R. v.

Plehanov, 2012 BCPC 563 (CanLII)

Date:

2012-11-26

Docket: 84100-C9
Citation:R. v. Plehanov, 2012 BCPC 563 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gh2bb> retrieved on 2015-10222015-10-22

Citation:
R. v. Plehanov
2012 BCPC 0563
84100-C9

Date: 20121126
File No:
Registry:

Port

Coquitlam

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

REGINA
v.
ALEKSANDR PLEHANOV

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE D. St. Pierre
Restriction on Publication: Pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code
there is a ban on publication, broadcast or transmission of the names of
the complainants and any other information that may identify the complainants.

Counsel for the Crown:

Harvey
Counsel for the Defendant:
Helps
Place of Hearing:
Coquitlam, B.C.
Dates of Hearing:
12, 13,

Wendy Van Tongeren

Lisa Jean
Port
Jan. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11,
Feb. 10, June 21, July 3,

4, 2012
Date of Judgment:
26, 2012

November

An Errata was released on November 26, 2012; the corrections have been made to the
text and the Errata is appended to this document.
[1]
Aleksandr Plehanov was a teacher employed by the Coquitlam District 43 School
Board when he was arrested and charged with a number of Criminal Code
allegations on March 18th, 2010.
[2]
A trial was held with respect to Information No. 84100-C9. The charges are that
Mr. Plehanov:
Count 1 on or about the 10th day of March, 2010, did sexually assault E.A.,
contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code
Count 2 on or about the 10th day of March, 2010, did, for a sexual purpose, touch,
directly or indirectly, with a part of his body or with an object, the body of E.A., a
person under the age of sixteen years, contrary to Section 151 of the Criminal
Code
Count 3 on or about the 10th day of March, 2010, did sexually assault A.N.,
contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code
Count 4 on or about the 10th day of March, 2010, did, for a sexual purpose, touch,
directly or indirectly, with a part of his body or with an object, the body of A.N., a
person under the age of sixteen years, contrary to Section 151 of the Criminal
Code
Count 5 on or about the 10th day of March, 2010, did sexually assault S.G.,
contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code
Count 6 - on or about the 10th day of March, 2010, did, for a sexual purpose, touch,
directly or indirectly, with a part of his body or with an object, the body of S.G., a

person under the age of sixteen years, contrary to Section 151 of the Criminal
Code
Count 7 - on or about the 13th day of October, 2009, did sexually assault F.L.,
contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code
Count 8 - on or about the 13th day of October, 2009, did, for a sexual purpose, touch,
directly or indirectly, with a part of his body or with an object, the body of F.L., a
person under the age of sixteen years, contrary to Section 151 of the Criminal
Code
Count 9 - on or about the 9th day of January, 2008, did sexually assault M.R.,
contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code
Count 10 - on or about the 9th day of January, 2008, did, for a sexual purpose, touch,
directly or indirectly, with a part of his body or with an object, the body of M.R., a
person under the age of fourteen years, contrary to Section 151 of the Criminal
Code
Count 11 from the 3rd day of June, 2010 to the 8th day of June 2010, inclusive, did
without lawful authority and knowing that another person was harassed or was
reckless as to whether the other person was harassed, engage in conduct that
caused that other person, C.S. and/or her child, F.L. to reasonably fear for her safety
or the safety of anyone known to her, contrary to Section 264 of the Criminal
Code

Background
[3]
This trial commenced on January 3rd, 2012 and covered some 13 days of
evidence from 33 witnesses. A number of Admissions and Exhibits were also filed in
the case.
[4]
From 2007 until March 11th, 2010 Mr. Plehanov was a teacher on recall and a
teacher on call (essentially a substitute teacher) for District 43 schools. He was
teaching at Elementary [School #1] in January of 2008 when the allegations contained
in Counts 9 and 10 occurred. He was teaching at Elementary [School #2] on October
13th, 2009 when the allegations contained in Counts 7 and 8 occurred. He was
teaching at Elementary [School #3] on March 10th, 2010 when the allegations
contained in Counts 1-6 occurred. Finally, the Crown alleges that Mr. Plehanov was
seen near the home of F.L. on two occasions and that the circumstances of those
incidents constitute the offence contained in Count 11 (Criminal harassment) of the
Information.
[5]
All five complainants were female students aged 7 or 8 years old at the time of
the allegations. The alleged criminal behaviour involves allegations that Mr. Plehanov
touched the children in various ways that amounted to criminal behaviour. All of the

allegations occurred in open classrooms and no children were ever alone with Mr.
Plehanov.
[6]
Many witnesses in this case testified as to conversations that they had with
others. Much of it was hearsay evidence and was only called for the purpose of
explaining why people took certain steps and not for the truth of the content of the
hearsay statements. This is an important point for the trier of fact to remember when
looking at the whole of the evidence and whether certain facts have been objectively
established to the degree upon which to base a conviction. I have so instructed myself.
[7]
It is a crucial part of the Crowns theory that these incidences allegedly occurred
after Mr. Plehanov had been warned several times that some of his contact with the
children was essentially inappropriate and unprofessional. This, the Crown maintains,
allows the Court to draw an inference that the contact was for a sexual purpose as
opposed to simply being a situation where an unskilled teacher did not appreciate what
the proper boundaries were relating to contact with students.
[8]
All five complainants provided evidence, both orally, and by way of videotaped
statements that were admitted under Section 715.1 of the Code. In addition, there were
parents, teachers and school administrators who also gave evidence in this trial.
[9]

The accused did not testify.

[10] The defence says that the Crown has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable
doubt, any of the allegations against him. The defence submits that Mr. Plehanov may
have been a naive and ineffective teacher but that his inappropriate contact with the
students, if it can be described as such, does not nearly reach the threshold required to
be characterized as criminal conduct.
Law
[11] Mr. Plehanov, the accused, is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Crown
must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The trier of fact does not examine
facts separately and in isolation with reference to the criminal standard. Rather, I must
be satisfied that the Crown has proven each and every element of the offences beyond
a reasonable doubt. The burden always rests with the Crown. The accused need not
prove the existence or non-existence of any fact essential to guilt.
Mens rea (mental element) required for sexual assault
[12] The leading case on the definition of sexual assault is R v. Chase, 1987
CanLII 23 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 293, [1987] S.C.J. No. 57.
[13] As the Court noted in Chase at para. 12 and subsequently in R. v. Ewanchuk,
1999 CanLII 711 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; [1999] S.C.J. No. 10, the offence of
sexual assault is an offence of general intent: to meet the mens rea requirement, the
Crown must only prove that the accused intended to touch the complainant. As the
court noted in Chase, there are a number of strong social policy reasons for having a
general intent rather than specific intent requirement, including the difficulty of proving

specific intent, and the fact that the motivations for sexual assault are many and
varied (at para. 12).
[14] The challenge in determining if an act is a sexual assault appears to instead
arise at the actus reus (what actions can be proved) stage. As I will set out below, at
this stage the court may also consider the accuseds subjective mental state, but this
factors relevance will depend on the circumstances.
[15] In Chase, the Supreme Court of Canada defined sexual assault as an assault
which is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the sexual integrity
of the victim is violated (at para. 11). The court set out the relevant test as follows at
para. 11:
The test to be applied in determining whether the impugned conduct has the
requisite sexual nature is an objective one: Viewed in the light of all the
circumstances, is the sexual or carnal context of the assault visible to a
reasonable observer? (Taylor, supra, per Laycraft C.J.A., at p. 269).
[16] As the Supreme Court of Canada noted in confirming this test in R. v. Larue,
[2003] S.C.J. No. 20, [t]his is an objective test that focusses on the sexual integrity of
the victim (at para. 2).
[17] The court in Chase also identified the factors that may be considered in
determining whether the conduct is of a sexual nature:
The part of the body touched, the nature of the contact, the situation in which
it occurred, the words and gestures accompanying the act, and all other
circumstances surrounding the conduct, including threats which may or may
not be accompanied by force, will be relevant (at para. 11).
[18] Importantly, the court stated that the existence of a sexual motive or purpose is
only one factor in determining whether the act is of a sexual nature:
The intent or purpose of the person committing the act, to the extent that this
may appear from the evidence, may also be a factor in considering whether
the conduct is sexual. If the motive of the accused is sexual gratification, to
the extent that this may appear from the evidence, it may be a factor in
determining whether the conduct is sexual. It must be emphasized, however,
that the existence of such a motive is simply one of many factors to be
considered, the importance of which will vary depending on the circumstances
(at para. 11).
[19] In Ewanchuk, the Court followed the definition of sexual assault set out in
Chase and described the actus reus of sexual assault more simply as requiring proof
of three elements, at para. 25:

