands he made of her and by what she perceived to be unrealistic expectations of her. She started to withdraw from her church responsibilities in the fall of 2018. First, she quit her position as a Youth Leader. She initially continued her administrative office duties and her responsibilities as the Music Director, but she ultimately resigned from all her roles in the church in mid-December of that year.

[9] D.D. alleges that Mr. Williams physically assaulted her in the church parking lot on December 11, 2018, five days before she resigned and left the church for good. Her sister, K.K., witnessed the parking lot incident but was not called to testify at trial. K.K. remains a congregant at the church and is now estranged from D.D., as well as from their parents. D.D. reconciled with her parents in December 2018.

[10] Although Mr. Williams disputes the amount of force that D.D. claims he used, he admits to placing both his hands on her wrists during the parking lot incident. He therefore admits the conduct elements of the offence charged but argues that he did not have the requisite intent to commit an assault. He denies touching D.D. sexually when she was 16 and 17 years old, or on her 18th birthday. He also denies ever touching her mother, M.M., in a sexual manner at any time.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

[11] Mr. Williams’s credibility and the complainants’ credibility are central issues in this case, but the critical and determinative issue is reasonable doubt. I must evaluate the conflicting testimonial accounts of the complainants and the accused: R. v. Hull, 2006 CanLII 26572 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 5-6. However, my task is not simply to choose between them. Firstly, I am not required to accept or reject a witness’s entire evidence. I may believe all, none, or some of any witnesses’ testimony. Secondly, triers of fact must not treat the standard of proof as a credibility contest between Crown and Defence witnesses: Hull, at para. 5. Regardless of who I believe and the extent to which I believe them, and even if I reject Mr. Williams’s evidence in its entirety, I must acquit him unless I am satisfied, based on the totality of all the evidence at trial, that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the offences with which he is charged: R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, at pp. 757-58. My analysis below is guided by the principles and framework articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in W.(D.) and in subsequent cases that have clarified and modified the analytical framework, including R. v. J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30; R. v. Smith, 2020 ONCA 782; R. v. Boucher, 2022 ONCA 40; and R. v. M. (D.), 2022 ONCA 429.

[12] I will begin my analysis with the assault charge, then deal with the sexual assault charge pertaining to M.M., and finally, the alleged sexual offences against D.D. I am cognizant that each count must be considered separately to determine if the evidence in relation to that count proves Mr. Williams’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. R.F., 2022 ONCA 777, at para. 11.

ASSAULT (s. 266)

Background

The Parties’ Pentecostal Beliefs

[13] Both complainants and Mr. Williams share a sincerely held religious belief that people can be afflicted with or possessed by demonic spirits, also referred to by the witnesses as “familiar spirits”. Mr. Williams stated that this is a common tenet of the Pentecostal religion. He explained the belief as follows. Supernatural demons look for angry and receptive places to dwell and, when they find an opening in a person, they gain entry and take control over the individual. The demonic spirit then influences the person’s actions and decisions. If the person becomes completely possessed by a demonic spirit, they loose control and no longer have any agency.

[14] Mr. Williams also explained the Pentecostal belief that demonic-influenced people can be delivered from the familiar spirit before it takes over complete control. He defined “delivered” to mean that a person is “back in their right mind.” He said deliverance happens through “prayer and laying on of hands.” He testified that he was taught how to deliver people when he studied to become a Pastor at Lee College in Cleveland.

[15] Both complainants believe that Mr. Williams is able to cast off demonic spirits through prayer and hands-on healing. They witnessed him perform many such deliverances in the church sanctuary. He testified that he has also delivered people in their homes, but he has never performed a deliverance alone; other members of the congregation always assist him. He said assistance is necessary because a demonic-influenced person never wants to be prayed for, so they fight. He described how people who are being delivered have swung at him or pushed him away, not wanting him to touch them or pray over them. He explained that, consequently, one of the first things he does during any deliverance is to take hold of the person’s hands.

[16] D.D. was asked about witnessing Mr. Williams rebuke demonic spirits. She remembered observing such events at least 10 times, but only inside the church. She said people who were the subject of a deliverance would sometimes roll around on the ground, cry, scream, and behave aggressively toward Mr. Williams when he was praying over them. She confirmed that Mr. Williams would ask other congregants to place their hands on the person’s stomach, head, or hands. She recalled one occasion when congregants held a woman’s arms back to restrain her during the deliverance.

[17] One other relevant aspect of the complainants’ religious faith is that they believed Mr. Williams when he told them that he was receiving messages from God. D.D. testified that he would make prophecies and things would happen according to what he said. Mr. Williams confirmed that he claims to receive messages from God but, at trial, he qualified that statement, noting that he did not want it to be seen as “something foolish.” He explained that he does not literally hear God speaking to him, but rather discerns what God is saying by reading the Bible. He compared the Bible to legal texts and gave the example that Crown counsel “hears” from the authors of those texts when she reads them.

[18] Mr. Williams represented his ability to receive messages from God differently to the complainants. To them, who he knew to be fervent believers, he did not worry about appearing “foolish” by claiming to have some mystical ability to communicate with God. For example, in various text messages to D.D., he reminded her of “that day when God told me you shall be E!” (referring to her name change); told her, “As I was talking to God He told me to meet [J.J.], to introduce him to Jesus” (referring to a man who had a romantic interest in D.D.); and warned her, “Good morning [D.] the Lord says people are trying to get you be careful with your job.” He did not purport to have read these messages in the Bible. Furthermore, during an audio-recorded meeting with the complainants on December 16, 2018, Mr. Williams told them that he “hears God,” even if “some people don’t think I’m gifted.” He was suggesting to them that he actually hears God.

[19] The complainants’ belief in Mr. Williams’s ability to receive messages from God is relevant because it reflects the high esteem in which they held him. It is also relevant because, as discussed below, Mr. Williams exploited their belief in his “gift” to his advantage.

Interactions and Communications Preceding the Parking Lot Incident

[20] In late November and early December 2018, D.D. began to distance herself from Mr. Williams. They had previously communicated regularly by phone and text message, but she was becoming less responsive to his calls and texts. During the first week of December 2018, she cancelled band practice and missed a worship service (i.e., bible study on Tuesday night). This was unusual for her.

[21] Mr. Williams sent D.D. a text message at 8:21 p.m. on Saturday, December 8, 2018, asking if he could stop by and get his nail done. He has an ingrown toenail on one of his feet and D.D. would give him pedicures to relieve the pain caused by the wayward nail. D.D. did not respond to his text message. He showed up at her apartment despite the lack of response. She did not let him in. He called her and she did not pick up the phone.

[22] A few hours later, at 12:55 AM (after midnight) on Sunday, December 9, 2018, Mr. Williams texted D.D. the following message:

Just remember the same way I pray for Supervisor position to come I can pray for it to go, it wasn’t your ability it was a supernatural act of God.

He was referring to D.D.’s job as the Supervisor of a childcare centre. He had encouraged her to apply for the position in the summer of 2018. He drove her to the interview and prayed for her to be successful. She believed, when she was hired, that his prayers had assisted her in obtaining the position.

[23] D.D. testified that she interpreted his text message to be a warning that, just as his prayers had moved God to give her that job, he could use prayers to move God to take it away from her. She felt he was threatening her because she was withdrawing from him.

[24] Mr. Williams denies that his message was intended as a threat. During his examination-in-chief, he said D.D. had missed a couple services and was acting like “I don’t need you guys”, so he sent the text to remind her that “God is still the one in control of our lives.” During his cross-examination, he stated that his text message was a simple reminder that D.D. obtained her job by the help of God, so she needed to honour God. He urged the Court to interpret the text as a “spiritual message” intended to encourage D.D. to serve God. He insisted that he would never have threatened to pray to God to take her job away because “that’s not the tone in which we pray.”

[25] Several hours after Mr. Williams sent this text to D.D., she confronted him about it in his church office. She recorded their conversation without his knowledge. As captured on the audio recording, he initially claimed not to know what text she was talking about. She reminded him that he had threatened to pray away her job. He responded, “No, I’m just telling you I’m still praying for you, that will never change.”

[26] Mr. Williams’s explanations of the text message are implausible, and I reject them as not credible. His written words cannot reasonably be interpreted as a reminder or encouragement to worship God, nor as reassurance that he is still praying for D.D.’s wellbeing despite the growing distance between them. The message is unequivocal. In it, he belittles her by stating that she did not obtain her job based on her own ability, reminds her of his supposed role in invoking the supernatural powers of God to secure the Supervisor position, and urges her to reflect on how he “can pray for it to go.” This constitutes an undeniable warning that, if he wanted to, he could use his “gift” to invoke an act of God to take the Supervisor position from her. The only reasonable inference in the circumstances is that he was threatening her job security as retribution if she continued to be unresponsive to his communications and requests.

[27] In the audio recording of that same conversation, D.D. tells Mr. Williams that if he asks to come over to her apartment and she does not respond to him, that means no. He acknowledges that. She states, “But you know that already,” which he affirms. She then asks him, “So why’d you come?” Mr. Williams does not answer her question. Instead, he changes the topic. This method of was also used by him at trial; he often evaded questions in cross-examination by giving non-responsive answers and going off on tangents.

[28] In the audio recording, D.D. asks Mr. Williams to return her keys to her apartment and vehicle, which she had given him years earlier. He changes the topic, but she brings it back to her request for her keys, which she repeats twice, adding “please” the second time. He tells her that he does not have the keys on him but “will have them tomorrow or Tuesday.” She confirms that she will come to the church on Tuesday to get them. Mr. Williams then asks, “That’s it?”, and D.D. responds, “Yeah.” He says, “And then you’re gone?... And are you going to work in the office anymore with me?” D.D. replies, “I have to think about it.”

[29] Mr. Williams testified that he was not expecting D.D. to ask for her keys to be returned that day. He said he never carried the keys on him, but rather kept them in his truck. He stated that he had no hesitation in returning the keys, but he could not immediately go retrieve them from his vehicle that morning because it was time for him to go preach the Sunday service. However, the recording of their conversation reveals that it was D.D. who was eager to leave, and Mr. Williams was in no hurry to go to the sanctuary.

[30] After D.D. stated that she needed to think about whether she would continue doing the church’s office work, the audio recording captures Mr. Williams talking about his sore toenail. D.D. interrupts him and says, “Okay. I have to go.” He launches into a monologue telling her how he has changed. She repeats, “I have to go” and he then begins to pray. He asks God to bless D.D. and to “come against any familiar spirit.” D.D. interjects and says, “There’s no familiar spirit.” He continues to pray and asks God to forgive D.D. “for anything she might have said or done that’s illegal according to the Kingdom of God.” He then says, “Give me your hand.” D.D. refuses. He says, “Please,” and she repeats, “No.” He prays to Jesus, “Give us the grace I seek. I’ve spoken into her life many times. We’ve had great results. She received healing deliverance.”

[31] Despite his references to familiar spirits and healing deliverance, and his request for D.D. to take his hand in prayer, Mr. Williams testified that he did not think D.D. was under the influence of a demonic spirit that morning. I accept his evidence in that regard but note that he insinuated to D.D. that familiar spirits were nearby, that she was vulnerable to their influence, and that she needed his healing prayers to protect her. He also implied that her conduct was “illegal according to the Kingdom of God”, indirectly expressing his disapproval – and God’s disapproval – for her recent defiant behaviour towards him.

[32] Following the church service that Sunday, Mr. Williams asked D.D. to count the tithings received from congregants. D.D. typically deposited those donations in the bank after two or three people counted the money. The church’s Board of Directors had a policy requiring that at least two people be present whenever the money was tallied. Because the tithings represent a percentage of congregants’ income, the people who count them are privy to congregants’ private personal information, so only certain individuals are authorized to perform that task. D.D. was one of them, but according to established Board procedure, she could not do it alone. That day, no other authorized person was present to do it with her. Mr. Williams and his family members could not count or deposit the tithings because of his position as Senior Pastor.

[33] When Mr. Williams asked D.D. to count the tithings alone, she became upset. She testified that she was tired of having to deal with someone who makes rules, then changes their mind and breaks the rules. She said she was also feeling exhausted, overworked, and undervalued. She refused to count the money and left the church. She described how Mr. Williams followed her to the parking lot. She recalled that he was approaching her vehicle when she said to him, “I’m done.” He was saying, “Let’s talk.” She shouted, “I’m done” again and drove off.

[34] Mr. Williams recalled their parting that day slightly differently. He remembered being in his office and hearing a door slam. He then overheard D.D. say, “I’m tired of doing everyone else’s job. I’m tired. I’m going home.” She was not speaking to him directly, but he heard her utter those words. He testified that he asked her where she was going and why she was leaving, but she refused to talk to him.

[35] Although the witnesses’ recollections differ with respect to the precise words spoken, their two accounts of what transpired as D.D. was leaving the church that Sunday are not materially different. It is common ground that D.D. became angry, refused to speak with Mr. Williams and left without counting the money.

[36] Mr. Williams then sent D.D. a series of 27 text messages between 2:32 p.m. that afternoon and 11:11 p.m. that night, as well as additional messages in the early morning hours of the following day (Monday, December 10, 2023). Several of the messages consisted of him pleading with her to come back to the church and “do the books.” He employed a variety of strategies to try to persuade her to meet him at the church.

[37] Mr. Williams testified about the importance of getting the money counted and deposited in the bank. He was concerned that there were bills to be paid and cheques could be returned if the money was not deposited. He was also concerned that D.D. had not been coming into the office that week and had not been fulfilling her other administrative responsibilities. He said things needed to be done in the office. They were in the process of renewing the mortgage and D.D. was the contact person with the bank.

[38] At 2:32 p.m. on Sunday, December 9, 2018, Mr. Williams sent D.D. a message asking her to “please come back” and offering to pay for her to take a one-week trip to Mexico and to give her $500 in spending money. He sent a similar message at 2:34 p.m., in which he wrote, “this is what I’m going to do for you and you owe me nothing”, then reiterated his offer to book a ticket for her to go to Florida or Mexico with $500 as “pocket change.” He sent a follow-up message at 2:41 p.m., stating that he was making this offer because “this is what the Lord said for me to do.” In this way, he implicitly conveyed to D.D. that she should accept his offer because it was God’s will.

[39] There were numerous subsequent text messages in which Mr. Williams told D.D. that he was headed to the church, had almost arrived at the church, then that he was waiting for her at the church. He asked if she was coming to join him. He told her to take her time. Then he asked her to let him know what time she was coming. This barrage of messages went unanswered by D.D. At 3:25 p.m., he texted her again, stating that he was trying to book a flight for her but did not know the departure date. He asked her to confirm. She did not reply.

[40] Crown counsel suggested to Mr. Williams that he was trying to bribe D.D. with the offer of a trip. He denied that suggestion and said the proposed trip was “a well-deserved honour we were giving to her” because she refused to be paid for her work at the church. He said the church was offering to pay for the vacation. I do not accept this evidence for the following reasons.

[41] Firstly, in the text messages, he presented the trip to D.D. as a gift from him. He may have intended to use church funds rather than his own savings to pay for it, but he did not communicate that to D.D. Rather, he conveyed that this was a personal favour he was doing for her. Secondly, the offer of the trip was presented as incentive for her to return to the church to do the books and other administrative work, not as compensation for work she had already performed. Finally, the vacation offer was just one of many manipulative tactics employed by Mr. Williams that day to try to get D.D. to do what he wanted.

[42] Between 3:53 p.m. and 5:39 p.m., Mr. Williams sent D.D. a further series of messages asking, “who is that” and stating that if a man or anyone else pulls her away from doing God’s work, they are not worth being her friend, and it is just a matter of time before that person hurts her. He asked her to call him and told her that all she needs is “more of God not more of anyone else.” D.D. did not call him. He texted her, “anything you hide and it’s not good.”

[43] In two further text messages sent at 6:28 p.m., Mr. Williams asserted that D.D. had “to be hanging out with a demon-possessed influence person,” and must have been “influenced by some unsafe demonic influence person.” He testified that he thought this because “she was not showing up for certain things” and she had cancelled band rehearsal without an explanation. He stated that D.D. always willingly provided volunteer services to the church, so the change in her commitment to those responsibilities was an indicator that someone who is not a Christ-like spirit was trying to keep her away from the church.

[44] I find that Mr. Williams communicated these messages to D.D. for the purpose of dissuading her from spending time with other people unknown to him. He tried to exploit her apprehension about the influence of demonic spirits to exert control over who she spent time with. More particularly, I find that he was jealous because he suspected she was romantically involved with another man and was keeping it a secret from him. His subsequent text messages reveal that he was feeling possessive of D.D. and desperate to convince her to abandon the imagined relationship. He denied this during his cross-examination, but his text messages contradict his oral testimony.

[45] In a text at 6:35 p.m., in reference to D.D.’s behaviour when she left the church earlier that day, Mr. Williams wrote, “I thought you were tired but you’re in a rush to go somewhere.” He was accusing her of deceiving him about her reason for leaving the church early because she was in a hurry to meet someone. He then texted (at 6:54 p.m.) that she should open her eyes and understand that anyone who separates her from the people who love her is performing an act of witchcraft. He added that such a person will show her everything that is wrong with her friends so they can separate her to kill her. D.D. reasonably interpreted these messages as Mr. Williams saying that anyone who separates her from him or disparages him to her is demonic and dangerous. Mr. Williams testified that he used the word “kill” in his text message to refer to spiritual death, not physical death. Be that as it may, he was trying to scare D.D. into rejecting the person whose company he believed she was keeping.

[46] It is obvious from his texts that he wanted her to confirm his suspicions. At 6:56 p.m. he texted her, “If it’s not so answer.” D.D. did not respond. An hour and a half later, he sent her a text stating that he was at Credit Valley Hospital having a heart attack. D.D. testified that he had used this tactic previously. When she would not respond to his messages promptly, he would tell her that he was not feeling well or that his blood pressure was off, to try to elicit a sympathetic response from her. On this occasion, his text messages were even more dramatic and went beyond his previous attempts to guilt her into being responsive to him. He wrote, “I know you don’t care [about me being hospitalized for a heart attack] but I tell you so you can’t say you didn’t know” and “I know the best news would be for you to hear I am dead.”[^1]

[47] Crown counsel suggested to Mr. Williams that these texts constituted emotional blackmail. He denied the suggestion and stated, “people say things when they are trying to get people’s attention.” He then immediately denied that he was trying to get D.D.’s attention by sending those texts. He insisted that he was simply sharing facts with her about his health status. He testified that he was at the hospital that night with severe sharp chest pain. However, he admitted that he did not have a heart attack. He said the hospital staff told him he was experiencing extremely high stress.

[48] Based on the evidence, I find that Mr. Williams misrepresented the state of his health to D.D. and manufactured a serious health crisis to try to get her to engage with him and do what he wanted. He manipulated her feelings to try to control her – the very definition of emotional blackmail.

[49] Mr. Williams’s next message to D.D. (at 10:30 p.m.) reminded her that the Bible says, “be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers”. He wrote, “if I am right if you are going out with an unsaved man … You will have to choose between Music Director or an unsaved man.”

[50] Mr. Williams denied that he threatened to remove D.D. as Music Director. In explaining his text at trial, he said, “I am reminding her of what she has pledged to. I am selfless here.” I reject this explanation. Mr. Williams was far from selfless. Rather, he was abusing his authority in the church to try to exercise control over D.D.’s personal life.

[51] He also wrote that she is doing what God says not to do. At 11:00 p.m., he sent another message telling her that people in the church have been asking what is wrong with her. He stated,

If you have been going to his place he is unsaved he is after your Body not you. Who knows what is happening behind closed doors? Don’t let nobody use you. This man is playing you, take what’s left of your integrity and run before you are too ashamed to get out.

[52] Mr. Williams contradicted himself in his testimony about the meaning of these text messages. On the one hand, he implicitly acknowledged that they pertain to D.D.’s romantic life by stating that she had asked him to make sure any person she became involved with was a Christian because she did not want to have conflict in her marriage. He also testified that D.D. told him anybody she marries would need to be approved by her spiritual authority. He asserted that he sent the texts in question to fulfill his Pastoral responsibility to hold her accountable to these undertakings. Yet at a different point during his testimony, he adamantly denied that the texts refer to a suspected romantic relationship. He denied believing that D.D. was hiding a relationship from him. He denied ever thinking or suggesting that she was having sex with another man. These denials are disingenuous and strain credulity.

