Witness resumes cross-examination in Haaima sexual assault trial in Ontario

A complainant in the Michael Haaima trial returned to court after walking out of cross-examination nearly two months earlier. An OPP detective flew to western Canada to support her testimony.

Complainant returns to stand after two-month absence in Haaima trial

A key witness in the Michael Haaima sexual assault trial returned to court on Friday, September 11, 2026, nearly two months after walking out of her cross-examination and failing to come back, thewhig.com reports. The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) lead investigator on the case, Detective Sergeant Bev Mackey, had flown to western Canada — where the woman now lives — to support her while she testified remotely.

The complainant's evidence has now stretched across more than a year. It was interrupted first by a lengthy legal dispute over what Justice Robyn Ryan Bell would permit the court to hear, and again in July 2026 when the witness left during a break in questioning by defence lawyer Natasha Calvinho and did not return.

Background to the allegations

The woman first testified in August 2025 that she had been 16 years old, homeless, attending high school, and struggling with a serious drug addiction when Haaima — then 34 — reached out to her through Instagram in 2018. She said he initially invited her to his condominium for drinking and marijuana, and later offered her hundreds of dollars in exchange for sex and nude photographs.

She alleged that some sexual activity was consensual in the sense of being "pay for play" — an agreement to exchange sex for money or drugs — but she accused Haaima of sexually assaulting her on other occasions, including by choking her after she told him to stop. She also alleged that he forced her to watch child sexual abuse material (CSAM) during sexual encounters.

Her first appearance at trial was cut short in August 2025 when Calvinho objected to additional evidence the Crown sought to introduce, which the defence characterised as prejudicial "bad character" or uncharged-conduct evidence. Justice Ryan Bell later ruled much of that disputed evidence admissible, and the complainant returned remotely in July 2026 to complete examination-in-chief.

During that phase, she testified that Haaima had encouraged her to introduce him to other vulnerable girls and young women and had offered to pay her for referrals. She also raised an allegation not present in her original 2022 police statement: that while babysitting an infant or young toddler in 2018, she had sent Haaima photographs of the child after he requested them, and that he later touched the child inappropriately while the child was in his vehicle.

Cross-examination resumes

Cross-examination began on July 15, 2026, but the witness left the remote courtroom during a break and did not return. Crown attorney Megan Williams told the court on September 11 that the complainant had eventually contacted Mackey during the recess and "re-engaged" with her. An initial attempt to have the witness travel to Ontario did not succeed, so Mackey made the trip to western Canada instead.

Williams described Mackey's role as one of support rather than investigation. Calvinho placed that distinction directly on the record during testimony.

"You understand that Detective Mackey actually flew out to try to be there as a support person for you today, right?" she asked the witness.

The arrangement held for Friday's session. When the complainant returned to continue cross-examination on Monday, September 14, Mackey had already returned to Ontario, and the witness testified without her physically present.

Calvinho opened by addressing the July walkout. The complainant acknowledged she had been required to return but had not done so, citing her mental health as the primary reason.

"I'm still recovering," the woman told the court, adding that she was seeing a therapist and working to find appropriate medication.

Memory and inconsistencies at the centre of the defence

Calvinho then turned to what became a recurring theme: memory. The complainant gave her first formal statement to Mackey in November 2022, approximately four years after the alleged events. A second statement followed in March 2025, after she informed police and prosecutors during a trial preparation meeting that she had additional information to provide.

Across both September sessions, Calvinho repeatedly compared those interviews with the witness's trial testimony, identifying details that had changed, that appeared for the first time years after the events, or that the woman said she could no longer recall.

The witness did not dispute that her memory of the period was imperfect. She confirmed that at the time she knew Haaima, she was a high school student heavily addicted to drugs and regularly using multiple substances. She had previously acknowledged that Xanax, in particular, could affect her memory.

The defence also challenged the complainant's characterisation of her sexual encounters with Haaima. The witness acknowledged that some encounters involved an arrangement in which she expected money or marijuana in exchange for sex, but she maintained that this did not mean she had consented to everything Haaima did to her. Calvinho pressed her to accept that the activity had been consensual and that no assault had taken place.

The defence also highlighted that the complainant did not report the alleged assaults to police at the time of the events. Drug use and the passage of time featured repeatedly in questioning, particularly around the babysitting allegation and the timeline of her contact with Haaima.

The trial before Justice Ryan Bell continues.

Source: Google News JM — Kingston