a) touching,
b) the sexual nature of the contact, and
c) the absence of consent.
[20] As the court noted, the first two of these elements are objective. On these
elements, the Crown must only prove that the accuseds actions were voluntary. With
regards to the second element, the sexual nature of the contact, the Court reiterated
the statements in Chase:
The Crown need not prove that the accused had any mens rea with respect to
the sexual nature of his or her behaviour.
[21] Along the same lines, the court in a number of cases has stated that the Crown
need not prove the accused committed the assault for sexual gratification, particularly
where other indicia clearly indicate the contact was of a sexual nature (see e.g. R. v. V.
(K.B.), 1993 CanLII 109 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 857, in which the accused claimed
he had grabbed his childs genitalia in order to discipline him and the court found this
act to constitute sexual assault).
[22] The case law suggests that the importance of the accuseds purpose depends
on the circumstances. The case R. v. J.(C.), 1990 CanLII 6484 (NL CA), [1990]
N.J. No. 209, 85 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 144 is frequently cited for this principle. In this case,
the accused had been charged with sexual assault upon his daughter. The impugned
conduct, mutual wrestling and tickling, had taken place from the complainants early
childhood and had no sexual connotation at that point. In this factual context, the court
found that the trier of fact would have to consider whether the accused had committed
the acts for sexual gratification:
This is because, in order to find the accused guilty, the jury would have to find
that an activity which had been part of the regular life in the family for some
years, and was not contended to have sexual connotations until some time
after its inception, evolved into sexual assaults in its later stages when the
complainant had passed from childhood to adolescence. To arrive at such a
conclusion in the present circumstances, the jury would have to find that the
impugned contacts had changed from being incidental to the romping or
skylarking but without sexual connotation to acts with sexual intent. In such
circumstances, the purpose or motivation of the accused in my opinion would
be very relevant.
[23] The underlying idea here appears to be if the touch could be interpreted as
innocent, or had in the past been interpreted this way, the accuseds purpose will be
more significant.
[24] However, as the Supreme Court of Canada has recently emphasized, the
general rule is that the Crown does not need to prove the accused had a sexual
purpose. In R. v. Lutoslawski, 2010 ONCA 207 (CanLII), affd 2010 SCC 49
(CanLII), affirming the Court of Appeals decision, Mr. Justice Binnie, writing for the

court cited the test in Chase (Viewed in light of all the circumstances, is the sexual or
carnal context of the assault visible to a reasonable observer?), and stated that
[s]exual assault does not require proof of an improper or ulterior purpose (at para. 1).
Accordingly, the Crown had proven its case because it proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that the touching of the complainants occurred in circumstances of a sexual
nature such as to compromise the sexual integrity of the complainants (at para. 1).
Sexual Interference Section 151
[25] Section 151 of the Criminal Code defines the offence commonly referred to
as sexual interference as follows:
Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a
part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the
age of 16 years [is guilty of an indictable or summary offence].

[26] This offence requires proof of a specific intent to touch for a sexual purpose: R.
v. Sears (1990), 58 C.C.C. (3d) 62 at 64 (Man. C.A.); and R. v. Michel, [1993] B.C.J.
No. 321 (QL) (S.C.) at paras. 5-7. In Sears (above), , the Court described the
necessary elements of the offence of sexual interference at p. 64:
In reading this section as a whole, it is clear that an accused who intends
sexual interaction of any kind with a child and with that intent makes contact
with the body of a child touches the child and is guilty of an offence. The
section addressthe adult who for his or her own sexual purposes makes
contact, whether as a primary actor or not, with the body of a child.
[27] The Crown must prove the touching happened specifically for a sexual purpose,
but the definition of for a sexual purpose does not necessarily require that this sexual
purpose be the accuseds own sexual gratification. The question is whether the sexual
purpose is apparent from the circumstances.
[28] In R. v. G.B., [2009] B.C.J. No. 342, 2009 BCCA 88 (CanLII), the B.C. Court
of Appeal considered section 153 of the Criminal Code, which has very similar
language to section 151 and states that it is an offence if a person...
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, indirectly or directly, with a part of the body
or with an object, and part of the body of the young person.
[29] This case was a Crown appeal from the acquittal of the accused on charges of
touching for a sexual purpose contrary to section 153(1)(a). The respondent was the
foster parent of the complainant, D.W., a 17-year old developmentally disabled person,
and had masturbated D.W. to get him relieved.(at para. 6). The trial judge had
accepted defence counsels argument that the complainant had pestered the
respondent to touch him and that the respondent had done so to end the pestering,
rather than for his own sexual gratification (at para. 3).

[30] In overturning the trial judgment, the B.C. Court of Appeal found that the trial
judge erred in implicitly finding that the sexual purpose component under section 153
required that the Crown prove the accused committed the act for his own sexual
gratification (at para. 24). The court stated that the only intent required is that the
touching be for a sexual purpose and that it was clear on the facts that the purpose of
the touching was sexual (at para. 24). The court further rejected defence counsels
submission that such a definition would criminalize morally innocent behaviour. The
court wrote at paragraph 28:
The sexual nature of the contact is not defined by the area of the body that is
touched, but rather by the sexual nature of the touching. Thus, innocent
contact such as an inadvertent touching of a sexual area, or contact while at
play, or contact while bathing a child would, so long as the touching is not for
a sexual purpose, not be prohibited (emphasis in original).
Section 715.1 Video Statements
[31] A few words must be said with respect to the use to be made of statements
admitted into evidence under Section 715.1 of the Criminal Code.
[32] Section 715.1 of the Code is a statutory exception to the hearsay rule which
permits an out-of-court statement to be admitted at the trials of certain enumerated
offences if the complainant is under 18 and if the video was made within a reasonable
time following the alleged offence. The complainant must also describe the acts
complained of and, while testifying, adopt the contents of the videotape.
[33] Voir Dires were held with respect to each videotaped statement that was entered
into evidence. At the end of those Voir Dires counsel agreed that the statements are
admissible subject to submissions as to the weight to attach to the testimony in each.
[34] The statements formulate part (or all) of the complainants in-court testimony inchief. However, and this is important to remember, the video-taped evidence is not
entered for the truth of its contents. Neither can it be used to bolster a witness
credibility or to corroborate her evidence. Section 715.1 videotapes may also be used
to assess the credibility of the complainant when they are inconsistent with the viva
voce testimony. (See R. v. Aksidan (2006), 2006 BCCA 258 (CanLII), 227 B.C.A.C.
119 (B.C.C.A.) and R. v. K.P.S. 2007 BCCA 397 (B.C.C.A.)).
[35] The proper use of a videotaped statement admitted pursuant to s.715.1 was
decided in R. v. L.(D.O.), 1993 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419 at paras.3740, namely to communicate additional information to supplement the evidence of a
child who may be inarticulate or forgetful at trial. The section's primary goal is to create
a record of what is probably the best recollection of the event. This videotaped
statement should, together with the witness oral evidence given at trial, comprise the
whole of the evidence-in-chief of the complainant. (See R. v. C.C.F. 1997 CanLII 306
(SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1183 (S.C.C.)).
Cross-Examination of Child Witnesses

[36] The Supreme Court of Canada commented on the unique challenges

confronting a trier of fact when it comes to assessing the evidence of child witnesses in
R. v. C.C.F. (above). Justice Cory wrote this at paragraphs 47-48:
If, in the course of cross-examination, defence counsel elicits evidence
which contradicts any part of the video, this does not render those parts
inadmissible. Obviously a contradicted videotape may well be given less
weight in the final determination of the issues. However, the fact that the video
is contradicted in cross-examination does not necessarily mean that the video
is wrong or unreliable. The trial judge may still conclude, as in this case, that
the inconsistencies are insignificant and find the video more reliable than the
evidence elicited at trial. In R. v. B. (G.), 1990 CanLII 7308 (SCC), [1990] 2
S.C.R. 30, at p. 55, Wilson J. stated that
47

a flaw, such as a contradiction, in a child's testimony should not be given the same effect as
a similar flaw in the testimony of an adult. . . . While children may not be able to recount
precise details and communicate the when and where of an event with exactitude, this does
not mean that they have misconceived what happened to them and who did it.

She concluded that, although each witness' credibility must be

assessed, the standard which would be applied to an adult's evidence is not
always appropriate in assessing the credibility of young children. This
approach to the evidence of children was reiterated in R. v. W. (R.), 1992
CanLII 56 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122, at pp. 132-34. There McLachlin J.
acknowledged that the peculiar perspectives of children can affect their
recollection of events and that the presence of inconsistencies, especially
those related to peripheral matters, should be assessed in context. A skilful
cross-examination is almost certain to confuse a child, even if she is telling
the truth. That confusion can lead to inconsistencies in her testimony.
Although the trier of fact must be wary of any evidence which has been
contradicted, this is a matter which goes to the weight which should be
attached to the videotape and not to its admissibility.
48

[37] Further challenges arise where a child witness has difficulty remembering the
incidences later (as was the case with several witnesses in this case) making crossexamination difficult, if not impossible.
[38] I have instructed myself in the law regarding the appropriate assessment of
evidence received by children. Common sense must be employed when considering
inconsistencies and childrens reduced capacity to deliver their evidence with the kind
of cogent clarity that is more properly expected of mature adults. However,
weaknesses in the evidence are not to be simply dismissed summarily as a corollary of
the above caution. It is still necessary to critically assess the whole of the evidence
with a view to determining whether the criminal standard has been met.
Similar Fact/Act Evidence
[39] The general rule is that evidence of discreditable conduct of the accused, sought
to be introduced by the prosecution, will be inadmissible except when its probative
value outweighs its prejudicial effect. (See R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56 (CanLII)).