[53] The content of the text messages demonstrates unequivocally that Mr. Williams suspected D.D. was dating a non-Christian man and was hiding the relationship from him. In pursuit of his desire to interfere with her romantic life, he deployed manipulation tactics to try to influence her decision-making. He appealed to her religious faith to make her believe she was acting contrary to God’s wishes. He threatened to remove her from the position of Music Director if she did not end the imagined relationship with the “unsaved” man. He also tried shaming her by telling her that other congregants were gossiping about her.

[54] Mr. Williams continued texting D.D. that night without any reply from her. He eventually returned to his earlier ploy of using emotional blackmail to try to elicit a response. At 11:08 p.m. he wrote, “I am in a lot of pain so I am going to stop writing. If I never see you again, GOODBYE!” However, three minutes later, he started texting D.D. again. At 5:55 AM the next morning, he sent her a text stating “I made it”, conveying that he had survived the ostensible heart attack.

[55] Mr. Williams’s compulsiveness in texting D.D. despite her lack of engagement reveals a desperation that goes beyond needing to get the church donations counted and deposited in the bank. There were other trusted congregants authorized to do that work, upon whom he could have relied. I conclude that his true goal was to find out where and with whom D.D. was spending her time outside of church, and to curtail her outside activities and relationships.

[56] He continued to text D.D. incessantly over the ensuing days. I will not review all the remaining messages that Mr. Williams sent to her. The above-discussed examples capture the nature of them. His messages were unrelentingly manipulative, vacillating between flattery, expressions of love, admonishments based on scripture, invocations of guilt, and menacing threats disguised as Biblical parables. Mr. Williams, through his texts, demonstrated an obsessive interest in D.D.’s relations with other men.

[57] During his cross-examination, the Crown asked Mr. Williams to confirm that D.D. did not reply to any of his text messages until the morning of Thursday, December 13, 2018, at which point she wrote to him: “Stop contacting me via phone/text/email.” He answered by implying that D.D. had deleted the outgoing text messages she sent to him and left only his incoming messages when she printed them from her cell phone to give to the police. He then contradicted himself and ultimately confirmed, after lengthy obfuscation, that D.D. did not reply to any of his text messages between December 8 and December 13, 2018.

[58] On Monday, December 10, 2018, Mr. Williams showed up at D.D.’s workplace uninvited. D.D. testified that she was startled to see him there. He had never done that before. D.D. once again recorded their conversation on her cell phone without his knowledge. She testified that she did so because she thought he was going to say something about his behaviour towards her and she was, at that time, contemplating going to the police to report his sexual offences (i.e., the alleged offences dealt with later in these Reasons).

[59] In the audio recording, Mr. Williams is heard apologizing to D.D. for “every foolish text.” She tells him unequivocally, “Don’t text me…. I don’t want your texts,” and he responds, “I won’t text you.” Despite this promise, Mr. Williams texted D.D. five more times later that same day, and sent her dozens of additional text messages in the days that followed, starting in the early morning hours (3:32 AM) of Tuesday, December 11, 2018.

[60] Mr. Williams testified that he went to D.D.’s office to try to persuade her to come to the church, count the money from the service the day before, and deposit it to the bank. D.D. testified that she thought he came to her workplace because he was starting to panic about his loss of control over her. Based on the totality of the evidence, I agree with D.D.’s assessment of his motive for coming to her office.

[61] On the audio recording of their conversation in her office, Mr. Williams asks D.D. whether she is going to do the deposit for the church and she says no, but the conversation does not end there. He asks when she will next be at the church. She tells him she will attend the following day (Tuesday) to pick up her keys, as previously discussed. He then pleads with her to be civil, to “reunite our unity in Christ” and to “reconcile unto God.” She tells him she does not want to talk anymore. He ignores that statement and asks her a series of questions about whether she will be attending church services that week. She repeatedly states that she is at work and needs to get work done. She asks him to leave. She says “goodbye” a few times, with increasing assertiveness, and eventually tells him to “Get. Out.” He then asks her twice, “Am I your Pastor?” She responds “no” both times and insists that he leave. Their discussion ends with Mr. Williams saying, “Bless you” and D.D. responding “No.” He then states, “The spirit is not staying on you,” and she replies, “Get out, get out, get out, get out, get out. Go. Get out. Don’t come back here.”

[62] D.D. testified that Mr. Williams placed his hand on her shoulder when he said, “The spirit is not staying on you.” Mr. Williams acknowledged he might have done that. I accept D.D.’s unchallenged testimony on this point. She explained that Mr. Williams was acting as though he was trying to rebuke a spirit. She suspected he was doing it simply because she was not agreeing with him. She claimed that was one of the ways he manipulated people to do what he wanted; he would act like some supernatural spirit was influencing those who disagreed with him. D.D. testified that he had done this to her before to elicit her acquiescence when she disagreed with him. I accept her evidence on this point as credible.

[63] D.D. further testified that she was not happy about Mr. Williams putting his hand on her shoulder and praying for her in her office at the childcare centre. I also accept this evidence as credible. It is corroborated by her reaction, as captured on the audio recording.

[64] The next day, Tuesday, December 11, 2018, D.D. went to the church around 6:30 p.m. to retrieve her keys from Mr. Williams. Her sister K.K., with whom she shared an apartment, was present. D.D. surreptitiously recorded their interactions, without either K.K.’s or Mr. Williams’s knowledge.

[65] The recording commences with D.D. at the threshold of Mr. Williams’s office. K.K. is nearby. Mr. Williams greets D.D. with pleasantries. She says “hello” to him and immediately asks for her keys. He states that he needs to go out and get them. The keys were in his vehicle, which was parked outside the church.

[66] Mr. Williams is heard asking D.D. to follow him somewhere, stating, “just come for a second”, “just come”, “please”, and “just one minute.” I infer that he was inviting her into his office. D.D. firmly responds “no” each time. Incredulous, K.K. asks D.D., “Since when do you say no to Pastor?”

[67] D.D. becomes increasingly assertive, repeatedly asking Mr. Williams for her keys. At one point, she demands, “Go get my keys right now.” K.K. chides her for raising her voice at Pastor and for speaking to him that way. All three of them are talking at the same time, with Mr. Williams telling D.D. to “stop this” and “stop it.” D.D. eventually threatens to call the police and Mr. Williams then finally says that he will go get her keys.

[68] The three of them move outside into the parking lot, where the frenzied discussion resumes. Mr. Williams states repeatedly that he is going to get the keys and is going to give them to her. However, he does not do so immediately. D.D. vocalizes her frustration with the delay.

[69] Mr. Williams gave uncontested testimony that, at one point, he tried to re-enter the church and D.D. stood in his path and blocked his way. D.D. described how he approached his vehicle in the parking lot but was just walking around it instead of obtaining the keys from within. Mr. Williams admits that he was deliberately stalling. He testified that he delayed in retrieving the keys because he was waiting for his son Kyle and other congregants to arrive for the Tuesday night Bible Study. He explained that he thought D.D. was being influenced by a demonic spirit and felt an obligation as her Pastor to deliver her from that foul spirit. He had never performed a deliverance on his own, and he anticipated resistance from D.D., so he wanted to wait until help arrived.

[70] On the audio recording, D.D.’s tone of voice conveys her anger and frustration. She starts yelling for her keys. She testified that she did so because she wanted other people to hear. Mr. Williams was dragging things out and she thought that he might move more quickly if she created a commotion, knowing that people in the surrounding residential neighbourhood could hear. She was correct. Mr. Williams testified that the last thing he wanted was to disturb the neighbours, so when she raised her voice, he proceeded to get her keys from his vehicle.

[71] On the audio recording, there is a pause in the verbal exchanges while Mr. Williams retrieves the keys. He ultimately hands them over to D.D., who asks him to confirm that these are all the keys he has that belong to her. He says “yes.” She thanks him. Then the sound of footsteps is heard as she walks away. Mr. Williams says, “wait, wait.” What happens next is the subject of the assault charge.

Evidence Regarding the Parking Lot Incident

D.D.’s Testimony About the Alleged Assault

[72] The following is a summary of D.D.’s testimony about what transpired.

[73] Mr. Williams followed her to her vehicle. He approached as she was entering the driver’s side. He came towards her faster than she could close the door. He held the door open so she could not close it and could not leave. She was by then seated in the driver’s seat, but her legs were still outside the vehicle.

[74] Mr. Williams grabbed both her hands with his hands, criss-crossed one wrist on top of the other, and pushed them down toward her hips. She was surprised by his strength. He was standing between her and the door, pushing down on her wrists with both his hands, leaning forward so that his body weight was pressing against her. He was praying over her, acting as though she were possessed by a demon. Her back was pressed against the car seat and the centre console. She could feel her legs pinned against the side of the vehicle. He was hurting her. She was trying to get her hands free. She wanted him to stop. She was screaming. She began to panic. She urged her sister K.K. to call the police. Mr. Williams was also shouting to K.K., asking K.K. to pray with him. K.K. did nothing.

[75] D.D. was eventually able to slip one of her wrists out from his grip. She used it to honk the horn. She was trying to attract the attention of neighbours because her sister was not calling the police. She shouted for anyone in the area to call 911. Then Mr. Williams either backed away or possibly her sister started pulling him off. Her hands were freed, and she lunged toward his neck, yelling “Get off me!”

[76] She closed the vehicle door and drove off, shouting to K.K. to stay away from Mr. Williams as she left. She went to a friend’s home and photographed her hands and wrists. The photographs show red marks and small abrasions on her hands and wrists. The tiny cuts on her hands were where his fingernails scratched her. The next day, her back was sore from the incident, her wrists hurt, and her throat was coarse from screaming.

Mr. Williams’s Testimony About the Alleged Assault

[77] The following is a summary of Mr. Williams’s testimony about what happened in the parking lot.

[78] D.D. had left the church in anger the previous Sunday, refusing to speak to him about why she was upset, but her demeanour that Tuesday was different from the previous Sunday. She was walking up and down, moving her hands and stomping the ground. He saw a different person than the one he knew as the Youth Leader, Worship Leader, and Administrative Assistant for the church. He observed a “switch” in her attitude and behaviour that made her almost unrecognizable to him. He knew that “it was not her” and concluded that she was demonically influenced.

[79] After he returned her keys, he reached his left hand inside her vehicle, touched the back of her left hand, and started to pray for her. When he did this, her “voice amplified like she was being taken advantage of.” She was yelling that she did not want any prayer, which further convinced him of her demonic influence because D.D. would normally welcome his prayers during church services.

[80] D.D. reached over with her right hand to try to remove his left hand from hers. He placed his right hand on top and rested both his hands on hers, on the dashboard above the steering wheel. She then removed his right hand, so he rested it on her shoulder. He continued to pray for her throughout.

[81] He does not believe he hurt D.D. If he did, he did not realize it at the time. He had no intention of hurting her. He was trying to help her by casting off the demonic spirit. She continued to yell. He let go of her and moved away from the vehicle because he did not want a commotion in the neighbourhood. Real estate values in that area are high and he is sensitive to the neighbours and considerate when it comes to the noise level.

Audio Recording of the Parking Lot Incident

[82] On the audio recording, the arguing ceases and their interaction quiets while the keys are exchanged. Shortly thereafter, D.D. raises her voice again and says, “Let go of my door,” three times assertively. Mr. Williams responds calmly, “No” and “No, let me say something.” K.K. simultaneously says, “Daddy, stop, daddy.” Mr. Williams then states, “I want to pray over you.” D.D. responds firmly, “You are not praying over me.”

[83] There is then a sudden dramatic escalation. The audio recording captures shuffling sounds that suggest physical movements of some sort, causing objects to brush against the microphone on D.D.’s cell phone. Mr. Williams prays and D.D. screams repeatedly to her sister, “Get him away from me!” She shrieks. The raised pitch in her voice conveys terror and a sense of helplessness. Mr. Williams raises his voice and starts reciting a mantra, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,” repeatedly. D.D.’s screams for help punctuate his prayer. Mr. Williams then stops calling upon God and addresses the “foul spirit” directly. He shouts repeatedly, in an angry tone, “Get out of my daughter” and “Get off my daughter.” D.D. says, “I am not your daughter.” Mr. Williams continues to verbally rebuke the “foul spirit” and commands it to “Go! Go! Go!” At this point he is also shrieking, his voice cracking from the high volume and pitch. For a few seconds, they both sound utterly frantic. The recording captures what is clearly a frenetic and chaotic scene.

[84] D.D. repeatedly calls out K.K.’s name, begging her for help. Eventually, K.K. says, “Daddy, let go,” but Mr. Williams continues to pray over D.D. He then tries to enlist K.K.’s assistance. He repeats, in a calm voice, “[K.] help me pray.” D.D. protests, “Don’t you dare” and “No, please don’t.” D.D. pleads once again for K.K. to help her. She begs K.K. to “get him off me.” The desperation in her voice is palpable.

[85] D.D. then screams repeatedly, “Get off me” as Mr. Williams continues his prayers. She is audibly straining her vocal cords. Panic is perceptible in the tone of her voice. She says, “I can’t breathe” twice. She appears to become overwrought and starts whimpering repeatedly, “[K.] call the police.” At the same time, Mr. Williams is addressing the “foul filthy spirit” and commanding it to “get off D.D.” and to “go.” He then returns to reciting a version of his earlier mantra, “In the name of Jesus.”

[86] After three minutes (from the time D.D. told Mr. Williams to let go of her door), a horn begins to sound in the background. D.D. stops calling out her sister’s name and starts to shriek, “Call 9-1-1.” Noises suggestive of physical movement can then be heard. Mr. Williams’s prayer stops abruptly and D.D. shouts, “Get off me” one last time. Heavy breathing is then audible, accompanied by the sound of keys being manipulated and a car engine starting. D.D. is heard shouting at K.K. to stay away from Mr. Williams. Her voice is assertive but no longer shrill.

Text Messages after the Parking Lot Incident

[87] That night, Mr. Williams sent D.D. two successive text messages at 11:20 p.m. and 11:33 p.m. They read as follows:

Remember David failed but it was his enemy who died! Absolam (sic) raised his sword against his father and he[^2] died a terrible death. No body hit this man of God and go unpunished.

So after you kicked me decide what you want repentance or leprosy?

[88] Mr. Williams denies that these messages were intended as threats to D.D., but they cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise. When the Crown suggested to him that “Absalom is [D.D.],” he feigned not understanding the question. He responded, “No, Absalom is a person in the Bible,” as though he had not intentionally used a metaphor. After the question was clarified by the Crown, Mr. Williams denied that he was comparing Absalom and Absalom’s father to D.D.’s relationship with himself, despite having referred to D.D. as his daughter in a text just hours earlier. He gave a long rambling explanation about how, in his faith, all people are referred to as “sons of God”, whether male or female. He said he was referring to D.D. as a son of God in the text. His testimony on this point was largely incoherent, but he ultimately claimed that his text message was intended to be “encouragement” to D.D. that if anyone came against her, she would defeat them.

[89] I find his testimony on this point to be disingenuous at best, more likely outright dishonest. Read in the context of all the surrounding circumstances, the text messages cannot support an interpretation that is “encouraging” to D.D. The first message is clearly a warning to her about the punishment she will suffer for challenging his paternal/pastoral authority. The follow up message similarly conveys unambiguously to D.D. that she will suffer dire consequences (leprosy) unless she shows remorse (repentance) for how she treated him in the parking lot.

[90] Crown counsel challenged Mr. Williams’s innocent explanation by pointing out that he did not use the expression “son of God” but rather “this man of God.” She put to him that he (not D.D.) was the “man of God” referenced in the text. Mr. Williams had used the expression “man of God” to refer to himself earlier in his testimony, so he could not credibly deny that suggestion. He then changed his evidence and stated that he did not know what he was trying to say in his text messages. This new response was equally disingenuous.

[91] Overall, I find Mr. Williams’s text messages (both prior to and after the parking lot incident) to be consistent with D.D.’s description of him as manipulative and controlling. The messages are also corroborative of her characterization of their relationship as exploitive and abusive. Mr. Williams’s testimony about the text messages was utterly implausible and not credible.

Did Mr. Williams Intentionally Apply Force to D.D.?

[92] Mr. Williams admitted that he deliberately placed both his hands on D.D.’s wrists and held them down. The application of significant force is not required for this conduct element of the offence to be proven. The force may be gentle. Any non-accidental physical contact is sufficient to establish the first essential element of the offence.

[93] I note, however, that the evidence supports a finding that significant force was used. To the extent of any divergence between D.D.’s account and Mr. Williams’s account of the parking lot incident, I accept her evidence as credible, whereas I reject his evidence as misleading. I make this finding based primarily on the audio recording, the accuracy of which was not disputed by the Defence.

[94] The recording corroborates D.D.’s description of a traumatic event in which significant force was used by Mr. Williams to pin her down. I reject Mr. Williams’s testimony that D.D.’s emotional outburst was triggered by him simply resting one hand on the back of one of her hands. His account of the incident gives the impression that he was being gentle and was merely providing pastoral care. I find that his initial actions must have been more aggressive and forceful given D.D.’s panicked response.

[95] Moreover, the audio recording includes a period of about three minutes during which there is a lot of screaming but very little background noise suggestive of physical movement, which is consistent with D.D.’s account of being pinned down in the car with Mr. Williams’s full weight on her. Significant force must have been used to restrain and hold her physically in place for three minutes, while she begged for her sister’s help and pleaded for Mr. Williams to get off her.

[96] I recognize that D.D. is the only person who was aware of the audio recording at the time, so I have considered the possibility that she may have been acting for the benefit of creating misleading evidence. However, the recording captures what appears to be spontaneous and authentic utterances, as well as D.D.’s genuine panic, triggered by Mr. Williams’s unexpected actions. D.D. testified that she made the recording in case Mr. Williams refused to return the keys to her, and because she was contemplating going to the police about the sexual abuse he committed. She thought that he might say something to her that she could use as evidence against him. I believe that she did not anticipate the physical altercation that happened in the parking lot and was not recording their conversation for the purpose of capturing an assault on audio tape. I am confident that the recording is not contrived. I find it to be reliable evidence and I find D.D.’s account of the incident to be credible. I conclude that when Mr. Williams testified about the incident, he downplayed his aggression and minimized the physical force he used.

[97] Proof of harm is not required to prove the application of force beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I note that D.D. suffered minor physical injuries. Based on her testimony, the audio recording, and the photographs she took in the immediate aftermath of the incident, I find that she suffered small scratches and bruising on her hands and wrists, pain in her back, and a sore throat. I also find that the incident constituted a traumatic ordeal for her, causing her emotional and psychological harm.

[98] It does not matter whether Mr. Williams intended to hurt or traumatize D.D. The question is simply whether he intended to touch her, not whether he intended the consequences of his actions. Based on the totality of the evidence, it is indisputable that he intentionally applied pressure to D.D.’s wrists and hands. The application of force was not accidental.

[99] This first element of the offence is therefore proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Did D.D. Consent to the Application of Force?

[100] This element of the offence focuses on D.D.’s subjective state of mind. The Defence relies on the doctrine of implied consent and argues that, on the date of the parking lot incident, D.D. shared Mr. Williams’s religious belief in the existence of supernatural demonic forces and the power of prayer to rebuke them.

[101] The fact that D.D. chose to remain as a member of the church after observing deliverances in which Mr. Williams overcame the resistance of the affected congregants cannot reasonably be interpreted as implied consent by her to be subjected to such treatment if ever Mr. Williams perceived her to be under the influence of a demonic spirit. The Court cannot treat church membership or shared adherence to the tenets of a particular faith as a buffer to criminal liability. There is no evidence upon which I could find that the ordeal to which D.D. was subjected in the parking lot was so expected and accepted by congregants in the church – and by D.D. in particular – as to overcome D.D.’s vehement and vocal denial of consent at the time of the incident.

