R. Versus Meeko 2018

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)

2
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complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or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.
3
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
(c). Complainant Y .................................................................................................................................... 19
(d). Complainant F ................................................................................................................................... 23
(e). Complainant X ................................................................................................................................... 38
(f). Complainant Z .................................................................................................................................... 41
(g). Complainant A ................................................................................................................................... 44
(h). Complainant C ................................................................................................................................... 47
(i). Complainant B .................................................................................................................................... 51
2. Testimony of the defendant ......................................................................................................... 55

(a). Testimony in-chief ............................................................................................................................. 55
(b). Cross-examination ............................................................................................................................. 59
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
4
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
5
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.
6
[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.
7
[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]
8
[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
9
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.”
[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.
10
[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
[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]
11
[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.
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
12
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
[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
13
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.
[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
14
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
[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.
15
[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.”
[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.
16
[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.”
[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.
[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
17
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
18
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
19
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.
[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
20
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
21
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.
[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
22
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.
23
[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.

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.
[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.
24
[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
25
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.
26
[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
[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
[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]
27
[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.
28
[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,
[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
[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.
29
[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.”
[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,
[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.”
[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
30
remember … I used to block and let’s get this over with.” [Trial
[191] The Prosecutor asked F what she thought might have happened if
she had resisted Johnny. In reply, F said: “Rape, hurt, beaten.” [Trial
[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
31
students. She added: “[i]f somebody had listened to me right away[,] it

would not have happened. This is my fault too.” [Trial Transcript,
[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.”
[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
[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
[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
32
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.
[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
33
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.
[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.
[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.
[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]
34
[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
[224] While questioning F about this, Defence Counsel also suggested

that Johnny never hit her. F responded by saying, “I don’t think so.”
[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.
[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.
35
[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,
[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.
[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
36
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
[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
37
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 did you feel that you
couldn’t report Johnny when you reported [the third party]?
Answer [F]: Because I was more afraid of Johnny…
[241] Defence Counsel also questioned F about whether she had made
any monetary claims for what Johnny had done to her – whether she
had sued Johnny and/or the Government of Nunavut.
[242] F said that she was a residential school survivor and was still
awaiting the final outcome of her compensation claim.
[243] Defence Counsel asked F if she knew two particular lawyers –

Donna Oliver and Alan Regel. F said she did know them and further
that she believed they were associated with a law firm called “Ahlstrom
Wright Oliver”. F agreed with Defence Counsel when he suggested that
she had met with Ms. Oliver in 2014.
[244] Defence Counsel then asked F if she was aware that Ms. Oliver’s
law firm had sued the Government of Nunavut (and issued a Statement
of Claim on 30 January, 2015) seeking compensation for what F said
Johnny had done to her. F responded by saying that she was unaware
of any such claim. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 461- 462]
[245] Defence Counsel then asked F if she had met recently with Mr.
Regel. F responded by saying that she had met Mr. Regel a couple of
weeks ago in Sanikiluaq along with her sister E.
38
[246] Defence Counsel asked F about this meeting in the following

excerpt:
Question [Defence Counsel]: So when you met with Mr. Regel[,

E] was there too?
Answer [F]: Yes.
Question [Defence Counsel]: And did you talk about, together, the
claim against --
Answer [F]: No.
Question [Defence Counsel]: I have to finish the question. Did

you talk about a claim for damages caused by Johnny Meeko?
Answer [F]: No.
(e). Complainant X
[247] The accused, Johnny Meeko, is charged with three offences in

relation to X.
[248] These charges are Counts 1, 2 and 3 in the Indictment. They involve
inappropriate sexual touching by Johnny Meeko when X was a student
in Grade 3 and again in Grade 6.
[249] In Count 1, Johnny Meeko is charged with touching X for a sexual

purpose at a time when X was under the age of 14 years, contrary to
[250] In Count 2, Johnny Meeko is charged with committing a sexual

assault upon X, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.
[251] In Count 3, Johnny Meeko is charged with committing a simple or

common assault upon X, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.
[252] At the time of the trial X was 19 years old and living with his mother.
He also has two infant children of his own.
39
[253] X was born in 1995. He started kindergarten in the Nuiyak school at

age five.
[254] X was eight years old when he started Grade 3 and 11 years old
when he started Grade 6. He finished school after Grade 9.
[255] X’s main teacher in Grade 3 was Johnny Meeko. Johnny also taught
X in Grade 6.
[256] X’s Grade 3 classroom was in the main Nuiyak school building and
he drew a diagram of the layout of the room [EX. P-3].
[257] Crown Counsel asked X how he liked his Grade 3 class with Johnny.
X said that he did not like the class because Johnny was “kind of
scary.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 360, line 22]
[258] Crown Counsel then asked what Johnny had done that made X think
he was kind of scary. In response, X said: “[w]hen I was leaning on my
desk he was grabbing my ass … [p]inching my nipples and telling me to
close my eyes while he had my penis. That’s all I remember.” [Trial
[259] X was clear that whenever Johnny engaged in any sexual touching,
it took place in the classroom after school — usually when X had been
required to serve a detention and always when he and Johnny were the
only two people present.
[260] X testified that in Grade 3, when he was eight years old, Johnny had
pinched his nipples under his shirt approximately two times and
grabbed his bottom twice over his clothes.
[261] X said that on one occasion, also in Grade 3, Johnny wanted to see
“my ass” and that X pulled down his pants and underwear in order to
show Johnny his bare bottom. When asked why he did this, X said,
“Because he [Johnny] wanted to.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 364,
line 13]
[262] X also testified that Johnny put his hand into X’s pants and touched
his bare penis. He said Johnny told him to close his eyes and that he
did so. X said that this was the only time Johnny touched his penis —
that it happened only once, in Grade 3.
40
[263] X testified that in Grade 6, when he was 11 years old, Johnny

pinched X's nipples twice (under the shirt, as he had done in Grade 3).
X said that whenever Johnny pinched his nipples, he did so in a very
hard fashion, “like a crab”, and that it hurt. [Trial Transcript, Volume 4,
p. 368, line 15]
[264] X also testified that Johnny told him not to speak to anyone about
what had happened. X said that “[in Grade 6, Johnny said:] ‘don’t tell
your family and friends I am doing this to you.’ So I didn’t say anything”.
[Trial Transcript, Volume 4, p. 363, lines 15-16, p. 368, line 2]
[265] X first complained to the police about Johnny in August of 2012. He

was clear, however, that prior to going to the police he had not told
anyone else what Johnny had done.
[266] X said that he went to the police because he had heard Johnny was
being charged and that a person in the community, Z, told him he could
do the same (i.e., have Johnny charged).
[267] X testified that when he first spoke to Z, he did not say anything to
her about what Johnny had done and that she did not say anything to X
about Johnny doing anything to her.
[268] X testified that after he made his complaint to the police, he did not
tell anyone he had spoken to police. He said further that after he had
made his complaint, no one in the community told him that Johnny had
done something to them. X also said that he had not heard any rumours
or talk around Sanikiluaq about Johnny inappropriately touching
children.
[269] X testified that he had not talked with any lawyers about going to
court to get money for what Johnny had done, nor had he received any
letter from a lawyer in this regard.
[270] X agreed with Defence Counsel’s suggestion that everything Johnny

had done to him was done in secret and that Johnny kept other people
from seeing what had happened.
41
[271] X also testified that he had never seen Johnny touching other
students.
[272] Defence Counsel referred X to the testimony he had given at the

preliminary inquiry about Johnny touching X's penis. Defence Counsel
reminded X that at the preliminary inquiry he had told the Court that
Johnny touched his penis outside his pants. In response, X said simply
that he could not remember giving this testimony and he agreed that his
memory of what had happened is not as clear as it used to be.
(f). Complainant Z

relation to Z.
[274] These charges are Counts 8, 9, and 10 in the Indictment. They

involve sexual touching and kissing.
[275] In Count 8, Johnny Meeko is charged with touching Z for a sexual

purpose at a time when she was under 14 years of age, contrary to

assault upon Z, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.
[277] In Count 10, Johnny Meeko is charged with committing a simple or

