R. v. Meeko, 2018 NUCJ 6

Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R. v. Meeko, 2018 NUCJ 6 Date: 20180319 Docket: 13-12-69 Registry: Iqaluit Crown: Her Majesty the Queen -and- Accused: Johnny Josie Meeko ________________________________________________________________________ Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice N.

Sharkey Counsel (Crown): Amy Porteous & Priscilla Ferrazzi Counsel (Accused): James Morton Location Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut Date Heard: August 10, 17-22, 24, 2015; December 8-10, 2015; 1, 2017 Matters: Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 143, 149, 151, 152, 247(2), 266, 271 REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

DISCLAIMER PAGE Restriction on Publication: Restriction on Publication: By court order made under

section 486.4 of the Criminal Code , “any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.” Anonymization Disclaimer: This judgment has been anonymized to comply with legislative requirements or at the discretion of the authoring Justice to protect vulnerable parties. Letters have been assigned at random. Table of Contents A. OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 5 B.

EVIDENCE ................................................................................................................... 6 1. Testimony of the Complainants ...................................................................................................................... 6 (a). Complainant E..................................................................................................................................................... 6 i. Testimony in-chief ........................................................................................................................................... 7

ii. Cross-examination ....................................................................................................................................... 11 (b). Complainant D.................................................................................................................................................. 13 i. Testimony in-chief ......................................................................................................................................... 13 ii.

Cross-examination ....................................................................................................................................... 16 (c). Complainant Y................................................................................................................................................... 19 i. Testimony in-chief ......................................................................................................................................... 19 ii.

Cross-examination ....................................................................................................................................... 21 (d). Complainant F................................................................................................................................................... 23 i. Testimony in-chief ......................................................................................................................................... 23 ii.

Cross-examination ....................................................................................................................................... 31 (e). Complainant X................................................................................................................................................... 38 i. Testimony in-chief ......................................................................................................................................... 39 ii.

Cross-examination ....................................................................................................................................... 40 (f). Complainant Z.................................................................................................................................................... 41 i. Testimony in-chief ......................................................................................................................................... 41 ii.

Cross-examination ....................................................................................................................................... 44 (g). Complainant A................................................................................................................................................... 44 i. Testimony in-chief ......................................................................................................................................... 45 ii.

Cross-examination ....................................................................................................................................... 47 (h). Complainant C................................................................................................................................................... 47 i. Testimony in-chief ......................................................................................................................................... 48 ii.

Cross-examination ....................................................................................................................................... 50 (i). Complainant B.................................................................................................................................................... 51 i. Testimony in-chief ......................................................................................................................................... 51 ii.

Cross-examination ....................................................................................................................................... 53 2. Testimony of the defendant ........................................................................................................................... 55 (a). Testimony in-chief............................................................................................................................................ 55 (b).

Cross-examination........................................................................................................................................... 58 3. The defendant’s statement to the police ................................................................................................. 67 C. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ............................................................................. 75 1. Crown ....................................................................................................................................................................... 75 (a).

The testimony of the complainants and the defendant’s statement to the police............................... 75 (b). The similar fact evidence application.......................................................................................................... 77 2. Defence .................................................................................................................................................................... 78 D. THE LAW ................................................................................................................... 82 1.

Assessing witness testimony in historical sexual assault cases .................................................... 82 (a). Human memory and the prosecution of historical offences................................................................... 84 2. Assessing testimony of an accused person ............................................................................................. 89

E. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .................................................................................... 94 1. Assessment of the Crown’s case .................................................................................................................. 94 (a). General assessment......................................................................................................................................... 94 (b). Indicators of truth in the testimony of the complainants........................................................................ 96 (c).

The Defence theory of the Crown’s case....................................................................................................... 99 (d). Findings respecting the Crown’s similar fact evidence application.................................................... 103 (e). The absence of independent corroborative evidence.............................................................................. 105 2. Assessment of the defendant’s testimony ............................................................................................. 107 3.

Specific credibility findings and verdicts .............................................................................................. 120 (a). Complainant E................................................................................................................................................. 120 (b). Complainant D................................................................................................................................................ 122 (c).

Complainant Y................................................................................................................................................. 125 (d). Complainant F................................................................................................................................................. 127 (e). Complainant X................................................................................................................................................. 139 (f).

Complainant Z.................................................................................................................................................. 142 (g). Complainant A................................................................................................................................................. 145 (h). Complainant C................................................................................................................................................ 148 (i).

Complainant B................................................................................................................................................. 149 4. Multiple jeopardy issues ................................................................................................................................ 152 F. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 152 1. Specific Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 152 2.

Commentary ........................................................................................................................................................ 153 ADDENDUM ................................................................................................................ 155 A. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] Johnny Meeko is a 63-year-old Inuk. He has lived in Sanikiluaq all his adult life. He and his wife have adult children and grand- children. English is his second language. [ 2 ] Johnny Meeko is a skilled hunter able to provide for his family and his community.

He is also active in the community as warden in the Anglican Church and as an instructor with the Canadian Rangers. [ 3 ] Johnny Meeko is also accomplished in the wage economy. For some 36 years (from 1973, until his retirement in 2009) he worked for the territorial Department of Education at Nuiyak school in Sanikiluaq, first as a classroom assistant and later as a teacher. [ 4 ] Johnny Meeko had never been in trouble with the law until 2012. In August of 2012, he was named in a 32-count Indictment as the perpetrator of sexual offences involving nine victims over a 30-year time period, from 1972 until 2007.

[ 5 ] The alleged victims of these crimes were children, adolescent pre-teens, teenagers and in one case, an adult. The allegations covered a wide variety of offences – including indecent assault, unlawful confinement, rape, sexual interference and sexual assault. [ 6 ] The offences, with only a few exceptions, were said to have occurred in the Nuiyak school. The alleged victims were, for the most part, eight- and nine-year-old girls in his Grade 3 class.

One of the alleged victims was a boy. [ 7 ] The case came before me for trial in August of 2015 and Johnny Meeko pleaded not guilty to all of the 32 charges in the Indictment. [ 8 ] During the trial, I heard testimony from the nine complainants about the abuse they said they had suffered. I found their testimony, with one exception, convincing. [ 9 ] I also viewed a video of Johnny Meeko’s interview with the police when he was first arrested.

In that interview, he acknowledged sexually touching six of the nine complainants when they were children in his class at various different times over the years. [ 10 ] Johnny Meeko took the stand and testified in his own defence. He denied sexually abusing any of the complainants. And he said that his confession to the police was bogus and made under duress.

He said he just told the police what they wanted to hear because they had been aggressive with him. [ 11 ] I did not believe Johnny Meeko and I found him guilty on 27 of the 32 charges against him. [ 12 ] I found the testimony of one complaint, however, to be problematic in many areas, and I concluded that her testimony did not meet the criminal standard of proof required for a conviction. Accordingly, I found Johnny Meeko not guilty on the five charges involving that particular complainant. B. EVIDENCE [13] The parties, Crown and Defence, have filed an Agreed Statement of Facts [EX.

