Haaima trial stalled as accused refuses court transport over mental health claims

The Superior Court trial of Kingston's Michael Haaima, facing 98 charges, was delayed after he refused transport from custody, citing mental health concerns.

Haaima refuses transport to court, judge orders his attendance

The Superior Court trial of Kingston tech entrepreneur Michael Haaima was delayed on Monday after he refused to be transported from Quinte Detention Centre to the Frontenac County Court House, citing mental health concerns, thewhig.com reports.

Haaima faces 98 charges, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, choking, threats, confinement, trafficking, child pornography, and bestiality-related offences. He was scheduled to appear before Justice Robyn Ryan Bell as his judge-alone trial continued.

Assistant Crown attorney Megan Williams told the court that information from Quinte Detention Centre indicated Haaima was refusing to attend — not that he was medically unable to do so. Justice Ryan Bell denied a defence request to adjourn and issued an order compelling Haaima's attendance under section 527 of the Criminal Code.

Judge finds no evidentiary basis for adjournment

In oral reasons delivered the morning of June 2, Justice Ryan Bell said the defence had failed to establish an evidentiary foundation for the adjournment request. She noted that Dori Lyman, health-care manager at Quinte Detention Centre, had testified that Haaima was seen by a nurse on Monday morning and had spoken with a mental health nurse over the weekend.

Lyman testified she was unaware of any assessment indicating Haaima was unable to attend court due to his mental health, and said such an assessment would normally be communicated to detention centre officials and documented in his medical file.

While acknowledging the evidence before the court was "not fulsome," Justice Ryan Bell said it was the only evidence available and did not support delaying the trial. She concluded the defence had not met its evidentiary burden to show an adjournment was in the interests of justice.

Citing Ontario Court of Justice case law, Justice Ryan Bell said the court recognises the "plain reality" that prisoners forfeit control over their movement and are required to attend court when lawfully directed. She further stated that the criminal justice system cannot be "held hostage" by an in-custody accused who refuses to attend, noting that even a single non-attendance can affect witnesses, court staff, counsel, and scheduling.

Crown: a witness had prepared to testify

Williams was pointed in her opposition to granting an adjournment. "It's not Mr. Haaima's place to distribute medical opinions about whether his physical or mental health will prevent him from being safe to participate in the proceedings," she told the court. She added that information received from the OPP indicated Haaima was "outright refusing to attend."

Haaima's absence was particularly consequential because the court had been scheduled to begin hearing testimony from another complainant in the long-running case. Williams said the witness had prepared to testify and had reviewed graphic and violent video evidence in anticipation of Monday's proceedings.

"We're in a situation where we have a young woman who's ready to testify, and who has watched those videos in preparation for being ready today, psychologically ready — and Mr. Haaima is saying, independent of medical opinions, 'I'm not coming today,'" Williams stated.

Williams argued Haaima could not be permitted to control the progress of the trial by declining transport. "It's not his decision as to whether he's going to come," she said. "It's not an employment situation where he has that liberty to take a sick day."

She also emphasised that the trial belongs not only to Haaima but to the public and the justice system. "This is His Majesty versus Mr. Haaima," Williams said. "This is the public's trial. It's not his decision as to whether the court time is going to be used to hear the witnesses."

Defence: information was second- or third-hand

Defence counsel Natasha Calvinho urged caution about how the situation was being characterised. She said she did not dispute that Haaima may have spoken with someone at the detention centre the previous evening, but noted that when she spoke with him around noon on Sunday, he had not yet been seen by a mental health professional.

Calvinho described the information before the court as second- or third-hand. "It's a bit of a telephone game," she told the court.

She pushed back against the suggestion that Haaima was simply taking a mental health day. "What he's saying is that his mental health was struggling," Calvinho told the court.

Calvinho acknowledged that an evidentiary foundation was normally required, but said defence counsel faces practical difficulties when an accused is in custody. "If he was out of custody, I would have a medical note — or a medical professional's opinion saying whether or not he was unable to attend," she said. "I don't have that luxury because I don't have those pieces."

She also drew a distinction between Haaima being physically capable of boarding a prisoner van and being mentally capable of participating in his trial. "It doesn't mean that he's able to actively participate in his trial and give me the instruction that I need," Calvinho said.

Justice Ryan Bell acknowledged the Crown's insistence on an evidentiary foundation but indicated she wanted more information before the matter could proceed. With the compelled-attendance order now in place, the trial is expected to continue with Haaima present.

Source: Google News JM — Kingston