common assault upon Z, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.
[278] All of these charges arise out of incidents which allegedly took place
in the 1994-95 academic year, when Z was in Johnny’s Grade 3 class.
[279] At the time of the trial, Z was 29 years old and living with her sisters.
One of her sisters, Y, is also a complainant in the case.
[280] Z was born in 1986. She said she was five years old when she
started kindergarten at Nuiyak school in the 1991-92 academic year.
She was six years old and in Grade 1 during 1992-93 and seven years
old in Grade 2 during 1993-94. Z remembers her Grade 1 and Grade 2
teachers and that the accused taught part of her Grade 2 class.
42
[281] Z testified that she was eight years old when she began Grade 3 at
the start of the 1994-95 academic year. Her Grade 3 teacher was
Johnny Meeko. Z explained that her Grade 3 class began the year in
the main building of the school, but was moved to a portable classroom
during the term.
[282] Z testified that when it was time for gym class, Johnny would keep
her as well as two or three other students back from gym class in order
to finish their writing assignments. She said this happened almost every
day before the Grade 3 class moved from the main building to the
portable classroom.
[283] Z explained how these few students would then be required to

remain at their desks to finish the writing assignments. She said that
Johnny would then cover the small window on the door with a paper
towel or paper and turn off the lights. She testified that he would then
approach her and touch her chest area both over and under her
clothes.
[284] Z said that Johnny did this while the other few students present were
at their desks. Her desk was at the very front of the classroom. She
estimated that he touched her about 50 times. [Trial Transcript, Volume
2, p. 185, line 20]
[285] Z testified that when Johnny touched her chest inside her clothing,
he would sometimes reach up from the bottom of her shirt. She said
that he would usually touch her for about five or six seconds, but not
very hard. She said also that sometimes he would tell her that her
breasts were growing.
[286] Z also testified that Johnny told her, “if I tell my parents … God
would cut out my tongue.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 2, p. 187, lines 8-9]
[287] Z testified that Johnny was also in the habit of telling these few
students that the last person to complete their writing assignment would
get a kiss from him. She said that on one occasion when she was the
last one to finish her assignment Johnny kissed her on the lips for about
five seconds. She said the other students in the class laughed because
they thought it was funny. She said Johnny tried to kiss her at other
times as well, but that she covered her face.
43
[288] Z testified that when she was in Grade 3 she never told anybody
about what Johnny was doing.
[289] She said that she told someone about Johnny for the first time in
2010, when she disclosed this information to B while the two of them
were on a flight to Winnipeg. Z said that B then told her that Johnny had
touched her [B] as well. Z was clear, however, that what B told her did
not affect her own version of events.
[290] Z testified that later in 2010 she was scheduled to return to Winnipeg
for medical reasons, but cancelled her flight when she found out that
Johnny was also planning to travel to Winnipeg. She said she then told
her mother that she cancelled the flight because of what Johnny had
done to her in Grade 3.
[291] Z testified that in 2012 she approached police about Johnny but was
reluctant to give a statement until someone else had come forward —
she did not want to be the first person to do so. Z said that
subsequently, when the police told her another person had made a
complaint about Johnny, she gave her own statement.
[292] Z testified that after the police told her that someone else had come
forward — while she was considering making a statement — she also
told her sister Y about what Johnny had done. Z said that Y then told
her that she also wanted to report Johnny to police. Z said Y only
mentioned wanting to report Johnny for touching her, but did not
provide any details beyond this.
[293] Z testified that she reported Johnny because what he did was
wrong. She said the thought of getting compensation had never
occurred to her at the time. She never met with any lawyers to discuss
compensation.
[294] Z said that she received a letter from a lawyer respecting claims
against Johnny Meeko about two weeks prior to the trial, but never met
with this lawyer when he eventually came to Sanikiluaq. She testified
that the lawyer asked to meet with her but that when she went to meet
him, the hotel door was locked and so they never met. She said that
she is not presently part of any lawsuit involving Johnny.
44
[295] Cross-examination was brief. Z confirmed her in-chief testimony

respecting which people, historically, she had told about Johnny. And
she said that during the trip from Sanikiluaq to Iqaluit for the trial she
had not talked with any of the other complainants about their
experiences.
[296] Z further confirmed her in-chief testimony respecting what happened

in her Grade 3 classroom in the main building of the school — namely,
that Johnny would touch her on almost a daily basis when he held her,
as well as two or three other students, back from attending gym class.
[297] Z confirmed her previous testimony that her desk was at the front of
the classroom and that Johnny would put a paper towel over the
window on the door and would turn off the lights. When she was asked
if the other students could see Johnny touching her, she said, “I don’t
know. We were not allowed to look at each other.” [Trial Transcript,
[298] Z agreed with Defence Counsel, however, that when (as she said)
Johnny touched her chest, he made no attempt to hide what he was
doing from the few other students present.
(g). Complainant A
[299] The accused, Johnny Meeko, is charged with three offences relating
to A.
[300] These are Counts 11, 12, and 13 in the Indictment. They all involve
the sexual touching of a minor. The factual allegations are that Johnny
Meeko touched A’s neck, that he put his hand under her shirt and that
he spanked her.
[301] In Count 11, Johnny Meeko is charged with touching A for a sexual
purpose at a time when she was under 14 years of age, contrary to

assault upon A, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.
45
[303] And in Count 13, Johnny Meeko is charged with committing a simple
or common assault upon A, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal
Code.
[304] At the time of the trial, A was 28 years old and living in Sanikiluaq
with her husband and two small children.
[305] A was born in 1987 in Churchill but has lived her entire life in
Sanikiluaq. She started kindergarten at the Nuiyak school at the age of
five in September of 1992.
[306] A was eight years old when she started Grade 3 in September of
1995. Her Grade 3 teacher was Johnny Meeko.
[307] A testified that her Grade 3 classroom was situated in the main
building of the Nuiyak school and that her desk was at the rear of the
class, next to the exit door. She said the teacher’s desk was at the front
of the class, but that the teacher, Johnny, would pass by her desk when
he entered or left the classroom.
[308] A testified that often when Johnny came into the classroom he would
“inappropriately touch me.” When she was asked how Johnny
inappropriately touched her, she said, “I mean not touched, mostly
touched here, then go in and out.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 2, p. 215,
lines 9, 15-16] As A gave this testimony she made a sweeping gesture
with her hand around the right side of her neck, the side of her neck
facing or closest to the door when she was seated at her desk. She
said the best word to describe this was “tickle.” [Trial Transcript, Volume
2, p. 215, line 25]
[309] A explained that Johnny would also put his whole hand under her
shirt. She recalled “[h]is hand going in under my shirt [and] then come
out.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 2, p. 216, line 4]
[310] A was quite clear that she wore nothing underneath her shirt. She
was also quite clear, however, that when Johnny would put his whole
hand under her shirt, he never touched her bare skin. When asked how
far down into her shirt he put his hand, she said, “I don’t remember.”
46
[311] A testified that when Johnny touched her in this fashion, he did so
when school was in session and the other students in the class were
seated at their desks. She said that Johnny would engage in this type of
touching (tickling and putting his hand down her shirt) at least one or
two times per day, and she estimated that he touched her in total
approximately 100 times while she was a student in his Grade 3 class.
[312] A testified that in addition to tickling and touching her, Johnny

spanked her one time – on her birthday. She explained how Johnny
had a practice of giving each student a spanking on their birthday.
[313] A testified that she remembered being in school in June of 1996