[102] When asked to provide authorities in support of Mr. Williams’s reliance on the doctrine of implied consent, Defence counsel cited the decision in R. v. A.E., 2000 CanLII 16823, 146 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.), a case involving an appeal from a father’s conviction of assault causing bodily harm to his two-month-old daughter. The appellant in A.E. argued that, because he was looking after his child, he was acting with her deemed consent at the time he applied the force that injured her. The Court of Appeal affirmed that consent can be imputed to an infant to allow a parent or other caregiver to provide the necessities of care that are in the child’s best interest. The Court explained the policy rationale for this doctrine as follows (at para. 27):

True consent requires that the consenting party voluntarily decide to agree or participate, with full knowledge of all relevant factors. An infant does not have this capacity. An infant must rely upon its parents to care for it and make decisions on its behalf to ensure its well-being.

[103] Nevertheless, the Court emphasized that implied consent is a narrow doctrine to be applied restrictively (at para. 33):

It is appropriate that an infant’s implied consent, itself a creature of public policy, be strictly limited to conduct which is consistent with the purpose and rationale underlying the policy basis for the consent. In order to avail himself of the defence of deemed consent, the force used by the appellant must have been for the purpose of caring for the child. Otherwise, the positive social value of deemed consent loses its rationale.

The Court of Appeal ultimately upheld the trial judge’s conviction.

[104] The Defence relies on A.E. to argue that Mr. Williams was providing D.D. with care akin to that which a parent provides to a helpless infant, and D.D. should therefore be deemed to have consented to his touch in the circumstances. Mr. Williams testified that he thought D.D. needed help escaping the influence of a demonic spirit. He further testified that he felt an obligation as her Pastor to help her. He maintains that he placed his hands on her for the sole purpose of providing pastoral care because she would not be able to dispel the spirit on her own.

[105] This argument fails for the following two reasons. First, I do not accept that Mr. Williams applied force to D.D. for the innocuous purpose of caring for her. I reject his claim that he wanted to help her escape the influence of a demonic spirit. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of his religious conviction that people can be influenced by such spirits, or his belief that hands-on prayer can deliver afflicted persons from their influence. However, I am not persuaded that, in this specific instance, he perceived the presence of a demonic spirit and was genuinely trying to help deliver D.D. from its influence when he placed his hands on her. On the contrary, I find that his conduct in the parking lot was an extension of his ongoing manipulation of her. He used an ostensible demonic spirit as a pretext to try to exercise control over her.

[106] Mr. Williams’s text messages, his uninvited visits to D.D.’s home and office, and his overall behaviour and communications in the days preceding December 11, 2018 demonstrate that D.D.’s preliminary steps to withdraw from the church triggered extreme anxiety in him. She was resisting and defying his authority in the days leading up to the parking lot incident. She was distancing herself from the sphere of his influence as her Pastor. He panicked and pursued a variety of means to try to dissuade her. I conclude that he felt personally threatened by the assertion of independence manifested in her demand for the return of her keys, so he exploited her religious convictions to try to deter her from her chosen path away from him and the church. He tried to make her question the soundness of her own decisions by making her believe they were demonically inspired. When that failed, he threatened her with God’s wrath in subsequent text messages.

[107] Secondly, even if I accepted that Mr. Williams was acting out of a sincere desire to help D.D. escape the influence of a demonic spirit, the defence of implied consent would not apply in this case because D.D. is not an infant who is incapable of consenting to the administration of pastoral care. She is an adult, fully capable of consenting or not consenting to being touched during a prayer service of deliverance. I see no policy basis on which to expand the narrow doctrine of implied consent to capture the circumstances of this case.

[108] There is overwhelming evidence that D.D. did not consent. She testified that she did not want Mr. Williams to pray for her, did not give him permission to rebuke any spirits from her, and did not want to be touched by him. I accept her testimony as credible. It is corroborated by the audio recording. D.D. vocally and unequivocally expressed that she did not want Mr. Williams to touch her. She pleaded with her sister, K.K., to pull him off her. She repeatedly shouted at him to get off her. She begged her sister to call the police and screamed for any bystanders to call 911.

[109] The Crown has therefore established beyond a reasonable doubt that D.D. did not consent to the application of force that day.

Did Mr. Williams Know that D.D. Did Not Consent to the Force Applied?

[110] This element of the offence focuses on the accused’s state of mind. Mr. Williams admitted, during his cross-examination, that he knew D.D. did not want him to hold down her hands and wrists that day in the parking lot. He confirmed that he heard her screams and felt her resisting. However, he insisted that no demonic-influenced person wants to be prayed for.

[111] If the Defence position is that Mr. Williams, as a religious leader, is entitled to ignore D.D.’s expressed lack of consent by ascribing it to a demonic spirit rather than to her, there is no basis in law for such a finding.

[112] I therefore conclude that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams knew D.D. was not consenting to his touch.

Decision

[113] For the above reasons, I find Mr. Williams guilty of assault.

SEXUAL ASSAULT OF M.M. (s. 271)

Background

[114] M.M. testified that she became Mr. Williams’s Administrative Assistant in the fall of 2003. Mr. Williams said it was sometime in 2005. With respect to the charge of sexual assault against M.M., nothing turns on her start date.

[115] M.M.’s husband was not pleased about her taking the job. She had been working as an Education Assistant and the move to the church position involved a significant decrease in pay. Consequently, she had to take a second job to supplement her income. She started driving a school bus. This required her to get up early to do a morning bus run before going to work at the church, leave the church mid-afternoon for a couple of hours to do the second bus run, then return to the church and work late into the evening to complete her administrative duties. She was therefore away from home for long hours.

[116] By the time M.M. started her job at the church, her marriage was faltering. She talked to Mr. Williams, as her Pastor, about her marital difficulties, including financial challenges and sexual intimacy issues. She also confided in him about childhood sexual abuse that she experienced. He asked her whether she had disclosed this to anyone else. She informed him that she told her husband, who confronted her abuser.

Crown’s Allegations

[117] The following is a summary of M.M.’s testimony regarding the alleged sexual assaults.

[118] Within a few months of starting her job at the church, Mr. Williams began asking her to give him massages. She did not think his request was odd or inappropriate. She believed him when he said he was tired and just needed a massage. She never offered to massage him, but she started giving him massages upon request in the prayer room. No one else was around when he asked her to do this.

[119] Several incidents of unwelcome sexual touching occurred while she was massaging him, between 2004 and 2007. All but one of these sexual assaults occurred inside the church. She cannot recall the exact dates of incidents or the precise sequence in which they occurred, but she clearly remembers the first time he touched her. It happened in 2004, likely during the winter months because she recalls that it was cold, and she was wearing a turtleneck. She and Mr. Williams were walking down the hallway in the church having a discussion. No one else was around. He approached her from behind, extended his arms and reached around her from both sides, then grazed her nipples with his fingertips. It was just a quick brushing motion, one hand on each breast, over top of her sweater. She stopped walking, turned, and looked at him in shock. He apologized (“sorry”) and said he should not have done it. She said nothing. She trusted that it was just a faux pas and was not going to happen again.

[120] On one occasion in 2004 when she kneeled beside him on the couch in the prayer room to massage him, he lifted her up and put her on his lap. She felt uncomfortable and said “no, no, no.” After a few seconds, he put her back to his side. On another occasion in 2004, she was sitting on the couch in the prayer room one day when Mr. Williams came over to her, sat beside her, grabbed her head in his hands and put his tongue in her ear. She pushed against his chest to make him stop. Other times in 2004 and 2005, they were talking in the prayer room, he tried to kiss her lips, and she turned her face away. One day, Mr. Williams told her that he thought they worked well together. He said, “I enjoy working with you, but you’re married.” She responded, “I will always be married” and he replied, “Yes, of course.”

[121] At other times in the prayer room, Mr. Williams told her that she was lovely or sweet. He also said, “You’re so obedient” and “I wish you were mine.” She had no romantic feelings for him. She never talked to him about the prospect of them having a romantic relationship, but he brought it up. On one occasion, he had just returned from a trip and asked to have some time with her. They met at a restaurant, where he told her that he was thinking about her, but that he is married. She could not recall all the details of that conversation, but she remembers him mentioning his marriage.

[122] In 2004 and 2005, there were a couple of occasions when he entered her admin office in the church an hour prior to Sunday service. They were talking about something, and he suddenly lifted her blouse, like he was trying to look at her body. She did not say anything, but she pushed his hand down. Then he tried it again.

[123] There was a single incident of sexual touching that occurred outside the church. It was in the summer of 2005. Another congregant named Karen was away on vacation. Karen had told M.M. and Mr. Williams that they could go to her apartment and eat whatever food was in the fridge. They went to her residence together. M.M. was taking some produce out of the fridge to bring home when Mr. Williams said he wanted a massage. He was lying on a couch in the apartment fully clothed. She went over and started massaging his chest. Then he said he wanted to go into the bedroom. She said “fine”, and followed him into the bedroom, thinking that he just wanted a massage on the bed.

[124] Mr. Williams lay down on his back on the bed. She sat beside him with her thighs on the bed and the lower part of her legs hanging down. She leaned forward slightly to massage his chest. He then placed one of his hands in the middle of her chest, his other hand on her arm, and he lifted her up, then lowered her down on top of him. She ended up facing him horizontal on the bed, with her head slightly lower than his head. His legs were open, and her legs were between them. She protested, saying, “No, no, no. I can’t do this,” and she started to cry. He told her to calm down. She cried harder and said, “I have to get up. I can’t do this.” She got up off the bed and so did he. She then turned to leave but he held her wrists and said, “Calm down, you’re getting too loud.” He gripped both wrists using his thumb and fingers. He was facing her, telling her that she was making too much noise. She kept crying and eventually, he let go of her wrists. They exited the bedroom and then left the apartment.

[125] On another occasion in the prayer room, probably in 2005, Mr. Williams was lying on his back on the couch, and M.M. was sitting beside him, near his torso. They were facing each other, and she was leaning forward to massage his chest. He slipped his hands under her sweater, manipulated the cups of her bra with his fingers at the side edges near her armpits, and flipped it so that her breasts were outside her bra. They were still under her sweater, so not completely exposed. She stopped what she was doing and just looked at him. He smiled and said something to her, but she cannot remember what he said. He then flipped her bra so that the cups were back in place. She cannot recall whether she continued to massage him. They did not have a conversation about what just happened.

[126] There was another bra incident in either 2005 or 2006. It was a warmer day because she remembers wearing a short sleeve light blue blouse. Mr. Williams asked her to go into a room in the church, not the prayer room. He asked her to sit on a couch and he sat behind her with his legs open. She was then sitting in between his legs. He unclasped her bra from behind. She remembers holding her breasts with her hands. He eased her back and spread her arms out, then put his head down on her chest.

[127] In late 2005, she was in the prayer room with Mr. Williams, talking to him about difficulties in her marriage. He told her that she had wasted 18 years, but that she could make the next years count by divorcing her husband. He lifted her chin and kissed her on the lips. She pulled back, surprised by his behaviour. She and her husband were having problems, but it was not in her mind to divorce him. She wanted to work things out.

[128] On a weekday in either 2005 or 2006, M.M. was sitting on an armchair in the prayer room. Mr. Williams approached her, opened his legs, and kneeled on either side of her, so he was straddling her lap and facing her, chest-to-chest. He started kissing her neck and put his hands inside the waistband of her pants, slightly down her pants, on either side of her behind. He said, “I’m going to get mine,” or “I’m going to get a piece of this.” She felt extremely uncomfortable and thought that she was going to scream, so she put her hand over her mouth. She did not say anything. Eventually he stopped, got up and walked out. As soon as he left the room, she jumped up and locked the door behind him. He came back and told her to open the door. She hesitated and he demanded, “Open this door right now.” She could not stay locked in the prayer room indefinitely and she knew she had no other way to exit, so she opened the door. He then chided, “Don’t ever do that again.”

[129] On another occasion in 2005 or 2006, she was resting on the couch in the prayer room, lying on her back. Mr. Williams came over to the couch and climbed on top of her. He was facing her, with his head a little lower than hers. His legs straddled hers and he rested his elbows on the couch on either side of her body so that his weight was supported. He then began to gyrate and simulate the sexual act. They were both fully clothed. She did not feel his hips touch her body because he was holding himself up, but she saw him make a thrusting motion as though he were having sex. She felt violated. She grabbed his wrist and told him to stop what he was doing. He did not stop immediately. She had to tell him to stop and get off a couple times. Then he smiled and stopped. They did not have a conversation about what just happened.

[130] Another incident occurred in Mr. Williams’s office in the summer of 2005. He was seated in his chair and asked her to give him a massage. She knelt in front of him, between his legs, and reached up with both arms to massage his chest. He then got out of his chair, knelt on the ground, and asked her to lie down on her stomach on the floor. She looked at him as if to ask, “Are you serious?” He repeated the request and she complied. He then climbed onto her back and lay face down on top of her. His legs were outside her legs and his penis area was against her butt. He started gyrating. They were both fully clothed. She felt his hips moving against her butt. She told him to get off, but he did not listen. She could not get up. She felt his weight. She said “get off” three times and he finally rolled off her. They both turned onto their sides and were facing each other, still lying on the ground. They stayed in that position for a few seconds, without speaking. He was smiling at her. He rolled his forefinger along the top band of the front of her jeans. She wanted to get up and leave. Eventually, she did so.

[131] In 2006, shortly after she separated from her husband, she was in the prayer room talking to Mr. Williams about some challenges that she was having with her daughter D.D. He was aware of her separation. He suggested that she lie down on the couch and offered to massage her back because she was upset and stressed. Her feet may have stayed on the floor, but she does not remember the exact positioning of her legs and torso. He began rubbing her back on top of her clothes, but then he slipped his hand underneath the front of her blouse and pinched her nipple. She did not like the sensation and was feeling terribly uncomfortable, so she started to kick her legs. He then stopped what he was doing.

[132] One day during the summer of 2007, he asked her to massage his chest. They were in the prayer room. He was seated on the couch. She knelt in front of him and began massaging his chest. He leaned forward to look down her blouse. She grabbed the neck of her blouse, scrunched it up, said “no” and pulled back away from him. When she moved forward to resume the massage, he reached for her blouse, opening the top of it so he could look down at her breasts. He asked if she was wearing a bra. She grabbed the neck part of her blouse again to obstruct his view and moved back away from him. He made about three attempts to put his hand down her blouse. She said “no” each time.

[133] A final incident occurred in or around 2007. She had gone to Mr. Williams’s office to speak to him about something. She recalls that she was wearing a jacket. He took her hand and began to swing her around in a circle until she felt dizzy. He was holding one of her wrists with his hands. Both of their arms were outstretched. She lost her balance from spinning around and fell on the floor. He knelt over her and put his tongue in her ear. She told him to stop. He did not say anything. He stopped shortly thereafter. They both got up. She does not clearly remember what happened after that.

The Defence Position

[134] Mr. Williams denies ever expressing a sexual interest in or having a sexual relationship with M.M. He denies making verbal overtures and sexual advances toward her; implying that he wished he could marry her; putting his tongue in her ear; manipulating her bra to expose her breasts; touching her breasts or nipples; rubbing his body against hers; simulating sex with her; and lifting or looking down her blouse. He denies going to Karen’s apartment with M.M. when Karen was not home, and denies ever going into Karen’s bedroom with M.M. He admits that he hugged M.M., which is a customary greeting in the church, but he denies ever touching her in a sexual way. He also denies ever asking her for massages. He testified that she tried to massage his shoulders, but he stopped her.

[135] The Defence argues that Mr. Williams’s evidence should be accepted but that, if it is not accepted, the Court should find that it raises reasonable doubt about his guilt. In addition, Defence counsel submits that M.M. is not a credible witness, that she had a motive to falsify accusations against Mr. Williams, that there are multiple inconsistencies in her testimony, and that her allegations are too bizarre and implausible to be believed. The Defence argues that these deficiencies are fatal to M.M.’s credibility or are at least fatal to the Crown’s case because they raise reasonable doubt about Mr. Williams’s guilt.

Did Mr. Williams Intentionally Touch M.M.?

Mr. Williams’s Credibility

[136] Mr. Williams denies ever touching M.M. in a sexual way and specifically denies touching her in the manner she described. His evidence must, of course, be assessed in the context of the entirety of the evidence at trial, including but not restricted to that of the complainants: R. v. G.C., 2021 ONCA 441, at para. 13.

[137] I found Mr. Williams’s testimony overall to be completely untrustworthy for several reasons. I have already discussed some in connection with the extreme implausibility of the explanations he gave for his communications with D.D. in December 2018, and the inconsistencies between his account of the parking lot incident and the audio recording of that incident. As will be discussed below, there are other audio recordings that contradict Mr. Williams’s testimony about what transpired between him and M.M.

[138] Other reasons for disbelieving Mr. Williams include that: he evaded challenging questions during his cross-examination by giving unresponsive answers; he frequently denied the obvious; and he was required, on a few occasions, to retract something he just said because it was exposed as a falsehood or was about to be exposed as a falsehood.

[139] For example, during his unannounced visit to D.D.’s office on December 10, 2018, he asked her if he could borrow her truck. She refused. He told her, “There’s something I need to do on the truck.” The Crown asked Mr. Williams what he needed to do. He answered that D.D. had told him a red brake light was on in the truck. He said he was going to bring the truck to his mechanic. He stated, “I eventually took the truck to the mechanic and the guy said, another week, this would have been a crash because the brakes or something was leaking.” The Crown challenged Mr. Williams on this patently false assertion that he took D.D.’s truck to his mechanic on or after December 10, 2018. He immediately retracted the statement and said he was “going to” take the truck to the mechanic. He then tried unconvincingly to reconcile the internal contradiction in his evidence by stating that he had been referring to a different time when he had previously taken D.D.’s truck to his mechanic for brake work.

[140] Finally, Mr. Williams had a peculiar and pronounced habit of trying to verify his evidence in chief before answering a question in cross-examination. When the Crown asked him about a topic that had been covered during his examination-in-chief, he frequently responded by asking her to remind him what he had said in chief (e.g., “Did I answer that? What did I answer to that?”) or he would say that his answer was whatever he had said in chief, without repeating his evidence, thereby avoiding the risk of contradicting himself. When Crown counsel put his specific evidence in chief to him, he would answer, “if I said that, that’s what it is" or words to that effect. Yet he did not otherwise appear to have any memory deficits. He seemed to use this strategy to try to avoid making inconsistent statements, as though he were concerned that he could not keep his story straight.

[141] All the above concerns collectively undermine Mr. Williams’s credibility and cause me to distrust his evidence. However, the “lack of credibility on the part of the accused does not equate to proof of his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”: J.H.S., at para. 13. I must determine whether, on the totality of the evidence that I accept, the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams intentionally touched M.M. in the manner that she described.

Inconsistencies in M.M.’s Testimony

[142] There are some internal contradictions in M.M.’s testimony and some inconsistencies between her testimony at trial and at the preliminary inquiry. Many of the internal contradictions relate to the dates when certain events occurred. For example, she had difficulty recalling when she and her family started attending Mr. Williams’s church. She gave inconsistent answers to that question, ranging from 2000 to 2003. In attempting to use the timing of a family vacation to Antigua as a temporal landmark to anchor her memory of when they started attending the church, she initially said the vacation took place in 2004, then later said it was in 2003. She initially testified that she separated from her husband in January 2006, but later acknowledged that the separation occurred in April 2006.

[143] M.M. was unable to pinpoint the dates of the alleged incidents of sexual touching. In some cases, she gave a range of two years in which an incident occurred. She contradicted herself about some relevant dates. For example, with respect to the allegation that Mr. Williams laid down on top of her on the floor in his office and simulated sex, she initially testified that she thought that happened between 2004 and 2005. She said it was in the summer because she remembers they were wearing light clothing. However, in her statement to the police in January 2019, she said that incident happened during the summer of 2007. At the preliminary inquiry, she testified that it probably happened in the summer of 2005. During her cross-examination at trial, she adopted her testimony from the preliminary inquiry.

[144] In my view, these inconsistencies do not reflect an effort by M.M. to mislead the Court or to tailor her evidence. Nor do they suggest that she was fabricating her evidence and having trouble keeping her story straight. Rather, I attribute her lack of certainty and the inconsistencies in her evidence to the difficulty of remembering dates after the passage of so many years. She alleges that there were multiple incidents of sexual touching over several years. In such circumstances, I would not expect her to be able to remember the dates accurately, or the precise order in which the incidents occurred. I conclude that M.M.’s testimony with respect to the timing of events is not always reliable, but this does not reflect poorly on her overall credibility.