P-6(b)], which outlines the chronology of when the individual complainants first approached the police and when Johnny Meeko was first arrested. [14] Throughout the trial of this case both Counsel have frequently referred to Johnny Meeko simply as Johnny. Accordingly, and for the sake of convenience, I will for the most part also refer to the defendant, Mr. Meeko, as Johnny. 1. Testimony of the Complainants (a).

Complainant E [15] The accused, Johnny Meeko, is charged with one offence in relation to the complainant E. [16] This charge is Count 27 in the Indictment: it states that between August 1, 1972, and June 30, 1980, Johnny Meeko committed the offence of indecent assault upon E, contrary to what was at the time

section 149 of the Criminal Code .

[17] At the time of the trial E was 52 years old. She and her spouse of some 30 years have four children, including an adult daughter, B, who is also a complainant in the case. i. Testimony in-chief [18] E was born at South Camp in 1963 and moved into the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq with her family when she was six years old, approximately in 1969.

She started kindergarten at Nuiyak school. [19] She described the basic physical layout of the school and remembered the names of all her teachers – most importantly her Grade 3 teacher, who eventually became the school principal. [20] E first encountered Johnny Meeko when she started Grade 3. Johnny had just started as a teaching assistant. He taught Inuktitut in various grades, moving from classroom to classroom as needed. [21] E had two sisters who were also taught by Johnny at the school. Her sister G was two years younger than E.

E’s sister F was five years older and a few grades ahead of E. [22] E told the Court in great detail how she and the other girls in her Grade 3 class were touched and sexually harassed by Johnny. E said Johnny touched her, as well as the other girls in the class, over their clothing “very hard” on the chest. [23] She testified that Johnny would sometimes say he was doing this so that their chests would grow bigger. E also remembered Johnny asking her and the other girls whether they were growing pubic hair. At the time E thought such questions were “stupid” because, in her words: “we were kids.

We didn’t know things were going to develop.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 14, lines 25-26] [24] E said Johnny would touch her and other girls in the class in this fashion at various times throughout the school day, for example when they were lined up to get their papers or preparing to go out for recess. [25] E was clear that these assaults took place on a daily basis; she said that “[h]e touched everyone, every day.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 42, line 17] [26] E said Johnny never bothered the boys in the class, only the girls.

She experienced this touching in the classroom on average more than five times per day.

She also said that Johnny was careful not to engage in this type of activity when any other teachers were around. [27] Most of E’s testimony focused around what occurred in Grade 3, but she said that these assaults continued “[t]he whole time I was in school … He touched me the whole time … [a]t times he was the Inuk[titut] teacher, sometimes he was assisting [another] teacher”. [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 41, lines 25-27, p. 42, line 3] [28] At one point – when E was in Grade 4 or 5 – she and G went to the principal to complain in order to get Johnny to stop touching them.

E said she went to the principal because she and her sister G were tired of having sore chests from Johnny’s touching. [29] E named the principal she spoke to and said he had been the principal for about five years. She testified that they: tried telling him that he [Johnny] was doing that to little girls, like touching them. But our principal was — I don’t know why he didn’t believe us. Maybe because at the time kids weren’t, you know, listened to at all.

Even if we have something important to say, adults would just brush it off, you’re just a kid. [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 25, lines 20-27] [30] E said the last time Johnny touched her in school was when she was “maybe [in] grade 6 or 7. Because when I was in grade 8 or 9 I was much older and could get away.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 42, lines 10-11] [31] E also described an incident at Johnny’s mother’s house, when she was about 15 years old. She says it was in the summertime and that she went with her mother to pay Johnny’s mother a visit.

She said she was sitting in the kitchen with her mother but her mother

got up to join Johnny’s mother in another room, leaving E alone. E testified that Johnny then suddenly entered the kitchen and asked her if she had grown any pubic hair. E told Johnny this was none of his business, but that Johnny then forced his hand inside her pants and underwear, keeping it there for less than 10 seconds. [32] E tried to pull his hand out, she said, but Johnny was too strong. She said he only pulled his hand out when he heard people coming back to the kitchen.

E said she told Johnny she would tell her mother, but that Johnny then said, “[i]f you tell her, I’m gonna do the same thing to her.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 20, lines 2-3] [33] And so, E never told her mother. She said in Court: “I didn’t bother telling my mother that because I didn’t want her to go through what I was going through.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 20, lines 4-6] [34] E testified that Johnny continued to grab or touch her, or at least attempted to touch or grab her, and to make lewd sexual commentary outside the school setting and even after she finished Grade 9 and left school.

Most of these later advances, she said, took place at the local Northern Store. [35] E estimates that in total over the years – when she was a student as well as after she left school – Johnny either attempted to grab her or did so outside the school setting approximately 100 times. She said that on most such occasions Johnny would also invariably make lewd sexual comments. [36] E testified that she found this activity on Johnny’s part degrading. However, after she left school and approached her late teens, she was able to avoid him more easily.

E said that by the time she was 20, Johnny had given up trying to touch her. [37] She also testified, however, that Johnny persisted in sexually harassing her with lewd sexual commentary when she returned to the school as a young adult to work briefly as a classroom assistant. [38] E testified that in the 1990s, when she was in her thirties, she spoke to her older sister F about what Johnny had done.

But E was clear, however, that nothing F had said to her influenced her own testimony. [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 34, line 26 – p. 35, line 6] [39] E was clear as well that no other conversation with anyone else had influenced her testimony. In this regard she said: I mean they went through what they went through but I went through what I went through. They are the only things I can remember because I went through them.

Even though they had stories to tell but they were their stories and they were different. [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 32, lines 6-11] [40] E testified that by the time she made her complaint about Johnny to the police, she had not spoken to a lawyer or law firm with a view to claiming compensation or money for what Johnny (as a teacher employed by the government) had done to her. [41] She testified that a lawyer, Alan Regel, only contacted her for the first time in August of 2015, about a week before she testified in Johnny’s criminal trial. She said that Mr.

Regel had come to Sanikiluaq to help persons who may have been assaulted by Johnny receive compensation. [42] Crown Counsel asked E whether, when she went to talk with the police, she was thinking about suing Johnny for money. In response E said, “[n]o. I just wanted to turn him away from young girls in schools. That’s all I was trying to do, get him away from other girls.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 46, lines 16-18] [43] E said she also spoke to her sister F in 2012, when F informed her that she [F] had “charged” Johnny by giving a statement to the police.

But E said that even after finding this out, E was still not prepared to go through the anxiety of going to the police herself. [44] E testified that she only decided to charge Johnny after her own daughter, B, told her she had gone to the police and done so. It was only at this point, E said, that she decided to come forward. E told the Court: “at first I wasn’t interested because I didn’t want to go through that again.

But when I heard my daughter was going through the same thing, I just decided to go ahead with charging him.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p, 31, lines 15-19] [45] E testified that B, as a little girl, had not told her anything about Johnny’s actions. E asked B why she had not done so, and B told her it was “because we were told not to.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 34. line 18]

[46] Even after B had charged Johnny, she still did not tell E much about what Johnny had done. When asked whether anything B had told her influenced E’s testimony, E said, “[n]o, no. She [B] went through her own hell with him.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 34, line 25] [47] Finally, E was asked whether F or B or anyone else had told her what to say to the police about Johnny. In response to this E told the Court: No, not really. They just told me that they already charged Johnny and that’s about it. And we know what he did so we didn’t really talk about what went on ….