when Johnny gave her a birthday spanking. She said that he put her on
his lap and spanked her bottom nine times. She said this birthday
spanking did not hurt, but that it took place in front of the other students
in the class. A said that she had never heard about these birthday
spankings until Johnny started spanking her classmates on their
birthdays.
[314] A was clear that she certainly did not want Johnny to touch her or
spank her, and that it made her feel uncomfortable as a young child at
the time. She was asked whether at the time she thought Johnny’s
actions were sexual in nature. In reply she said only: “I think so.” A was
clear, however, that later in life, as an adult, she interpreted what
Johnny did as sexual in nature. [Trial Transcript, Volume 2, p. 228, line
2]
[315] A testified that she made a statement about Johnny to the police
only after the police came to her to ask about Johnny. She said she told
the police the truth about what Johnny had done and that no one had
told her what she should say to the police.
[316] A said that after she went to the police she told her husband, her
mother and a friend about Johnny. She said that approximately a
couple of years before she spoke to the police she had heard rumours
around Sanikiluaq about Johnny touching kids and that he might be
charged. A was clear, however, that whatever rumours she heard did
not affect or change her own memory of what she told the police about
Johnny.
[317] A said that when she spoke with the police she was not thinking
about getting money for what Johnny had done to her, and that she has
47
never met with any lawyers (or received any letters from lawyers) about
the prospect of such compensation.
[318] A confirmed her earlier in-chief testimony that Johnny had tickled or
touched her at least 100 times while she was in his Grade 3 class and
that he did so within full view of the other students in the class, making
no effort to hide what he was doing.
[319] Similarly, she confirmed further that Johnny would give each student
a birthday spanking in front of all the other students.
[320] Defence Counsel asked A whether within the last couple of years
people in Sanikiluaq had been talking about Johnny Meeko being
charged. In response, she said only, “I think so.” [Trial Transcript,
Volume 2, p. 230, line 15]
(h). Complainant C
[321] The accused, Johnny Meeko, is charged with four charges in relation
to C.
[323] In Counts 17 and 18, Johnny Meeko is charged with touching C’s
genital area for a sexual purpose at a time when she was under 14
years of age, contrary to sections 151 and 271 of the Criminal Code.
[324] In Counts 19 and 20, Johnny Meeko is charged with touching C’s
chest are for a sexual purpose at a time when she was under 14 years
of age, contrary to sections 151 and 271 of the Criminal Code.
[325] All of these charges arise out of alleged incidents which took place
when C was a student in Johnny Meeko’s Grade 3 class.
[326] At the time of the trial, C was 27 years old. She was living with her
parents and her two small children.
48
[327] C was born in 1988 in Churchill but has lived all her life in
Sanikiluaq. She took all her schooling at the Nuiyak school and left after
completing Grade 9.
[328] C was five years old when she started kindergarten and eight or nine
years old when she started Grade 3. Her Grade 3 teacher was Johnny
Meeko.
[329] C’s Grade 3 classroom was in the main building of the Nuiyak
school. She told the Court that Johnny’s desk was at the front of the
room, near the door, and that the student desks were re-arranged a
couple of times during the school year.
[330] C said that the students would have “free time” usually twice per day
for about 15 to 30 minutes. During this free time, the students were free
to walk about the classroom and to play or draw. C said she often just
stood or hung around the corner of the class during free time.
[331] When asked about her experience with Johnny as her Grade 3
teacher, C said, “[h]e used to touch me and rub his hands on my
breasts. He usually touched me under my bum. That’s the only relation
I remember from him.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 3, p. 243, lines 2-4]
[332] C said that this touching made her feel insecure and that she “knew
he wasn’t supposed to do that but he kept doing it.” [Trial Transcript,
[333] C testified that when he touched her chest area he would put his
hand down the front of her shirt and squeeze her nipples for about five
seconds. She remembered him saying “wow” and often calling her
“honey”.
[334] C said that Johnny was in the habit of touching her during free time,
usually at the back of the classroom. She said the other students were
also present in the classroom but that they were not paying attention to
what Johnny was doing to her.
[335] She tried to tell him to stop touching her but he just laughed and
thought it was funny. She also told Johnny she would tell her mother
49
and in response Johnny laughed at her. C estimated that Johnny

touched her breasts under her shirt multiple times in Grade 3.
[336] In addition to putting his hand down her shirt, C testified that Johnny
touched her “bum”. She said that he touched her bum both under her
clothes as well as over her clothes. She said that Johnny was in the
habit of touching students on their bums. For example, when they were
leaning over their desk to help another student, “[t]hat’s when he comes
around and touched bums.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 3, p. 251, lines 5-
9]
[337] C estimated that Johnny touched her bum more than 10 times during
her time in his class. And she said that on one such occasion “he told
me that his dick is hard, that I could play with it, but I didn’t.” [Trial
Transcript, Volume 3, p. 247, line 27, p. 248, line 1]
[338] C also testified that Johnny was in the habit of touching her genital
area. And she estimated that he did so more than 30 or 40 times during
her time in Grade 3. C said this also occurred when she was standing
around in the classroom. He would put his hand down the back of her
pants, underneath her underwear, and touch her vagina for five to 10
seconds.
[339] C testified that on one such occasion Johnny actually penetrated her
vagina with his finger, which caused her a sharp pain. She said that
later that same day, after she got home, she panicked when she saw
blood in her underwear. C said she told Johnny about this the next day,
and he told her that it was okay.
[340] The fact that Johnny had applied to teach once again prompted C to
go to the police in the spring/summer of 2012. C became alarmed at
this because her daughter, who was five years old at the time, was
starting kindergarten that same September. And so, C said: “I had to
talk to someone about it because I was concerned for the kids that may
be going through what I have been through. I don’t want them to deal
with bullshit anymore.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 3, p. 252, lines 14-17]
[341] C was asked about whether she had talked to any lawyers about
getting compensation for what Johnny had done to her. She said that
one year after Johnny was arrested a lawyer came to Sanikiluaq to
speak with her about compensation and that she signed a paper at the
lawyer’s request. C said the lawyer wrote a follow-up letter to arrange a
50
meeting but that such a meeting never took place. She also said that,
as far as she was aware, she was not part of any lawsuit.
[342] C testified that before she went to the police, she shared small bits
of information about what Johnny had done to her with her sister’s now
deceased boyfriend. She said that this person also told her a little bit
about what Johnny had done to him, but that this conversation in no
way affected what she told the police and eventually the Court. She
also told her sister that she was going to the police because she heard
that Johnny had secured a teaching contract. C also said that after
Johnny was arrested there were a lot of rumours going around
Sanikiluaq, but none of these rumours affected her narrative of events.
[343] Cross-examination was brief. C confirmed that Johnny did not try to
hide from anybody what he was doing to her in the classroom – that he
touched her in front of the other students. And she explained that
Johnny touched her on a daily basis. C also agreed with Defence
Counsel when he suggested that another teacher standing outside the
doorway would be able to see into the classroom.
[344] C agreed that one of the other complainants in the case, B, was in
Johnny’s Grade 3 class with her. She said that she did not, however,
ever see Johnny touching B. In particular, C said that she never saw B
being touched by Johnny while B was standing in a line at the front of
the room.
[345] C said that eventually she started skipping school because of what
Johnny was doing to her. She began missing two or three days of
classes each week without her parents’ knowledge.
[346] C agreed that when Johnny was charged it was big news in
Sanikiluaq and that a lot of people were talking about Johnny. She also
agreed that D, another complainant in the case, had said something
about Johnny.
[347] In re-examination, however, C clarified this by saying she had not

spoken to D, only heard from someone else that D had said, “[h]e
[Johnny] did that to me”. [Trial Transcript, Volume 3, p. 276, line 15]
51
[348] In re-examination, C also made it clear that when Johnny

inappropriately touched young girls, he did not do so by placing them in
a line-up at the front of the classroom. [Trial Transcript, Volume 3, p.
275, lines 18-27]
(i). Complainant B

relation to B.
[350] These charges are Counts 14 to 16 (inclusive) in the Indictment. The

