Complainant denies defence's suggestion that media coverage influenced recollections

The cross-examination of a complainant in the trial of Michael Haaima questioned the young woman's recollection of events.

Article content The cross-examination of a complainant in the trial of Michael Haaima concluded Tuesday morning with defence lawyer Natasha Calvinho questioning whether the young woman’s recollection of events had evolved through years of reflection and exposure to public reporting about the case. This complainant, whose testimony began the morning of July 13, first spoke to the Ontario Provincial Police in 2022, approximately four years after the events she described in court. The defence noted that several details described in court — including conversations, the circumstances surrounding a motor vehicle collision, and other interactions with Haaima — had not been mentioned during the witness’s 2022 police interview.

The complainant acknowledged that many of those details had not been disclosed at the time, but she maintained they were genuine memories. The defence attorney also questioned the witness about her exposure to media coverage of the case. The complainant agreed that after learning in 2022 police were conducting a broader investigation involving Haaima, she had seen news coverage of the trial through social media.

Calvinho suggested that reading reports describing allegations made by other complainants could have influenced memories that surfaced after her original police statement. The witness rejected that suggestion, telling the court the media coverage had not affected her recollection of her own experiences. Asked why she had never contacted police to report additional memories after her 2022 interview, the complainant testified that she had not expected to testify at trial and had deliberately tried not to think about that period of her life.

She said being called as a witness years later required her to revisit memories she had long attempted to leave behind. This prompted one of the more emotional moments of the morning, near the conclusion of the cross-examination. Calvinho suggested that when the complainant first met with police in 2022, she did not believe she had been exploited or abused.

The witness agreed that was her perspective at the time, when she was 16 years old; however, she testified, her understanding had changed over the years. She told the court that revisiting the events had taken a significant emotional toll and that she experienced mental health struggles after speaking with police. Preparing to testify, she said, forced her to confront memories she had tried not to think about for years.

Defence counsel did not pursue that line of questioning further. Earlier in the morning, Calvinho also questioned the complainant about the absence of text messages, social media communications, and other contemporaneous records from the period in question. The witness testified that the relevant accounts and devices no longer exist, leaving her testimony to rely largely on her recollection of events.

Following approximately two days of testimony, Crown attorney Megan Williams advised the court she had no questions in re-examination. Justice Robyn Ryan Bell thanked the complainant for her evidence and formally excused her from the witness stand. The court then adjourned for an early lunch before hearing from the Crown’s next witness, who was scheduled to testify remotely.

Michelle Dorey Forestell is a Local Journalism Initiative reporter with the Kingstonist. The LJI is funded through the federal government.