[145] There were other internal contradictions in M.M.’s testimony, and between M.M.’s testimony at trial and her earlier testimony at the preliminary inquiry. For example, she gave inconsistent evidence about window coverings on the interior window in the admin office of the church. At one point she stated that there were blinds, but at other points she said she could not recall whether there were blinds. At trial, she testified that her relationship with her husband was good when they joined the church in 2003, but at the preliminary inquiry she testified that they started having marital problems in 2002 when she graduated from college. At trial, she testified that she did not encourage her daughters to seek advice from Mr. Williams on the sorts of matters that one would speak to a father about, but at the preliminary inquiry, she agreed that after her separation from her husband, she encouraged them to go to Mr. Williams for things they would normally go to their dad about. Finally, when she testified at the preliminary inquiry about the incident of simulated sex on the floor of Mr. Williams’s office, she did not mention that she had been kneeling before him and massaging his chest when he made the request for her to lie down on the floor.

[146] I find that the above inconsistencies are minor and pertain to peripheral issues. They are therefore inconsequential to my assessment of M.M.’s credibility on the central issues in dispute. These deficiencies in her evidence do not detract from her overall credibility.

[147] However, there is one significant inconsistency about a material issue in M.M.’s testimony. It pertains to her allegation that Mr. Williams flipped her bra cups and exposed her breasts under her sweater. She never mentioned this incident in either of her two police statements or during her testimony at the preliminary inquiry. It was a new allegation that she made for the first time at trial.

[148] M.M.’s explanation for the prior omission of this allegation is that she was confusing the two separate bra incidents. She confused them at trial, initially testifying that Mr. Williams unclasped her bra while she was massaging his chest on the couch in the prayer room, then correcting herself and stating that was the time he flipped her bra cups. She clarified that the unclasping of her bra occurred on a different day in a different room in the church when Mr. Williams sat behind her on a couch.

[149] While it would not be unusual to confuse the details of two such incidents involving manipulation of her bra, in her police statements and during the preliminary inquiry she did not confuse the incidents. Rather, she completely failed to mention that there was a second bra incident. This constitutes a significant omission.

Plausibility of M.M.’s Allegations

[150] Defence counsel submits that M.M.’s account of the bra-flipping incident is not believable. M.M. testified that she did not notice Mr. Williams’s hands were under her sweater and did not feel his fingers moving under her sweater until he flipped the bra cups and exposed her breasts. She was facing him and leaning over him at the time, massaging his chest. He was on his back with his arms at his sides. It is difficult to comprehend, in those circumstances, how she would not have noticed his arms move and felt his fingers or hands under her sweater until he flipped her bra cups.

[151] I am aware that sexual assault may result in significant trauma that can affect and even block the victim’s memory as to details of the event. However, M.M. did not testify that she could not remember the details, which I would have found to be plausible. Rather, she asserted that she remembered not seeing or feeling his hand movements until her breasts were outside of her bra cups. This I find to be questionable.

[152] Given the omission of the bra-flipping allegation in her prior statements and the questionable plausibility of her account at trial, I am left with reasonable doubt about whether this incident occurred in the manner described by M.M. at trial. However, that does not cause me to reject all her testimony. The remainder of her evidence about the alleged incidents of sexual touching is plausible, coherent, and internally consistent in its essential elements.

[153] With respect to the incident that M.M. alleges occurred in Karen’s apartment, Mr. Williams testified that he would not have been physically capable of lifting M.M. up on top of himself if he were lying on the bed in the manner she described. Defence counsel argues that the purported manoeuvre would not be possible. I disagree. Mr. Williams was much younger at the time. He acknowledged that he was healthy, energetic, and strong, and had a fuller frame than he does now. M.M. was petite. She is bout 5’5” inches tall and weighed approximately 120 lbs at the time. It would not have been impossible for him to lift her weight using two hands and manoeuvre her body on top of his, particularly given that she did not physically resist him. Mr. Williams’s testimony on this point therefore does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether he intentionally touched M.M. in Karen’s bedroom that day.

[154] With respect to all the other incidents described by M.M., including forcing her face down into his lap, pinching or grazing her nipples, unclasping her bra, twirling her around in his office before putting his tongue in her ear, and simulating sex while fully clothed, Defence counsel submits that the allegations are so bizarre as to not be credible. Crown counsel submits that, on the contrary, the unusual nature of the allegations makes them more credible, because if M.M. were to make up false allegations, why would she invent such bizarre incidents? In my view, the nature of the allegations does not make them any less or any more credible.

M.M.’s Delayed Disclosure

[155] M.M. did not tell anyone about the alleged incidents when they were happening. She initially disclosed them to a friend in 2009, then to her husband, then eventually to the church’s Board of Directors at a meeting in August 2009. She also complained, around that time, to the governing body that ordained Mr. Williams. Nothing came of either of those formal complaints. She made no further reports to anyone until after D.D. disclosed to her in December 2018 that Mr. Williams had touched her (D.D.) sexually as well. M.M. then confronted Mr. Williams with her allegations in December 2018 and ultimately reported his alleged offences to the police in January 2019.

[156] The Defence raises the delay in M.M.’s disclosure as an issue affecting her credibility. The former doctrine of recent complaint in sexual assault cases no longer exists in Canadian law: R. v. Mills, 1999 CanLII 637 (SCC), at para. 119. Courts have rejected the myth that a sexual assault complainant is less credible if she does not promptly report the assault to someone: R. v. Lacombe, 2019 ONCA 938. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in R. v. D.D., 2000 SCC 43, at para. 65, “there is no inviolable rule on how people who are the victims of trauma like a sexual assault will behave. Some will make an immediate complaint, some will delay in disclosing the abuse, while some will never disclose the abuse.”

[157] Drawing a negative inference about M.M.’s credibility based on her delayed disclosure would invoke a stereotype about how women are supposed to react to sexual assault. Delayed disclosure of sexual assault can occur for a variety of reasons and does not, standing alone, support an inference of falsehood. It does not, standing alone, assist in evaluating whether an allegation of sexual assault is true or false, or raise a reasonable doubt: Lacombe, at para. 42. The timing of M.M.’s disclosure is therefore “simply one circumstance to consider in the factual” matrix of this case: D.D., at para. 65.

[158] Defence counsel does not argue that M.M. is not credible simply because she delayed in disclosing her allegations against Mr. Williams. Rather, the Defence submits that M.M.’s explanation for why she never mentioned Mr. Williams’s alleged sexual misconduct to anyone while it was happening is not believable. M.M. had disclosed her history of childhood sexual abuse to her husband and her husband had confronted her abuser. Defence counsel argues that she therefore could have similarly disclosed Mr. Williams’s alleged sexual misconduct to her husband, knowing that he would support her.

[159] I find that M.M. gave a satisfactory explanation for why she did not tell her husband what was happening while it was happening (i.e., 2004-2007). She said their marriage was faltering. They were having sexual intimacy issues. They were experiencing difficulties communicating. She was not sharing much with him at the time. Then they separated in April 2006.

[160] M.M. also provided several reasons why she did not report Mr. Williams’s behaviour to anyone else at the time. She said that he was her Pastor, that she looked up to him, and that something inside her was always trying to protect him. M.M. also explained that although she disliked what Mr. Williams was doing to her, because of her experience of childhood sexual abuse, she had been conditioned to think that it was part of her purpose to be used sexually by men. It was only years later, after she had time to process what had happened, that she came to appreciate the gravity of Mr. Williams’s inappropriate behaviour.

[161] M.M. testified that the main reason she went to the Board in August 2009 was because she was concerned for the safety of her two daughters, who were by then living independently and had decided to remain in the church. She told the Board she did not want Mr. Williams visiting her daughters’ apartment and did not want her daughters to be left alone with him. She did not want them to be subjected to the same treatment she had endured. However, she explained that even at that time, she did not fully appreciate that what Mr. Williams had done to her was criminal. Because she still had unresolved issues stemming from her childhood sexual abuse, she thought that was just something that happened to her.

[162] Defence counsel submits that this explanation about childhood sexual abuse is a story invented by M.M. to garner the Court’s sympathy, and that it should be rejected. M.M. mentioned it for the first time at trial. She did not refer to it during the preliminary inquiry when she gave evidence about why she did not report her allegations sooner. However, M.M. provided a rational explanation for omitting this explanation from her earlier testimony, namely that she has had time to process the events since the preliminary inquiry and has acquired new insights into her own actions.

[163] Furthermore, when M.M. went to the Board with her complaint about Mr. Williams’s inappropriate conduct in August 2009, her daughters stood by him and defended him steadfastly. Given their demonstrated loyalty to him, she worried that if she reported him to the police, they might never speak to her again. Relations with her daughters were already strained in August 2009 because of her recent reconciliation with her husband, which the girls did not support. She feared that reporting Mr. Williams to the police would cause a permanent rupture in her relationship with them. She therefore wanted them out of the church before she approached the police about Mr. Williams’s sexual misconduct.

[164] I find these explanations to be entirely plausible and credible.

M.M.’s Lack of Avoidant Behaviour

[165] M.M. testified that she and her family had frequented other Pentecostal churches in the Greater Toronto Area before they joined Mr. Williams’s church. She had held other jobs that were higher paid, including other secretarial positions in different companies. She could have earned more income elsewhere. The Defence therefore argues that, had she really been subjected to the sexual assaults that she alleges, she could have simply quit her administrative job and stopped attending the church.

[166] Defence counsel submits that, if the allegations were true, it defies logic that M.M. would continue to get more deeply involved in the church and would permit her daughters to get more involved in the church. Further, Defence counsel raises the implausibility of M.M. going to another congregant’s apartment alone with Mr. Williams and willingly following him into the bedroom of that apartment had he sexually assaulted her more than once before.

[167] These Defence submissions are based on a defunct myth about how prototypical victims of sexual assault engage in avoidant behaviours to distance themselves from their assailant. As noted earlier in this judgment, there is no inviolable rule about how people who are the victims of sexual assault will behave: D.D., at para. 65.

[168] M.M. had many reasons for remaining at the church and for continuing to work with Mr. Williams despite being subjected to his unwelcome sexual touching. The church offered an excellent youth program for her daughters. It afforded her an opportunity to spend time with them when they were not in school. She ran the summer and March Break youth camps. She became the Youth Director and was ordained as a Youth Pastor. Mr. Williams was mentoring her and teaching her how to minister and preach. She believed that she could make a career out of it. She loved working with the youth.

[169] Moreover, as previously discussed, M.M.’s experience of childhood sexual abuse had a negative impact on her sense of self-worth. She believed, when Mr. Williams was doing these things to her, that it was part of her purpose to be used sexually by men. In that frame of mind, the thought of leaving the church may not have even occurred to her.

[170] There are myriad other potential reasons why she may have stayed at the church. To infer that her decision to stay reflects negatively on her credibility would be to assume that a “true” victim of sexual assault would behave differently. Some survivors take steps to avoid their assailant, some do not. Just like the failure to make a timely complaint, a failure to demonstrate avoidant behaviour must not be the subject of any presumptive adverse inference based upon unfounded assumptions of how people react to sexual abuse: D.D. at para. 63. M.M.’s credibility must not be assessed based on the correspondence between her behaviour and the expected behaviour of the stereotypical sexual assault victim: R. v. A.R.J.D., 2017 ABCA 237, at paras. 39-43, aff’d 2018 SCC 6, at para. 2. Her lack of avoidant behaviour therefore does not factor into my assessment of the credibility of her evidence.

M.M.’s Motive to Fabricate False Allegations

[171] I heard a lot of evidence about whether M.M. had a motive to fabricate false allegations of sexual misconduct. The existence or absence of a complainant’s motive to fabricate is a relevant factor to be considered: The Queen v. K.G.B., 1993 CanLII 116 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740, 79 C.C.C. (3d) 257, at para. 120, per Lamer C.J.; R. v. Greer, 2009 ONCA 505, at para. 5; R. v. Prasad, 2007 ABCA 51, at paras. 2-8; R. v. Jackson, [1995] O.J. No. 2471 (C.A.), at paras. 4-5. I make this observation, sensitive to the fact that the accused need not prove a motive to fabricate on the part of the complainant: R. v Plews, 2010 ONSC 5653, at para. 335.

[172] The Defence argues that M.M. was motivated to fabricate false allegations in 2009 to facilitate reconciliation with her husband, with whom she had separated in April 2006. She was struggling financially as a single parent and was not receiving child support or spousal support payments from her husband. The church had stopped paying her for her administrative work in early 2009 due to its own financial constraints. She was working thereafter on a volunteer basis. She accumulated debts, which her husband eventually paid off for her when they reconciled in April 2009.

[173] Defence counsel suggested to M.M. that, when she reconciled with her husband, she falsely blamed Mr. Williams for the marriage breakdown so that her husband would forgive her more easily. M.M. denied the suggestion. Defence counsel argues that M.M. needed to reconcile with her husband because of her precarious financial situation and that she invented allegations of inappropriate sexual misconduct against Mr. Williams as a convenient way to explain to her husband why she had left him for three years.

[174] I reject this argument because it is inconsistent with the evidence, which establishes that M.M.’s husband was interested in reconciliation throughout their separation. It was she who hesitated to reconcile and resisted his overtures for various reasons, including the risk of alienating her two daughters. There is no evidence that she needed to make up a story to entice her husband to reconcile with her. Moreover, even if I accepted that she needed to create inducement for her husband to reconcile with her, I fail to see how making up allegations of sexual assault by her Pastor and boss would furnish the requisite incentive. On the contrary, M.M. testified that she was concerned about disclosing the sexual touching to her husband because they had just got back together.

[175] Defence counsel also argues that M.M.’s husband had a strong motive to encourage M.M. to fabricate allegations against Mr. Williams, because he (the husband) had effectively been cut out of his children’s lives, and he blamed Mr. Williams for the disintegration of his marriage and family. M.M. acknowledged that her husband did not like Mr. Williams.

[176] Defence counsel notes that M.M. did not come forward to the Board with her allegations until after she reconciled with her husband. Moreover, there is evidence that M.M.’s husband did much of the talking during the Board meeting in August 2009, at one point telling M.M., “Take your seat,” when she rose to speak. Counsel submits that this is circumstantial evidence that M.M. fabricated false allegations at her husband’s insistence. I reject this submission. I agree that M.M.’s husband had a motive to paint Mr. Williams in a bad light, but there is no evidence that he put M.M. up to fabricating false allegations of sexual abuse. The fact of his motive does not cause me to have reasonable doubt about whether the alleged sexual touching occurred.

[177] Defence counsel submits that M.M. had a different motive to fabricate when she reported the incidents to the police in 2019, namely that she blamed Mr. Williams for her decade-long estrangement from her daughters, and for her ongoing estrangement from K.K., who remains loyal to Mr. Williams and the church. Both M.M. and D.D. testified about the various ways that they believe Mr. Williams alienated D.D. and K.K. from their parents.

[178] In support of the argument that M.M. had a motive to lie, Defence counsel relies on evidence of an encounter between Mr. Williams and M.M. at a coffee shop. Mr. Williams testified that the encounter happened about two years after she left the church. M.M. thought that it was much later, several years after she left. On either account, D.D. and K.K. had been living on their own for quite some time (i.e., since M.M. and her husband reconciled in April 2009) and were barely speaking to their parents.

[179] Mr. Williams recalled engaging in polite conversation with M.M. at the coffee shop. According to his testimony, he informed her that the girls were doing well in school and at the church. She asked him to talk to them to try to persuade them to reunite with her and her husband. He told her they were adults who make their own choices, and that he could not force them. She then said, “Pastor, you will pay. You are going to pay for this.”

[180] M.M. remembers discussing the girls with Mr. Williams at the coffeeshop, but her recollection differs from his. She does not recall him stating that the girls make their own choices, but she remembers him saying, “You think I have that much influence over them?” However, she denies imploring him to try to persuade D.D. and K.K. to speak to her or to move back with her and her husband. She categorically denies telling him “You will pay.” She testified that what she said to him, specifically, was “I’m not blaming you.” She stated that she had forgiven him.

[181] Given that M.M. remembers Mr. Williams commenting about not having that much influence over the girls, I infer that he and M.M. were discussing the possibility that he could try to persuade them to restore their relationship with their parents. However, I do not believe Mr. Williams’s evidence when he says that M.M. told him, “You are going to pay for this.” I reject his testimony on this point because it is directly contradicted by M.M., because I have found his evidence to be utterly untrustworthy, and because M.M. took no steps to “make him pay” (so to speak) prior to January 2019.

[182] Notwithstanding the above finding, I agree with Defence counsel’s submission that, based on the totality of the record, M.M. had a motive to fabricate false allegations against Mr. Williams (in both 2009 and 2019). She believed he was at least partly responsible for the breakdown of her marriage, for the delay in her reconciliation with her husband, and for alienating her daughters. By the time she quit her administrative position and left the church in August 2009, her daughters had moved out of the family home (in April 2009) and were already estranged from her and her husband. That separation from her daughters, which lasted almost 10 years (and continues today with K.K.), was excruciatingly painful for her.

[183] The proof of M.M.’s motive to lie is not, standing alone, sufficient to conclude that her allegations are false, nor to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the incidents occurred. Nevertheless, it is a relevant and important factor that I must consider in determining whether the Crown has satisfied its burden to prove the alleged sexual touching beyond a reasonable doubt.

Opportunity to Commit the Offences

[184] Defence counsel submits that there was no opportunity for Mr. Williams to commit the sexual touching that M.M. alleges occurred inside the church. Mr. Williams testified that there was a glass wall between the hallway and the sanctuary in the church, such that you could see from the sanctuary into the hallway. He said the doors to all the offices were visible from the sanctuary, including the door to his office and to the prayer room, where M.M. alleges that the offences occurred. This evidence about the sightlines in the church was not contested by the complainants.

[185] I do not see how the view of the hallway from the sanctuary would have precluded Mr. Williams from engaging in the behaviour described by M.M., because the sexual touching occurred behind closed doors. If congregants witnessed Mr. Williams and M.M. entering or exiting the prayer room or his office, that would not necessarily have raised any suspicions about misconduct. M.M. was his Administrative Assistant and, for several years, she was also his Armour Bearer. Mr. Williams would have had no reason to be worried about someone in the sanctuary observing him enter or exit one of these church rooms with her.

[186] With respect to the alleged lifting of M.M.’s blouse in the admin office, Mr. Williams testified that a large window in that office overlooks the foyer and has no blinds. M.M. also recalled the interior window; initially she testified that she could not remember if it had blinds, but later she said she thought it did. She did not say that the blinds were closed. Mr. Williams explained that the window was put in specifically so that people working in the admin office could see if anyone entered the foyer. This explanation is plausible and uncontested. I therefore conclude that the interior window likely had no blinds, or if there were blinds, they were likely left open.

[187] Anyone who entered the church through the front entrance would consequently be able to see inside the admin office, where M.M. alleges that Mr. Williams tried to lift her blouse. That does not mean it would have been impossible (or even difficult) for Mr. Williams to engage in the fleeting conduct that she described. He would have been able to see through the window into the foyer and could therefore check whether anyone was present to witness his behaviour. M.M. did not allege that he completely undressed her or anything of the sort, which would have entailed significant risk of being “caught” by someone who entered the foyer. He had an opportunity to quickly lift her blouse to catch a glimpse of her breasts without being observed.

[188] M.M. stated that the lifting of her blouse occurred about one hour prior to service on Sunday morning. Mr. Williams testified that some congregants arrived before M.M. on Sunday mornings because they had things to do. M.M. agreed that the Armour Bearer and members of the Worship Team would arrive early. However, there is no evidence that they were hanging out in the foyer where they could see into the admin office. I accept M.M.’s testimony that, on the occasions when Mr. Williams tried to lift her blouse, no one else was around.

[189] Mr. Williams said there were always people coming and going at the church, even on weekdays, and that the timing of visitors’ arrival was unpredictable. M.M., on the contrary, said it was rare for anyone to visit the church on weekdays prior to evening services, and that people who attended generally did so by appointment. I accept M.M.’s evidence and reject Mr. Williams’s evidence on this point, not only because of the overall deficits in Mr. Williams’s credibility, but also because the totality of the evidence does not support a finding that the church was a busy place on weekdays (apart from evening services), other than when youth camps were running during March Break and in the summer months.