[40] In addition to the stated purpose of establishing the mens rea of Mr. Plehanov at
the time of the alleged offences the Crown also submitted in this case that the
witnesses who testified with respect to prior incidences of inappropriate touching assist
in strengthening the credibility of others. As I understand it, the Crown is not, in this
respect, relying upon Mr. Plehanovs alleged conversations with teachers and school
principals but on the direct evidence called relating to the allegations contained in the
Indictment and other allegations not contained in the Indictment.
[41] In order to determine the question of admissibility, the purpose for which the
evidence is being adduced must be clearly stated by the Crown. As I understand the
Crowns position, the question to be decided is whether the sexual assaults occurred.
The similar fact evidence led here is said to be probative of the actus reus of the
offences, which in turn depends on the credibility/reliability of the complainants'
evidence about the assaults.
[42] The Crown pointed to R. v. Wells [2003] B.C.J. No. 927 (BCCA) as support for
this suggested use. The court refers to R. v. Handy (above) and states at par. 80:
The appellant's trial took place before the release of the Supreme
Court's decision in R. v. Handy (2002), 164 C.C.C. (3d) 481, 2002 SCC 56
(CanLII), which provides support for the reception of the similar fact
evidence where the credibility of the complainant, as opposed to the identity
of the accused, is at issue. In that case, Binnie J. emphasized the need to
frame as accurately and precisely as possible the specific aspect of credibility
to which the similar fact evidence is directed, so as to avoid the danger of
admission of general evidence of propensity and bad character.
80

[43] Specifically, the Crown suggests that if there is a reasonable chance of a witness
being believed then their evidence could be supported by the evidence of other
witnesses. There is also a specific concession that the evidence of M.R. could not
likely stand on its own but the Crown asks the court to find that her evidence is
bolstered by the evidence of the other complainants.
[44] Probative value, however, cannot be assessed in the abstract. It is said that the
utility of the evidence lies precisely in its ability to advance or refute a live issue
pending before the trier of fact. (See R. v. Handy (above), par. 73).
[45] I find that the evidence relating to the alleged extrinsic misconduct of Mr.
Plehanov (all the evidence called that did not directly relate to the counts in the
Information) could only be possibly relevant to corroborate those witnesses who
testified that they sat on Mr. Plehanovs lap in the classroom. It could not possibly go
further than that. However, I do not find this to be a live issue in the determinations
that I must make as I am prepared to accept, without it, that M.R. and F.L. did, in fact,
sit upon Mr. Plehanovs lap. What remains to be determined from a careful analysis of
the evidence is the nature and extent of any touching that may have accompanied the
sitting upon the lap.
[46] The other use that can be properly made of the extrinsic evidence that was
called is to establish the mental state of Mr. Plehanov at the time of the alleged
offences. In other words, whether Mr. Plehanov knew or ought to have known that

certain physical contact with the students was frowned upon by his employer. It cannot
go further than this. For instance, it does not extend to prove that Mr. Plehanov
understood the line between inappropriate behaviour on his part that may simply be
dealt with as a disciplinary matter by the employer or the College of Teachers and
inappropriate behaviour that is criminal in nature.
[47] Where the alleged similar acts are other counts in the Indictment they are
admissible if relevant, material and not barred by some admissibility rule. The law
surrounding similar fact is largely driven by concerns relating to the jury system.
[48] The court in R. v. L.W. (2004), 2004 CanLII 33349 (ON CA), 191 O.A.C. 22,
at para. 9 said:
It is important to keep in mind that the risk of prejudice was much reduced
because of the fact that this was a trial by judge alone.
[49] Essentially, the main purpose for the admission of the so-called similar acts
between the counts in this Indictment is for corroboration between the individual
complaints here.
[50] In this case the defence argues that as between several of the complaints on
this Indictment there is a real possibility of collusion (however unintentional that may
be) and taint due to the circumstances relating to the allegations and how they came to
light.
[51]
In general, with respect to so-called similar act evidence in these situations,
where there is evidence of actual collusion among the witnesses, or at least an air of
reality to an allegation of collusion, the Crown must satisfy the trial judge, on a balance
of probabilities, that the evidence of similar acts is not tainted by collusion. This is
because the presence of collusion destroys the foundation on which admissibility (and
once admitted, the use to be made) is sought.
[52] Because I heard all of the evidence in a judge alone trial and subject to my
comments above, in my mind the real question is the use, if any, that could properly be
made of the evidence led on these issues and how it relates to the evidence as a
whole.
[53] It is my intention to deal with the questions of possible collusion and
corroboration in the next section when I look at the evidence and make findings relating
to the crucial issue of credibility/reliability in the context of considering the evidence as
a whole.
Analysis of Evidence
[54] A.N. was a Grade Three student at Elementary [School #3] at the time of the
alleged offences listed in Counts 3 and 4 of the Information. On March 10th, 2010 her
mother, D.N., picked her up from daycare after school and asked her how her day
went. As a result of what A.N. told her mom about her day, D.N. contacted some other
parents, the principal of the school, Derek Passaglia and the police.

[55] Cst. Dopson responded to the dispatch (relating to a complaint of some kind of
alleged sexual touching) and attended the residence. He took statements from D.N.
and J.N., the parents of A.N. Pursuant to protocol he did not take statements from
A.N. It was suggested to Cst. Dopson by D.N, that he should also speak to a
classmate of A.N.s by the name of E.A. Also mentioned by D.N., in the context of a
prior allegation against Mr. Plehanov, was a student at Elementary [School #2] named
E.H. D.N. passed on the name of E.H.s mother, M.H. as well as the principal of that
school, a Ms. Brenda Walker. Cst. Dopson could find no complaint made to the police
with respect to that matter. In fact, no complaint was ever made in that alleged incident.
[56] A.N. remained at home for the next two days of school. On March 11th, 2010
A.N. was interviewed by Cst. Sedgman at the police station.
[57] D.N. received a call from a lawyer in May, 2010. As a result of that call, on May
11th, 2010 A.N. gave a second statement to the police.
[58] With respect to contact the complainants may have had with each other D.N.
testified, aside from the childrens contact at school, that months later, A.N. attended a
joint counselling session regarding this matter with E.A. and that she attends dance
class with S.G.
[59] D.N. also knows M.H., who is the mother of an Elementary [School #2] student,
E.H. They had worked together. In fact, D.N. had called M.H. from the car on her way
home from the daycare where the initial disclosure from A.N. had taken place. She
had knowledge of a similar alleged incident at Elementary [School #2] and had spoken
with M.H. about it. Further conversations established that Mr. Plehanov was the
teacher allegedly involved in both incidents. M.H. asked D.N. not to mention the
Elementary [School #2] incident to the police for fear that the police would think the
allegations had been tainted by collusion. However, D.N. did tell the police about the
Elementary [School #2] incident.
[60] D.N. also testified that A.N. told her of three girls who may be involved in similar
incidents as the one she was alleging. D.N. contacted or left messages with the
parents of those three girls explaining the incident that happened and suggesting they
go to the police. Only one of those girls is a complainant in this matter.
[61] Prior to the arrival of any police at the house, D.N. also spoke to E.Q., the
mother of F.L., another student at Elementary [School #2], and suggested to her that
she call the police as well.
[62] D.N. was also acquainted with the mother of S.G., the complainant on Counts 5
and 6. D.N. testified that it was her understanding that her other daughter, M., (younger
sister to A.N.) was at after-school care the week following March 10th, 2010 and had
mentioned to S.G. that the police had been at their house earlier. It must be noted that
M. had been in the vehicle on the way home at the time A.N. was telling her mom
about the alleged behaviour of Mr. Plehanov.
[63] D.N. also explained to her daughter that Mr. Plehanov was inappropriately
touching her. D.N. went on to share information with M.H. (mother of E.H.), E.Q.
(mother of F.L.) and M.G. (mother of S.G.) about the nature of the allegations against

Mr. Plehanov.
[64] J.N., A.N.s father testified that he immediately spoke to A.N. when they returned
from after school care on March 10th, 2010. He said that A.N. was not upset about the
incident but that she was visibly upset about the possibility of them talking to the
principal. He said that A.N. was leading him through it but that he would question her
for clarification.
[65]

In cross-examination the following exchange took place:

Q

You asked her if Mr. P. had touched her bum; is that right?

Correct.

And then you said, "Is it like this?" and demonstrated, and she said
"Yes"; is that right?

Correct.

[66] Of course, J.N. cannot be faulted for attempting to draw out A.N.s version of
events. However, this exchange shows clearly that there were leading questions
asked that had the very real potential of tainting A.N.s own recall of the precise nature
of any touching that occurred.
[67] Derek Passaglia was the principal of Elementary [School #3] at the time. He
confirmed that Mr. Plehanov had been called in as a teacher on call (TOC) on
February 9th, 15th, 24th and on March 10th, 2010. At least on one of the dates in
February he had taught the same class as the one he had been in on March 10th,
2010, the date of the allegations. There were no complaints made about Mr. Plehanov
on the prior occasion. However, on March 10th Mr. Passaglia returned to the school
about 4 p.m. after coaching a basketball game. E.Q was there with her daughter E.A.
E.Q. appeared anxious and upset. They both came into his office.
[68] While the three of them were seated in the office, E.Q. began to relate that her
daughter was inappropriately touched. For 45 minutes to an hour they discussed the
allegations against Mr. Plehanov. E.A. appeared anxious, confused and scared. E.A.
advised Mr. Passaglia that she had recounted what happened to her to some friends
while on the couch in the classroom.
[69] Cst. Sedgman interviewed the complainants from Elementary [School #3]
(Counts 1-6 on the Information). She has been with the RCMP since 2006 and prior to
that worked on child protection matters for the government. She is familiar with the
stepwise method of interviewing children. She had just been seconded to the Sex
Crimes Unit when she became involved in this case.
[70] Cst. Sedgman interviewed A.N. and E.A. for the first time on March 11, 2010 and
then A.N. again later on May 11th, 2010. Mr. Plehanov was arrested on March 18th,
2010 and released the same day. After the arrest, Cst. Sedgman interviewed E.H.
She also spoke to M.H. (mother of E.H. that day).
[71]

It should be noted that Cst. Sedgman also interviewed four other girls who are

neither witnesses nor complainants in this proceeding.