charges allege that Johnny touched B for a sexual purpose while she
was a student in his class and under the age of 14 years. The factual
allegations are that he touched her on the chest and on her bottom.
[351] At the time of the trial B was 27 years old. She lives in Sanikiluaq
with her spouse and their two young children.
[352] B was born in 1988. She took all her schooling in Sanikiluaq and
graduated from high school. She was five years old when she began
kindergarten at Nuiyak school in the fall of 1993. B was apparently a
bright student and skipped Grade 1. She was nine years old when she
started Grade 5 at the start of the 1997-98 school year.
[353] B said that her Grade 5 teacher was Johnny Meeko. She said he
had also been her teacher for part of Grade 4 and then, later, for one
class in Grade 6. Some students in her Grade 5 class were a little older
than B and some were younger, but for the most part the class
consisted of nine- and 10-year-old boys and girls.
[354] B said that Johnny’s Grade 5 classroom was in the main building of
the school and that there were no portables in use when she was in
Grade 5. B drew a diagram of her Grade 5 classroom which showed
Johnny’s desk at the front of the room near the door and the student
desks arranged in a U shape facing the blackboard.
[355] B testified that Johnny made it a practice to direct five to seven girls
to line-up at the front of the class facing the blackboard. She said he
52
would then approach each girl, feel their breasts over top of their
clothes and touch their bums also over top of their clothes. She said
that he did this in full view of the rest of the class, but that the other
students (and particularly the boys) simply continued with their drawing
or book work and did not pay any attention.
[356] B said that on average Johnny would spend between one and two
minutes touching a chest and about one minute touching bums. She
said, however, that he was in the habit of spending a little more time
with the girls who were older and starting to develop breasts. She said
that sometimes Johnny would tell the girls that their breasts were
growing and that occasionally he would say “wow”.
[357] B testified that this line-up procedure was a fairly regular thing but
that “it didn’t happen every day because our principal would come into
our class and see how we are doing … how we are learning, very
quickly and progressing with our work.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 3, p.
298, lines 26-27, p. 299, lines 1-3]
[358] B testified that Johnny put her in the line-up on five separate
occasions and that each time he did so he touched her breasts over her
shirt. She said that sometimes he also touched her bum, but that he did
not touch her bum every time she was in the line-up. She said Johnny
touched her bum over her pants. She said he would feel her whole bum
and that his hand pressed “[a] little hard, like he wants to be aroused.”
[359] B testified that C was also in this same Grade 5 class and that she
saw Johnny touch C. She said C was one of the girls that Johnny
touched when he had several girls lined-up at the front of the class.
[360] B said she told her parents what Johnny had done right after it
happened and that she asked her father to inform the police. However,
as far as she knew, “[a]fter my parents told the police, nobody did
anything.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 3, p. 308, lines 17-18]
[361] B testified that she had gone to Churchill to receive counselling

about three years prior to the trial, before she went to the police in
2012. She said that Z went with her to Churchill. B said she told Z
everything that Johnny had done to her.
53
[362] B testified that her mother, E, told her that Johnny had assaulted her
[E] and her aunt F, but that this information did not in any way affect or
change B’s narrative of events.
[363] B also said that before she went to the police she had heard
rumours around town about Johnny touching kids, but that none of
these rumours had influenced her testimony.
[364] B met with a lawyer in Sanikiluaq about a week before the trial and,
as a result of that meeting she is part of a lawsuit against Johnny. She
said, however, that she was not thinking of money or compensation
when she first went to the police in August of 2012. She said that she
went to the police about Johnny because “I had to let something out,”
and that, “it was bottled up and I had to tell somebody.” [Trial
Transcript, Volume 3, p. 288, line 24, p. 289, lines 3-4]
[365] B confirmed her earlier testimony that C was in Johnny’s Grade 5

class and that on more than one occasion C was one of the girls that
Johnny had put into the line-up. B said that C attended classes
regularly and would have seen this line-up procedure when it was
conducted by Johnny.
[366] B confirmed as well the basic layout of the classroom. She said that
Johnny usually kept the door closed, but that anyone in the hallway
could easily see into the class and possibly see the line-up, if Johnny
was conducting one.
[367] B agreed with Defence Counsel that Johnny made no effort to hide
what he was doing when the girls were lined up and that the other
students, particularly the boys, paid little or no attention. B said, “they
[the boys] didn’t care what was happening. They were just doing what
boys were doing, just doing colouring and finishing their work.” [Trial
[368] Defence Counsel referred B to some of her testimony from the

preliminary inquiry, which had been conducted in Sanikiluaq in the
summer of 2013. In particular, Defence Counsel reminded B that at the
preliminary inquiry she told the Court that Johnny spent five to 10
minutes touching each girl while they were lined up at the front of the
54
classroom and that the entire line-up would have lasted nearly one-half
hour.
[369] Defence Counsel compared this to B’s in-chief testimony, where said
that Johnny spent only one to two minutes with each girl and that the
entire line-up would have lasted about nine or 10 minutes.
[370] In response to questions about the discrepancy, B said that her time
estimate from the preliminary inquiry was wrong. But she also agreed
with the Defence Counsel that some of the statements she had made at
the preliminary inquiry could be more correct because of the passing of
time. [Trial Transcript, Volume 3, p. 327, lines 8-20, p. 328, lines 12-15]
[371] Defence Counsel also referenced B to her interview with the police
in August of 2012, when she first made her complaint about Johnny.
[372] In particular, Counsel reminded B that the investigating male officer

had asked her whether Johnny had touched B’s “butt” and that B
responded: “[u]mm – no, not my butt”. [Trial Transcript, Volume 3, p.
329, lines 26-27] In response to the Defence Counsel, B simply
repeated her earlier in-chief testimony that Johnny had touched her
bum, “but it wasn’t all the time, it was sometimes.” B at first insisted that
her testimony was not different from what she had told the police, and
then later acknowledged that it was different. [Trial Transcript, Volume
3, p. 329, lines 26-27, p. 330, lines 16-17, p. 331, lines 1-10]
[373] Defence Counsel asked B if Johnny had ever told her not to tell
anyone that he touched her. B said that he did. Counsel then reminded
B that when she first went to the police they asked her the same
question, and she told them: “No, he never said anything like that but
he – he just never told anyone that he did that.”
[374] In response, B simply insisted that Johnny “told us not to say

anything to our parents or to anybody,” and that when she was
speaking with the police she felt rushed and did not understand the
question the interviewer was asking. [Trial Transcript, Volume 3, p. 332,
lines 1-15]
[375] B confirmed that in 2010 she and Z travelled via Winnipeg to receive
counselling in Churchill, Manitoba, and that the two exchanged details
about what Johnny had done to them. B also agreed with Defence
Counsel that when Johnny was arrested, many people in Sanikiluaq
were talking about, including on social media.
55
2. Testimony of the defendant
[376] The accused, Johnny Meeko, was born on 1 August, 1954. At the
time of the trial he was 61 years old.
[377] Defence Counsel advised the Court that while his client’s English
was good, he would like to at least start his testimony in Inuktitut (with
the assistance of an interpreter for the Court). And so, for the most part
(during the in-chief testimony and cross-examination) the accused
spoke Inuktitut, occasionally answering questions in English (without
waiting for the interpreter to translate the questions).
(a). Testimony in-chief
[378] Johnny told the Court that he was born in Sanikiluaq and raised by
his grandmother and his mother. He is the second of many siblings. He
is married. He and his wife, Nellie, have several adult children.
[379] Johnny took his early schooling from kindergarten until Grade 5 in
Kuujjuarapik, Quebec. He completed the remainder of his elementary
school as well as further vocational school training in Churchill. And he
graduated from the Churchill Vocational Centre in June 1973 at the age
of 18.
[380] Defence Counsel presented Johnny with the Churchill Vocational

Centre yearbooks from 1970-71 through to the 1972-73 academic
years. Johnny identified various photos of himself in the yearbooks. He
was clear that his last and final year in Churchill was 1972-73 and that
he was in school for the full academic year until graduation in June of
1973.
[381] Johnny testified that after graduation in June he returned to

Sanikiluaq for a period of three days only, which allowed him to see his
father before his father passed away. He then moved to Chesterfield
Inlet, Northwest Territories, to attend a classroom assistant training
program, which he completed at the end of July in 1973. It was this
program which, of course, launched his career in education.
56
[382] Johnny said that he returned to Sanikiluaq in August of 1973 and

began working as a classroom assistant when school opened in
September of 1973. He was quite clear that prior to this time he had
never worked in the school.
[383] Johnny testified that over the years he upgraded himself from a
classroom assistant. He obtained certification as a teacher by taking
various courses in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, and Iqaluit, as well
as correspondence courses during the school term. He identified a
government record from 1992 which formally recognized his new status
as a teacher.
[384] Johnny spent his entire teaching career at the Nuiyak school in
Sanikiluaq. He said he retired in 2009 in order to spend more time
hunting. He said that during his 35 years at the school he taught a
variety of subjects, including Inuktitut, science, health and math. He
said he did not, however, teach English. He said he taught only
kindergarten through Grade 6 and not any high school classes.
[385] Defence Counsel asked Johnny about the physical layout of the
school and whether there were portable classrooms unattached to the
main building. Johnny said that there were portables. But when the
school was finally completed, everything from the portables was moved
to the school.
[386] Johnny testified that he only remembered teaching in a portable for

one year, when he was a classroom assistant in the late 1970s. He said
that the portables had windows which would allow an adult person of
average height (around the height of his lawyer, roughly five feet, eight
inches tall) to see inside if they were standing outside.
[387] He said that each classroom in the school’s main building had two
large windows as well as a clear smaller window on the classroom
door. He said, however, that a person standing outside the building
would not be able to see into the classrooms through the large
windows.
[388] Defence Counsel asked Johnny how he approached classroom