[190] Mr. Williams testified that volunteers made their own hours, so they might show up at any time. However, when probed, the only examples he gave were the Treasurer, who generally came in on Saturdays, and the head cleaner, who performed her work after prayer meetings on Saturdays. Mr. Williams testified that children would drop in to use the gymnasium during the day. However, that would have been on weekends or during March Break and in the summer months, when they were not in school. It is improbable that children would skip classes to go play ball at the church on weekdays, as that would surely have attracted the Pastor’s disapproval.

[191] There is evidence that Mr. Williams’s wife occasionally came to the church during the day, but she was employed elsewhere and did not spend her days at the church. Bell Canada rented the property for the base of a cell tower, but there is no evidence that Bell employees frequented the church. Other businesses and organizations rented space for warehousing, to host school functions, and as a set for movie shoots, but those events were not constant. The evidence does not support a finding that the church was occupied by many people during weekdays.

[192] Mr. Williams ultimately agreed, during his cross-examination, that “there were a lot of times” that he and M.M. were the only people at the church. Therefore, the evidence with respect to opportunity does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind about whether the alleged sexual touching occurred.

Mr. Williams’s Admissions

[193] M.M.’s testimony about the incidents of sexual touching do not need to be corroborated by independent evidence for me to find that Mr. Williams engaged in the alleged conduct: Criminal Code, s. 274. That said, I find corroboration of her testimony in Mr. Williams’s own inculpatory statements made during a meeting on December 16, 2018.

[194] The Crown adduced evidence of audio recordings from that meeting, which was attended by Mr. Williams, M.M., her husband, D.D., and K.K. They met in Mr. Williams’s office after the Sunday church service five days after the parking lot incident. The Crown submits that Mr. Williams admitted during the meeting to touching both M.M. and D.D. in a sexually inappropriate manner. The Defence denies that an admission was made and submits that, if the Court finds there was an admission, it should be disregarded because of the circumstances in which it was made.

[195] D.D. had requested the meeting. She wanted to tender her resignation from her church positions and to confront Mr. Williams about his alleged sexual misconduct toward her. M.M. testified that she and her husband accompanied D.D. to support her. However, during the meeting, M.M. spontaneously decided to confront Mr. Williams about her own allegations of sexually inappropriate touching.

[196] D.D. surreptitiously recorded the meeting. There is no evidence that anyone other than D.D. was aware the meeting was being audio recorded. Unfortunately, although the entire meeting was recorded, D.D. gave only two excerpts of the recording to the police. She testified that she gave them the most important parts, namely when Mr. Williams admitted to being sexually inappropriate with her and her mom.

[197] I am cognizant that the excerpts do not represent the entire meeting, and that they were selectively chosen by D.D. to be used as evidence against Mr. Williams. The Court does not have access to the remainder of the recording, during which Mr. Williams may have made exculpatory statements, or intimidating behaviour may have occurred to elicit his inculpatory statements. I have kept that in mind in assessing the weight to be given to the audio evidence.

[198] I note that there is no suggestion that the excerpts were modified or altered in any way. They capture only segments of the meeting, but they capture those segments accurately.

[199] All three witnesses recalled that D.D. read her resignation letter out loud to Mr. Williams at the outset of the meeting. In it, she outlined reasons why she was quitting, which included that she felt overworked, that her requests for support had been ignored, that Mr. Williams had used scriptures to make her feel guilty when she asked for a break, that he had her working for his own personal glorification rather than for the glory of God, and that he had engaged in unspecified “inappropriate behaviour” with her. It did not explicitly accuse him of any sexual misconduct, but D.D. concluded the letter by writing, “I want to make sure that no other young woman has to ever go through what I went through. That kind of pain runs deep.”

[200] Mr. Williams testified that the meeting was about one hour long. The following is a summary of his testimony about what transpired.

[201] He was seated behind his desk, M.M. and D.D. were sitting in chairs across from him, M.M.’s husband was on a stool, but he stood for most of the meeting, and K.K. was standing next to the desk. The four of them were speaking at the same time. M.M., her husband and D.D. were asking Mr. Williams, “Did you do this? Did you do this?” and trying to force him to say yes. As soon as he started speaking, someone would cut him off. K.K. was saying, “Guys, guys, you can’t be doing this… let him speak, let’s hear what he’s saying.” D.D. told K.K. to be quiet and stop talking. He got a few points in. He apologized for “everything” by which he meant overworking D.D., going to her apartment and knocking on her door, invading her privacy, and going to her workplace. But he never apologized for any inappropriate sexual touching. He firmly shook his head and said “No, no, no” to those allegations. M.M., her husband and D.D. continued to accuse him. Eventually, they were all standing, but he was still seated. Hands were raised and fingers were pointed at him. He had no opportunity to explain himself but was still shaking his head “no” to deny their accusations. He felt berated and intimidated, but he did not admit to any sexual misconduct during the meeting. Eventually, he stood up and said, “This meeting is over, I can’t do this.”

[202] D.D. recalled the meeting differently. She testified that, after she read her resignation letter aloud, she confronted Mr. Williams about his inappropriate behaviour. There was a lot of talking and Mr. Williams admitted to violating her and her mother. Her parents then talked to him about forgiveness and love. She felt the conversation was “going round and round” so she left to collect some of her personal belongings in the admin office.

[203] M.M. recalled that D.D. handed in her resignation and explained why she was leaving, which included that she was overworked and exhausted, and that there had been some inappropriate behaviour. She could not recall whether D.D. was explicit about the particulars of the inappropriate behaviour, but she remembered personally asking Mr. Williams, point blank, whether he had touched her and her daughter in a sexually inappropriate way, and he said “Yes.” She recalled saying to him, “I love you, but this has got to stop.” He said, “help me” and she told him, “You need to tell your wife.” He reached out to her husband and her husband gave him his hand. Mr. Williams and her husband conversed after that, but she cannot remember what they talked about. The meeting ended on a good note.

[204] During her cross-examination, M.M. disagreed with Defence counsel’s suggestion that “a lot of pressure” was placed on Mr. Williams to admit something during the meeting. However, she acknowledged that she asked him repeatedly and forcefully to admit to wrongdoing. She said Mr. Williams evaded the questions for a long time. She testified that he did not deny the alleged wrongdoing, he just tried to change the subject, but eventually he admitted to what he had done.

[205] M.M. denied ever standing up during the meeting. She agreed that her husband raised his voice a couple of times but said that was because he wanted Mr. Williams to give K.K. a chance to speak. She denied that her husband ever stood up or shook his fists at Mr. Williams.

[206] M.M.’s and D.D.’s accounts of the tenor and content of the meeting are mutually corroborative. Their accounts are further corroborated by the two excerpts from the audio recording, which are inconsistent with Mr. Williams’s testimony about the meeting. During one of the excerpts, he is pressed to give answers to questions that he clearly is trying to avoid, but he is not verbally berated. No one shouts. People are sometimes talking over each other, but he has an opportunity to speak.

[207] While there are missing segments of the audio recording, the available excerpts capture the key moments when Mr. Williams admits to inappropriate sexual touching, and he is not being intimidated at those moments. During the first excerpt, D.D. and Mr. Williams are for the most part the only two people talking. D.D. speaks very calmly and in hushed tones. Mr. Williams also speaks softly. The conversation is quiet and calm. He apologizes repeatedly “for everything that has happened” and says he was “wrong in any and in every area”, but he refuses to be specific in acknowledging what he has done. D.D. urges him to clarify. She asks him, “When I said that you had been inappropriate with me, are you apologizing for that as well?” and he responds, “I’m apologizing for that.”

[208] There are a few times during the recording when Mr. Williams says, “no, no, no”. He testified that constitutes evidence of him emphatically denying the allegation that he had been sexually inappropriate with D.D. I disagree because, on the occasions when he said, “no, no, no”, he was not denying any alleged misconduct. Rather, he was responding to D.D.’s suggestion that he was just placating her by saying he was sorry without meaning it.

[209] In the recording, D.D. seeks further clarification from Mr. Williams because of the ongoing ambiguity of his answers. She asks, “Are you saying that it happened?” He evades the question assiduously and she continues to press him for an answer. Eventually, he says he is apologizing and taking full responsibility for having wronged and offended her. She asks, “For violating?” He stutters and responds, “I vo -- I violated you. I’m wrong.” Her father then interjects and calmly asks, “So, so you, so you have violated?” and Mr. Williams answers, “No, I’m saying …” then D.D. cuts him off and says, “Just a second.” She tells him she wants to know if he is owning it. He deflects the question and asks for forgiveness for hurting her.

[210] Although Mr. Williams resiled from his admission, this first excerpt nevertheless corroborates D.D.’s recollection that she heard him say he violated her. He later made unequivocal admissions that are captured by the second excerpt from the audio recording. It took M.M. a long time to obtain his admissions because of his continuous obfuscation, but the circumstances in which his admissions were ultimately made do not suggest that they were the product of intimidation tactics. M.M.’s husband interjects more frequently in the second recorded excerpt, but M.M. and Mr. Williams do most of the talking. M.M.’s tone is more assertive than D.D.’s tone in the first excerpt, but M.M. does not shout.

[211] The second excerpt begins at a point where M.M. confronts Mr. Williams with the accusation that he has been sexually inappropriate with her and her daughter. She says, “The first step is to admit it and to close it off.” Her husband says, “Exactly”, then she asks Mr. Williams, “Was that true? Are we liars, or did it happen?” Mr. Williams avoids answering the question by changing the topic and starting a long monologue about a conversation he had with a friend, about how he hears God, and about how God has gifted him to do the ministry at the church. M.M. and her husband eventually interrupt him, and M.M. asks, “Were you sexually inappropriate with myself and my daughter?” He does not answer, so M.M.’s husband interjects and politely asks him to please answer the question. M.M. repeats the question, “Were you sexually inappropriate with…” and Mr. Williams responds with his own question, “In what way with you?... If I slept with you?”

[212] At trial, Mr. Williams confirmed that he was referring to sexual intercourse. The Crown asked him why he responded to M.M.’s question in that fashion, rather than simply saying “no”, if he had not been sexually inappropriate in any way with her. He testified that what he meant to say was, “What are you talking about?” but he chose his words differently. I reject this answer as disingenuous and not credible. His response to M.M.’s direct question constituted yet another strategy to evade answering her allegations, and to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. He tried to reframe the question so that he could plausibly deny it.

[213] When Mr. Williams sought clarification whether M.M. was accusing him of sleeping with her, she said “no” and rephrased the question: “Did you touch me inappropriately? Did you touch inappropriately?” He responds, “I apologize.” Not satisfied with this ambiguous answer, M.M. repeats, “Did you- did you?” and he says, “Yes, I apologize.” M.M. and her husband repeat, “Did you?” and “Did you do it?” a few times. Mr. Williams then asks, “Touch you inappropriately?” M.M. says “yes” and asks him again, “Did you touch me in a sexually inappropriate manner? Did you touch my daughter in a sexually inappropriate manner?” Mr. Williams answers softly, “Yes.” M.M.’s husband then says, “Pastor Williams, come here. Listen …” and the recording stops.

[214] Mr. Williams testified that he admitted a lot of things during that meeting, but not any sexually inappropriate touching. The audio excerpts directly contradict his evidence in that regard. During both his examination-in-chief and his cross-examination, he stated that he had no memory of saying “yes” to M.M.’s questions about touching her and D.D. in a sexually inappropriate manner. Defence counsel submits that his answer cannot be heard on the recording. I disagree. Although his answer (“yes”) to the final questions is spoken softly, it is nevertheless audible. Moreover, I believe both M.M.’s and D.D.’s testimony that they heard him say “yes”.

[215] During his cross-examination, Mr. Williams implied that if he said yes, it was not to the specific allegation of inappropriate sexual touching. However, it could not have been to anything else. At that point in the meeting, no one was speaking over M.M. Mr. Williams would have heard her questions clearly. Moreover, he had just asked for a clarification of the nature of her accusation (“Touch you inappropriately?”), so he knew precisely the allegation to which he was affirming “yes”.

[216] He testified that he was shaking his head “no” the entire time that he was speaking in the meeting, to convey that he was not admitting the accusations. I do not find that evidence to be credible. I do not believe that he uttered “yes” while shaking his head “no”. I do not believe that he apologized while shaking his head “no”.

[217] Mr. Williams testified that a full recording of the entirety of the meeting would show that he did not say “yes” to any inappropriate behaviour. That makes no sense. While he may have denied the allegations at an earlier point in the meeting that is not captured in the excerpts of the audio recording, he nevertheless admitted the sexual misconduct during the portions of the recording that were adduced. Thus, even if the full unedited recording were available, it would necessarily include the above admissions.

[218] Defence counsel argues that any ostensible admissions made in that meeting should be disregarded because of the surrounding circumstances. I disagree. I reject Mr. Williams’s testimony that everyone else in the room was standing and M.M.’s tall husband was standing over him shaking his fist. M.M.’s and D.D.’s contrary descriptions of the meeting are consistent with the excerpts of the audio recording. In any event, even if I accepted that Mr. Williams felt physically intimidated, he did not say that he admitted to the conduct out of fear or to end the meeting. On the contrary, he denied making any admissions at all.

[219] It was no doubt a very uncomfortable meeting for Mr. Williams. He was confronted with serious allegations and was outnumbered. K.K. was his only potential source of support in the meeting, and she was behaving more as an observer than an ally. He was being pressed to answer questions that he did not want to answer. It was not unlike a cross-examination, with D.D. and M.M. trying to pin down his answers as he sought to evade their questions. But no one was threatening him. I do not believe that he was fearful of his safety, or that he was badgered into making a false confession.

[220] For all the above reasons, I reject Mr. Williams’s testimony about what transpired during the resignation meeting. I find that Mr. Williams unequivocally admitted to touching M.M. in a sexually inappropriate manner when confronted with the allegation that day.

Conclusion

[221] For all the above reasons, I conclude that Mr. Williams touched M.M. in the manner she described, except for the one bra-flipping incident, about which I have reasonable doubt. My doubt about the veracity or accuracy of a single allegation among more than a dozen does not raise reasonable doubt in my mind about whether the other incidents occurred.

[222] I find M.M. to be a generally believable witness for all the reasons described above. I make this finding conscious of her motive to lie and of the minor inconsistencies and internal contradictions in her evidence. Overall, her testimony about the allegations was plausible, coherent, and consistent in its major elements. I have considered the entirety of the evidence at trial, including the admission made by Mr. Williams during the meeting on December 16, 2018. I have rejected Mr. Williams’s denials at trial as not credible.

[223] In short, I conclude that the Crown has discharged its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams intentionally and repeatedly touched M.M.

Did the Touching Take Place in Circumstances of a Sexual Nature?

[224] Among other things, Mr. Williams kissed M.M. on the lips, kissed her neck, grazed and pinched her nipples, exposed her breasts, and gyrated his hips on top of her butt to simulate the act of sexual intercourse. He made comments about wishing she were his and about wanting “to get a piece of this.” There is no doubt that the touching was of a sexual nature.

Did M.M. Consent to the Sexual Activity in Question?

[225] Mr. Williams did not say that M.M. consented to the sexual touching. Rather, he testified that he never touched her in a sexual way. The Crown must nevertheless prove beyond a reasonable doubt that M.M. did not consent to being touched.

[226] Defence counsel argues that M.M.’s testimony about saying “no” and “stop” to Mr. Williams should not be believed, and that her behaviour was indicative of consent. For example, M.M. followed Mr. Williams willingly into the bedroom of Karen’s apartment. She knelt between his legs while he was seated in a chair in his office after he asked her to massage his chest. He did not ask her to assume that position; she did it on her own. She then laid down on the floor when he asked her to, without protesting and without asking him why. Defence counsel submits that M.M. must have known he was going to touch her sexually because of previous sexual touching, and that she was a willing and active participant.

[227] M.M. wrote in her police statement, “I know a lot of my own actions in this whole sick mess were wrong.” Defence counsel suggested to M.M. that she was admitting to having consented to the sexual touching. M.M. responded, “That is not consent… What I meant is that I should have pushed him away. I should have been assertive. I should have spoken to his wife.” She is correct about the meaning of consent. M.M. readily acknowledged that she was passive during many of the interactions. She did not scream and did not always physically resist Mr. Williams. However, the absence of physical resistance does not equal consent. Her passivity is explained by her prior history of childhood sexual abuse, which instilled in her a learned helplessness. It is also explained by the power dynamic between her and Mr. Williams, a man who she believed received messages from God and had the ability to rebuke demonic spirits. He was not only the Senior Pastor and leader at the church, but he was also her boss.

[228] M.M. testified that she had been taught never to question the Pastor of a church. Furthermore, she said Mr. Williams’s personal style of preaching was one where you do not question him, you just do whatever he says. He would tell her that people who questioned him before or who had opposed him got AIDS or cancer. She believed him so she did not question him. When he asked her to do things like lie down on the couch or the floor, she would think to herself, “just do what he says” and “he’s the Pastor and you’ve got to listen.” I accept this testimony as credible.

[229] In law, there is no consent unless M.M. voluntarily agreed in her mind to participate in the sexual touching: Criminal Code, s. 273.1(1). M.M. testified that she did not want Mr. Williams to kiss her mouth or neck, did not want him to expose her breasts, did not want him to touch her nipples, did not want him to put his tongue in her ear, did not want him to lay on top of her, did not want to sit on his lap or lay on top of him, and did not want to simulate sex with him. She said these things made her feel extremely uncomfortable and violated. I believe her. Her evidence on this point was credible, consistent, and compelling.

[230] I also believe M.M.’s testimony that she turned her face away from Mr. Williams when he tried to kiss her lips; said “no, no, no” when he lifted her onto his lap in the prayer room; said “no, no, I can’t do this” when he lifted her on top of his body in Karen’s apartment; told him to stop when he put his tongue in her ear; pushed his hand down when he tried to lift her blouse to look at her body; moved back and told him to stop when he tried to put his hand down inside the front of her blouse; asked him to let her go when he pressed her face down into his lap; grabbed his wrist and told him to stop when he was gyrating on top of her on the couch; covered her bare breasts with her hands when he exposed them by unclasping her bra; told him to get off when he was gyrating on her back on the floor; and kicked her legs when he pinched her nipple under her bra. These actions all support a finding that she was not consenting to the sexual touching. I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that M.M. did not consent.

Did Mr. Williams Know that M.M. Was Not Consenting?

[231] Given the findings of fact that I have just made about M.M. saying “no”, “stop”, “get off”, “I can’t do this”, etc., I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams knew she was not consenting.

Decision

[232] For the above reasons, I find Mr. Williams guilty of sexually assaulting M.M.

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF D.D. (s. 153(1)(a))

Crown’s Allegations

[233] D.D. described the evolution of her relationship with Mr. Williams, including grooming activities that preceded the alleged sexual touching. The following is a summary of her evidence pertaining to the charge of sexual exploitation.

[234] When she was 15 years old, she began spending more time at the church and talking to Mr. Williams more often. He showed an interest in her musical talent. He was also taking an interest in her family. Her parents’ marriage was strained at that time, and Mr. Williams was becoming more and more present in her life.

[235] Her relationship with her father had started to deteriorate from about the age of 14. Their personalities clashed and she was “testing him a lot” as an adolescent. She was close to her mother, but not to her father. Mr. Williams exacerbated the tension between her and her father by telling her that her father was a bad influence, that he was stopping her from doing important things for the ministry, and that he was causing her to stagnate spiritually.

[236] Her parents separated in April 2006. She, her mother and K.K. moved out of the family residence into a house owned by a friend, Mrs. G. She recalled that shortly thereafter, Mr. Williams said her father had a demonic spirit. He told her she should not go out to eat a meal with him on her 16th birthday. She believed Mr. Williams and was on guard for the demonic spirit when she was around her father. By that time, Mr. Williams had become a substitute father figure for her. She really trusted him and thought of him as her dad. Mr. Williams encouraged her to call him “daddy”, which she did.

[237] Mr. Williams started inviting her to his home in the summer of 2006. She helped him by mowing the lawn, tending to plants in the yard, reorganizing his garage and cleaning his house. She was doing these chores because he asked her to and because she wanted to please him. She felt special because he had picked her out to help him.

[238] She was spending increasing amounts of time with Mr. Williams at the church as well. He told her she was gifted. He said she was a blessing sent by God to serve the church. He asked her to sit on his lap in the prayer room at the church and they talked about things. He was breaking down physical barriers and blurring the line between what was appropriate and what was inappropriate.