[72] On June 10th, 2010 Cst. Sedgman took the complaint involving an allegation that
Mr. Plehanov was seen in the area of F.L.s residence. She attended and took a
statement from K. M. and took photos of the area. That investigation led to the Criminal
Harrasment charge.
A.N.
[73] A.N. provided two statements to the police. The first one was provided the day
following the allegations arising at Elementary [School #3]. The second one was May
11, 2012 (about two months later). She also testified at the trial. She felt comfortable
enough to testify in open court and, unlike, the other young complainants, did not seek
to provide her testimony by way of video link from another room.
[74] A.N. testified that she provided a statement to the police because she was
sexually assaulted by Mr. Plehanov. She essentially conveyed that she heard this
term from her parents and that she equated it with inappropriate touching. (Transcript,
January 4th, p. 4-5).
[75] She said that she did not observe anything happen between Mr. Plehanov and
S.G. and that S.G. did not tell her about anything that happened with Mr. Plehanov. (T,
Jan. 4th, p. 11, ll.17-25).
[76] As well she did not see anything happen between Mr. Plehanov and E.A. (T,
Jan.4th, p.12, ll.34-35).
[77] In court, A.N. says that she was sitting on a couch in the back of the classroom
when E.A. came there and told her about something that had happened. (T., p.13, ll.13). It is somewhat curious that despite the girls discussing the gross behaviour of the
teacher (which one could properly assume would make them hyper-vigilant as to the
actions of the teacher vis a vis one another) that neither ever viewed anything
untoward happen to the other nor any of the other students for that matter.
[78] A.N. testified that, other than vagina, the only word she uses to describe that
area would be pee-pee.
[79] The videotaped statement was played in court. In that statement (a transcript of
which is contained in Exhibit 3) A.N. tells Cst. Sedgman that Mr. Plehanov rubbed her
bum really really gently on two occasions as she was standing beside him at the desk
he was seated at.
[80] She then tells Cst. Sedgman that she talked to E.A. and two other girls about it
and that E.A. told her that Mr. Plehanov had swiped her across her chest.
[81] In the video Cst. Sedgman then asks A.N. if she could think of anything else that
happened that she would like to tell her about. A.N. answered that there was not.
[82] Cst. Sedgman then leaves the room for a short time and A.N. can be heard
talking to herself. It is not possible to hear what she was saying. When Cst. Sedgman
returns she asked a few more questions and then once again asked A.N. if she had

anything else she wanted to say. This time A.N. states that after that he started
rubbing my front area too.
[83] According to A.N. this incident happened in between the two incidences of
buttock rubbing. A.N. motioned in a circular area from under her bellybutton to around
her upper thighs.
[84]

It was at this point the following exchange took place:

S:

Okay. So do, do you have a name for your private part at the front?

N:

Mm-hmm.

S:

And what do you call that?

N:

My dee dee.

S:

Your dee dee? And whats your private part in the back?

N:

My buttocks.

S:

Your buttocks.

N:

(LAUGHS).

S:

Okay. Think thats a funny name dont you [N. Head nod indicating yes]
Yeah? Okay. So when you say hes rubbing you in the front was he
rubbing your dee dee?

N:

Um, like around it, right here, over here and over here and there. Like
right under my belly button. [N. Used left hand to show where rubbing
occurred].

S:

Okay, so under your belly button.

N:

Mm-hmm.

S:

And kinda here. [Cst. Sedgman is seen here rubbing her upper thighs
(my observation)]

N:

Mm-hmm.

S:

Do you know what this areas called? [rubbing her upper thighs]

N:

My crotch.

S:

Your crotch. Okay so...if this is your dee dee like on you.

N:

Mm-hmm.

S:

He was just rubbing around your dee dee?

N:

Mm-hmm.

S:

Did he ever touch your dee dee?

N:

Um, I think once.

S:

Yeah? You dont really remember?

N:

No.

Video Transcript, page 23

[85] At trial A.N. suggested that Mr. Plehanov had in fact touched her vagina once.
However, in cross-examination she clarified that what she meant by that was that Mr.
Plehanov had touched below her belly button. (T. Jan. 5th, 2012, p.32, ll.36-47).
[86] There is a very real doubt arising from this evidence that there was any touching
of A.N. in her front area as tentatively suggested. If there was any touching to the front
of A.N.s body the precise nature of it is impossible to conclude to any degree of
certainty.
[87] After watching the videotape of the first statement provided to Cst. Sedgman
A.N. was asked these questions by Crown Counsel:
Q

Okay. All right, in -- in -- when you were talking to Constable

Sedgman, and I think it was about page 12 for my friend, you said that
when you were being touched on the bum that you didn't say anything
to Mr. P., and what is the reason you didn't say anything to him?

Because at the time I didn't know it was wrong.

Okay. What do you mean by that? Tell me more so I understand.

I didn't realize he was doing it until afterwards.

You didn't understand that he was doing what?

I didn't realize that he was rubbing my bum until afterwards.

Okay. So what made you realize that?

I was just thinking about it and then that's when I realized.

[88] A.N. placed markings on a diagram of a young girls body and that became
Exhibit 2 in the proceedings.
[89] In cross-examination A.N. stated that after she had been at Mr. Plehanovs desk
the first time playing with the iPhone she attended on the couch with other girls. Those
other girls were E. and E.A.. A.N. said it was E.A. and E. who originally said something
about the behaviour of Mr. Plehanov and that then she, A.N., told E.A. something as E.
had left the sofa by that time. Another girl, B. was also there at the time.
[90] E.A. had told the girls that Mr. Plehanov was gross or creepy or something like
that. (T.Jan. 5th, 2012, p. 30, ll.22-24). It was only after talking with these other girls
that A.N. realized that rubbing on the bum was wrong. A.N. had later advised her
mom that Mr. Plehanov was gross.
[91] A.N. also confirmed that Mr. Plehanov did not ever pull her onto his lap or ask
her to sit on his lap.
[92] A.N. did not know for how long Mr. Plehanov had his hand on her buttocks. She
did agree that Mr. Plehanov moved her to the side by putting his hand on her butt
cheek. (T. Jan. 5th, 2012, p.28, ll.32-47).
[93] According to A.N. it was at the sofa that E.A. had told the girls that Mr. Plehanov
had crossed her chest and made a motion with her hand rubbing across the upper

chest area. It is notable that E.A. does not describe this incident either in her
videotaped evidence or in her testimony during the trial.
[94] Also, according to A.N.s testimony at trial, E.A. did not, at any time that day,
disclose to her that she had been touched on the bottom or anywhere below the waist.
[95] A.N. made a second recorded statement on May 11, 2010. This was after her
mother had received a phone call from someone asking her whether A.N. had
mentioned the presence of a toy spinning top during class. At that time she had not.
[96] Once asked about the top by her mother A.N. did say she recalled playing with a
top. She attended at the police station to tell Cst. Sedgman about this. She states in
the video that the kids were playing with a top at some points in the day and that she
thinks that Mr. Plehanov was holding her shoulder at that time.
E.A.
[97] E.Q. is the mother of E.A. She attended the school on March 10th, 2010 to pick
up E.A. When she approached the door to the classroom she realized it was shut.
She saw E.A. and two other girls at Mr. Plehanovs desk doing something.
[98] When they got home E.Q. was summoned by her husband who had overheard
E.A. and her younger brother talking about Mr. Plehanov. As a result of that
conversation E.Q. spoke to a neighbour and then attended a meeting with Mr.
Passaglia, the principal. This hour-long meeting was in the presence of E.A.
[99] When they returned home, D.N. called E.Q. and they talked about their
respective childrens day in the classroom. The police attended and the next day E.A.
met with Cst. Sedgman to provide a statement.
[100] E.Q. agreed that E.A. had conveyed to her that Mr. Plehanov had, while
standing up, had reached around her and put his hands up her shirt. E.Q. says she
was shocked by this revelation and later she told E.A. that a similar thing had
happened to A.N.
[101] A.N. testified that during the day she spoke with various girls about what was
going on with the teacher, Mr. Plehanov. These girls were E., E.A., B. and A.
[102] In her videotaped statement to the police she described several incidents
involving Mr. Plehanov where he was in her personal space.
[103] It was made clear in cross-examination that prior to any of the incidents
involving her, A.N. had come running up to the couch and told E.A. and others that Mr.
Plehanov had wanted her to sit on his lap. In the video, E.A. relayed to Cst. Sedgman
that she and the others were shocked by this disclosure.
[104] It was apparent from watching the video of this exchange that E.A. felt confident
in her recollection of this incident.
[105] E.A. confirmed in cross-examination that A.N. had made this shocking
disclosure prior to Mr. Plehanov touching her in any allegedly improper manner. E.A.
had concluded, as a result of this disclosure, that Mr. Plehanov was gross.