discipline as a teacher and whether he ever used physical correction
such as a strap or spanking to discipline a student. Johnny testified that
the various courses he had taken on this subject made it clear that
physical discipline was never to be used in the classroom and that,
further, his father had always told him to be good to others. Johnny also
57
testified that he never hit, punched, squeezed or touched any student to

discipline them.
[389] Defence Counsel also asked Johnny whether he ever touched any
of his students in a sexual manner. And Johnny was clear in the
following extract from his testimony that he had never done so:
Question [Defence Counsel]: Did you in fact ever touch any of

your students in a sexual way?
Answer [Johnny]: No.
Question [Defence Counsel]: Did you have sex with any of the
complainants while they were children?
complainants?
Question [Defence Counsel]: Now, I just want to be clear. When I

say “complainants” I mean the people who we saw testify in the
last week. You understand that?
Answer [Johnny]: Yes.
[390] Defence Counsel also reminded Johnny about the statement which
he had given to the police in Sanikiluaq when he was first arrested and
which he had seen played in the courtroom [EX. P-6].
[391] Johnny testified that when he was a child his grandfather had taught
him to respect and listen to the RCMP as well as the nurses in the
community. He said that “[‘]the police are the club of God. You have to
respect the police or they will knock you down. So whatever they have
to say you have to listen to them.[’] That’s what my grandfather said.”
[392] Johnny testified that the information which he gave the police about
sexually touching students was not true. He said the RCMP told him
that if he did not say anything he would be taken to jail – to the Baffin
58
Correctional Centre. He said: “I am scared of the RCMP and I was

really scared at the time in Sanikiluaq.”
[393] Defence Counsel reminded Johnny that in his statement to the

police he had initially told them he had not touched any of the students,
but then agreed with the police and said he had touched some of them
inappropriately. Johnny agreed that this is what he had said to the
police, but testified that he only agreed with the police under duress.
Again, Johnny’s testimony in this regard is clear:
When the RCMP would come into the room they would talk very loudly and
aggressively. And then … I remembered what my grandfather had told me,
that we should always respect them and we should always agree or do what
we are told by them. And that’s when — I don’t know why I decided to[,] but
that’s when I agreed [with] what they were telling me and they also said that
if I don’t … do what they ask me to or tell me to do, they would send me to
BCC.
[394] Defence Counsel also reminded Johnny that the police had asked
him to provide them with a name of one of his victims which was
unknown to them and that he had provided the name of D.
[395] Johnny agreed that he had given the police D’s name, but denied
ever having touched her in any way. He said that he only gave them D’s
name because “[t]he RCMP told me that we know what you have done
… And if you give us one more name then interview will be completed.”
[396] Defence Counsel also questioned Johnny about his role as a

warden in the local Anglican Church. Johnny testified that as a warden
he was essentially a custodian whose job was to keep the church
building organized. In particular, he had to prepare the church for the
arrival of either the bishop or the minister by ensuring everything was in
place. Johnny said that he was not any kind of minister himself, albeit
that he does teach Sunday school.
[397] Finally, Johnny testified that it was common knowledge in Sanikiluaq

that victims of a known sexual offender in the community had received
financial compensation. He said he believed that this money was paid
out in 2002 and that Johnny was arrested 10 years later, in 2012.
59
(b). Cross-examination
[398] Johnny confirmed that he grew up in what was called North Camp
before the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq was founded and that his grandfather
passed away in 1971 or 1972, when Johnny was away in school in
Churchill.
[399] Crown Counsel suggested to Johnny that he may actually have

started teaching prior to the beginning of the 1972-73 academic year.
Counsel referenced a 2009 news story where Johnny had been
interviewed upon his retirement. Counsel read excerpts from the story
where Johnny told the reporter that in his early years of teaching he
was only able to spend limited time with his grandfather, such as
weekends out on the land while hunting.
[400] Johnny responded to this by saying he did not recall what he had
said to the reporter. He insisted that he only began teaching in the fall
of 1973, after graduating in June of 1973 from the vocational school in
Churchill and attending teacher training that same summer in
Chesterfield Inlet.
[401] Johnny testified that he took all this schooling in English. And Crown
Counsel queried Johnny about his competence in English, suggesting
that his English was “pretty good”. Johnny’s response was, “I’m not very
good. There is a lot I don’t understand but there’s some that I do
understand[,] but some parts I don’t – I have a hard time
understanding.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 577, lines 26-27, p. 578,
lines 1-2]
[402] I pause to note that Johnny answered these initial questions from
Crown Counsel about his early years and his schooling in English only,
without the use of the court interpreter.
[403] I intervened and reminded Johnny that while he appears obviously

competent in English, his lawyer had told the Court that Johnny would
prefer to testify in Inuktitut and, further, that he has the right to testify in
Inuktitut.
[404] Accordingly, I asked Johnny (in English) to wait for the interpreter to
repeat in Inuktitut the Prosecutor’s questions before giving a response
in Inuktitut. Johnny responded positively (in English) to my suggestion.
60
[405] Johnny agreed with Crown Counsel that the school in Sanikiluaq
was only named Nuiyak school some years after students started
attending it. He agreed that originally there was no main school
building, only portables, but that even after the main school building
was built there was still a need for portables.
[406] Johnny also agreed that originally grade levels went right up to
Grade 9 and that later more grades were added until a high school was
eventually built in approximately 2011. He also agreed that until the
high school was built, the Nuiyak school was overcrowded to the extent
that classes were conducted in the school library as well as in the
portables.
[407] Johnny was clear that when he first started teaching he was living in
his mother’s three-bedroom house along with his four sisters and two
brothers. After he and Nellie were married in July of 1975, Nellie moved
into the house as well. Their first child, Lucy, who was born in October
of 1975, also lived with them in the house. Johnny said that these living
arrangements did not allow for much privacy.
[408] Johnny agreed with Crown Counsel that he had taught in portables
until sometime between 1977 and 1979. The Crown further suggested
to Johnny that he had taught in portables for several years, to which
Johnny responded: “probably.”
[409] Johnny agreed that he was not that good at keeping track of dates.
He explained that he had been anaesthetized twice – once for heart
surgery in 2009 and another time for bladder surgery in 2010. He
maintained that the anesthesia he received has had an effect on his
memory.
[410] Johnny agreed that it was confusing for him to specifically remember
in what years he was a teacher (as opposed to a classroom assistant)
and in what particular classrooms he had taught.
[411] He agreed as well that sometimes he had his own class to teach
even before he was certified as a teacher and that he moved around
from classroom to classroom, as well as between classrooms and
portables. He agreed as well that some classrooms had students from
different grades in the same room. He admitted that sometimes it was
confusing to keep all this straight in terms of dates.
[412] Crown Counsel asked Johnny a number of questions about F.

61
[413] Johnny said that he remembered F at the school but that she was
not one of his students. And he agreed that while he is only three years
older than F, the two of them never actually grew up together. By the
time he returned to Sanikiluaq and started teaching, she was already a
teenager.
[414] Johnny denied, however, knowing or being aware that F was ever
pregnant. He said that when F had her first baby he must have been
away at school in Churchill.
[415] Crown Counsel made the suggestion that he and F were “sort of
friends”. In response, Johnny said: “[y]es, because at one time she tried
to be with me … around 1976, ’77 around there.” [Trial Transcript,
[416] Johnny said this incident – when F tried to be with him – did not take
place in the school, but rather in the community. He believed it took
place in his shack. He maintained, however, that apart from this
incident, F was not his friend and that he made a point of not having
any such relationship with a student while he was a teacher.
[417] Crown Counsel asked Johnny if he and F had sex when F tried to
“be with” him. Johnny said that they did. He said that F picked him up
and that they were watching a movie. He said that she wanted to have
sex with him and that he did so “to calm her down so she would stop
crying.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 588, line 6]
[418] Crown Counsel asked why Johnny had not mentioned this particular
experience with F during his earlier in-chief testimony, when his lawyer
had asked him if he had had sex with any of the complainants. In
response, Johnny said he may have misunderstood his lawyer’s
question in this regard. He thought his lawyer was asking if he had sex
with any of the complainants when they were children.
[419] Johnny maintained that F was never with him after school hours. He
said that he was aware of the classroom which F had described in her
testimony – namely, the one with a darkroom and a furnace room. He
said, however, that he did not remember if he had taught in that
particular classroom.
[420] And he refuted F’s testimony about what she said happened in the
darkroom and the furnace room. Johnny’s testimony in this regard was
62
clear and unequivocal. He said simply, “I understand what she was