[239] At Mr. Williams’s house, they would sit together on a couch in the basement and watch sports on TV. He would sit close to her and rub her legs or her shoulders and back. She went to his house “pretty regularly” on weekends during the summer. Sometimes his wife was present and sometimes she was away. Sometimes his son and grand daughter were there. When other people were present, Mr. Williams would sit “normally” on the couch and would not rub her legs or shoulders.

[240] One day in the summer of 2006, she and Mr. Williams were driving in his jeep toward his house, and he kissed her while the car was in motion. It was just a peck on the lips. They were in Mississauga and had just left a Home Depot. She was confused by the kiss. She did not understand what it meant. Mr. Williams was a mentor and father figure to her. She thought of him as her dad, not as a boyfriend. He did not say anything to her about the kiss. He just smiled. She did not say anything to him either. She kept quiet. She did not tell anyone about the kiss because she knew it could get him in trouble.

[241] After that first kiss, they engaged in a lot of hugging and long embraces with their clothes on. Mr. Williams would touch her affectionately. It progressed to more intimate touching in places where she normally would not let anyone touch her. The intimate touching started in Mr. Williams’s vehicle in the summer of 2006.

[242] She and Mr. Williams went for drives at night in his jeep. They drove around Mississauga and into Brampton or Milton. They engaged in kissing—little pecks on the lips while the car was in motion. Mr. Williams instructed her to kiss him, or to rub his chest and nipples. He told her to get him aroused and directed her hand between his legs. She touched his penis over his pants while the car was in motion.

[243] Mr. Williams would then drive to a deserted parking lot and make sure no other cars were parked nearby. They would engage in deep kissing, and he would start to fondle her. At first, he touched her over top of her clothing. Over time, one layer of her clothes came off.

[244] She also touched his body in the parked car. He would tell her what to do. It would normally start with him asking her to rub and kiss his nipples. He would take his shirt off. She did not like kissing his nipples, so she did not always do that. He moved her hand to his crotch for her to rub his penis. Most of the time, she touched his penis over his pants, or under his pants but over his underwear. A few times, she touched the skin of his penis under his clothing. He was erect. He would tell her that, even though his body was reacting, his spirit was still in control.

[245] He would lower her car seat into a reclining position to give him better access to her body. He told her to spread her legs. He stroked her legs, fondled her breasts, and rubbed her genital area, initially over her clothes, then later under her shirt and pants or skirt, but over her bra and underwear.

[246] At first, he did not like touching her breasts unless she was wearing a padded bra; he said it felt like he was violating her. So, she wore a padded bra and he fondle her breasts over top of it. But over time, he removed the bra and touched the skin of her breasts, fondling and rubbing her nipples.

[247] Mr. Williams asked her to wear a skirt with no underwear. Sometimes she did, other times she did not. He tried to get her to climax by rubbing her clitoris with his fingers, usually over top of her skirt. He told her, “Tell me this is what you want”, “Tell me you like this”, and other words to that effect.

[248] D.D. testified that these drives occurred with increasing frequency, maybe two or three times a week during the summer months in 2006, 2007 and 2008. She remembered going on drives during March Break when she was 16 and 17 years old but did not remember a lot of other winter drives. She estimated that there were “double-digits” (i.e., more than 10) drives over the two school years of 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The drives happened more in the summer months when she was not in school.

[249] Additionally, D.D. testified that “a lot of heavy petting and undressing” happened in the prayer room of the church in 2006, 2007 and 2008. She would stay late at the church doing different activities. Sometimes they would meet in the prayer room after evening services, such as Bible Study on Tuesday night, or after the Friday night prayer meeting for youth. He would undress her, remove her shirt, then her shorts or skirt, and finally her socks and shoes. She did not like taking off her shoes and socks because she thought her socks smelled. She sat on the couch. He left her panties on. Sometimes he left her bra on; sometimes he took it off. If he turned off the lights in the prayer room, she knew that her bra was coming off.

[250] At first, he did not undress in the prayer room, but later he removed his shirt. He said he would never remove his belt, but eventually the belt came off too. It became normalized for her to be in her underwear in front of him, and to see him in his underwear. He kept his undershirt and briefs on. She remembered sitting beside him on the couch. They would embrace with her arms around his neck and his arms around her waist.

[251] Mr. Williams would then lie her down on the couch or place a prayer shawl on the ground for her to lie on. He then proceeded to touch her whole body, running his hands from her shoulders down to her knees. He would stroke and fondle her saying, “I love you”, “you’re special”, “you’re beautiful” and “God sent you to me.” He fondled her breasts a lot. There were times in the prayer room when he touched her nipples and she did not like the sensation, so she tried to push him away. He did not stop. He touched her vaginal area over the fabric of her underwear with his fingers, but he did not try to make her climax in the prayer room.

[252] There was also an incident of sexual touching in the loft of the gymnasium of the church when she was 17 years old. Mr. Williams instructed her to bend over a couch. He stood behind her. He then pulled down her skirt or pants and her underwear, pulled down his pants, and touched his penis to her anus.

[253] D.D. recalled one time when Mr. Williams was fondling her breasts and he compared her cleavage to other girls in the church. He said, “you turned out this way because I’ve been doing this to you.” On other occasions, he told her that she was a “God send” because by touching her, it stopped him from touching other women in the church. He said it was her purpose for being in the church. He also said he was doing it so that she would not be promiscuous.

[254] D.D. could not estimate the number of times that sexual touching occurred in the prayer room between July 2006 and May 2008, but she said it was often. It occurred throughout the year, but more so in the summer months when she had no school. It was always Mr. Williams’s idea to go into the prayer room. She recalled that, on each occasion, the door to the prayer room was closed and locked. There were blinds on the window in the prayer room and one of them would pull them down.

[255] D.D. stated that these interactions made her feel special. She lacked self-confidence and he was affirming things that, emotionally, she wanted to hear. He was a person of great influence in the church, and she was flattered by the fact that he was taking an interest in her. However, she felt torn because part of her knew what they were doing was wrong. She did not understand the weight of everything that was happening at the time, but she felt conflicted and confused.

[256] She did not tell anyone. She was a very private person. It was unlike her to share secrets in general. Plus, she was not sure what people would say about her if they knew, and she was scared about the repercussions for Mr. Williams. She knew he would get in trouble, and she thought part of her duty was to protect him.

[257] When she expressed concern to Mr. Williams about the propriety of what they were doing, he assured her that it was not wrong. Mr. Williams told her that what they were doing was not traditional sex (i.e., vaginal intercourse), so he was not using her for her body. He insisted that it was not a bad thing, even though it was clearly a secret that they were hiding from everyone.

[258] On occasions when D.D. told Mr. Williams that she felt uncomfortable about what they were doing, he would sometimes just ignore her as if she was not speaking or was speaking a different language. Other times, he would tell her to pray about it. He said that if she worshipped God, he would stop. Sometimes he would pray after their sexual interactions, asking the Lord to forgive them.

[259] Mr. Williams spoke to her about news reports involving other Pastors who were charged with sexual offences. When he discussed these stories, he said that the girl (complainant) was in the wrong, that she had been disloyal to her Pastor and would therefore be judged by God. He instilled in D.D. a fear that, if she told anyone what he was doing with her, she would be judged not only by other congregants, but also by God. She therefore felt that there was no one she could speak to about it.

[260] D.D.’s relationship with her mom became strained over this period. Their bond dissolved. If there was a disagreement between her mother and Mr. Williams and she had to pick sides, she would choose Mr. Williams. She would go to Mr. Williams instead of her mother for advice. Her mother was unhappy about that. She thought her mother was trying to control her. She wanted to “branch out and become an adult.” She felt that, with Mr. Williams, she got to do what she wanted.

[261] By the time she turned 18 years old, she was not speaking to her father at all, and she was having only superficial conversations with her mother. She was close to her sister at that time but did not disclose to K.K. what was happening with Mr. Williams. Years later, when she discussed with Mr. Williams the impropriety of their sexual interactions, he would tell her that they had been forgiven by God. He would say they were living under grace and could forget about what they had done.

The Defence Position

[262] Mr. Williams disputes virtually all of D.D.’s testimony. He denies that she came to his house during the period from July 2006 to May 2008. During that same period, he denies taking her on long rides in his car; staying late with her at the church; going into the prayer room with her; being in the gym loft with her; ever being alone with her anywhere; kissing her; undressing her; exposing his penis to her; touching his penis to her anus; fondling her breasts and touching her in any sexual way.

[263] The Defence argues that his evidence should be accepted but that, if it is not accepted, the Court should find that it raises reasonable doubt about his guilt. In addition, Defence counsel submits that D.D. had a motive to fabricate false allegations; that there was no opportunity for the alleged crimes to be committed; and that there are significant inconsistencies between M.M.’s testimony and D.D.’s testimony which seriously undermine D.D.’s credibility and raise reasonable doubt about Mr. Williams’s guilt. The Defence submits that these deficiencies are fatal to the Crown’s case.

Did Mr. Williams Intentionally Touch D.D. for a Sexual Purpose Between July 2006 and May 2008?

Summary of Key Dates

[264] The date when M.M. and D.D. started attending the church is significant because D.D. testified that her relationship with Mr. Williams evolved over time and did not start to intensify until around the time of her parents’ separation in April 2006. If there was not sufficient time prior to April 2006 for Mr. Williams to cultivate her trust, that could cast doubt upon the accuracy of her testimony that that was the turning point in the relationship. Moreover, it could raise reasonable doubt about whether the alleged incidents of sexual touching commenced in the summer of 2006.

[265] I heard conflicting evidence about when M.M. and her family started attending the church. M.M.’s testimony kept shifting and is therefore not reliable on this issue. Mr. Williams testified that they joined the church in 2004. He did not explain what reference points, if any, he used to remember that date. D.D. testified that she was between the ages of 12 and 14 when she started attending the church. In her police statement, she said she was 14 years old. At trial, she stated that she clearly remembers having a conversation with a friend about the church when she was still at Middle School, which would have been the 2003-2004 school year. I therefore conclude, based on the totality of the evidence, that she likely started attending the church in the early part of 2004, when she was 13 years old, approaching 14 years old.

[266] There were, therefore, at least two years during which D.D. grew to know and respect the Pastor prior to her parents’ separation in April 2006. That was enough time for the alleged grooming to begin and for trust to develop between her and Mr. Williams.

[267] Although the complainants generally could not remember dates with accuracy, they often recalled where they were residing or where D.D. was attending school when certain events occurred. All three witnesses were also able to situate the timing of some events in relation to the date of M.M.’s separation from her husband or the date of their reconciliation. I have therefore created a table of key dates that act as temporal signposts for the Court:

2004-2006

D.D. attends 1st High School (grades 9 and 10)

D.D. resides with both parents and her sister in “Apartment R”

April 2006

D.D.’s parents separate

D.D. moves with her mother and K.K. to Mrs. G.’s house

May 2006

D.D. turns 16 years old

2006-2008

D.D. attends 2nd High School (grades 11 and 12)

D.D. resides with her mother and K.K. at Mrs. G.’s house (from April 2006 to summer 2008)

May 2008

D.D. turns 18 years old

June 2008

D.D. graduates from High School

July or August 2008

D.D., M.M. and K.K. move to “BH Rental House”

2008-2009

D.D. attends 1st year of university

April 2009

D.D.’s parents reconcile

May 2009

D.D. and K.K. move into their own apartment

August 2009

M.M. resigns from her position and leaves the church

[268] The critical period on this issue is when D.D. and K.K. were living with their mother in Mrs. G’s house after their parents separated, and D.D. was attending her 2nd High School. She turned 18 about a month before she graduated from High School. Any sexual touching that may have occurred the summer after High School or during the period that D.D., K.K. and M.M. were living at the BH Rental House would be outside the period specified in the indictment.

Evidence of Grooming

[269] M.M. corroborated several elements of D.D.’s testimony about how Mr. Williams groomed her, cultivated her trust, alienated her from her biological father, and insinuated himself into her life as a replacement father figure. For example, Mr. Williams testified that he discouraged D.D. from calling him “daddy”, but M.M. corroborated D.D.’s evidence that he wanted D.D. to use that form of address. Mr. Williams denied speaking negatively about M.M.’s husband, but M.M. corroborated D.D.’s evidence that Mr. Williams said her father had a demonic spirit and that they should therefore avoid eating meals with him. Furthermore, M.M. corroborated D.D.’s testimony that Mr. Williams bestowed attention upon D.D., spent a lot of time with her, and ultimately gained and exercised an inordinate influence over her decisions.

[270] On this issue, I believe the complainants and reject Mr. Williams’s contrary testimony. Their evidence was mutually corroborative, consistent, compelling, and credible.

Kiss in the Hallway

[271] M.M. testified that she witnessed Mr. Williams kiss D.D. in the hallway of the church in or around 2007. She said the kiss was just a peck on the lips and was more affectionate than sexual. She did not think too much about it at the time.

[272] Mr. Williams denies kissing D.D. between July 2006 and May 2008.

[273] M.M. did not mention this kiss during her testimony at the preliminary inquiry in October 2020. However, she did mention it in her statement to the police in January 2019. At that time, she could not recall the date when it happened.

[274] D.D. was not asked about this alleged kiss from Mr. Williams in the hallway of the church and did not volunteer any evidence about such an incident. Her allegations of sexual touching between July 2006 and May 2008 are limited to incidents that occurred in Mr. Williams’s car, in the loft of the church gymnasium, and behind a closed door in the prayer room at the church.

[275] Based on the totality of the evidence, I believe that M.M. observed a kiss, but I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it occurred prior to May 2008.

Opportunity for Collusion

[276] Apart from the one kiss that M.M. said she observed, she had no evidence to offer with respect to D.D.’s allegations of sexual touching. However, she was questioned at length about ancillary issues, such as whether and when D.D. went on drives with Mr. Williams, and whether anyone other than Mr. Williams had a key to the prayer room in the church. I must therefore consider whether M.M.’s testimony is corroborative of D.D.’s evidence, or whether there are material inconsistencies between them. I am cognizant that the value of any corroboration is diminished if there is reason to believe that they colluded in giving their testimony (either deliberately or through inadvertent tainting of their evidence).

[277] When D.D. and M.M. spoke to each other on December 13, 2018 for the first time in almost ten years, D.D. disclosed to M.M. that Mr. Williams had been sexually inappropriate with her. M.M. was present a few days later when D.D. confronted Mr. Williams with her allegations during the resignation meeting. The complainants both testified that details of the alleged sexual touching were not discussed on either of those occasions. However, around that time, the complainants had a conversation in which D.D. disclosed to M.M. some of the sexual acts that Mr. Williams engaged in with her. D.D. did not provide M.M. with details of the timing of any of the incidents. They went to the police station together in January 2019 to give their statements. They were counselled by the same Victim Witness Coordinator with respect to the criminal justice process. For a period after they reunited in December 2018, D.D. moved into her parents’ home temporarily. Even after she moved out again, they continued to see each other regularly. D.D.’s father (M.M.’s husband) accompanied them to court daily when they were giving their testimony at trial, and he observed the proceeding. There were therefore many opportunities for collusion.

[278] However, I do not believe that the complainants discussed their evidence or the relevant issues. I accept as credible their testimony that they did not speak to the Victim Witness Coordinator at the same time, did not meet with the police investigators or the Crown prosecutor together, and did not review the transcripts of each other’s police statements or preliminary inquiry testimony. I believe that they prepared separately for their court appearances to avoid tainting their evidence. I made a witness exclusion order at the outset of the trial, and I reminded them both of their ongoing obligation not to discuss their evidence. I cautioned them repeatedly on breaks during the proceeding. They appeared to appreciate the importance of not discussing their evidence with each other or with D.D.’s father. I am confident that they abided by my directions.

[279] Moreover, as will be discussed below, there are numerous inconsistencies between the two complainants’ evidence on ancillary issues. Those inconsistencies make the existence of collusion unlikely.

D.D.’s Motive to Fabricate False Allegations

[280] The Defence submits that D.D. had multiple motives to fabricate false allegations against Mr. Williams, including that: she resented him for exploiting her labour by appealing to her sense of duty to serve God; she was angry about the parking lot incident; and she wanted to reunite with her parents after almost a decade of estrangement and used him as a scapegoat to facilitate that reunion.

[281] Defence counsel argues that D.D. matured and regretted her childish decision to cut her parents out of her life, so she blamed Mr. Williams to elicit their forgiveness and smooth over their reunion. I reject this argument because D.D. did not need an excuse or a scapegoat to persuade her parents to forgive her. Both her parents made it clear to her throughout the period of estrangement that they were receptive to re-establishing a relationship. They both attended the church periodically for the sole purpose of seeing their daughters and trying to speak with them. M.M. wrote long letters to her daughters and gave them to the girls at the church. She reached out to D.D. by texting her on special occasions like holidays and her birthday. D.D. was aware that she was always welcome to return home.

[282] However, I find that D.D. had a different motive to make false allegations against Mr. Williams, namely her resentment for the manipulative, exploitive and abusive way he treated her over the years, culminating in the assault in the parking lot.

[283] M.M.’s motive to lie is not, standing alone, sufficient to conclude that her allegations are false, nor to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the alleged incidents occurred. Nonetheless, her motive is a relevant and important factor that I must consider in the context of all the evidence to determine whether the Crown has satisfied its burden of proof.

Tailoring of Evidence Based on Police Suggestion

[284] Defence counsel submits that D.D. tailored her allegations to conform to a suggestion made to her by the police. D.D. acknowledged that, during her first interview with the police, an officer suggested that she should think about what happened with Mr. Williams before the age of 18, because legally that is what matters. Five days later, she returned to the police to give a second statement.

[285] Defence counsel argues that D.D. initially went to the police in January 2019 to report the physical assault in the parking lot, then returned to the police a few days later with false allegations of sexual exploitation, after she learned from police what she needed to say to expose Mr. Williams to criminal liability. This argument is rejected because it is not supported by the evidence.

[286] D.D. testified that she went to the police because Mr. Williams was a predator, and she did not want other young girls in the church to be victimized. There is no evidence that she went to the police for the purpose of reporting only the physical assault in the parking lot. Furthermore, her cross-examination established that, during her first police interview, she made allegations of sexual touching that occurred over the age of 18 and under the age of 18. Had the allegations of sexual exploitation between the ages of 16 and 18 been raised for the first time at the second interview, I would have been deeply concerned that the information shared with her by the police contaminated her second police statement and subsequent testimony. But that is not what happened. There is therefore no evidence upon which I could reasonably infer that D.D. tailored her allegations (consciously or unconsciously) pursuant to a police suggestion.

Surreptitious Audio Recordings of Mr. Williams

[287] As discussed earlier in these reasons, D.D. made several surreptitious audio recordings of her conversations with Mr. Williams. I do not draw any inferences about her credibility from that fact. A person who makes a clandestine recording is no more or less likely to be dishonest.

[288] Furthermore, I do not think she is less credible because she edited the audio recording of her resignation meeting and provided the police with only two excerpts. She testified that it was a long meeting, and that the conversation was “all over the place”, including a long discussion about forgiveness and recitation of scripture. She did not feel that was important for the police to hear. She swore that she was not trying to hide anything from the police. I believe her.

Mr. Williams’s Admissions

[289] I have already concluded (at paragraphs 193 to 220 above) that, during the resignation meeting, Mr. Williams admitted to violating D.D. and to touching her sexually in an inappropriate manner. However, no dates were discussed at that time. The complainants’ evidence about that meeting and the audio recordings from the meeting therefore do not assist me in determining whether the alleged sexual touching occurred during the relevant period. There is no evidence of an admission by Mr. Williams that he touched D.D. sexually when she was between the ages of 16 and 18 years old.

Particularity of D.D.’s Allegations

[290] Defence counsel submits that D.D.’s allegations of sexual exploitation are all generic, except for the incident in the gymnasium loft. The Defence argues that her testimony lacks credibility because she is vague about the locations where the incidents occurred, cannot recall why she was with Mr. Williams on those occasions, cannot recall the sequence of the incidents, and cannot provide details of what happened prior to or after the alleged sexual touching.