[106] Of course, it is notable that A.N. was equally confident and clear in her
testimony that Mr. Plehanov did not, in fact, ask her to sit on his lap at all and that she
did not tell E.A. that that had happened. A.N. had also testified that it was E.A. who
had made the original disclosure to the group of girls about Mr. Plehanov behaving
inappropriately.
[107] During the video E.A. related the incidents to Cst. Sedgman. One incident
occurred when she was with several others waiting to use the iPhone that the kids
were playing with. E.A. says that Mr. Plehanov was directing her to the back of the
lineup and accidentally pushed her on her bottom.
[108] Another incident involved E.A. at Mr. Plehanovs desk as he was sitting and she
was standing beside him talking to him. She relays in the video how she stood in
between Mr. Plehanovs legs and he was squeezing his legs together to put pressure
on her thigh. She then went to the couch and then back to her desk.
[109] In another incident she describes Mr. Plehanov approaching the kids asking
them if they wanted help. The kids were sitting at their desks and Mr. Plehanov came
behind her and put his hands on her shoulders and tapped her shoulders as he spoke
to them. She demonstrated with her hands in a tapping or squeezing motion on the
shoulders. She characterized the touching as not being like a real teacher.
[110] Furthermore, after some kids were doing homework on a couch Mr. Plehanov
approached her at her desk and leaned down to ask her if she had any questions and
then wrapped his arm around her and his hand was placed just above the waistline of
the pants on her hip but underneath the shirt. It was unclear how much of the hand
was under the shirt.
[111] It is quite impossible, in my mind to infer from this evidence whether the hand
was simply placed where a hand would normally be place if you hold someones waist
while standing next to them or whether there was some advertence on the part of Mr.
Plehanov to place his hand underneath the shirt. In any event, E.A. did not need any
help so he went away to another student.
[112] At another part of the video interview E.A. states that is how it ended, the day.
There is certainly some confusion as to the sequence of the alleged incidents.
[113] She testified that, at the end of the day she was waiting with some other kids in
the class and playing with the iPhone. She described it as there being something
weird about this class as the door was closed. She paused when she told Cst.
Sedgman this fact. She said that when her mom came to the class that Mr. Plehanov
got up from his desk and appeared to start cleaning the classroom. She clearly viewed
the door being closed as having some significance (as her mother had in her testimony
as well).
[114] The Crown had suggested that this scenario can be viewed as some kind of
consciousness of guilt. However, I find, after considering this evidence, that there is no
negative inference that I can or should draw simply from the fact that the class door
was closed after class.
[115] E.A. testified that there was another incident with the squeezing of the thigh

again at that time (after class) although in cross-examination it became less clear that
there were two separate incidents involving the thigh. (T. Jan. 6th, 2012, p.54).
[116] She told Cst. Sedgman that whenever something weird would happen she and
a friend would run to the couch and tell other girls (including A.N.) everything.
[117] She also advised that another girl, E. told her that Mr. Plehanov had ran both his
hands down the front of her chest (she demonstrated with both hands, palms flat
against her chest and sliding them slowly down her chest). That girl was not called as
a witness in the trial.
[118] Despite there being other students present during all of these incidents, there
were no witnesses called who observed any of them. E.A., for her own part, did not
observe anything untoward between Mr. Plehanov and any of the students.
[119] It was clear from E.A.s evidence that she felt uncomfortable in how Mr.
Plehanov was touching her and that she may have felt different had it been one of her
parents.
[120] In cross-examination she agreed that a lot of what she remembers from that
time is due to the video. That is not surprising of course, given the passage of time
and her young age at the time.
S.G.
[121] M.G. is the mother of S.G. Both she and her husband are teachers themselves.
S.G. was in the same class on March 10th, 2010 as A.N. and E.A.
[122] Apparently, on Friday, March 12th, 2010, A.N.s younger sister told S.G. about
the police being at their house and that the substitute teacher was in some kind of
trouble. M.G. made inquiries with her own daughter, S.G. and, as a result, S.G.
became a complainant as well.
[123] On Monday, March 15th, 2010 S.G.s parents planned to see the principal about
the matter. She was reminded to attend upon the principal after she saw D.N. at the
school on Monday. S.G. provided a statement to Cst. Naidu on March 16th. The night
before that S.G. became very upset at bedtime that Mr. Plehanov would get into some
kind of trouble and she did not wish him to get into trouble.
[124] M.G. agreed in cross-examination that teachers of younger students have more
physical contact with them than teachers who teach older students.
[125] S.G. testified that she was in Grade two at the time of the alleged incidents. She
related that while Mr. Plehanov was correcting her math he touched her on the bum.
[126] During her videotaped statement she related an incident when she and another
girl, A., were at Mr. Plehanovs desk getting their math work corrected. They were
standing on either side of him while he was seated at his desk. When she would get a
question wrong she said he would pat her shoulder in a consoling type gesture. When
she would get a page of answers right he would pat or rub her on the bum (she later
demonstrated a circular motion with a flat palm). She did not feel that there was

anything untoward about this gesture and she said she did not know it was serious until
later. During her testimony at trial she stated that at the time she thought Mr. Plehanov
was just trying to be nice.
[127] S.G. did not see anything that Mr. Plehanov was doing to A. but later said she
was told by A. that Mr. Plehanov touched her on the bum. A. was not a witness in this
trial.
[128] A.N.s younger sister had apparently advised S.G. on March 12th that A.N. had
been touched on the bum by the substitute teacher. That is when S.G. says she
remembered being touched on the bum as well. (T. January 9th, 2012, p.17, ll.31-36).
[129] S.G. admits that after she gave the statement to Cst. Naidu she did discuss the
incident with E.A. a few times. She also recalls talking to A.N. about the incident at
least on one occasion.
[130] S.G. does not recall anybody playing with toys like spinning tops that day.
[131] The timing and circumstances of this disclosure raise clear concerns as to the
reliability of this evidence.
F.L.
[132] C.S. is the mother of F.L. (a student at Elementary [School #2] at the time). She
testified that one day in October of 2009 she picked up her daughter from after school
care and asked her about her day. Her daughter related that they had had a substitute
teacher and that it was a fun day. She stated that she had sat on the teachers lap. It
was that and some other conversation that led C.S. to contact Barbara Walker, the
principal.
[133] That incident was dealt with by the school board as an incidence of
inappropriate contact or boundaries issue and the matter was eventually resolved. It
was in March of 2010 that C.S. heard from M.H., the mother of another Elementary
[School #2], about the investigation at Elementary [School #3] involving Mr. Plehanov.
C.S. realized the same teacher had been involved in the incident involving her
daughter so she contacted the police. Both she and her daughter gave a statement to
the police on March 25th, 2010 concerning the incident in October of 2009.
[134] F.L. gave a videotaped statement to Cst. Naidu that day. She relayed two
incidents that happened where Mr. Plehanov pulled her onto his lap and had his arm
wrapped around her. His hand (she was not entirely clear as to which hand it was) was
on her lower stomach area just under her shirt and he was rubbing in a circular motion.
[135] She was asked by Cst. Naidu whether she knew what her private parts were
called. She appeared too shy to say that on the recording so she whispered into Cst.
Naidus ear. She is heard saying that Mr. Plehanov did not touch her there.
[136] At trial, she marked a diagram of where Mr. Plehanov had touched her (Exhibit
15) and it shows a small circle around her bellybutton as the area. While she was
doing that she remarked that she doesnt really remember all, but that this is what she
kind of remembered (T. Jan. 9, 2012, p.6, ll.35-38).

[137] In chief examination, after some discussion at trial about whether F.L. had
adopted her statement given to Cst. Naidu, the following exchange took place:
Q.

All right. So now Id like to know what exactly are you talking about
when youre talking about Mr. Ps lap?

A.

I dont remember.

Q.

You dont remember his lap?

A.

I dont really remember.

[138] In cross-examination F.L. again admitted that it was difficult to remember how or
where Mr. Plehanov had touched her on the day in question. She could not say if there
were any mistakes made in the statement to Cst. Naidu as it was given such a long
time ago. She did testify that she knows she would have tried to tell the truth at that
time.
[139] Again, it is quite impossible to determine the precise nature of the alleged
touching in this scenario. When someone holds a young child on their lap with an arm
wrapped around them it would be quite normal or common for the hand to be placed
where F.L. says it was (near her bellybutton). Apart from that her inability to recall the
details makes any further findings dangerous to say the least.
E.H.
[140] E.H. is not a named complainant on the Information. E.H. was in the classroom
on the same day as the incident involving F.L. (above). Her mother is M.H. As
mentioned earlier in these reasons, M.H. and D.N. are friends. M.H. spoke to D.N. on
the phone on March 10th, 2010 in the van just after A.N. had talked about her day with
Mr. Plehanov as the substitute teacher.
[141] M.H. testified that that night or the next day she made the connection that the
same teacher had been involved in a complaint at her daughters school, Elementary
[School #2], in 2009. That complaint was related to Mr. Plehanov and the fact that
some of the kids were sitting on his lap. It was alleged at that time that this was
inappropriate behaviour for a teacher, particularly a male teacher, to be involved in.
That investigation is detailed in the next section (Other Evidence).
[142] M.H. spoke to D.N. about that connection between the Elementary [School #2]
complaint and the reporting that A.N. had made to her mother, D.N. on March 10,
2010. She also spoke to C.S., the mother of F.L., about the incident at Elementary
[School #3].
[143] M.H. testified that at some point after March 10, 2010 all three mothers, M.H.,
D.N. and C.S. met for coffee and discussed the situation involving Mr. Plehanov.
[144] E.H. gave a videotaped statement to Cst. Sedgman on March 18, 2010. Her
testimony related to a date in 2009 when Mr. Plehanov was a substitute teacher for her
class. She was in Grade Two at the time.
[145] In the video she described how they were playing with some tops (spinning toys)

that Mr. Plehanov had apparently brought to the class.