talking about but I’ve never – I didn’t do what she said.” [Trial
[421] Johnny agreed with the Prosecutor that he had been on the
wrestling team at school in Churchill and that as a young man in his
early years as a teacher he was physically quite strong.
[422] Johnny maintained, however, that F’s experience in the furnace

room was not with him at all, but with someone else. He said simply,
“She was trying to tell that story as if it was me but it was somebody
else.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 586, lines 10-11]
[423] Crown Counsel questioned Johnny about his position in the church
as well as his involvement in the community generally.
[424] Johnny repeated his in-chief testimony about his position as a

church warden: this job entailed simply keeping the building in good
shape and preparing it for any visiting clergy. Johnny also said that from
1973 until 2009 he had been a member of the church’s vestry council,
which was in charge of the church’s general finance and administration.
He was also a member of the church choir. Johnny testified that he did
not consider himself a prominent player in the church’s affairs and
described his contributions as humble. He acknowledged, however, that
perhaps he might appear important to people who had been helped by
the church.
[425] Johnny testified that one of his other activities in the community
consisted of procuring and delivering pure ice water for those in need.
[426] Johnny agreed that the courtroom set up during his preliminary
inquiry in 2013 in Sanikiluaq differed from the trial courtroom set up in
Iqaluit. And although his memory was not very precise about the
location of the various participants during the preliminary inquiry, he
acknowledged that many of his relatives had “probably” been in
attendance.
[427] Johnny confirmed that he had been a supervisor with the local
Rangers between 1986 and 2009. In this regard Crown Counsel
reminded Johnny that Y said that when she, a Junior Ranger at the
time, came out of the washroom he touched her breast and made a
lewd comment to her. Johnny said that he remembered seeing Y at
Ranger practice in the school gym, but he would not have been able to
63
see her leaving the washroom. He denied touching her breast, or telling
her that her breasts had grown a lot. And he said he had no memory of
her pushing him.
[428] Crown Counsel then questioned Johnny about the statement he had
given to the police and watched on the DVD when it was entered into
evidence at the trial [EX. P-6].
[429] Johnny agreed that during his years of teaching an average size of
any class would be approximately 21 to 24 students. He also agreed
that over the course of his 37-year teaching career he probably would
have encountered some 750 students.
[430] Crown Counsel attempted to have Johnny confirm that the police
only questioned him about eight or nine such students: they told Johnny
that he was being accused of touching in an inappropriate manner only
these specifically named students. This was a fairly lengthy and
combative interaction between the Prosecutor and Johnny. Johnny
maintained his innocence and took the position – as he had during his
in-chief testimony – that “[t]he police had made me tell that story but I
didn’t do it … They have tried to blame me for stuff I never did.” [Trial
[431] Crown Counsel also attempted to have Johnny confirm that out of
the 700 or so students he taught over the years, he volunteered the
name of one student about whom the police had not questioned him: D.
And further, he told the police that he had touched D on her genital
area. This was also a fairly lengthy and combative interaction between
the Prosecutor and Johnny. Again, Johnny maintained his innocence in
the most strenuous terms, as illustrated by the following excerpt from
his testimony:
Question [Crown Counsel]: And when they asked you to name

another kid you had touched, you had 700 people potentially open
to you to name, right?
Answer [Johnny]: Police are crooks, they hate people. They

wanted me to go to jail. They threatened me. Like they would tell
me that I would go to BCC and that they would send me away if I
refused to acknowledge what they were accusing me of …
Because I’m just an ordinary person I had to agree to a lot of
things because the police – I was intimidated by the police and
they were threatening to send me away from my community. …
64
Because the police said [‘]give me two more names. If you don’t
give me two names I’m going to send you away.[’]
[Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 600, lines 16-23, p. 601, lines 2-

14]
[432] Crown Counsel confronted Johnny with the fact that he – and not the
police – had provided Y’s name. Johnny did not take issue with this, but
maintained that he came up with her name because:
[t]hey were always showing me pictures of – pictures. And since we were

talking about stories that people were telling which were not true. I guess I
joined in the pretend pictures. I joined in the liars which was not intentional.
[433] Further, Johnny maintained that it was not him, but rather the police
who said he had touched D in the genital area.
[434] Crown Counsel confronted Johnny with the fact that none of the
threats which Johnny said the police made towards him appear in either
the audio of his arrest or, more importantly, on the DVD [EX. P-6] of his
confession.
[435] This was, again, a fairly lengthy and combative interaction between
the Prosecutor and Johnny. Crown Counsel suggested to Johnny that
the DVD was a complete record of his interaction with the police.
Johnny, however, maintained that the DVD had been altered and the
portions of the recording which would have shown the police hostility
and threats towards him had been removed. He said, “I was there. I
was present there when I was being presented with all this hate and
that, all the shouting.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 609, lines 11-13]
[436] Crown Counsel suggested to Johnny that the police had recorded all
their dealings with him from the time of his arrest until the completion of
his statement. Johnny agreed with this proposition but added, once
again, that the recordings:
have been edited, recorded again, re-edited. What you don’t see on
those … recordings is the hate they gave me, the shouting they
gave me, the accusations they gave me. … Telling me that I was
an assaulter and they were telling me that if I did not confess they
would send me away to BCC but that’s what you don’t see … you
65
don’t see that because you only saw – we only saw what had been
cut like in fishing. What you don’t see is what you did not catch.
[Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 605, lines 15-24, p. 606, lines 1-3]
[437] Crown Counsel suggested to Johnny that the video showed that the
officers were actually behaving quite politely towards him. In response,
Johnny said: “[b]ecause they are crooks. …They were being nice
because that’s the edited version.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 609,
lines 18-21]
[438] I pause to note that it had been stipulated between the Crown and
Defence that the audio and video portions of the accused’s interactions
with the police, together with the transcripts of this interaction [EX. P-8,
P-6, and P-5 respectively] are a complete record of all dealings
between the police and the accused. [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p.
618, lines 13-16] Indeed, Defence Counsel – in characteristic frankness
and as an officer of the court – rose during his client’s cross-
examination to remind me of this stipulation. [Trial Transcript, Volume 6,
p. 606, lines 12-15]
[439] There was one exception to this stipulation – redactions agreed

upon between the parties were made to these exhibits for the limited
purpose of protecting the privacy rights of third parties who have
nothing to do with the case.
[440] Another important aspect of the stipulation – once again pointed out
by Defence Counsel as an officer of the court – is that these redacted
portions of the video and audio recordings, together with the transcripts
show no untoward, violent or threatening behaviour on the part of the
RCMP towards Johnny. [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 641, lines 8-14]
[441] During the cross-examination, Crown Counsel also questioned

Johnny about how he dealt with discipline in the classroom. Johnny was
clear that he never resorted to any kind of physical discipline or
correction. He denied ever striking a student with a ruler as a form of
discipline. He said “I did verbal correction. … I have never done that
[physical correction].” [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p.609, line 25, p. 610,
line 9]
[442] Johnny denied ever touching or patting students on their bottoms to

get them to sit down. He qualified this, however, by saying that “[o]n
66
their birthday[s] then I would pat them. I would pat them or spank them.”
[443] Crown Counsel showed Johnny a letter directed to Johnny from the
Department of Education, dated 9 January, 2009, and signed by the
Superintendent of Schools [EX. P-9]. The letter concerned allegations
by some students that Johnny had touched them inappropriately, some
seven years previously, while they were in Grade 3.
[444] This letter was a follow-up to a fact-finding inquiry conducted on 8

