On Thursday, Jun. 4, 2026, a witness in the trial of Kingston tech entrepreneur Michael Haaima testified about a “degrading” incident, explained why she waited years to report allegations involving child pornography, and described Haaima’s continued efforts to contact her after his arrest.
Haaima is on trial before Justice Robyn Ryan Bell in Superior Court in Kingston. He has pleaded not guilty to 96 of 98 charges. The trial at the Frontenac County Court House has now been underway for over a year.
During questioning by Crown attorney Megan Williams on Thursday, the witness, who had been on the stand since Tuesday, June 3, testified about an encounter she said had occurred at Haaima’s residence during their relationship.
The witness told the court that while the pair were engaged in consensual sexual activity, Haaima unexpectedly slapped her across the face and then spat on her face. She testified that neither act had been discussed beforehand, that she had not been asked for permission, and that she did not consent to either action.
The witness said she was caught off guard by the slap and described the spitting as particularly humiliating.
“It felt really degrading,” she testified.
The witness said she did not confront Haaima about the incident afterward. Asked why, she said she had come to believe that raising concerns with him often led to arguments, emotional manipulation, or having blame redirected back at her.
A significant portion of Thursday’s testimony also focused on the complainant’s allegations that Haaima showed her child pornography.
The witness testified that she did not initially disclose those allegations to the police and only raised them years later. She told the court that discussing what she had allegedly seen was extremely difficult and that she struggled for a long time before feeling able to speak about it.
When asked what prompted her to come forward, the witness testified that she felt an obligation to report what she had seen to protect children.
She later provided a formal statement to investigators.
Unwanted contact from accused
The witness also described receiving repeated contact from Haaima after his arrest.
According to her testimony, Haaima contacted her by telephone from custody using the call identification of other incarcerated individuals. He also sent her letters through intermediaries. The witness said she eventually stopped believing Haaima’s claims that the allegations against him had been fabricated, and she decided she wanted no further contact with him.
She testified that Haaima continued attempting to reach her after she communicated that she no longer wished to speak with him.
Court proceedings were briefly interrupted Thursday morning after Williams advised the court that the witness was concerned by what she perceived as gestures and head-shaking from Haaima while she testified.
Defence counsel Natasha Calvinho disputed the characterization, noting that no independent observer had reported seeing inappropriate conduct. Justice Ryan Bell said she had not personally observed any such behaviour, but she reminded everyone in the courtroom that witnesses should not be distracted while giving evidence.
Ted the bear
The Crown also spent considerable time questioning the witness about a large teddy bear she said she had seen at Haaima’s residence. The line of questioning appeared significant because a teddy bear has been referred to previously in the trial when an earlier complainant testified about a teddy bear she alleged was connected to conduct at issue in her evidence.
The Crown first showed the witness Exhibit 74 at trial, a photograph of a teddy bear, which the witness identified as a gift she had received from a family member. The witness testified that the photograph had been taken at Haaima’s residence on the day of his arrest.
Williams then turned to a second teddy bear — a large “Ted the bear” movie character that the witness said belonged to Haaima. The witness testified she had seen that bear at the residence and was later shown a series of photographs of “Ted” to identify the one that most closely resembled it.
The witness also answered questions about a large safe she said she had seen in the residence and about her understanding of what was stored inside it. Earlier witnesses have also testified about a large black safe, alleging it contained cannabis and items related to computers.
Crown concludes examination-in-chief, defence makes application
On Thursday afternoon, the court viewed three short video clips that Williams had previously described as “serious inculpatory evidence,” depicting conduct the Crown alleges involved sexual violence against the witness.
The videos were played in a manner designed to protect the dignity of the person depicted while allowing the evidence to be received in open court.
This concluded Williams’s examination-in-chief.
Immediately afterwards, the defence brought what is commonly referred to as a section 276 or Kinamore application. The court then moved in camera to hear legal arguments in that regard.
Section 276 applications are used when the defence seeks permission to introduce evidence relating to a complainant’s prior sexual activity. The law generally prohibits such evidence from being used to suggest a complainant was more likely to have consented or is less worthy of belief.
Before any such evidence can be admitted, the defence must persuade the judge that it is relevant to a legitimate issue in the trial and that its value outweighs any potential prejudice. The process typically involves a private hearing where the court reviews the proposed evidence and hears legal arguments from counsel. Complainants are also entitled to independent legal representation and may participate in the proceedings through their own lawyer.
If the judge ultimately allows the evidence, strict limits can be imposed on its use at trial. If the application is denied, the defence is prohibited from pursuing that line of questioning.
The trial continues later this month.
By Michelle Dorey Forestell, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Original Published on Jun 08, 2026 at 08:42
Recent Comments