[146] She was of the opinion, she stated, that everybody thought that Mr. Plehanov
liked F.L. the best. She described that when the girls would go to his desk to ask about
corrections to their school work Mr. Plehanov would pull them onto his lap. She said,
he usually only pulled (F.L.) on to his lap. Or once he pulled me onto his lap and once
he pulled A., my friend.
[147] She could not remember the time that he pulled her onto his lap. She did
explain, however, that Mr. Plehanov used his hands on her upper waist area to pull her
on to his lap.
[148] Asked how that made her feel, she answered that it made her feel okay. She
estimated that she was on his knee for about ten seconds. She said she did not see
Mr. Plehanov pull any boys onto his lap.
[149] She stated that later she had spoken to her principal, Ms. Walker, and another
teacher named Mr. Katt(?) about the incident (as part of the investigation into Mr.
Plehanov described above).
[150] She described Mr. Plehanov as a fun teacher who did not make them do much
work. She seemed to like the fact that Mr. Plehanov had brought the tops with him to
class.
[151] In her testimony at trial E.H. could not recall the details of that day and how
many times she saw F.L. on Mr. Plehanovs lap nor could she recall how F.L. was
sitting on Mr. Plehanovs lap.
M.R.
[152] S.M. is the mother of M.R. She testified that she knew her daughter had a
Russian-speaking substitute teacher in January of 2008. At that time no concerns
were raised by either her daughter or anyone else. After the allegations arose at
Elementary [School #3] she spoke to her daughter as well as Ms. Reynolds, the
principal of Elementary [School #1]. She then contacted the police.
[153] It should be noted that the police released a press release on May 3rd, 2010
explaining that they had arrested Mr. Plehanov and that they were looking for further
victims and/or witnesses at other schools that he had taught at.
[154] S.M. admitted that prior to questioning her daughter about her interactions with
Mr. Plehanov she told her daughter that Mr. Plehanov was a bad teacher and also told
her that she knew that her daughter had sat upon his lap.
[155] M.R. provided a videotaped statement to Cst. Shelby Murphy on May 19th,
2010. She was in Grade Three at Elementary [School #2] when she had Mr. Plehanov
as a substitute teacher. She was in Grade Five when the statement was provided. She
was in Grade Seven at the time she testified at trial.
[156] In the video she spoke about a substitute teacher she had in Grade Three that
would play board games and do no work. She said he asked her to sit on his lap and

he would gently touch her. She demonstrated with her right hand motioning from her
chest area down to her lower stomach area.
[157] Essentially, she indicated that when you approached the teacher he would pat
his lap as if to invite her to sit on his lap.
[158] She demonstrated by wrapping both her arms around herself to show how the
teacher would hold her on his lap. She then suggested that he would touch her gently
on her chest area. She also demonstrated that he would touch her gently in her lower
stomach/pubic bone area. Her fingers were in a semi-closed or cupped position. In
other words, it appeared that she demonstrated with her fingers curled under her palms
in a loose manner.
[159] She advised Cst. Murphy that this teacher (she had referred to him as Mr. P.)
had only taught her on this one occasion.
[160] At trial M.R. could not recall sitting on Mr. Plehanovs lap. She confirmed that
she had not spoken to anyone about this incident until May of 2010 when her mother
had shown her a newspaper article and asked her questions about the teacher, Mr.
Plehanov, who was the subject of the article. She agreed that it was after her mother
had pointed Mr. Plehanov out as being a bad man that she remembered the incident
involving sitting on his lap.
[161] She agreed that she told the police what she had talked about with her mom.
[162] This evidence is clearly problematic. It was given some 28 months after the
actual alleged incident. It was the first time she had related the incident to anyone.
Her description of the alleged incident in the video is vague and uncertain. Again, it is
impossible to find, with any degree of certainty, just what the nature of the contact was
in this incident. Her memory of the incident was virtually non-existent by the time she
testified at trial. It was impossible to cross-examine her on the videotaped evidence
that was entered.
Other Evidence

[163] There were many collateral witnesses called in this proceeding. I propose to
summarize only parts of this evidence. However, I have carefully reviewed all of the
evidence and will later discuss the use, if any, and the weight to attach to it, that can or
should be given to it.
[164] Part of the Crown theory in this case is that Mr. Plehanov had been warned on
several occasions prior to the allegations made from the complainants from Elementary
[School #3] in March of 2010 that he was behaving inappropriately with young female
students. The Crown maintains that the court should draw the inference that any
inappropriate contact occurring after those warnings must be due to the sexual
proclivity of Mr. Plehanov as opposed to being due to simple ignorance of the proper
conduct expected of a teacher.
[165] Defence counsel stated on several occasions that this evidence has the danger
of becoming inadmissible propensity evidence and that it was virtually impossible for it

be at all probative of the mens rea that the Crown is required to prove. The Crown
maintained that Mr. Plehanovs state of knowledge relating to alleged boundaries and
the conduct expected of a professional teacher are relevant to the issue of mens rea.
[166] In light of the Crown theory and in light of the fact that this is a judge alone trial I
allowed evidence to be called relating to prior complaints involving Mr. Plehanov and
the alleged lack of boundaries he was exhibiting between himself and particularly the
young female students he was teaching. It should be remembered that Mr. Plehanov
taught for a number of years in the district at some 40 schools.
[167] Of course, at all times I remain cognizant of the limited purpose that this kind of
evidence could be used for. The proposed use and the weight to attach to this
evidence was the subject of submissions at the end of the trial.
Elementary [School #2]
Lisa White
[168] Mr. Plehanov was substituting for Lisa White, a teacher at Elementary [School
#2] on October 13th, 2009. She testified that when she returned to class she found it
unusually disorganized and messy. She was quite upset by the state her classroom
had been left in. There was a note left for her authored by Mr. Plehanov. The note
expressed how much Mr. Plehanov had enjoyed the class and how F.L., among others,
offered their help.
Brenda Walker
[169] Ms. Brenda Walker was then the principal of Elementary [School #2]. She gave
evidence that she received a phone call from C.S. who was upset that her daughter,
F.L., had sat on the substitute teachers lap.
[170] Ms. Walker advised C.S. that an investigation would be undertaken. An
investigation did take place. The accounting given by Ms. Walker indicates that it was
a fairly thorough investigation. On October 16th, 2009 more than 8 children (including
F.L.) were interviewed. Later on October 21st another group was interviewed, including
some that had already been interviewed. On October 20th, M.H. had contacted her
with information that her daughter, E.H., may also be involved and that therefore, E.H.
was also spoken to.
[171] Ms. Walker did admit, however, that some of the questions asked could be
characterized as leading questions and the script that was developed to assist in
questioning the children was modified as a result.
[172] She advised that by January of 2010 the investigation was at a close. She gave
the results of her findings to the School Board. Ms. Walker had considered the issue
as one involving boundaries issues and was content with the decision not to get the
police involved in the matter.
Jamie Ross

[173] Jaime Ross was the Director of Human Resources for the school district at the
time. His job description included dealing with discipline matters. He reports to the
Superintendent of Schools.
[174] After the complaints were made about Mr. Plehanov at Elementary [School #2]
there was an investigation conducted. As a result of that investigation Mr. Ross
authored a letter to Mr. Plehanov that was admitted as Exhibit 31. The letter is heavily
edited. What is left essentially advises Mr. Plehanov that there will be a psychologist to
work him on boundary issues and some help with classroom management and other
teacher practices.
[175] The last edited paragraph states:
You need to understand clearly that in the future you need to treat all students
in a respectful manner.....As a teacher you have an obligation to ensure that
all your students are treated in a respectful manner and that your classroom is
a safe and welcoming place for all students. I look forward to working with you
and providing whatever assistance you need.

