Haaima sex crimes trial resumes with more delays, defence probes witness on child sex abuse material

Justice Robyn Ryan Bell is presiding over the Kingston entrepreneur’s mammoth trial, which has faced numerous delays since it began on May 29, 2025. Initially expected to last approximately five months, the trial has been repeatedly interrupted by scheduling difficulties and witness availability, as well as lengthy delays related to defence counsel’s health and emergencies and Haaima’s own illnesses.

More than 15 months later, proceedings remain ongoing, with court dates now extending into March 2027.

Haaima has pleaded not guilty to 96 of 98 charges, including more than 30 counts of sexual assault, several of which are alleged to have involved weapons, as well as multiple charges related to allegedly accessing and making child pornography.

The case has 28 complainants. The identities of those complainants and other information that could identify them are protected by publication bans.

On Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2026, defence lawyer Natasha Calvinho arrived approximately 30 minutes after court was scheduled to begin and apologized for the delay. Less than an hour later, she raised concerns about the fitness of the witness she was cross-examining, suggesting the witness was on narcotics or “coming down” from using narcotics.

Crown attorney Megan Williams pushed back on this suggestion, saying what the Crown had observed did not establish that the witness lacked the capacity or fitness to continue giving evidence, and that she was present and answering questions.

Justice Ryan Bell ordered a short break so the witness could speak with available victim witness staff and the court liaison officer, Bev Mackey.

During the break, the witness disclosed that she had not slept the night before; she was over-tired and shivering from the courtroom temperature.

Justice Ryan Bell ended the witness’s testimony for the day to allow her time to rest.

The woman returned Wednesday morning, at which time Calvinho resumed a detailed cross-examination that focused in part on what the witness had previously told police about allegedly seeing child sexual abuse material on Haaima’s laptop.

Calvinho took the witness through a police interview on February 5, 2026, during which she described several occasions when Haaima allegedly showed her material she believed depicted children.

In that February interview, the woman had said the first incident occurred when Haaima pulled up a pornographic video on his laptop while the two were having sex. She told police she looked at the screen briefly and initially did not notice anything wrong, but that Haaima later pulled up the same video again.

“I looked at the screen more, and I can tell the girl was probably 14 or 15,” the woman told investigators, according to the transcript reviewed in court.

Calvinho confirmed with the witness that she had described the same video on both occasions — first seeing it only briefly and then looking more closely the second time.

The defence lawyer then turned to the woman’s recollection of a separate photograph.

During her police interview, the witness had said Haaima showed her an image of a girl she believed was approximately 13 years old, with ropes around her arms and ankles.

“I remember burying my head in the pillow, and I think I started to cry,” the witness told police.

Calvinho focused closely on the sequence of that account, suggesting that the photograph, rather than the earlier video, had upset the witness.

The witness agreed.

The questioning also repeatedly returned to the witness’s estimates of the ages of the girls depicted in the material. Calvinho challenged or sought clarification about whether the girls appeared to be approximately 13, 14, or 15 years old, describing the characteristics of female development in great detail.

The relentless focus on those age estimates drew sharper tones of exasperation from the witness, who insisted she was describing images which she believed showed children being sexually abused.

She had also told police that Haaima consoled her and that he appeared to suggest the image was something he had not seen before.

“He was making it seem like it was the first time he had seen it also,” she said in the police interview.

Under questioning Wednesday, the woman said she could no longer remember exactly what Haaima said at the time, but that she remembered the impression his reaction gave her.

“He seemed shocked by the video,” she testified, before clarifying that her memory was primarily of him consoling her and appearing to suggest the material was new to him as well.

Calvinho also sought to put defined boundaries around the number of occasions on which the woman said she encountered suspected child sexual abuse material with Haaima.

The witness’s account included the same video viewed on two occasions, the photograph of the bound girl, and another video she described seeing later.

After the photograph incident, the woman had told police, “that kind of stopped for a while.”

Calvinho asked whether that meant there had been a period during which the woman was not exposed to any suspected child pornography, and the witness agreed.

The defence also questioned her about her repeated contact with police.

By the February 2026 interview, the woman had already spoken with investigators several times and understood she was being given an opportunity to tell police, in her own words, what she remembered.

Calvinho said that, at the end of the witness’s interviews, investigators had asked whether she had anything else she wanted to tell them. The woman confirmed this and agreed that at the time she had understood she could contact police again if she wanted to discuss anything further.

Calvinho observed that the witness did not subsequently return to investigators with additional information; the witness agreed.

Police contacted her once more in May 2026; they showed her a photograph and asked whether she could identify herself in it. The witness said it was a photograph she had never seen before.

“Thank you very much. Those are my questions,” Calvinho said at the conclusion of the cross-examination.

Assistant Crown attorney Megan Williams had no questions in re-examination, and the judge excused the witness.

The woman’s completed testimony ended a cross-examination that had been unexpectedly interrupted Tuesday, shortly after the trial returned from its month-long break.

With that witness finished, Williams told the court the Crown was ready to move on to its next witness, digital analyst Lenora Hamilton. Williams said she expected to complete Hamilton’s examination-in-chief on Wednesday, with cross-examination potentially beginning Thursday.

The trial continues. Council’s approval.