But we all know what Johnny did because we all went through the same thing. [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 36, lines 18-23] ii. Cross-examination [48] Under cross-examination, E maintained that she had discussed little or nothing with her sister F about what Johnny had done to her; she said she was not that close to F. And similarly, respecting her daughter, B, E maintained that B had not discussed any details.

E repeated her previous testimony that B had said only that she [B] and a friend had gone to the police to charge Johnny for touching them at school. [49] E agreed with Defence Counsel when he suggested that she would not get any money or compensation unless she made a complaint against Johnny.

But she also bluntly rebuked Counsel by saying, “so what.” E was clear that she did not make a complaint about Johnny for the money, adding: “even if it came without compensation, I would still file the complaint.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 52, lines 14-15] [50] Defence Counsel also questioned E about the incident at Johnny’s mother’s place where Johnny put his hands down her pants.

E agreed that there were children in the house at the time this happened, but said that they were in another room and out of sight when Johnny touched her. [51] E agreed that it was “big news” in Sanikiluaq when it became public that Johnny had been charged. But she was also clear that while she kept in touch with some of her former classmates, she did not discuss the details of what Johnny had done with these people.

In this regard she said, “we don’t talk about stuff like that….nobody wants to talk about stuff like that…I only kept it with me.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 58 lines 25-27, p. 59, line 2] [52] During cross-examination, E said that during her time at school and outside the school Johnny had touched her (and attempted to touch her) not just on the chest but also in the crotch area – that he had grabbed at her crotch as well as her breasts. [53] In this regard, Defence Counsel reminded E that during the preliminary inquiry she had testified the only time Johnny touched her in the crotch area was during the kitchen incident at Johnny’s mother’s house. [54] E said she was nervous at the preliminary inquiry and confused by some of the questioning.

She made a mistake by saying the kitchen incident was the only time Johnny had touched her in the crotch area. E was clear that while Johnny touched her only in her crotch area while they were in the kitchen, this was not the only time he did so. He grabbed or tried to grab her in the crotch in and outside the school many times. [55] During re-examination E was clear that the kitchen incident was the only time that Johnny touched her in the crotch underneath her clothes. All other touching or attempts were over the clothes. [56] E clarified some further aspects of her testimony as well.

For example, she said that some of Johnny’s lewd comments in the classroom where things which E heard him say to other girls as opposed to something said directly to her. [57] Defence Counsel questioned how daily touching in front of other students in the class could have been kept “secret”, with no teachers hearing about it. In response, E repeated that she had tried to tell the principal but nothing was done. She added that “[i]t wasn’t a secret.

Everybody – all the girls who went to school, in that school, knew that Johnny did the same thing to what he was doing to me.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 59, lines 23-26]

[58] Defence Counsel challenged E about her assertions that Johnny touched her or tried or to touch her (as well as other girls and women) hundreds of times over the years at the Northern Store in front of other people. In response E said: “people are used to seeing him grabbing women. Like it was, I don’t know, a game to him ….

That’s what everybody expected of him because that’s all … he did to other women the whole time we’ve known him.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 70, lines 2-10] [59] She testified that while the Northern store staff did nothing to stop him, the women involved would quite often tell him to stop. However, E said it was “like talking to a wall.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 69, line 25] (b). Complainant D [60] The accused, Johnny Meeko, is charges with six offences relating to D. [61] These charges are Counts 21 to 26 (inclusive) in the Indictment.

They involve the sexual touching of a minor, as well inviting a minor to engage in sexual activity. [62] In Counts 21 and 22, Johnny Meeko is charged with touching D’s chest area and her bottom for a sexual purpose at a time when she was under 14 years of age, contrary to both sections 151 and 271 of the Criminal Code . [63] In Counts 23 and 24, Johnny Meeko is charged with touching D’s genital area for a sexual purpose at a time when she was under 14 years of age, contrary to both sections 151 and 271 of the Criminal Code . [64] In Count 25, Johnny Meeko is charged with touching D while simulating sexual intercourse with her, contrary to

section 271 of the Criminal Code . [65] And in Count 26, Johnny Meeko is charged with inviting D, a person under the age of 14, to perform oral sex upon him, contrary to

section 152 of the Criminal Code . [66] All of these charges arise out of alleged incidents which took place between August of 1988 and June of 1989, when D was eight years old and a student in Johnny’s Grade 3 class. [67] At the time of the trial, D was 35 years old and a single mother with four children between the ages of 17 and two. i. Testimony in-chief [68] D was born in 1980 in Quebec, but was raised and has lived her whole life in Sanikiluaq. She started at the Nuiyak school in kindergarten at five years old, and she stayed in school until Grade 10.

She remembered all her teachers up until Grade 3, and she described the physical layout of the school and classrooms. After Grade 3, however, she remembers little of her schooling. It was in Grade 3, she said, that she experienced sexual abuse at the hands of Johnny Meeko. [69] D started Grade 3 in the fall of 1988, when she was eight years old. Her Grade 3 teacher was Johnny Meeko, who at that time would have been 34 years old.

D said that Johnny taught Inuktitut, but also some English and math. [70] D testified that as a Grade 3 student she was a problem student: she would bully the other students to the point where they began to cry.

She said that Johnny disciplined her for this behaviour on some occasions by striking her hard on the hand with a ruler until her hand was bruised. [71] D testified, however, that the most common repercussion for her bullying behaviour was that Johnny made her stay after school to serve a detention, or sometimes made her remain in the classroom while the other students went to the gym for physical education. [72] When she stayed after school for a detention, D was alone with Johnny in the classroom. Similarly, she was alone with him in the classroom when the other students were permitted to leave for the gym.

And it was on some of these occasions, and mostly after school, that Johnny engaged her or attempted to engage her in various sexual activities.

[73] D testified that on three occasions when she was serving an after school detention Johnny engaged in “simulated sex” with her. She said that, “he used to have fake sex with me with my pants on.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 88, lines 3-4] [74] During this “fake” or simulated sex, she was on the floor with Johnny on top of her and that she could feel his hard penis as he moved. She said that except for one time, they both had their clothes on.

In Court, D used her hands to demonstrate Johnny’s movements: she put one hand over the other with a rubbing motion. [75] D testified that on one of these three simulated sex incidents Johnny pulled her pants down to about mid-calf, but that he did not take her underwear off. [76] D also said that Johnny touched her chest area, as well as her bum.

She testified that he did this after school as well as during school hours when the other students were not in the classroom. [77] D remembered that “one time he told me I don’t have any breasts so he touched my bum.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 93, lines 18-19] She said that in total Johnny touched her about three times on the chest over her clothes, once under her clothes and twice on her bum, over her clothes. [78] D testified as well that Johnny “used to take my pants off and stare at me.” She said that he took her underwear off, and stared at her vagina or genital area. [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 88, lines 4-5] [79] She also said that during one of her detentions, when she was beside Johnny’s desk, he touched her or “played with” her vagina over her clothes.