January, 2009, between school officials and Johnny. Crown Counsel
read from the letter and reminded that the Superintendent had written:
This letter will confirm the fact-finding meeting held January 8, 2009, at
Nuiyak School. … At the meeting you stated that at the time it was your
practice to pat primary students on their bottoms to get them to sit down at
their desks.
[445] Johnny’s position was that “I don’t remember any of this at all.” [Trial
[446] He said he received the letter dated 9 January, 2009, but did not
remember the meeting on January 8, 2009. He agreed that he had his
surgeries after 2009 and that it was possible that he has simply
forgotten about the letter and the meeting. [Trial Transcript, Volume 6,
p. 615-616]
[447] Johnny initially agreed with Crown Counsel that he may have even
forgotten patting students on their bottoms, but later retracted and was
adamant that he had never touched any child inappropriately, even on
their bottoms to get them to sit down. [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p.
616-617]
[448] Finally, Crown Counsel questioned Johnny about some of the things
he had said to the RCMP in the video-recorded statement.
[449] Counsel reminded Johnny that he had gone to the RCMP

detachment in 2009 to apply for a criminal record check in order to
resume teaching on a part-time basis. Johnny agreed that he was
familiar enough with the RCMP to return to the detachment several
times to follow-up on the progress of his criminal record check.
67
[450] Johnny agreed that many of the things in his statement to the RCMP
were true – mostly about his background and involvement in the
community, but including the fact that from a discipline standpoint he
was a strict teacher.
[451] He continued to deny, however, ever touching any students in an

inappropriate fashion. Specifically, he denied putting his hand inside A’s
shirt, or having simulated sex with D, or touching E’s crotch or breasts.
He said that he did not remember ever having E as a student in his
class.
[452] Johnny took the position (as he had during his in-chief testimony)
that he had been intimidated by the RCMP into saying he had done
inappropriate things to students, and it was only under duress that he
repeated the RCMP suggestions that he had done so. He said, “I was
told that if I said I did not do all those things I would go to jail, BCC.”
3. The defendant’s statement to the police
[453] Johnny was arrested in Sanikiluaq by police on 14 August, 2012,

and interviewed at the local detachment. The interview was recorded on
both DVD and audio CD [EX. P-6 & 8]. In addition, a written transcript of
the interview was provided to the Court [EX. P-5].
[454] Further, it was stipulated by Defence Counsel as an officer of the

Court that these exhibits (the CD, DVD and the accompanying
transcript) contain the entirety of dealings between the RCMP and
Johnny. And more particularly – except for redactions necessary to
protect the privacy of third parties, and grammatical corrections agreed
upon between the Crown and Defence – neither the recordings nor the
transcript had been altered or edited by the police prior to production in
Court.
[455] Prior to the interview, the police confirmed with Johnny that he was
comfortable speaking English. They then advised him of his legal rights
and made arrangements for him to have a private telephone
consultation with a lawyer.
68
[456] The length of the interview, some five hours, is worthy of some note
given Johnny’s age. However, it is important to keep in mind that the
police were investigating allegations which spanned decades.
[457] There are nine complainants in this case. At the time of the
interview, however, the police were aware only of six complainants who
had up to that point given statements.
[458] Towards the end of the interview, Johnny provided the name of a
seventh complainant. And the two additional complainants did not
approach the police to provide statements until late November 2012,
some three months after Johnny was interviewed.
[459] The interview began with the police reading the charges to Johnny.
Johnny’s initial response was that the complainants were troubled and
mischievous students while they were in school and that the
accusations were false. Johnny said that the complainants had simply
made up stories in retribution for being disciplined.
[460] Johnny told the police that he was a strict disciplinarian as a teacher
and had disciplined the complainants in various ways, including
physically by slapping them (or at least some of them) on the hand and
spanking them. He also said that he had a habit of spanking students
on their birthdays, but that this was separate and apart from any
disciplinary spanking.
[461] The police, however, made it clear to Johnny that they believed the
allegations against him to be true. And they employed a number of
techniques to get him to speak about and eventually admit to the
allegations. The police were firm with Johnny, but in my view they were
also fair. On a number of occasions, the police made it clear to Johnny
that they did not want him simply to agree with an accusation against
him for the sake of agreeing.
[462] Eventually, Johnny admitted to sexually assaulting the complainants.
[463] This was not, however, a situation where an accused person

vehemently denies the accusations against him and then after five
hours of rigorous interrogation ‘coughs up’ a confession.
[464] Rather, over the course of the interview, Johnny’s initial denial, like
the skin of an onion, was peeled away to reveal other versions of
events.
69
[465] The tenor of the interview was one of evolving dialogue, as Johnny’s
position changed from initial denial to a failure of memory, then to what
might be characterized as a conditional admission and finally to some
clear admissions of sexual misconduct, albeit in most cases less
misconduct than the complainants had alleged.
[466] After initially saying that the complainants were making up their
allegations, Johnny professed to have no memory of ever having
assaulted any students. He told the police that this lack of memory may
have come about as a result of being put to sleep during surgery he
had undergone a couple of years prior to the interview. Eventually,
Johnny came to make what I have alluded to as a kind of conditional
admission, where he professed no memory of events, but shame if in
fact he had sexually assaulted any of his students. The following
excerpt from the interview illustrates this more precisely:
[Police Interviewer]: But we, I need from, to know from you why
this happened.
[Johnny]: I can’t remember touching. But if I did, I, I feel bad.
[Police interviewer]: …They [the complainants] need to know

why you did these things.
[Johnny]: If I did, I, I feel ashame [sic].
[Police interviewer]: But you’re, you’re not fully ad, admitting …

you’re saying if you did.
[Johnny]: Yeah, if I did. I feel sorry what I did.
[Police Interview Transcript, p. 94, lines 25-39]
[467] Finally, after being confronted with the absurdity of this positon by
the police, Johnny admitted to sexually assaulting the complainants.
The following excerpt illustrates this as well as Johnny’s professed
rationale for his behaviour:
[Police Interviewer]: Okay. So. Tell me what … is what they’re

[the complainants] saying the truth?
[Johnny]: It’s the truth.

70
[Police Interviewer]: Okay … So why, why is this been

happening?
[Johnny]: Maybe because of what the, ah, that teenager.
[Police Interviewer]: Did to you?
[Johnny]: Did to me.
[Police Interviewer]: Okay. So is that why you did that to those

kids?
[Johnny]: Yeah.
[Police Interview Transcript, p. 115, lines 36-42, p. 116, lines 1-

11]
[468] In addition, Johnny also told the police that he had been sexually
assaulted as a youth. He said than an older teenage boy assaulted him
when he was 11 years old and attending residential school in Quebec.
[469] Eventually, when Johnny admitted to assaulting his own students,

he said he did so in some cases because of the guilt he carried
throughout his adult life as a victim of sexual abuse himself.
[470] The police then questioned Johnny about complainants that had
given statements to the police. And Johnny admitted, one by one, to
sexually assaulting these individual complainants.
[471] First, Johnny confessed to assaulting X. [Police Interview Transcript,

p. 129-141]
[472] Johnny admitted essentially to everything that X told the Court

Johnny had done. He admitted touching X on the buttocks over his
clothes. He admitted, on one occasion, touching X’s penis outside his
pants. He admitted also to asking X to show his bare buttocks and that
X complied with this request. And finally, he admitted to reaching down
into X’s shirt and pinching his nipples.
[473] Johnny said that sometimes he engaged in this activity by having X

remain after class for a detention. He said that the reason he assaulted
X was because of the guilt he felt at having been assaulted himself. He
said that it felt good to tell the police what he had done to X because
71
“[i]t [has] been inside me for long time.” [Police Interview Transcript, p.
133, line 11]
[474] Johnny admitted as well that he told X not to tell anyone what had
happened. He said he felt ashamed for what he did to X, as well as
guilty for telling him not to tell anyone.
[475] Johnny then confessed to assaulting Y. [Police Interview Transcript,

p. 142-144]
[476] Y testified that when she was eight Johnny touched her on the
buttocks over her snow pants and then put his hand down the front of
her sweater and touched her chest over top of her T-shirt. She also
testified that when she was a teenager Johnny touched her on the
breast and she pushed him away.
[477] Johnny admitted to touching Y on the breast when she was in his
Grade 3 class and said he did this a “couple [of] times.” He also
admitted touching her on the buttocks over her clothing. [Police
Interview Transcript, p. 142, line 30]
[478] Johnny also admitted to assaulting Y years later, when she was a
teenager at the Junior Ranger practice. He said that on this occasion “I
played with her breasts.” [Police Interview Transcript, p. 143, line 15]
[479] The police exercised the same caution in questioning Johnny

regarding Y as they did in questioning him generally and they were
careful to ensure that he was not just agreeing with whatever they
suggested to him. The following short excerpt from the interview
illustrates this:
[Police interviewer]: She [Y] claimed that you touched her butt.
Her, her behind. But not inside [her clothing].
[Johnny]: Yeah, I did
[Police interviewer]: Well, I don’t want you to just agree.
[Johnny]: I did touch.
[Police Interview Transcript, p. 144, lines 9-15]
[480] Johnny also confessed to touching Z. [Police Interview Transcript, p.