[176] Mr. Ross testified that the investigation resulted in a finding of misconduct but
stressed that there were no findings of physical assault or sexual impropriety found and
that Mr. Plehanov co-operated with the recommendations.
Elementary [School #1]
Rick Botero
[177] Rick Botero was a teacher at Elementary [School #1] during January 2008. This
was the time that Mr. Plehanov was a substitute there teaching a class that included
M.R. He says that he recalls Mr. Plehanov being there for six days that month. Mr.
Botero was in the computer lab next to Mr. Plehanovs classroom and would wander in
there from time to time.
[178] Mr. Botero relayed an incident on January 18th, 2008 where he walked into the
classroom and observed a student sitting on the lap of Mr. Plehanov. Upon his entry,
the child jumped off Mr. Plehanovs lap and stood in between his legs at his desk as
they reviewed some schoolwork. He said that he called the girl away and reported the
incident to the principal. He did not know how the matter was resolved. He agreed he
did not go to the police and only went to the police after he was made aware of the
media story involving Mr. Plehanov in May of 2010.
Sue Reynolds
[179] Sue Reynolds was the principal of Elementary [School #1] at the time. She
confirmed that Mr. Plehanov taught at her school for five days at that time. She
testified that she spoke to Mr. Plehanov about the incident related by Mr. Botero. That
conversation was the subject of a Voir Dire. For the limited purpose that the Crown
was tendering the statement (that is the mens rea issue) I admitted it into evidence.
Essentially, Ms. Reynolds reminded Mr. Plehanov that there were boundaries and that
teachers should refrain from touching the children or having children sit on their laps

and that he should be careful about putting himself into situations like that.
[180]
She agreed that she did not take any notes of this conversation and has some
difficulty recalling exactly what was said to Mr. Plehanov.
[181] Ms. Reynolds agreed that she did not consider there to be a safety issue with
Mr. Plehanov and that it was more of a boundaries issue that needed to be resolved
informally.
[182] Ms. Reynolds was advised in March 2010, after the matter had arisen at
Elementary [School #3], that parents may be inquiring about Mr. Plehanov and his
involvement as a substitute teacher at Elementary [School #1].
Elementary [School #4]
Laurie Birnie
[183] Ms. Birnie was principal at Elementary [School #4] in May of 2007 when she
spoke to Mr. Plehanov about a complaint from a child who had felt uncomfortable about
her hair being touched. She said that she simply spoke to Mr. Plehanov about being
mindful of touching the kids, particularly as he was a male teacher. Her evidence was
that he seemed to understand what she was conveying to her. This was not a
disciplinary measure. The conversation was meant to provide some guidance.
Elementary [School #5]
Mark Clay
[184] Mr. Clay was the principal at Elementary [School #5]. He described how
Teachers on Call are called out to schools to substitute for teachers who are away.
Only qualified teachers are used. Mr. Clay interviewed Mr. Plehanov and he passed
all the necessary checks in order to become a TOC (Teacher On Call).
[185] Mr. Plehanov was called out to the school in late September 2007. There was
an incident that caused Mr. Clay to have a meeting with Mr. Plehanov and a staff
representative from the Union.
[186] Essentially, a student in a Grade 4-5 split class had come forward with a
complaint that she had felt uncomfortable with a hand that Mr. Plehanov had placed on
her shoulder and a rubbing of her back. It was explained to Mr. Plehanov by Mr. Clay
that this was not acceptable behaviour. They talked generally about different cultures
and how this may be acceptable in some cultures but not ours. Mr. Clay testified that,
in his opinion, Mr. Plehanov was not quite clear on what he had done wrong. He was
advised that making a student feel uncomfortable was not acceptable.
[187] He agreed that all contact is contextual and that Mr. Plehanov taught for several
days after this meeting. He also agreed that he became aware of the 2010 allegations
later and agreed that the news of the allegations were shocking to teachers in the
district.
[188] I conveyed to counsel that I would not be using any of these out of court
statements for the truth of any of any of the alleged assertions that were made but just

for the fact of what was said and what knowledge may have been possessed by Mr.
Plehanov regarding appropriate behaviour for a teacher at the time.
Elementary [School #6]
Elspeth Anjos
[189] Ms. Anjos was a literacy support teacher in September of 2009 at Elementary
[School #6]. She was asked to support Mr. Plehanov with the new Literacy Program
being implemented.
[190] She saw Mr. Plehanov with his Grade 4-5 class. She witnessed a female
student approach Mr. Plehanov and sit on his lap. She testified that child had gone
onto his lap of her own volition but that she spoke with him later and advised that it was
not appropriate to allow a student to sit on him. She later witnessed a similar incident
with a different child. She again spoke to him about rebuffing a student who wished to
sit on his lap.
[191] There was a third incident involving Mr. Plehanov moving about the class
supporting the students. One female student got up to approach Mr. Plehanov. Ms.
Anjos testified that she asked the student to sit down but the student gave Mr.
Plehanov a hug. She said the hug was a short one and she opined the girl was just
being defiant of her instructions to sit down. However, she did again explain to him that
he should have removed her hands.
[192] She advised Mr. Plehanov that she would be mentioning her observations to the
principal.
[193] She described his class as noisy and that he had trouble maintaining order. In
fact she was there due to the concerns over poor classroom management. She
agreed that at no time did Mr. Plehanov initiate any of the contact with the students.
She also agreed that male teachers are held to a different and higher standard than
female teachers.
Barbara GIllies
[194] Ms. Gillies was the principal at Elementary [School #6]. She had understood
that Mr. Plehanov requested some support in his classroom. She testified that Mr.
Plehanov was there from September 2009 until November 4th, 2009 three days a
week. He then returned to the school in February of 2010.
[195] She had a meeting with Mr. Plehanov on February 3rd, 2010 (she was not
positive of the date). The essential nature of the meeting had to with some information
that had been passed on that Mr. Plehanov was allowing students to hug him. She
advised him that it was not appropriate to allow that and she modelled some words and
behaviour he could use to rebuff a student who wished to do that.
[196] She discussed the Code of Conduct for the school. She admitted that this Code
is largely directed at the expectations of students. She did not recall providing a copy
to Mr. Plehanov. She testified that she attended his class to advise the students not to
go up to Mr. Plehanov to hug or touch him as that could get him into trouble. Mr.

Plehanov was present at the time.

[197] Ms. Gillies agreed that this particular class was somewhat of a problem and that
is part of why Mr. Plehanov had requested some support.
Ms. Papillo
[198] Ms. Papillo was a teacher at Elementary [School #6]. She would talk to Mr.
Plehanov about classroom management. As the head of the English Department she
had received complaints that Mr. Plehanov was not managing his class properly. On
one occasion she looked in his classroom and there were kids singing and there were
girls sitting on his desk and acting silly. She advised the students to go back their
desks. It was her belief that Mr. Plehanov did not appear to realize that the students
behaviour was inappropriate.
[199] Later, in the hallway she observed several girls hugging Mr. Plehanov. His
hands were down by his side. He was not reciprocating the hugs. She told Mr.
Plehanov that hugging was not appropriate and suggested that he use high fives as a
way to express affection. She suggested that during the hugging incident he looked to
be embarrassed and confused about what to do.
[200] She agreed that a valid classroom management technique is putting your hand
on a shoulder of a student. She also agreed that her concern was more related to
classroom management than anything else.
[201] It is notable that the allegations arising from Elementary [School #3] in March of
2010 do not include lap-sitting or hugging.
Counsellors
[202] Evidence from the professionals who spoke to the children regarding their
allegations was called largely to rebut any submission that there was collusion or taint
with respect to the evidence called.
Dr. Michael Elterman
[203] Dr. Michael Elterman testified about his involvement in the complaints that arose
from the alleged incidents of lap-sitting that took place October 13th, 2009 at
Elementary [School #2]. He was qualified as an expert on the impact of child sex
abuse on children and child development, memory and development, forensic and
therapeutic interviewing, child behaviour and touching and the dynamics of reporting
same.
[204] He related how he had met with E.H. and F.L. and their respective parents about
the allegations of lap sitting by the children.
[205] He testified that often children will not know something is wrong until the parents
tell them that it is. He relayed that children who grow up around family often do not
know what the appropriate behaviour of an outside adult should be.
[206] He testified that the characterization of behaviour by an adult as being bad or
not can be shaped by parental reactions to it. He gave the example that a parent who

shows alarm over a child sitting on a teachers lap could signal to that child that it is not
the same as sitting on Grandpas lap.
[207] The Doctor agreed that none of the children that he interviewed showed any
signs of trauma. He also agreed that if children 7-8 years old are using the word
inappropriate to describe behaviours that that may suggest they may be adopting that
term from someone else.
Kendra Niwa
[208] Kendra Niwa was a counsellor with Act II Counselling. She has a Masters
Degree in Clinical Psychology. She described the joint counselling session that she
had with E.A. and A.N. on August 9, 2010. She was aware of the allegations being
made at that time. She could not say what, if anything, had been discussed between
the two girls as it related to Mr. Plehanov. She testified simply that neither she nor the
girls discussed the facts relating to the allegations during the counselling session.
Warren Driedger
[209] Mr. Driedger was a counsellor at Elementary [School #3] and did conduct both
an individual counselling session and a joint counselling session with E.A. and S.G. in
May of 2011. It was a 30 minute session and the girls did most of the talking. He
testified that they did not talk about the details of what allegedly happened with Mr.
Plehanov but they did discuss the court process.
[210] No notes were kept of these sessions. He agreed that the girls were there to
talk about the emotions that they experienced as a result of the incidents with Mr.
Plehanov. Both girls were aware that the other had some common inappropriate
contact with Mr. Plehanov. He appeared to agree that one purpose of the meeting was
to reinforce the commonality of experience and to validate these experiences.
The Criminal Harassment Charge
[211] Before dealing with Counts 1-10 on the Indictment I propose to dispose of Count
11, the allegation involving criminal harassment.
[212] Section 264 of the Criminal Code of Canada states:
(1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person
is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage
in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person
reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of
anyone known to them.
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone
known to them;
b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other
person or anyone known to them;
c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other
person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business

or happens to be; or
d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any
member of their family.