In Court, D demonstrated how Johnny touched her by moving her own hand in a circular motion. [80] Finally, D testified about an incident where she said Johnny invited her to perform oral sex on him. She said this took place after school, when she was serving a detention. She said: “he told me to [give him a] blow job but I didn’t know how to … I couldn’t, like I started crying.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 90, lines 14-18] [81] D explained how Johnny told her to perform oral sex and she demonstrated in Court (by using her hand and making a sucking sound) what precisely Johnny was telling her to do.

D also said that Johnny had exposed himself by pulling his pants down to his knees and that she saw his penis. She said that Johnny’s underwear was blue. [82] When Johnny wanted oral sex, D became so scared that she ran out of the school to a friend’s place. She said: “I remember going out really fast without my shoes.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 95, lines 21-22] [83] D testified that things with Johnny were so bad that she started skipping school. Sometimes she would just go and sit by a local lake and then return home pretending she had been to school.

She said that the school reported her absenteeism to her mother and, in turn, that she told her mother the reason she was missing school was because of what Johnny was doing to her. [84] However, her mother did not believe her: “I told her Johnny had been doing that to me. And she said [‘]he’s a nice person, I know he’s not doing that.[’] She didn’t believe me the first time.

And then ever since that time I never talked to her about it.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 101, line 25 - p. 102, line 2] [85] D also testified, however, that Johnny never told her not to talk about or share what had happened between them in the school. [86] D testified that she only made her complaint about Johnny to the police after the police came to her and said another unnamed person had given them her name as a possible victim. D said she never told anyone except the police what Johnny had done to her. In this regard she said, “[n]ever, never.

I was not going to tell no one about it but I keep being mad and hurt my feelings. That’s why I started talking.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 100, lines 7-9] [87] No other persons had told D about what Johnny had done to them. D said it was only the police that came to her about this. She said that before the police came to her she had not heard anything about Johnny Meeko touching other kids. [88] D testified as well that no lawyer had been in contact with her about getting money for what Johnny had done to her. Nor, she said, had she contacted any lawyer in this regard.

ii. Cross-examination [89] D was asked about her Grade 3 classroom. She said that the classroom door had a small window through which a person could see only partially into the classroom. She said that the teacher’s desk (Johnny’s desk) was not visible through the window – a person would have to actually enter the classroom in order see the desk. [90] D said that Johnny was at his desk after school when he asked her to give him a “blowjob.” And she agreed with Defence Counsel that there likely were still teachers in the school at the end of the school day.

D also said that when Johnny touched her, he did so when they were alone in the classroom and not, as suggested by Defence Counsel, when she and other students were lined up to go into class. She said: “[w]e didn’t line up.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 117, line 20] [91] D agreed with Defence Counsel that when Johnny slapped her on the hands with the ruler, this made her mad at him. For the most part, however, D simply confirmed during cross-examination much of the detail from her earlier testimony in-chief.

For example, she confirmed being touched three times on the chest, including one time on her “skin,” and on another occasion being stared at by Johnny after he took off her pants and underwear. [92] D agreed as well that everything she said Johnny did to her, he did secretly and not in front of other people. As far as she knew, he was careful not to let anyone else see what he was doing to her. [93] D testified that she had never heard anything about other notorious cases of sexual abuse.

Nor, she said, did she know much about how people could get money or compensation for sexual abuse; albeit she added: “I wish I can.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 123, line 14] [94] D testified that she never discussed her experiences with the other witnesses (and alleged victims) in the case, either on the charter flight to the trial, in her hotel, or even earlier, in Sanikiluaq. She said, “I never heard of it. They never came and talked about it to me ….

I thought I was the only one.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 124, lines 15-19] [95] And she confirmed her earlier in-chief testimony that the police told her only that Johnny “had been charged and … that somebody gave us your name.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 125, lines 10-11] [96] D was questioned extensively by Defence Counsel about previous testimony she had given at the preliminary inquiry, which had taken place in Sanikiluaq in the summer of 2013 (some two years before the trial). [97] Two aspects of this cross-examination are worthy of note.

In each instance D was questioned about what she had refused to say at the preliminary inquiry. [98] First, D was questioned about what she had said at the preliminary inquiry respecting her allegation that Johnny had engaged in simulated or “fake” sex with her. At the preliminary inquiry Defence Counsel had asked D whether Johnny engaged in fake sex with her. And D had responded by saying, “I don’t know … I can’t say with all these people here. I’m too nervous and I can’t say.

I can’t, I just can’t.” The “people” that D was talking about were the accused’s relatives. [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 109, lines, 7-15] [99] At trial, D agreed that she did in fact remember the “fake” sex, but was unable to articulate any details at the preliminary inquiry because of the presence of Johnny’s relatives in the audience. She said the presence of other people had made her both nervous and scared, and that she did not testify about the fake sex, “because all of his relatives was [sic] there.

I was too scared to talk.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 109, lines 24-25] [100] The second instance where D had declined or refused to testify at the preliminary hearing had to do with her allegation that Johnny had taken off her pants and starred at her vagina.

Again, at the preliminary hearing, Defence Counsel asked D what she remembered “of that time you say her took off your pants.” And D responded by saying, “I’m not too sure.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 119, lines 20-21] [101] Once again, at trial D agreed that she did have a memory of this event, but that she was unable to articulate any details at the preliminary inquiry because, “there were lots of people in Court there and I was too scared at the time ….

I was scared, all his relatives was [sic] there.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 120, lines 9-19] [102] At the Nunavut Justice Centre in Iqaluit, the witness box is situated between the counsel tables and the witness faces the judge, not the audience or the accused. This was not, however, the situation at the preliminary inquiry. And in re-examination the Crown Attorney confirmed with D that in Sanikiluaq, while giving her preliminary inquiry testimony, she had actually faced the accused, as well as his relatives in the audience.

[103] Much of Defence Counsel’s cross-examination of D from her preliminary inquiry testimony was simply confusing to her, and on a number of occasions she expressed frustration in following the questions being asked of her.

This is not unusual despite both the sensitivity of Counsel and Counsel’s skill in referring D to her preliminary inquiry testimony. [104] At the end of the day, however, while D agreed that her memory of what actually happened all those years ago was “a bit uncertain,” she was nonetheless adamant that she remembered being touched in the manner she had described by Johnny. [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 111, lines 17-19, p. 116, lines 21-27] (c). Complainant Y [105] The accused, Johnny Meeko, is charged with four offences relating to Y. [106] These charges are Counts 4 to 7 (inclusive) in the Indictment.

They involve the sexual touching of a minor, as well as sexual touching of a teenager. [107] In Counts 4 and 5 Johnny Meeko is charged with touching Y’s chest area and her bottom for a sexual purpose at the time when she was under 14 years of age, contrary to both sections 151 and 271 of the Criminal Code . [108] In Count 6, Johnny Meeko is charged with touching one of Y’s breasts at the time when she was 14 years old, contrary to

section 271 of the Criminal Code . [109] In Count 7, Johnny Meeko is charged with committing a common assault upon Y, contrary to

section 266 of the Criminal Code . This charge arises from the same act of touching her breast as alleged in Count 6. [110] At the time of the trial, Y was 29 years old. For the past 13 years, she has been living with her sisters, including her younger sister Z, who was also a complainant in the case. i. Testimony in-chief [111] Y was born in 1986. She remembered the names of all her teachers at Nuiyak school, from kindergarten until Grade 12.