[291] Considering the number of alleged incidents, the pattern of sexual touching, and the passage of time since the events took place, it is not surprising that some of the details of the incidents are conflated in D.D.’s memory, and that she would not be able to order the incidents in a specific sequence with any confidence. I disagree that her evidence is generic and lacking in detail. She was precise about the nature and progression of sexual touching that occurred, whether it was over or beneath her clothing, the parts of her body that were fondled, the parts of Mr. Williams’s body that she kissed and touched, and his state of dress or undress. She recounted things that Mr. Williams said to her while he was touching her. She remembered that she was wearing a particular black skirt during many of the incidents, sometimes without underwear. She remembered feeling guilty when Mr. Williams tried to make her climax while parked in his car in an industrial area. She recalled specific details, like the soreness of her nipples after Mr. Williams rubbed them excessively, the smell of body fluids on the prayer shawl that Mr. Williams asked her to lie on, and the embarrassing smell of her socks when he removed her footwear.

[292] M.M. was not vague about the locations where the incidents occurred. She described the layout, furniture, and décor of the prayer room in detail. She was unable to identify specific locations where Mr. Williams parked his car, but she described driving around Mississauga and driving to Brampton and Milton. She recalled parking at an industrial area on one occasion, and in the empty parking lot of a school on another occasion. She remembered that it was always at night. Given the passage of time, her age at the time, and the fact that she was not doing the driving, it is not surprising that she does not recall the locations with more specificity.

[293] The level of detail in her testimony therefore does not cause me to question the reliability or credibility of her allegations.

Indicia of D.D.’s Credibility

[294] One of the factors that favours D.D.’s credibility is her candour. During her testimony, she readily conceded facts that I imagine were difficult for her to admit. For example, she testified that she would get excited about going on drives with Mr. Williams, and about what they were doing behind the closed door in the prayer room. She explained that it was exciting to her because she did not know what was going to happen next. They were doing something outside of the boundaries of what was permitted, and it felt like she “was getting to be a pretend adult.” During her cross-examination, D.D. was asked whether her body responded physically to Mr. Williams’s touch. She did not hesitate to acknowledge that she was sometimes aroused.

[295] Furthermore, on several occasions during her testimony, D.D. candidly admitted that her memory of a particular fact or event was unclear. She did not guess at answers about which she was unsure. When Defence counsel suggested certain facts to her that she could not confirm, she did not deny them, but rather readily acknowledged that they might be true, and explained that she simply had no specific recollection of them.

[296] Another factor that favours her credibility is the care with which she testified. She reflected before answering questions about which she was unsure, then gave a measured answer. For example, she was asked whether she touched Mr. Williams’s penis in the prayer room. After careful consideration, she responded, “I probably did, but to say I can remember a specific incident, I … I don’t know. I can’t remember specific incidents. I can’t answer that question confidently. I don’t have a specific memory of that.” Similarly, when she was asked whether Mr. Williams ever ejaculated in the prayer room, she paused to reflect, then said she could not remember whether he did or not.

D.D.’s Prior Denials that Mr. Williams Exploited Her Sexually

[297] The Defence argues that several factors undermine D.D.’s credibility. One of the major factors is that she previously denied, on two separate occasions in 2009, that Mr. Williams had touched her inappropriately.

[298] When her mother, M.M., went to the church’s Board of Directors in August 2009 to complain about Mr. Williams’s inappropriate sexual touching, she told them that she did not want her daughters to be left alone with him. D.D. and K.K. had moved out of their family home in April 2009 and were living independently in an apartment that Mr. Williams helped D.D. find. D.D. was working at a job that Mr. Williams helped her obtain. She was 18 years old, and K.K. was 16 years old. Both girls were not really speaking to either of their parents who had just reconciled after 3 years of separation. Both girls had elected to remain members of the church, notwithstanding their parents’ departure and their mother’s allegations of sexual misconduct by Mr. Williams. There was gossip among congregants about the girls leaving home so young, and speculation about whether Mr. Williams was manipulating them and alienating them from their parents.

[299] At the Board meeting in August 2009, M.M. reported to the Board that Mr. Williams had behaved inappropriately with her daughters. She did not specify what she meant by inappropriate behaviour and did not give any examples. D.D. and K.K. were then invited into the meeting. D.D. testified that she must have known beforehand that the meeting was happening because she brought with her a copy of her apartment lease to show that Mr. Williams had not co-signed for her. She was asked by a Board member whether she had experienced inappropriate behaviour by the Pastor. She said no. Mr. Williams was present in the room when she gave her answer. At trial, she testified that she lied to protect him.

[300] Shortly after the Board meeting, on August 10, 2009, D.D. and K.K. met with a Board member named Brian and gave a lengthy (29-minute) tape-recorded statement, a copy of which was adduced as evidence by the Defence at trial. In it, D.D. states that it was her decision to change her name (to “E”) and that no one forced her to do it. She says Mr. Williams told her and K.K. not to move out of their family residence, but they decided to do so despite his advice. She gives lengthy reasons why she no longer wants to live with her parents. She is particularly critical of her father.

[301] K.K. makes similar statements, although D.D. does most of the talking. No questions are asked of either of them on the recording. They are not audibly prompted by anyone to say anything. They each start their interjections by identifying themselves (e.g., “This is D.D. speaking”). D.D. testified that they were told to do that so a listener could differentiate who was speaking on the tape.

[302] At a few points during the recording, there is an audile break in the tape, consistent with the machine being stopped and then restarted. There are also two points when the sound of a door opening and closing can clearly be heard in the background. D.D. testified that the door was the only thing in the room that could have made that noise.

[303] About 23 minutes into the recording, D.D. says,

[So] this is our side of the story. We also, to make the record straight, wanted to clear – this is D.D. speaking – that there has been no inappropriate actions between me, myself – from me, my sister, and Pastor Clyde Williams. No inappropriate action has been taken.

[304] The sound of pages turning can be heard in the background during this part of the tape recording. K.K. speaks next, with a similar denial of any inappropriate behaviour, then D.D. says, “And that’s everything.” However, the recording does not end there.

[305] There is another audible break, after which D.D. identifies herself again and gives a long statement praising Mr. Williams for supporting her financially and spiritually, for recognizing her musical talents, for encouraging development of her leadership skills in her role with the youth group, for making sure she stays on the right path, and for being a “daddy figure” for her. She says,

We don’t feel uncomfortable with him, we feel safe with him because we – ‘cause, because he’s proven himself to be a good fatherly figure… He’s been there when no one else was there for us.

And just to wrap up, me and my sister feel safe at [the church]. We don’t feel in any way forced to do anything that we – is not right, or that we shouldn’t do, or we feel we shouldn’t do. We feel safe with Pastor Clyde Williams…

[306] There is then another audible break in the tape recording. Afterward, D.D. repeats that she and K.K. do not want to go back to live with their parents and are freely choosing to live on their own. She then concludes,

Um, ... most importantly, this entire testimony was done by free will, and I was not forced by Pastor Clyde nor anybody at all to do this testimony. Um, this is something that I decided to do, and I’m able to make my own decisions, so I decided to do this morning and make certain things clear, and clear records, and clear false allegations.

Um, this testimony can be used as evidence, if I am not available or able to testify.

[307] Although D.D. refers to her statement as “testimony” on the recording, it was not a sworn declaration. She did not take an oath on the Bible or make a solemn promise to tell the truth. There was no lawyer present to give her legal advice and no one explained to her the consequences of making a false declaration.

[308] D.D. remembers attending this meeting with Brian. She recalls that it took place in the boardroom at the church’s new location. She was aware that she and K.K. were being tape-recorded. She says Mr. Williams was also present, but she thinks he left briefly at some point. His voice is not heard on the tape.

[309] Mr. Williams testified that he was present when the meeting started but left shortly after the girls began to give their statement. He initially stated that he returned to the boardroom only once to check whether they were done. He said he pulled on the door, the girls looked up, and he gestured for them to continue, then closed the door and left. He later changed his evidence and said that he just looked through the glass window of the door on that occasion and motioned through the window for the girls to continue giving their statement, without opening the door. He testified that there was another occasion when he entered the room, spoke to the girls briefly, then left again. He offered no explanation for why he entered the boardroom during the meeting. He denied trying to influence what the girls were saying.

[310] D.D. testified that the purpose of the meeting with Brian was never explained to her, but she assumed that it was because her parents were going to take some kind of legal action, so Mr. Williams was gathering evidence to defend himself. Her parents had not told her they were taking legal action, but Mr. Williams said they might. She remembers Mr. Williams asking her whether she would give a statement that he could use as evidence. She was willing because she felt that it was her responsibility to protect the Pastor.

[311] Mr. Williams testified that it was the Board’s idea to obtain a statement from the girls. He said he was not involved in making that decision, and that Brian conveyed it to him. He then approached D.D. and asked her whether she and K.K. would be willing to give a statement that they were voluntarily remaining at the church.

[312] D.D. testified that, prior to the meeting with Brian, Mr. Williams told her certain things to mention in her statement. She thinks K.K. may have been present for that discussion but is not sure. Mr. Williams denies telling either of them what to say.

[313] D.D. had not listened to the tape recording prior to trial. Despite the passage of time, and without the benefit of hearing the tape, she remembered some of what was discussed during the meeting. In particular, she remembered overhearing a conversation her parents had about sex. She said that stood out in her memory because she was hesitant to speak about something so private, but Mr. Williams was present, and he gestured with his hands to encourage her to do so.

[314] The tape recording corroborates D.D.’s memory of the topic of her parents’ sex life being discussed. D.D.’s hesitation to speak about that topic is also corroborated by the recording. I am therefore confident that she has an independent and reliable recollection of the meeting.

[315] Mr. Williams testified that when he returned to the boardroom and entered, somebody mentioned something about sex, and somebody started giggling. He said the tape was stopped, and someone asked him, “Should I say that?” He thinks it was D.D. who asked this question. He told her, “Just tell the truth, say it all.” He says he left the boardroom shortly afterward. This exchange is not captured on the tape recording.

[316] I believe D.D.’s evidence that Mr. Williams was present for most of the meeting. I reject Mr. Williams’s testimony that he was only there for the first few minutes, and briefly when he returned and had a quick exchange with the girls about speaking the truth. The audio recording is not consistent with Mr. Williams’s version of the events. There are only two audible door sounds during the recording. Had Mr. Williams left the room after a few minutes, then returned and opened the door to enter, and then left and closed the door after a brief exchange, there would be three audible door sounds. The two door sounds are consistent with D.D.’s recollection that Mr. Williams was present but left at some point and then returned. The two door sounds are less than a minute apart, which means Mr. Williams would have been absent for only a very short period.

[317] Furthermore, the only mention of sex (when D.D. hesitates to talk about per parents’ conversation) does not coincide with any audible door sounds, nor is there any audible break in the tape when that topic is discussed, contrary to Mr. Williams’s account of when that discussion took place. Rather, the recording is consistent with D.D.’s testimony that she hesitated to mention her parents’ sex life and Mr. Williams, who was present, silently gestured for her to do so.

[318] Initially, D.D. did not remember having notes with her in the meeting. However, after listening to the tape recording played in court and being cross-examined about it, she remembered that she and K.K. were speaking from notes. Mr. Williams was not asked whether he remembered them having any notes. I believe D.D.’s uncontested testimony that they did. Given that they were not prompted by any questions from Brian, it is implausible that they would have made a 30-minute declaration without speaking notes. The audible sound of pages turning further supports this inference. I infer that D.D. made the speaking notes after Mr. Williams asked her to give a statement and told her some things that she and K.K. should say.

[319] D.D. testified that, during the meeting, Brian sometimes stopped the tape recording because Mr. Williams wanted to replay and check what she and K.K. had said. She could not recall whether she and K.K. were instructed to change anything they had said, but she distinctly remembered receiving instructions from Mr. Williams about what more to say toward the end of the recording.

[320] Mr. Williams recalls the tape being paused while he was in the room, but he denies directing Brian to stop the recording so he could replay and verify the girls’ statements. He denies directing them in any way on what to say. I reject his evidence on this issue and accept D.D.’s testimony that he instructed her on things to add toward the end of the recording. It is telling that, before the final two audible breaks in the tape, D.D. says, “And that’s everything” and “just to wrap it up” respectively. These comments suggest that she was done saying what she planned to say, but then was prompted (during the breaks) by someone else who wanted her to supplement her statement. I infer that it was Mr. Williams who was prompting her to say more, because what follows is praise for him and assurances that he does not pose a threat to her safety.

[321] The tape-recorded statement sounds entirely contrived. I say this for several reasons. First, D.D.’s speech is pressured, in contrast to the relaxed cadence of her speech in the courtroom. Second, it is unlikely that, at the ages of 16 and 18, the girls would have had the wherewithal to identify themselves whenever they spoke on the tape. I find it probable that they were instructed to do so. Third, I am certain that D.D.’s closing remarks about giving the statement by free will and consenting to its use as evidence were scripted by a sophisticated and self-interested adult. They were not the spontaneous utterances of a sheltered young woman. Finally, the intonation and unnatural tenor of her voice during those final remarks leaves the distinct impression that she was reading from notes that she had not written herself.

[322] Based on all the above, I accept D.D.’s evidence that Mr. Williams was present for most of the meeting, including the portion when she denies that he has engaged in any inappropriate behaviour. I find that he asked her to make the statement, told her what to say beforehand, and then instructed her on things to add during the meeting – but not while the tape was running, so as to conceal the direction that he was giving.

[323] I also accept as credible D.D.’s evidence that she lied in the Board meeting and in the subsequent meeting with Brian about Mr. Williams not having done anything inappropriate because she wanted to protect him. In the circumstances, I do not believe that her prior inconsistent statements undermine the credibility of her evidence at trial.

[324] D.D. also signed a type-written document on the day of the meeting with Brian. The name of the church appears in large bold print at the top of the page, under which it says, “By law of an individual Free Will”. Among other things, the documents states that she is not manipulated in any way to do what she does, that she feels safe and protected at the church, that there is no danger to her at the church, that she is free to leave the church at any time without any restraints, and that her Pastor is a mentor and spiritual father. D.D.’s signature was witnessed by Brian. K.K. signed an identical document. D.D. agreed that she probably typed the documents but said she would have been told what to include. I accept her evidence on this point as credible.

[325] I find it significant that these signed documents and Brian’s tape recording of the girls’ statement were both delivered directly to Mr. Williams after the meeting and were retained by him in his office. Had it been the Board’s idea to obtain the statements, as he claims, one would expect the tape and the signed documents to have been delivered to the Board. This is compelling evidence from which I infer that Mr. Williams orchestrated the creation of the testimonials in his own self-interest.

[326] For the reasons set out above, I find that D.D.’s prior denials of any inappropriate conduct by Mr. Williams (at the Board meeting in August 2009 and again in her tape-recorded statement a few days later) do not constitute reliable exculpatory evidence. They do not undermine the credibility of D.D.’s evidence at trial regarding the alleged sexual exploitation. Indeed, they corroborate, to some extent, D.D.’s evidence about the degree of influence and control that Mr. Williams formerly exercised over her. Most importantly, they do not raise reasonable doubt about whether the sexual touching occurred.

Evidence Regarding D.D.’s Visits to Mr. Williams’s Home

[327] D.D. testified that she spent a lot of time at Mr. Williams’s home on Saturdays after church services during the summers of 2006 and 2007. She remembers being invited by him to do yard work, cleaning, and other chores. She testified that her mother was aware that she was at his residence.

[328] D.D. further testified that Mr. Williams invited her to sleep over two or three times. She thinks it was probably in 2006 or 2007, but she is not sure of the dates. She remembers sleeping in a bedroom in the basement of the house. No one else slept in the basement, except for one time when a girl from Haiti also slept over. She remembers waking up one morning and Mr. Williams came into her bed and hugged her. They rolled around together on the bed, and he said he wanted her to live there when she went to university. She thinks that occurred in 2007. She believes that her mother was aware of these sleepovers. For the most part, her mother trusted Mr. Williams as her spiritual mentor.

[329] D.D. recalled one occasion when Mr. Williams drove her home early in the morning and her mother was upset and confronted her at the entrance. At trial, she testified that happened when they were living at Mrs. G.’s house. But in her statement to the police, she mentioned a similar incident that happened when they were living at the BH Rental House.

[330] Mr. Williams testified that he is a very private person who rarely invites congregants to his home. He denies that D.D. ever came to his house alone. He remembers just one occasion when M.M., D.D. and K.K. all came to his house to watch the Superbowl game. He says D.D. never performed any cleaning or chores at his house. He denies that she ever slept over.

[331] However, Mr. Williams recalls the girl from Haiti staying overnight at his home. He thinks she slept in the basement bedroom. Given that D.D. testified about the Haitian girl, Crown counsel asked him to reconsider the possibility that D.D. slept over at his house. He answered, “If she did, people stay there, I don’t have to know.” The Crown asked him how it could be possible that he would not know a guest was sleeping in his basement. He responded that the basement is a private place with a separate entrance. Be that as it may, I find it is implausible that D.D. could have slept over at his home, with or without the Haitian girl, without him knowing that she was there.

[332] M.M. testified that she remembers going to Mr. Williams’ house with both her daughters to do some cleaning in his home. She also remembers K.K. and D.D. going there together (without her) to clean, but that was when they were living at the BH Rental House (summer 2008 or later).

[333] M.M. remembers D.D. going to Mr. Williams’s home by herself, but she said that happened after school (not on weekends). She stated that she often found out about those visits afterward. She does not know what D.D. was doing at his home. She recalls that D.D.’s visits to his home became more frequent after they moved to the BH Rental House, but she remembers at least twice when it happened while they were living at Mrs. G.’s house.

[334] M.M. recalled only one incident when D.D. slept at the Pastor’s house. She said she remembers the occasion vividly because she was livid that D.D. had not obtained her permission to stay out overnight. She remembered confronting D.D. when Mr. Williams drove her home the next morning. M.M.’s testimony about when this sleepover happened was inconsistent. She initially said it was in early 2007 (while they were living at Mrs. G.’s house), but she later corrected herself and said it must have been early 2008 (still at Mrs. G’s house) because it happened shortly after she returned from a vacation with K.K. to her parents’ time-share property in December 2007. However, later during her cross-examination, she testified that it happened while they were living at the BH Rental House (summer 2008 or later).

[335] Notwithstanding the inconsistency between D.D.’s and M.M.’s testimonies about whether the visits to Mr. Williams’s home happened on weekdays after school or on Saturdays after church, both complainants recall D.D. going to his home alone while the family was still living at Mrs. G’s house. The home visits became more frequent after they moved to the BH Rental House in the summer of 2008, but I am confident that they started before D.D.’s 18th birthday.

[336] I accept D.D.’s testimony that there were sleepovers, contrary to Mr. Williams’s denial, but I find that they likely occurred after she was 18 years old. I make this finding because: (i) D.D. was uncertain about the dates of the sleepovers, and (ii) she gave a prior inconsistent statement about where they were living on the occasion when her mother confronted her in the morning after a sleepover; (iii) during her cross-examination, M.M. said she remembered angrily confronting D.D. as she returned home to the BH Rental House the morning after a sleepover; and (iv) Mr. Williams’s comment about D.D. moving into his basement when she starts university likely happened during the summer of 2008, after D.D. had graduated from high school.

[337] I note that D.D. does not allege that any sexual touching happened in Mr. Williams’s home, so the fact that the sleepovers occurred after she was 18 years old does not raise reasonable doubt about whether sexual touching occurred in 2006 or 2007. The key finding of fact, in terms of opportunities for grooming D.D., is that the home visits started before D.D. was 18 years old.

Opportunities to Commit the Offences

[338] D.D. testified that the incidents in the prayer room happened after evening services, when everyone else left the church. She explained that her mother used the school bus to shuttle kids home after youth group on Friday nights. She said K.K. would go with their mother, and she would stay back with Mr. Williams, then he would drive her home afterward. Similarly, after worship team meetings mid-week, she would sometimes stay late and practice the drums. Other times, she stayed late just to be around Mr. Williams or because he asked her to. She testified that Mr. Williams would lock all the church doors after everyone else left, turn off the lights and tell her to go wait for him in the prayer room.