[213] The Crown here relies upon clause 2(c) (the besetting clause). The Defence
concedes that C.S. held a subjective fear for her safety as a result of the impugned
conduct. The issue is whether identity has been proven and if so, whether it has been
proven that Mr. Plehanov knew or ought to have known that the conduct would create
this fear.
[214] K.M. lives with her husband K. on [omitted for publication] near the residence of
F.L. She knows the family. She testified that in June of 2010 on two occasions that she
saw someone she believed to be Mr. Plehanov near her residence. She knew about
Mr. Plehanov from media reports. She knew F.L. was a complainant. She also
believed that Mr. Plehanov had taught her own daughter on one occasion although she
could not recall that time.
[215] On the first occasion, June 3rd, 2010 at approximately 10:55 a.m., she asserted
she saw this person standing near the residence of F.L. On the second occasion, June
8th, 2010, she saw the same person sitting in a black BMW. She was aware of the
photo that had been distributed in the media. She had, in fact, recorded the television
story on her PVR recorder and had watched it several times.
[216] She described the man she saw on June 3rd as being heavy set, wearing a
baseball hat, having two moles on each side of face, in his mid 30s and approximately
511 inches tall (although she admitted she was really bad with height estimations).
The closest she came to this person was four meters. She said this person walked
towards her as she was in her vehicle leaving her garage and that she made eye
contact several times. She tried to swing back around to take a photo but at some
point the man was in, what she described as, a dark blue BMW.
[217] On that day she went down to Elementary [School #2] and spoke to Ms. Walker,
the principal, who advised her to call the police, which she did. She did not tell C.S. of
the incident as she did not wish to alarm her.
[218] On June 8th, 2010 K.M.(2) received a telephone call from C.S. who had
indicated that she believed Mr. Plehanov was sitting in a black BMW near the M.
residence and about 200 feet away from F.L.s residence (according to K.M.(2)). I
should note that aerial maps of the area were entered into evidence through various
witnesses and are marked as Exhibits in this proceeding.
[219] After getting off the phone with C.S., K.M.(2) ran out of his house along with his
wife, K.. She took a photo of the black BMW with a man she identified as Mr. Plehanov
behind the wheel. The photo can be found in Exhibit 1. It is not possible to see details
relating to the person inside that vehicle. It is clear, however, that it is a black BMW.
[220] K.M. stated that the person inside the vehicle seemed to notice her and started
to drive away. The vehicle came within 20 feet of her as it drove away. She said she

saw that the person was wearing the same hat as on June 3rd and she could see the
moles on his face. It was suggested by defence counsel that this would be highly
improbable.
[221] She called police dispatch (911) and relayed the licence plate number of
984GMK. This licence plate belongs to a black BMW owned by Mr. Plehanov.
[222] K.M.(2) testified and described the cap as being grey in colour. He could not
see the drivers eyes as the cap was pulled down and did not notice any distinctive
features. However, he purported to positively identify the driver as Mr. Plehanov
largely based on the media photos that he had seen of him. He told the police that he
likely would not be able to pick Mr. Plehanov out of a photo lineup.
[223] C.S. testified that she had seen a picture of Mr. Plehanov in the newspaper prior
to June of 2010. On June 8th, 2010 she called 911 around 3:45 p.m. as she had
noticed a black BMW vehicle parked on (omitted for publication) facing her home. She
had reason to believe that this vehicle belonged to Mr. Plehanov and she also believed
that he had been in the area the week prior.
[224] She was scared, distressed, angry, shocked and feared for her and her
daughters safety. She says she asked K.M.(2), the neighbour, to come and confront
this individual. The licence plate was 984GMK. There is an admission that this licence
is registered to a black BMW belonging to Mr. Plehanov.
Cst. Shelby Murphy
[225] Cst. Shelby Murphy testified that there was a food bank near the area between
26-37 minutes away. It was admitted at trial that on June 3rd, 2010 a person with the
same name as Mr. Plehanov signed in at the food bank at 4550 Kitchener in Burnaby
between the hours of noon and 1pm. It was the protocol of the food bank that people
who use the bank sign in under a name.
[226] The evidence establishes that it was Mr. Plehanov seen near the area of C.S.s
residence on two occasions (June 3rd and June 8th, 2010). I do not place much weight
on the evidence relating to Mr. Plehanov being at a food bank on June 3rd as the timing
indicates that he could have easily been at the food bank after being near the
residence of C.S. However, there was no compelling evidence that Mr. Plehanov even
knew or ought to have known where C.S. and her daughter F.L. lived. That address
was not listed in his bail documents as being a place he should stay away from.
[227] In my mind the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.
Plehanov knew or was reckless as to whether his presence or actions would cause a
reasonable fear the be held by C.S. and/or her child, F.L. His presence in the area is
certainly suspicious but suspicion is not enough. He must be acquitted of Count 11 on
the Indictment.
Conclusion on Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference Counts
[228] I have already commented on the general caution that courts should not impose
the same exacting standards on children's evidence as they do on the evidence of

adults. (See R. v. G.B. et al (No. 2) (above).

[229] If the court, after considering all of the evidence, is unable to decide whom to
believe, or, are not convinced by the evidence which is accepted, that the accused is
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted. See R. v. W. (D.)
supra; R. v. Morin (1988), 1988 CanLII 8 (SCC), 44 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (S.C.C.); R. v.
Nadeau (1984), 1984 CanLII 28 (SCC), 15 C.C.C (3d) 499 (S.C.C.); R. v. Challice
(1979), 45 C.C.C. (2d) 546 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. S.(W.D.) (1994), 1994 CanLII 76
(SCC), 25 W.C.B. (2d) 39 (S.C.C.).
[230] Going back to the issue relating to Similar Facts/Acts, the Crown is asking the
court to consider the evidence of all the child witnesses in strengthening the credibility
of others.
[231] I have carefully considered all of the evidence in this case. I have no doubt that
all of the children attempted to provide their evidence in as honest a fashion as they
could under the circumstances. I have no doubt that F.L. and M.R. sat on Mr.
Plehanovs lap in their respective classes. It is however, impossible to conclude, after
considering all of the evidence the nature of any further contact, if any, while they were
seated on his lap and whether this contact was incidental or could be properly
characterized and proven as criminal.
[232] With respect to the incidents at Elementary [School #3] the evidence is far from
reliable as to the precise nature of any contact. In the context of the obvious taint
relating to A.N.s and E.A.s evidence it is not possible to sort out the impact of the
impromptu meetings taking place at the sofa. As I have indicated throughout my
analysis, I have serious concerns with material aspects of the evidence given and its
attendant reliability.
[233] In order to prove that sexual assaults (under Section 271 of the Code) took
place the Crown is obliged to prove that there was an assault which is committed in
circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated
(See Chase (above)).
[234] Additionally, in order to prove that the contact here amounted to a sexual
interference (under Section 151 of the Code) the Crown must prove the touching
happened specifically for a sexual purpose (see discussion above with respect to
defining that term).
[235] It was clear from the evidence that Mr. Plehanov either was completely ignorant
of or ignored the parameters and boundaries that were expected of a teacher by the
school board and/or the teaching college relating to appropriate contact between a
teacher and students.
[236] Having said that however, it cannot be forgotten that the context of the contact in
this case involved a clearly ineffectual teacher who was substitute-teaching 7-8 year
olds. Certain contact is expected. It might be suggested that reasonable persons may
not consider behaviour such as a small child sitting on the lap of a kindergarten teacher
untoward behaviour. The question of what is appropriate or not in a teaching context
becomes less clear as the students become older. Standards and expectations
change, but are not at all universally agreed upon I am sure.

[237] It has to be remembered that this is a criminal case and behaviour that may
breach the standards and expectations created by employers and teaching colleges in
the teaching environment does not necessarily equate with behaviour that is properly
characterized as criminal in nature.
[238] In light of my findings above and the real concerns I have with respect to the
evidence in this case (concerns that are not at all alleviated by considering the
similarities, and significant dissimilarities as well, of the acts complained of) it is my
conclusion that the Crown has not met the burden of proof placed upon it to prove the
sexual offences alleged in the Indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.
[239] In the event that Mr. Plehanov was acquitted on the allegations relating to sexual
assault, the Crown had sought convictions for assault simpliciter.
[240] My comments relating to the unique context of the contact here (a teacher in a
classroom of 7-8 year old students) compel me to the conclusion that there is a real
doubt here as to whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that any
contact Mr. Plehanov may have had with the students were the kind of unwelcome or
non-consensual applications of force that could sustain a finding of guilt for assault
simpliciter under Section 266 of the Criminal Code.
[241] There is a significant difference between contact that occurs in the context of a
teacher/student scenario like this one and contact between that of strangers on a bus
(See R. v. Burden 1981 CanLII 355 (BC CA), [1981] B.C.J. No. 1259 (BCCA)) or
contact between an employer and employee (See R. v. Kucheki [2010] O.J. No. 2447
(Ont. C.J.).
[242] For the reasons stated above, Mr. Plehanov is thereby acquitted on all counts.
VERDICT:
NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS

________________________
The Honourable Judge D. St. Pierre
November 26th, 2012

ERRATA - Released November 26, 2012

An errata has been issued for the above judgment as follows:

a) Paragraph 6: convitction should read conviction;
b) Paragraph 22: taking should read taken;
c) Paragraph 30: There should be a period after morally innocent behaviour;
d) Paragraph 61: Elementary [School #2] should read Elementary [School #2];
e) Paragraph 67: Passagli should read Passaglia;
f) Paragraph 72: seen the area should read seen in the area;
g) Paragraph 93: uppers should read upper;
h) Paragraph 95: asking about her should read asking her;
i) Paragraph 226: June 9th should read June 8th
__________________________
The Honourable Judge D. St. Pierre
November 26, 2012

by

Scope of Databases
for the

Federation of Law Societies of CanadaTools

Terms of Use
Privacy
Help
Contact Us
About