She was five years old when she started school in kindergarten, eight years old when she was in Grade 3 and 14 years old when she was in Grade 9. [112] Y’s Grade 3 class took place in a portable classroom unattached to the main school building itself. Her Grade 3 teacher was Johnny Meeko. He was a certified teacher and not simply a teacher’s assistant. There was another teacher who came into the class for about 45 minutes each day to teach English, but the full-time or main teacher was Johnny Meeko. [113] Y testified about an incident which happened while she was in Johnny’s Grade 3 class.

She said it started when Johnny gave her a detention for hitting her brother. She had to serve the detention after school, at a time when only she and Johnny were in the classroom. [114] Y testified that she was wearing snow pants, a sweater, a T-shirt and socks. She said that she set at her desk and stood up when Johnny rubbed her bottom over the top of her pants. She said he did this for “[a]bout a minute.

It seemed long but I don’t really remember.” She said she felt uncomfortable “[b]ecause no one did that to me before.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 2, p. 153, lines 14-15, p. 142, line 23] [115] Y testified that “[a]fter he was rubbing my butt, his hand went over to my chest.” And she described how Johnny then put his hand under her sweater and touched her chest area over the top of her T-shirt.

Y said that Johnny also made a lewd comment: “[h]e told me my chest would grow when I grow older and a lot of guys will be into it.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 2, p. 143, lines 7-8, 13-14] [116] Y testified that she then immediately put on her boots and ran out of the portable classroom to a place beside a teacher’s house. She did not, however, tell anyone what Johnny had done, and she estimated that the entire incident took less than five minutes.

[117] Y also testified about another incident involving Johnny when she was 14 years old and in Grade 9. She was a Junior Ranger at the time. She believed the incident took place in November of 2000. [118] Y said this incident took place on the weekend when Ranger practice was taking place in the school gym. Johnny was one of two Ranger supervisors. Y said she went to use the washroom and when she came back out into the hallway she encountered Johnny, who was standing beside the washroom. She had seen him moments earlier in the staff room, but at this point the two of them were, she said, alone in the hallway.

She said that Johnny was wearing a T-shirt with a Ranger logo and she was wearing a Ranger hoodie. [119] Y testified that as she stood facing Johnny he reached out and squeezed one of her breasts over the top of her hoodie and told her she had grown a lot. She was clear that she did not want Johnny to do such a thing and that she immediately pushed him away and returned to the gym to be with her fellow Junior Rangers. She did not tell anyone about this because she was too embarrassed. [120] Y testified that she told someone about these incidents for the first time when she made her statement to the police.

She said that she went to the police in 2012 to give a statement about Johnny because she had heard rumours that others were making statements about what Johnny had done. [121] Y testified that other people, including her younger sister Z, had shared their stories about Johnny with her. She said, however, that “[t]hey didn’t share exactly what happened to them.

They didn’t share much.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 2, p. 150, lines 24-27, p. 151, lines 1-4] [122] Y was also clear that whatever her younger sister Z had shared with her did not change or affect what she [Y] said about what Johnny had done to her. [Trial Transcript, Volume 2, p. 151, lines 5-7] [123] Y testified that after she gave her statement to the police she talked with her sister Z and her mother.

She told them how she had pretended to be sick to avoid going to school because of Johnny. [124] Y also testified that she had not spoken to any lawyers about the possibility of receiving money for what Johnny had done. She said that she had received a letter in the mail from a lawyer within the past week, but she had not bothered to see the lawyer because she was working evening shifts at the RCMP detachment and sleeping during the day. She also said that she had no thought of getting money when she first went to the police in 2012. ii.

Cross-examination [125] Y confirmed her earlier in-chief testimony respecting conversations she had had with her younger sister Z and her mother about Johnny. She clarified that the community members she had talked with about Johnny were simply her own family – namely her mother and her older sisters. [126] Y confirmed that she spoke with her younger sister Z in 2012 after she had spoken to the police – but that the only thing she talked about was avoiding school because of Johnny. [127] Y said that although Z had talked with her about Johnny, Z did not speak in any detail about what Johnny had done.

She said that Z “didn’t really tell me.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 2, p. 158, line 18] [128] Y testified that Z had gone to Winnipeg in 2010 for medical reasons, but she said Z never said anything to Y about talking to someone in Winnipeg about Johnny. [129] Y was clear as well that during the charter flight from Sanikiluaq to Iqaluit for the trial neither she nor any of the other complainants spoke about the case. [130] Y agreed with Defence Counsel’s suggestion that in the small community of Sanikiluaq people gossip and that when Johnny was charged it was big news.

And she confirmed her earlier in-chief testimony that such rumours prompted her to go the police in 2012. [131] Y confirmed that both she and her younger sister Z were in Johnny’s Grade 3 class at the same time. She said that her brother was also in the class, but that he had gone home by the time Johnny gave her the detention which kept her after class and alone with the accused. [132] Y said that school normally ended around 3:30 p.m. and that she would have served her detention between roughly 3:30 and 4

p.m., at which time there would still be staff and teachers present in the main school building, but not in the portable classroom. She said there was a metal door on the portable classroom but that it had windows. [133] Defence Counsel reminded Y about her testimony from the preliminary inquiry where she said Johnny touched her bottom for just a few seconds and suggested that this testimony was different from her trial testimony, where she said that Johnny touched her bottom for about one minute.

In response, Y said only: “Does it matter?” [Trial Transcript, Volume 2, p. 164, line 24] [134] Defence Counsel questioned Y about the incident she said had occurred while she was a Junior Ranger. Y agreed that there was nothing actually stopping anyone in the gym from walking into the hallway where Johnny touched her. [135] During re-examination, Y said that the windows on her Grade 3 portable classroom were approximately five feet up from the exterior ground level. (d).

Complainant F [136] The accused, Johnny Meeko, is charged with five offences in relation to F. [137] These charges are Counts 28 to 32 (inclusive) in the Indictment. They involve allegations of sexual touching as well as rape while F was a student in Johnny’s class. They also involve an allegation of rape occurring shortly after F had stopped attending school, and a further allegation of rape occurring many years later, when F was an adult. [138] In Count 28, Johnny Meeko is charged with indecent assault contrary to

section 149 of the Criminal Code by sexually touching F while she was a student in his class. [139] In Counts 29 and 30, Johnny Meeko is charged with raping and confining F on three separate occasions while she was a student, contrary to sections 143 and 247(2) of the Criminal Code . [140] In Count 31, Johnny Meeko is charged with raping F after she had ceased to be a student, contrary to

section 143 of the Criminal Code . [141] And in Count 32, Johnny Meeko is charged with sexually assaulting F in her home at a time when she was an adult, contrary to

section 271 of the Criminal Code . [142] At the time of the trial, F was 57 years old and living with her son. i. Testimony in-chief [143] F was born in 1958 in Sanikiluaq. She took her early schooling in South Camp and in Quebec until she was 14 years old. She testified that the language of instruction in Quebec was Inuktitut. [144] F returned to Sanikiluaq in December of 1972 and began classes at the new Nuiyak school. At the time, F said, the school consisted of stand-alone portable classrooms. [145] F left Sanikiluaq, however, in March or April of 1973 to have a baby in Churchill, Manitoba.