[339] D.D. was challenged about the plausibility of this evidence during her cross-examination. Defence counsel suggested that other congregants would have questioned the propriety of a young girl staying late at the church alone with the Pastor. D.D. explained that her mother would normally be one of the last people to leave the church, so when other congregants left, her mother was still there. Moreover, Mr. Williams told other congregants that she was a junior Pastor in training, so they may not have questioned the time she spent alone with him. I find these explanations to be reasonable.

[340] D.D. testified that the drives with Mr. Williams also happened at night: he would either pick her up from Mrs. G.’s house, or they would leave together from the church. They would depart around sunset and stay out until midnight or later. The drives lasted an hour and a half or longer. She said her mother was aware that they went for drives because her mother was often home when Mr. Williams picked her up, and her mother was always home when he dropped her off afterward, although her mother would sometimes be asleep by the time she got home.

[341] D.D. testified that her mother trusted Mr. Williams as her spiritual mentor and therefore did not question what they were doing together. She recalled only two incidents when her mother confronted her after she returned home from a long drive with Mr. Williams and asked why they were out so late. She remembered that, on one of those occasions, she just sat quiet for about an hour, staring out at the hallway in Mrs. G.’s house, and did not answer her mother’s questions because she did not know what to say. D.D. testified that the other confrontation also happened when they were living at Mrs. G.’s house, but she acknowledged that in her police statement in January 2019, she said it occurred when they were living at the BH Rental House. This is a significant prior inconsistent statement of which I have taken note.

[342] Mr. Williams denies that he was ever alone with D.D., either at the church or in his vehicle, during the period from July 2006 to May 2008. He was categorical in his evidence on this subject. He insisted that he never would have driven any female minor alone in his car. He denied picking D.D. up from school and testified that, if he drove D.D. anywhere, her sister K.K. would also have been in the car. He also stated that if K.K. or D.D. were at the church, their mother M.M. would always be there, without exception. However, during his cross-examination, he remembered an occasion when M.M. went to do a school bus run and left both girls at the church. He also stated, during his cross-examination, that he did not pay close attention to whether M.M. was present whenever D.D. was at the church.

[343] M.M. directly contradicted Mr. Williams’s testimony. She testified that beginning in the spring of 2006, after she separated from her husband, Mr. Williams wanted D.D. to come to the church after school. She said he started picking up D.D. from school. She had no specific recollection of him also picking up K.K., but she thought that would be likely because the girls attended the same high school. However, she recalled occasions when she went home to prepare a meal for K.K. before an evening service, and Mr. Williams picked up D.D. (alone) from her school and brought her to the church.

[344] M.M. stated that D.D. and Mr. Williams began to spend a lot more time together. She noticed the increased contact while they were living at Mrs. G.’s house. She testified that: D.D. and Mr. Williams would go places and have meals together, but she was not always aware of this until after it happened; these outings started when they were living at Mrs. G.’s house and became much more frequent after they moved to the BH Rental House; sometimes Mr. Williams would pick up D.D. at home and take her to church; D.D. loved being around him so D.D. would hang out with him at the church.

[345] M.M. explained the reason why she remembers that the increased contact between D.D. and Mr. Williams started after she separated from her husband. She said she was then living with her two daughters and there was “more flexibility coming and going” without their father in the home. She could not say for sure whether it was in 2006 or 2007, but she said it definitively started while they were living at Mrs. G.’s house.

[346] M.M. recalled specific occasions when she left D.D. alone with Mr. Williams at the church, including one time when she and K.K. left the church on a Friday night after youth service to shuttle kids home and D.D. stayed back. She said there were many other occasions when she and K.K. left the church and D.D. remained with Mr. Williams, who later drove her home. She remembered that happening while they were living at the BH Rental House but could not say for sure whether it also happened while they were living at Mrs. G.’s house.

[347] M.M. testified that she initially had no concerns about the amount of time that D.D. was spending with Mr. Williams because D.D. seemed happy and Mr. Williams was like a father figure. She trusted him with her daughter, despite his sexually inappropriate conduct toward her. She explained that her feelings about their relationship changed in late 2007. The turning point was the last holiday season that they spent at Mrs. G.’s house in December 2007. She was planning a family vacation with her daughters to her parents’ time-share property and D.D. refused to go because Mr. Williams did not want her to. M.M. ended up taking the trip with only K.K. She realized then how much influence Mr. Williams had over D.D.’s decision-making. She said their relationship intensified and his influence became even stronger as D.D. completed high school and transitioned to university. She felt like she was fighting a losing battle because D.D. would no longer listen to her at all, preferring instead to follow Mr. Williams’s directions and advice.

[348] Based on all the evidence, I reject Mr. Williams’s testimony that he was never alone with D.D. between July 2006 and May 2008. Although M.M. did not fully corroborate D.D.’s account of the frequency of their drives together, she confirmed that there were occasions, starting in 2006 and continuing through 2007 into 2008, when D.D. and Mr. Williams were alone in his car. M.M. provided sound and rational explanations for why she was able to recall those dates, namely the timing in relation to her separation from her husband and the fact that they were living at Mrs. G.’s house. Although M.M. did not confirm that D.D. also stayed back at the church with Mr. Williams after evening services while they were living at Mrs. G.’s house, she did not contradict D.D.’s evidence to that effect. She simply could not recall.

[349] M.M. did not remember Mr. Williams driving D.D. home very late at night, except on one occasion when they were living at the BH Rental House. She said Mr. Williams would usually return D.D. home between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. when they were living at Mrs. G.’s house. Her testimony on this point contradicts D.D.’s evidence that Mr. Williams often drove her home around or after midnight. This discrepancy between D.D.’s and M.M.’s evidence about the timing of D.D.’s return home troubles me, but it is an inconsistency on a relatively peripheral detail that does not undermine the corroborative value of M.M.’s evidence overall.

[350] On the strength of D.D.’s own testimony and the partial corroboration of M.M.’s testimony, I believe and accept D.D.’s evidence that she went for drives alone with Mr. Williams and stayed at the church late with him on several occasions between July 2006 and May 2008. The drives may not have been as frequent, as long, or as late as she remembers them, especially in 2006, but I have no doubt that many of them occurred during the relevant time period (i.e. between July 2006 and May 2008). I conclude that there were ample opportunities for Mr. Williams to commit the offences alleged by D.D.

Inconsistencies Between D.D.’s Testimony and Her Police Statement

[351] There are several inconsistencies between D.D.’s evidence at trial and the statements that she made to the police:

a) She testified that Mr. Williams asked her to give him back massages in the boardroom of the church from 2006 to 2008. However, in her police statement, she said she could not recall whether the massages were before or after she turned 18 (in May 2008).

b) She initially testified that during the period from July 2006 to May 2008, Mr. Williams usually tried to make her climax by rubbing her clitoris over top of her underwear or skirt. She said there were only maybe two instances when he went under her clothing and touched the skin in her vaginal area. In her statement to the police, she stated that the sexual touching before she turned 18 was always over a layer of clothing. During her cross-examination, after her police statement was put to her, she stated that she was not sure whether he touched her under her clothing before the age of 18, but she was adamant that he touched her sexually when she was 16 and 17.

c) She did not mention the incident in the gymnasium during either of her two video-recorded police statements in January 2019. However, she did mention it in a letter that she wrote to the police in February 2019. At trial, she testified that Mr. Williams told her to go up in the gym loft, then he met her there. In her letter to the police, she said he took her there, suggesting that they went together. At trial, and in her letter to the police, she stated that Mr. Williams pulled down her pants and underwear before touching his penis to her anus. However, at the preliminary inquiry, she could not recall whether he pulled down her clothing or she did.

[352] In my view, these are minor inconsistencies that do not detract from the reliability or credibility of D.D.’s evidence regarding the sexual touching. They are the sort of inconsistencies that are easily explained by the multiplicity of incidents and the passage of time. These deficiencies in D.D.’s evidence leave me with doubt about whether Mr. Williams touched her skin under her clothing in her vaginal area before she turned 18, but they do not raise reasonable doubt about whether any sexual touching occurred before the age of 18.

The Purchase of a Padded Bra

[353] There is one element of D.D.’s testimony that I reject outright. It pertains to a bra that she claims Mr. Williams purchased for her in 2006 or 2007. D.D. testified that he took her to a shop in a mall to buy a padded bra before they went on one of their late-night drives. She explained that he wanted her to wear the bra so that he could fondle her breasts over top of the padding and not feel like he was violating her. She said the bra shopping occurred on the same night that her mother asked her what they were doing out so late and she just sat there for an hour unable to provide an explanation.

[354] D.D.’s testimony up to this point does not trouble me. However, D.D. further testified that the next day or a couple days later, she told her mother that Mr. Williams bought her a bra, and her mother was not upset about it. In fact, she said her mother was happy that she had a bra. This aspect of her testimony is implausible and was directly contradicted by M.M., who testified that it would have been unacceptable for the Pastor to purchase her 16-year-old daughter a bra. M.M. stated that, had she heard anything about him buying D.D. a bra, she would have confronted Mr. Williams about it.

[355] Mr. Williams denies ever buying D.D. a bra. While I accept D.D.’s evidence that her purchased the padded bra for her, I do not believe that she disclosed that fact to her mother at the time. I accept M.M.’s evidence that she knew nothing about it.

[356] I have considered the possibility that D.D. lied about this fact under oath, which could have a significant detrimental impact on my assessment of her overall credibility. But there is no obvious benefit to D.D. in fabricating such a story about her mother’s carefree attitude. I have therefore concluded that her testimony on this topic was not a deliberate falsehood. I infer that her memory of the conversation with her mother is simply not reliable. However, the unreliability of her evidence on this single point does not detract from the reliability and credibility of her testimony as a whole, particularly her testimony about the core elements of the alleged offences.

Conclusion

[357] Although M.M. did not witness any of the alleged sexual touching and therefore could not corroborate D.D.’s specific allegations, M.M.’s testimony directly contradicts Mr. Williams’s evidence about opportunities not existing for the sexual touching to occur. Moreover, M.M.’s observations about the strengthening of the bond between D.D. and Mr. Williams from the spring of 2006 to December 2007 is consistent with D.D.’s account of what was happening between them throughout that period.

[358] D.D.’s testimony about the core elements of the sexual touching was compelling, consistent, and coherent. Apart from the timing of the sleepovers at Mr. Williams’s house and the timing of the confrontation with her mother that ensued one morning, D.D.’s testimony with respect to the timing of events was also consistent and coherent.

[359] Furthermore, D.D. gave rational and persuasive explanations for why she remembers, after so many years, that the incidents happened between July 2006 and May 2008. First, she remembers the skirt and the shoes that she was often wearing on occasions when Mr. Williams touched her sexually, and those items of clothing were given to her when she was in high school. This is not the most convincing of her explanations because she acknowledged, during her cross-examination, that she continued to wear that skirt and those shoes after her 18th birthday. The more compelling explanations for her ability to state with confidence that the sexual touching happened in 2006-2007 are that: (1) she remembers how she was feeling conflicted about the sexual interactions while she was attending high school and (2) she distinctly remembers going back to Mrs. G.’s house with her nipples being cracked and sore from so much rubbing and fondling.

[360] Finally, as discussed below, I have accepted D.D.’s testimony that Mr. Williams penetrated her vaginally without her consent in May 2008. That was a traumatic event that she recalls vividly. She can pinpoint the precise date of that sexual assault because it took place on her 18th birthday. She testified that it was the first time he penetrated her, but that there were many prior incidents when he fondled her and attempted to make her climax. This provides a further rational explanation for why she remembers so clearly that the sexual touching started long before May 2008.

[361] Based on the totality of the evidence that I accept, I am persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams touched D.D. for a sexual purpose on several occasions between July 2006 and May 2008. I have some doubt about whether the incidents were as frequent as D.D. remembers them to be (prior to May 2008), but I am left with no doubt that numerous incidents occurred during the period specified in the indictment. Specifically, I am convinced that Mr. Williams kissed her, touched her breasts and nipples both over and under her clothing, ran his hands over her legs, and touched her genital and vaginal area over her underwear and clothing. He also directed her to touch his chest, nipples, and penis, both over and under his clothing. I have reached these conclusions mindful of the fact that D.D. has a motive to fabricate false allegations against him and that her memory of some small details of the incidents is hazy.

Decision

[362] The Defence concedes that, during the period specified in the indictment, D.D. was a “young person” as defined in s. 153(2) of the Criminal Code (i.e., she was 16 years of age or more but under the age of 18 years). The Defence also concedes that Mr. Williams was in a position of trust and authority towards her. Given these concessions, and in light of my findings above, I conclude that Mr. Williams is guilty of sexual exploitation, contrary to s. 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

[363] The final charge for my consideration arises from D.D.’s allegation that Mr. Williams sexually assaulted her on her 18th birthday by inserting his finders into her vagina without her consent.

SEXUAL ASSAULT OF D.D. (s. 271)

Did Mr. Williams Intentionally Touch D.D. in Circumstances of a Sexual Nature?

D.D.’s Testimony

[364] D.D. testified that Mr. Williams picked her up around 5:00 p.m., drove her to or near Niagara Falls and took her out to dinner at a restaurant on her 18th birthday. Afterward, he drove to an empty lot and parked his jeep. She does not remember much about the lot or its location. She said it was non-descript.

[365] According to D.D.’s testimony, Mr. Williams turned toward her, lowered her seat to a reclining position and put his fingers into her vagina. She was startled because she was not expecting it. He had never done that before. It was painful and she did not like the feeling. She immediately told him to stop. She thinks she shouted the word “stop”. He did not say anything, and he did not stop right away. She had to repeat “stop” a couple of times, then he finally stopped. She thinks it was after about a minute or two, but she acknowledges that she cannot know for sure how long it took him to stop. It may have felt longer in the moment than it actually was.

[366] D.D. testified that she was trying to move away from him, squirming backwards while saying “stop”. After he stopped, she got into the back seat. She does not remember whether she started to cry while his fingers were inside her or only after he stopped, but she clearly recalls laying down and crying in the back seat while he drove her home. He said something to her either as he was starting the car engine or while they were driving home, but she does not remember what he said. She does not know what time he dropped her off at home and she does not remember whether her mother or K.K. were there when she arrived.

[367] During her cross-examination, D.D. confirmed that Mr. Williams did not just suddenly put his fingers into her vagina, but she testified that she does not have a specific recollection of any sexual activity that happened beforehand. She paused frequently and reflected when asked questions but was unable to recall whether there was mutual kissing, whether she touched his nipples or his penis, or whether she was aroused before he put his fingers in her vagina. She acknowledged that she may have been participating willingly in sexual activity before the digital penetration. However, she said she does not remember that. She testified that his fingers in her vagina are all that stands out in her memory because she did not like it and did not want him to do it.

Mr. Williams’s Testimony

[368] Mr. Williams denies that the alleged incident happened. He denies taking her to dinner in or near Niagara Falls for her 18th birthday and denies engaging in any sexual activity with her in his car that night.

Analysis of the Evidence

[369] During her cross-examination at trial, D.D. testified about what she and Mr. Williams did on their way to the restaurant that evening. She recounted stopping in the empty parking lot of an unfamiliar church, and an unknown woman approaching the vehicle to speak briefly with Mr. Williams. Although she did not mention these details in her statements to the police or during her testimony at the preliminary inquiry, she provided a reasonable explanation for those omissions, namely that she was only ever asked what happened after the meal at the restaurant. I am not troubled by this insignificant inconsistency between her prior statements and her testimony at trial.

[370] Defence counsel argues that I should be troubled about the significant gaps in D.D.’s memory of the alleged event. D.D. described the digital penetration that constitutes the conduct element of the offence charged, but she was unable to provide details of any of the surrounding circumstances, including the sexual activity that preceded the penetrative act. Defence counsel argues that this raises reasonable doubt about whether the alleged sexual touching occurred.

[371] The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently reiterated the “well accepted” fact that “the peripheral details of a traumatic event can be difficult to recall and accurately describe at a later date”: R. v. A.A., 2023 ONCA 174, at para. 17; R. v. G.M.C., 2022 ONCA 2, at para. 38. It is not surprising that D.D. remembers little about the restaurant, the parking lot, or the timing of her return home that evening. It is also not surprising that she has no specific recollection of any consensual sexual touching that may have occurred prior to the digital penetration. Her memory is focused on the touching that she experienced as a violation of her sexual integrity. This does not mean that her memory of the event is unreliable, or that her evidence lacks credibility.

[372] D.D. remembers feeling pain when Mr. Williams inserted his finger into her vagina. She remembers and was able to describe how she resisted the penetration physically by squirming backwards in her seat. She remembers that she verbally told him to stop. She remembers that she had to tell him again, twice, before he stopped. She remembers how emotionally upset she was afterward. She described how she curled up in the backseat and cried. In the circumstances, her inability to recall other peripheral details does not compromise the reliability or credibility of her evidence regarding the digital penetration.

[373] I accept D.D.’s testimony about what happened in Mr. Williams’s vehicle that night. I reject his evidence, which I find to be untrustworthy for all the reasons already discussed above. To be clear, I am in no way suggesting that I think Mr. Williams is the kind of person who would commit a sexual assault on D.D. because I found him guilty of sexual assaults on M.M. Such propensity reasoning would be impermissible. Rather, I find that his evidence overall at trial was so disingenuous, inconsistent, and implausible as to render it untrustworthy.

[374] Based on the evidence that I accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams used his fingers to penetrate D.D.’s vagina in the manner that she described. There can be no doubt that this touching was intentional and was in circumstances of a sexual nature. The only remaining questions for me to decide are whether D.D. consented to the digital penetration and whether Mr. Williams knew that she was not consenting.

Did D.D. Consent to the Digital Penetration?

[375] There is no consent unless D.D. voluntarily agreed in her mind to the sexual activity at the time it was occurring: Criminal Code, s. 273.1(1)(1.1). D.D. testified that she did not consent to the digital penetration of her vagina. I believe her.

[376] The credibility of D.D.’s evidence regarding this issue is supported by her candid admission that, although she does not remember what preceded the penetration, there may have been other sexual activity in which she participated willingly. Given the history of the parties’ relationship prior to that point, I find it probable that there was other sexual touching in the car that night before the vaginal penetration but D.D. is unable to remember the details. However, even if that prior sexual activity was consensual, it does not detract from the fact that D.D. did not consent to digital penetration of her vagina.

[377] Consent may be limited in scope and may be revoked at any time. Agreement to engage in one form of sexual activity is not agreement to any or all forms of sexual activity. Moreover, agreement to engage in one form of sexual activity does not raise reasonable doubt about whether the complainant consented to another form of sexual activity.

[378] On the totality of the evidence, I conclude that D.D. may have consented[^3] to and participated in kissing and fondling prior to the penetration, but there is no evidence to support a finding that she consented to Mr. Williams inserting his fingers into her vagina. Mr. Williams did not testify that she consented. She testified that she was not expecting the penetration, had not agreed to it, did not like it, and said “stop” three times before he stopped. Based on her evidence, which I find to be credible, I am persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not consent.

Did Mr. Williams Know that D.D. Was Not Consenting?

[379] D.D. told Mr. Williams to stop as soon as he inserted his fingers into her vagina. She squirmed in her seat and tried to back away from him. She thereby clearly expressed her lack of consent to what he was doing. And yet he did not stop. She had to physically move away from him and tell him twice more to stop before he ceased. In these circumstances, I am persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams knew she was not consenting to the digital penetration.

Decision

[380] The Crown has satisfied its burden of proving the essential elements of the offence. I therefore conclude that Mr. Williams is guilty of sexually assaulting D.D.

Released: May 10, 2023 _____________________________

Petersen J.

COURT FILE NO.: CR 20/484

DATE: 20230510

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Crown

• and -

CLYDE WILLIAMS

Accused

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Petersen J.

Released: May 10, 2023

[^1]: He sent two texts at 9:22 PM. The first said “…the best news would be for you to hear I read” and the next said, “I am dead”. Mr. Williams explained that the second text was correcting a typo (“I read”) in the previous text. D.D. testified that she thought he was being overly dramatic by texting her that he had died. I believe she misread the text. I accept Mr. Williams’s evidence that the second text was intended as a correction of the last part of the previous text.

[^2]: The message reads, “his died”, but it was immediately followed by another message correcting the typo to “*he”.

[^3]: I say “may” because any apparent consent may have been induced by Mr. Williams abusing his position of trust and authority – an issue that I need not decide: Criminal Code, s. 273.1(2)(c).