The baby was born in May of 1973. [146] F was clear about the precise years when she attended Nuiyak school. She said that her first full academic year at Nuiyak school began in September of 1973 and that she was in either Grade 7 or 8. She stopped attending school part way through the next academic year, 1974-75, when she was in either Grade 8 or 9.

[147] F testified that in her portable classroom there were more than 20 students of different ages and at different grade levels. She said that the age difference between the students was, however, only two or three years. [148] F drew a diagram of her portable classroom [EX. P-4] and explained the layout of the structure. She pointed out that the portable classroom had both a furnace room as well as a darkroom which was used for developing photographs. F explained that the darkroom had a lock or latch on the outside.

F said that the back door of the portable classroom, as well as the exterior or exit door from the furnace room (which led outside to the roadway), had been secured by two-by-four blocks of wood which were tied together with a rope. F also said that rubber mats for gym class were stacked and stored in the furnace room. [149] F remembered the names of her various teachers during the 1973-74 academic year, and it was during this year that she first encountered the accused, who at the time was a teaching assistant. [150] F said that she was vaguely familiar with Johnny from her time in Quebec.

She, however, had never actually met Johnny before he came back to teach in Sanikiluaq. [151] F would have been 15 years old when school started in September of 1973 and Johnny would have been 19 years old. F testified how Johnny would move from class to class, assisting various teachers on an as needed basis, but that sometimes he would actually have an entire class to himself without a teacher. [152] F testified that Johnny’s behaviour in the classroom as the year began was not remarkable, but that as time went on he started groping girls’ chests.

She said: “Like we were just developing breasts and he would squeeze them very, very hard. And it wasn’t only me, it was everybody in the class.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 400, line 27, p. 401, lines 1-3] [153] F said that she never saw Johnny bother any boys at all, just the girls. She testified that when Johnny groped her and other girls, he would often comment that their breasts will grow as they got older. She said that Johnny was in the regular habit of making lewd comments as he harassed her and the other girls in the class.

For example, she said, he would ask “if we are growing pubic hair[,] or if we are wet … or if I had sex with someone[,] or if someone had sex with me, things like that. Very uncomfortable questions.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 401, lines 22-25] [154] F was clear that this groping and lewd commentary on Johnny’s part all took place at a point in time after she had given birth to her baby. She said that Johnny would grope girls’ chests over their clothes and only stop or let go when the victim was hurting and said “ouch”.

She said he would also attempt to touch the girls on other parts of their body as well. [155] F testified that Johnny persisted in this type of groping behaviour towards her and other girls on a daily basis throughout the academic year.

She said it happened “[e]very day for a whole school year, as long as I was there.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 404, lines 21-22] [156] F also testified that Johnny touched her inappropriately on one occasion when he had darkened the classroom in order to play a movie for the class. [157] F said that whenever Johnny showed a movie he would sit on a chair and run the projector himself.

She said that he would always have one of the younger girls sit on his lap throughout the movie. [158] F testified that she thought this was unusual and she became curious as to what Johnny might be doing with these little girls. She testified that in order to find out what Johnny was doing she volunteered to sit on Johnny’s lap as he was preparing to show the movie. [159] F testified that while she was sitting on Johnny’s lap he put his hand on her crotch, first outside and then inside her pants. She said that he then manipulated her vagina with his fingers.

F said that Johnny also moved himself by rocking back and forth as he was touching her.

[160] When asked by the Prosecutor how long Johnny’s hand remained in her pants, she replied by saying, “[a]s long as the movie was on or until I think he – I don’t know which came first, he got off.

After he finished what he was trying to do I suppose, ejaculated or something.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 412, lines 20-23] [161] The Prosecutor asked F if she actually knew whether Johnny had ejaculated and she replied by saying: “[y]es, because I could feel my back wet.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 412, line 26] [162] The Prosecutor then asked F whether Johnny had done anything else sexual with her during her time in the school.

F replied by saying that Johnny had raped her in the furnace room. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 413, lines 13-15, p. 414, line 17] [163] The Prosecutor asked F how many times Johnny had raped her in the furnace room. F responded by saying “[a] couple of times.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 415, line 11] [164] F said that on first occasion she was held after school by the principal to complete an assignment. She said she was the only student kept after school and that the principal left Johnny in charge of her.

She said she completed the assignment but that Johnny prevented her from leaving by blocking her way to the main entrance of the portable classroom. [165] F testified that Johnny had put the two-by-fours on the rear door to the portable classroom as well as the door leading to the exterior from the furnace room in order to prevent students from fleeing from him.

She said Johnny told the other teachers that he had secured the doors in this fashion to prevent the wind form entering, but that in truth he had done so “[b]ecause we girls – we learned … how to escape through the different doors and he blocked everything except the front door.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 416, line 15- 19] [166] F testified that after Johnny blocked her exit from the portable classroom she became frightened because “[h]is face went from an angel to a devil.” She said that “[f]rom having already experienced sexual abuse in the residential school … I knew what was coming, because he forced me to the furnace room.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 418, lines 8-13] [167] F said that Johnny “man-handled” her to the furnace room and put her down on one of the gym mats which he took from the large stack of mats.

She said that he then took down her pants and underpants as well as his own, and forced his penis into her vagina. She said that Johnny was on top of her the entire time so that there was no use struggling. [168] F said Johnny never said anything to her and that she did not know if he used a condom. She said she did not remember if she said anything to Johnny, because, “Like what do you say? What do you say to a devil’s face?” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 420, lines 4-5] [169] F testified that she was about 15 or 16 when this first incident took place.

She said that she did not remember how much time passed between this first rape in the furnace room and the time that Johnny raped her again in the furnace room. [170] Before asking F to talk about the second rape in the furnace room, the Prosecutor confirmed with her: “you mentioned that this happened a couple of times, right?” In response, F said: “Yes.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 421, lines 8-10] [171] F testified that on this second occasion the school day was just coming to an end and that Johnny was behaving aggressively towards several little girls in the class.

She said, “I saw his aggressive face and knew that he was going to pick on one of those little girls and hurt them.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 422, lines 2-4] [172] F said that she remained behind so that the little girls could leave school for the day and that this left her alone with Johnny in the classroom. She said, “I was the last one, he caught me. If you weren’t fast enough you were the victim.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 422, line 27, p. 423, line 1] [173] F testified that Johnny first locked her in the darkroom for about five minutes, after which he once again took her to the furnace

room. She said that the scenario from the first rape repeated itself and that Johnny put her on a matt, pulled down her pants as well as his own, and forced his penis into her vagina. F testified that she was too scared to say anything to Johnny, but that he told her in Inuktitut not to tell anyone what had happened. [174] The Prosecutor then asked F if there were ever any more times – other than these two occasions – when something happened in the furnace room. F responded by saying, “Yes and no….But not sure of the dates.

I am sure there was in between.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 426, lines 9-12] [175] F said that she recalled a time when the school janitor, who was her relative, had asked her to help him after school. She said that the janitor was busy working in another classroom and that she was waiting for him in her classroom, at which point she was alone with Johnny. [176] She said that Johnny once again took her to the furnace room, put her down on the matt, took off her pants as well as his own and raped her.

She said she did not remember if he used a condom and added: “Were condoms common [at] that time?” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 427, line 27] [177] F also testified that Johnny raped her after she had quit school in 1975. This, she said, was when she was “17 or somewhere in there.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 428, line 27] [178] F said that she was walking to either the Hudson Bay (Northern) or Co-Op store when Johnny drove up to her on an ATV, asked where she was going and offered her a ride.

She said she was scared but accepted his offer and climbed on to the ATV, “[b]ecause I felt guilty[,] because he taught me how to feel guilty around him.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 430, lines 9-10] [179] F testified that instead of taking her to the store Johnny started driving out onto the land on the northeast side of Sanikiluaq. She said she thought about jumping off the ATV but, “I wanted to live too … it’s not like we are in a city.

We are in … rocky areas of the island.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 431, lines 1-10] [180] F testified that she did not remember saying anything to Johnny when she realized he was not taking her to the store, but just thought to herself: “oh, shit.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 431, line 14] [181] F said Johnny took her to an area where the tundra moss was wet and where there was a small indentation or ditch.

She said that Johnny told her this was the place where he takes women, including one of F’s relatives. [182] She testified that “[h]e put me on the same spot and then I learned why it’s curved like that. That’s where all the bums were, I mean the women’s butts have been put there so many times there is a shape.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 432, lines 20-23] [183] F testified that Johnny never asked her whether she wanted to have sex. She testified that she definitely did not want to have sex with him.

She said that after he put her down on the ground, he removed her pants as well as his own and penetrated her vagina with his penis. She did not remember either of them saying anything. She said, “[l]ike I said before, when he is like that his face turned from angel to devil. And when he is in devil state it’s scary not to say anything.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 434, lines 5-8] [184] F said that she did not remember how she got home after this incident out on the land took place. [185] F testified about another and final incident where, she said, Johnny had raped her.

This occurred around 1992 or 1993 when she was 34 or 35 years old. [186] F explained that she had been living in Quebec and only recently returned to Sanikiluaq to live in her new home. She said late in the afternoon in the early fall Johnny showed up at her house.

[187] F testified that she only first realized Johnny was there after he had come into the house. She said he had never been to the house before. She said that when she saw Johnny standing there she had a “[f]eeling of being back to know[ing] him as a teacher’s assistant, all over again.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 436, lines 16-17] [188] F testified Johnny told her he wanted to have sex, “because his wife’s vagina is very dry.” F did not remember if she said anything to Johnny in response. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 436, lines 22-23] [189] She testified that she had never invited Johnny to the house.

She said that she was having financial difficulties around this time and had been asking for food on the radio and that Johnny took advantage of this opportunity to visit her. [190] F testified that she did not want to have sex with Johnny. The Prosecutor asked F if she had said anything to Johnny to make him think she did not want to have sex with him. In reply F said, “I don’t remember … I used to block and let’s get this over with.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 440, lines 3-5] [191] The Prosecutor asked F what she thought might have happened if she had resisted Johnny.

In reply, F said: “Rape, hurt, beaten.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 440, line 8] [192] F testified that Johnny talked to her about sex with other women. F said he had often been in the habit to talking about it, either in the school or elsewhere. [193] F testified that this rape took place in her bedroom and that like on previous occasions, it was not consensual sex.

She said that she did not want to be with Johnny in the bedroom and that Johnny took her pants partially down as well as his own and then penetrated her vagina with his penis. [194] She said Johnny only took his pants partially off because, “[t]hat’s how he used his victim, only partially part of the pants are down, not fully down — not fully off I meant.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 438, lines 4-7] [195] F testified that afterwards, before he left the house, Johnny gave her $20. She said she did not want this money and it made her feel horrible and like a “prostitute”.

She said further there had never been any discussion between her and Johnny about money. [196] F said that she did not keep the money. She gave it back to Johnny by giving it to the church, because “he [Johnny] was a church warden[,] an angel.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 438, lines 26-27, p. 439, line 1] [197] The Prosecutor asked for F’s opinion about Johnny’s position with the local Anglican Church and his standing in the community generally. F responded that Johnny, as the church warden, is the most important person in the church.

She also said that Johnny, as “a Ranger, Lieutenant or a Sergeant or something … was a perfect guy to the eyes of the Sanikiluaq people.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 440, lines 22-24] [198] The Prosecutor asked F whether back when she was in school she had ever told anyone about what Johnny was doing. F said that she told the principal and she named this particular principal. She said she first told the principal at a very early stage, when Johnny started touching students. She added: “[i]f somebody had listened to me right away[,] it would not have happened.

This is my fault too.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 443, lines 25-26] [199] F said that she did not tell other people in the community about Johnny, “We are not allowed to tell [on others as] kids in Inuit [culture]. Our parents or elders will tell us [‘]you asked for it,[’] that it’s our fault.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 443, lines 7-9] [200] F testified that many years later she told her younger sister E that Johnny had abused her, but did not share much detail about it. F

said she heard that her younger sisters E and G were sexually assaulted by Johnny. Even more recently – only a couple of weeks before the trial – she learned that her daughter had been assaulted by Johnny as well. [201] The Prosecutor asked F whether these discussions with her sisters influenced her testimony about what had happened to her. F responded: “[n]o, no. We didn’t tell in detail.

We just – it was that he sexually abused us, not in detail.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 444, lines 11-12] [202] F said that she decided to go to the police only “[a]fter I learned what he did to my two sisters, when I started blaming myself.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 445, lines 11-12] [203] The Prosecutor asked F if she had spoken with any lawyers about suing Johnny or the government for what Johnny had done. F said that she had met with one lawyer who had come to Sanikiluaq about two weeks prior to the trial.

She said that there were many reasons why the lawyer may have come to Sanikiluaq unrelated to Johnny Meeko. She also said that “[t]his is not about the money, this is about wanting little girls to be safe from people like Johnny. I want that to stop.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 447, lines 2-4] ii. Cross-examination [204] Defence Counsel asked F to confirm her prior in-chief testimony that, in a nutshell, Johnny assaulted her three times in the class furnace room and twice more after she had grown up.

F agreed with this. [205] F also confirmed her prior in-chief testimony that Johnny groped her every single day she was in school, and further that he groped every other girl every single day as well. She said this activity took place in front of all the other students in the portable classroom on a regular basis, and that Johnny made no attempt to hide what he was doing from the students. [206] F was clear, however, that he never did any groping in front of other teachers – that he was careful to hide his activity from the other school staff.

She was clear as well that the windows on the portable classroom were high enough that a person standing outside could not possibly see inside. [207] F confirmed that her baby had been born in May of 1973. [208] She did not agree with the Defence Counsel, however, when he suggested that all three rapes occurred before the baby was born.

F was clear that only the first rape took place before the baby’s birth. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 453, lines 22-27] [209] In this regard, Counsel referred F to her testimony from the preliminary inquiry which had taken place in Iqaluit some 10 months earlier, in late 2014. [210] The main portion of Johnny Meeko’s preliminary inquiry took place in Sanikiluaq in the summer of 2013. However, charges respecting F were not laid until August of 2014, and so the preliminary inquiry into F’s matters did not proceed until later in 2014.

It proceeded in Iqaluit in order to secure the earliest date for a hearing. [211] F confirmed that she was able to read English easily and was allowed the opportunity to read some of her testimony from the preliminary inquiry before being questioned by Counsel. [212] F agreed with Counsel that at the preliminary inquiry she had testified the first rape in the furnace room happened before her baby was born and that the second and third rapes took place very soon after the first incident.

And she further agreed that at the preliminary inquiry she had said these further rapes – the second and third incidents – also happened before her baby was born. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 453, lines 1-20]

[213] F maintained, however, that this aspect of her testimony from the preliminary hearing (that all three rapes happened before the baby was born) was not correct and that only the first rape took place before she gave birth. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 453, lines 22- 27] [214] Defence Counsel asked F to explain this difference in her testimony. In response, F said: in those last ten months [since the preliminary inquiry] I have been really thinking, memorizing and really trying to see if I have that correct age. Because I was hearing that Johnny was telling people that I made the mistakes on the dates.

So Johnny must know the exact dates he did those [things] to me. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 454, lines 3-8] [215] F added that “[m]aybe I was nervous” at the preliminary hearing, when she had said all three rapes took place before the baby was born. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 454, line 16] [216] Defence Counsel concluded questioning F on this subject as follows: Question [Defence Counsel]: Okay. And if I were to suggest to you that Johnny was in Churchill going to school until after your baby was born, you would disagree with that, wouldn’t you?

Answer [F]: Yes. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 455, lines 13-17] [217] Defence Counsel questioned F about the time she said Johnny had given her a ride on his ATV, taken her out of town and raped her. [218] F confirmed that she was walking from her home to either the Hudson’s Bay or the Co-Op store and that her house was only a couple of blocks from the store. She said this was in the mid-1970s and that it was a beautiful summer day when people drive ATVs. [219] Defence Counsel asked F why she took a ride from Johnny if it was a beautiful summer day and her house was only a couple of blocks from the store.

F responded by saying: “the time is ticking … I had to get something before the store closed.” She did not, however, remember what time of the day it was. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 466, lines 20-25] [220] Defence Counsel suggested to F that after Johnny had taken her out on the land, he drove her back to town and dropped her off at the Co-Op store.

In response, F said, “I don’t know.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 467, line 3] [221] In this regard, Defence Counsel once again referred F to her testimony from the preliminary inquiry where she had said that Johnny had driven her back to town and dropped her off at the Co-Op. In response F said: “It might have been, it couldn’t have been. I don’t know … All the events that took place, I don’t remember what happened after.

I told you I am still there in the school.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 467 lines 23-27, p. 468, lines 1-2] [222] Defence Counsel questioned F about the alleged rape which took place when Johnny came to her house uninvited and asked for sex. [223] Defence Counsel suggested to F that as a 35-year-old adult at the time she did not have to have sex with Johnny simply because he

asked for it. F agreed with this but said she felt she had to go along because “he is still the same teacher with the same face.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 468, lines 14-15] [224] While questioning F about this, Defence Counsel also suggested that Johnny never hit her. F responded by saying, “I don’t think so.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 468, line 27] [225] Defence Counsel pursued this line of questioning in the following excerpt: Question [Defence Counsel]: Okay. I am not in any way minimizing what you say he [Johnny] did[,] but he wasn’t physically violent with you? Answer [F]: His face.

Question [Defence Counsel]: His face? Answer [F]: Yes. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 469, lines 5-10] [226] At the conclusion of F’s testimony, I asked her to clarify a couple of things she had said about the incident at her house. [227] First, since I did not recall any testimony about whether she and Johnny were alone in the house at the time of the alleged rape, I asked if there were any other people (such as kids, for example) present in the house. [228] In response F was clear that she and Johnny were alone in the house. [229] Second, I asked F to clarify how it was that she got to the bedroom.

I asked her if she just went to the bedroom, or if Johnny took her there. In response F said that Johnny took her to the bedroom. [230] I then asked her how Johnny took her to the bedroom. In response, F said: “[j]ust like he used to do in school, manhandle.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 474, lines 9-10] [231] I then permitted Defence Counsel to ask F what she meant by the word, “manhandle.” In the following excerpt, F clarified what Johnny did to get her to the bedroom: Question [Defence Counsel]: You said he manhandled you. What do you mean by that? Answer [F]: By directing me to the bedroom.

Question [Defence Counsel]: Okay. So it’s not like he grabbed you and picked you up? Answer [F]: No, no.

[Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 474, lines 16-21] [232] F agreed with Defence Counsel that she did not report any of Johnny’s conduct until 2012. And Defence Counsel questioned F about why she had “hesitated” some 40 years before going to the police to complain about what Johnny had done to her when she was a young girl. In response, F referenced her earlier in-chief testimony and said, “I told you Johnny is an important man in town.

He is God’s right-hand man.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 455, lines 25-27] [233] F said as well that because Johnny was such a prominent man in town, even if she had gone to the police the people of Sanikiluaq would not have believed her. She first heard about Johnny being charged when she was listening to the radio. She testified that after hearing Johnny had been charged “I started blaming myself.

If I had told them right away, there were other little girls that would not be -- -”. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 457, lines 4-6] [234] Defence Counsel asked F about another man who worked at Nuiyak school during her time as a student. [235] F agreed with Defence Counsel that in 2007 she made a complaint to police that this other man had sexually assaulted her in much the same fashion that Johnny had assaulted her: namely, in the furnace room of the portable classroom after school hours. She also told the police that this other man sexually assaulted her when she was older, after she had left school.

And F agreed with Defence Counsel that when she made her complaint to police in 2007 about this other man, she also told the police that he was an important and respected person in the community. [236] I pause to note that before I even allowed F to be questioned about this other man (or third person) I conducted a voir dire (as well as an in-camera hearing) to determine the legal admissibility and relevance of such a line of questioning. [237] Defence Counsel was clear that he would not be questioning F about the details of what the other man had done to her, except to suggest that she had told police the other man also sexually assaulted her in the furnace room while she was a student and, later, when she was older and had left school.

Further, Defence Counsel was clear that he would not be suggesting that F had somehow mistaken Johnny for this other man. [238] The Defence positon was that questions about the timing of F’s complaint to police about the other man should be allowed for a limited purpose. When F had complained to police about the other man in 2007, she also told the police that the other man was an important person in the community.

Accordingly, Defence Counsel argued that he should be allowed to question F about this for the limited purpose of testing the veracity of her anticipated evidence that she waited until 2012 to approach the police about Johnny because he was such an important person in the community – and that she believed until 2012 that no one would have taken her seriously had she complained earlier. [239] The Crown did not dispute the Defence position and accordingly I allowed F to be questioned for the limited purpose as articulated by Defence Counsel (with the proviso that there would be a publication ban respecting the name of the third party). [240] I would pause further to remark that in my view, at the end of the day, not much came of this.

During re-examination, Crown Counsel questioned F further about this third person in the following excerpt: Question [Crown Counsel]: … Johnny’s lawyer asked you about reporting [the third party] in 2007. And you said that you reported Johnny five years later. Why did you take – why did you wait to report Johnny? Answer [F]: Johnny is an important man in town and his family. Question [Crown Counsel]: Okay. So why d

[…]