144-151]
72
[481] Z testified that Johnny had touched her on her chest over and under
her clothing on an almost daily basis while she was in his Grade 3
class. She also testified that on one occasion he kissed her on the lips
in front of the class. Z testified as well that Johnny warned her that if
she told her parents, God would cut her tongue out.
[482] Johnny admitted to touching Z in this fashion, telling the police he

would tickle her first and then put his hand down her shirt, touching the
skin. He said, however, that he only touched Z in this fashion about
three or four times.
[483] Johnny also said he often told any girls that he touched not to tell
anyone what had happened. He told the police as well that he made a
practice of telling young girls how they would develop physically as they
got older. For example, he said, “I’ve seen ah, development of the, of
girls. So that’s what I told them. … That they’re gonna have nice body.
Breast. Nice bum.” [Police Interview Transcript, p. 145, lines 20-24]
[484] Johnny also confessed to assaulting A. [Police Interview Transcript,

p. 151-155]
[485] A had testified that Johnny tickled her and then put his hand down
her shirt on an almost daily basis while she was a student in his Grade
3 class.
[486] The police put this proposition to Johnny in blunt fashion by saying,
“[s]he’s [A] claiming that every time you walked into the classroom, you
would put your hand down her shirt.” In response, Johnny said simply,
“[y]es. I did that.” [Police Interview Transcript, p. 153, lines 22-25]
[487] The police were clear with Johnny that they were going to continue
questioning him about this type of detail – about what exactly it was that
he supposedly did with the various complainants.
[488] They were, however, cautious in this regard. For example, the
interviewer repeated once again to Johnny:
I don’t want you to agree with whatever I say. I want you to, if you don’t
remember something you don’t remember. But, and I don’t want to put it in
your mind yes you did this. I want you to tell me yes I did it. And I want you
to be sure that you did it. … I don’t want you to just say yes for the sake of
saying yes.
73
[Police Interview Transcript, p. 153, lines 40-42, p. 154, lines 1-5]
[489] In response, Johnny said, “I did that to her [A]. Because she was the
smallest.” [Police Interview Transcript, p. 154, line 7]
[490] A testified that Johnny had touched her as many as 100 times.
Johnny, however, admitted to or estimated that he only touched A 20 or
30 times.
[491] Johnny confessed as well to assaulting B. [Police Interview

Transcript, p. 156 – 162]
[492] B had testified that Johnny had touched her chest over her clothes
on at least five occasions. She said this took place when she was a
student in his Grade 5 class and that he would put the girls at the front
of the class in a line-up and then would touch each of them. B testified
as well that “sometimes” Johnny also touched her on the buttocks.
[493] Johnny told the police he had touched B on the chest over her shirt
on more than one occasion, albeit, as he said, “[n]ot many times. Not,
not with her. Not that many times.” He made no admission about
touching her buttocks, although it appears he was never asked about
this. [Police Interview Transcript, p. 156, line 34]
[494] During her In-chief testimony B told the Court that E is her mother
and that her father (E’s spouse) is a Caucasian man. This latter point is
significant because when Johnny confessed to touching B, he said he
was attracted to her because her father was white. He said, “[m]aybe
because … I like white.” [Police Interview Transcript, p. 156, line 39]
[495] Finally, Johnny confessed to assaulting C. [Police Interview

Transcript, p. 162-166]
[496] C had testified that Johnny had touched her in a sexual fashion
while she was in his Grade 3 class. She said that some of these
assaults occurred during ‘free time’ when the students were free to walk
about the classroom.
[497] C said that Johnny touched her numerous times on her chest and
buttocks both over and under her clothes. She also said that Johnny
was in the habit of touching her on genital area under her clothes and
74
that on one occasion his finger penetrated her vagina. She recalled that
later she was bleeding as a result of this penetration.
[498] Johnny admitted to touching C’s chest. He also admitted to touching

C’s genital area under her clothes on more than one occasion, but not
more than five times. He denied, however, any digital penetration.
[499] Johnny told the police that he committed these assaults upon C
because he had been sexually assaulted himself. He said, “C was really
young. Um, because of my sexual ah, assaulted. I did that to her.”
[Police Interview Transcript, p. 163, line 34]
[500] Johnny told the police that he never really put his mind to the
prospect that any of his victims would come forward and complain.
[501] He did tell the police, however that “[t]wo or three years ago” the
mother of Z, one of his victims, confronted Johnny and said “that I did
something wrong to [her] daughter … [and t]hat she can’t sleep.”
Johnny said he told Z’s mother: “I’m sorry [for] what I did.” [Police
Interview Transcript, p. 122, lines 5-25]
[502] I pause to note that Johnny’s police interview took place in 2012 and
so his comment that Z’s mother confronted him two or three years ago
would have the conversation taking place around 2010, which is when
Z had testified she told her mother about Johnny.
[503] Johnny told the police that he started working in the school in 1973
and that he retired in 2009. He said that the last person he can
remember assaulting was X around 2006. He said as well that there
may have been as many as 10 students that he had touched
inappropriately. [Police Interview Transcript, p. 167-168]
[504] Johnny said that telling the police about what he did “relieves [a] lot
of my uh guilt.” The police suggested to Johnny that by telling them
what happened, “the weight of the world is off your shoulders now.” In
response, Johnny said: “[y]eah.” [Police Interview Transcript, p. 179,
lines 28-32]
[505] The police were of course interested in the names of any additional
victims. They asked Johnny to give them the name of at least one such
victim. And they told Johnny if such a person confirmed they had been
victimized, then this would help prove the truth of his earlier admissions.
75
[506] Johnny was reluctant to name any other victim and claimed he could
not remember any names. The police then provided him with the
Sanikiluaq Yearbook, which contained photos of all or most of the
hamlet residents. Johnny looked through the book of photos and
eventually provided the name of an additional victim – D. He said that
“[t]he only person that I could think of is, uh, [D]”. [Police Interview
Transcript, p. 184, line 1]
[507] D testified that she was in Johnny’s Grade 3 class. She said that he
touched her chest area over and under her shirt and that he also
touched her buttocks. D also testified that Johnny touched her genital
area over her clothes, as well as pulled down her pants and stared at
her genital area.
[508] She also testified that Johnny kept her after school and engaged in
simulated sexual intercourse. Finally, D testified that Johnny invited her
to perform oral sex upon him.
[509] Johnny told the police that he would make D serve a detention after
school. He admitted, however, to only touching D’s genital area outside
of her clothing on about five to 10 occasions.
[510] The police then told Johnny that they would go and speak with D
and they asked him if there was a message that he would like them to
pass on to her. In response, Johnny said, “I um, what I done, I feel bad.
I’m sorry what I did.” The police then assured Johnny that they would
pass this on to D and Johnny responded by saying, “Okay.” [Police
C. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. Crown
(a). The testimony of the complainants and the defendant’s statement

to the police
[511] The Crown says that the evidence against Johnny Meeko – namely,
the testimony of the nine complainants – is both credible and reliable,
and, thus, it is compelling proof of Johnny’s guilt.
76
[512] The Crown says that any inconsistencies or discrepancies in the

testimony of the complainants are both inconsequential to Johnny’s
guilt and, indeed, to be expected when an adult testifies in court about
events from their childhood.
[513] Further, says the Crown, and with one major exception, the
complainants were not seriously challenged in cross-examination about
the truth of what they said Johnny did to them.
[514] In fairness, the Crown does acknowledge the Defence theory of the
case, which suggests that the complainants (again with one exception)
have been deluded into believing that the abuse took place. And
because of this, the Court might not expect the Defence to challenge
the precise details from each complainant’s account of Johnny’s
actions.
[515] The Crown says, however, that there is simply no evidentiary basis
whatsoever for the Court to conclude that the testimony of the
complainants is the product of any collusion between them; or even the
product of inadvertent or innocent tainting of testimony as a result of
simple communication between them over the years, or a result of
hearing rumours about Johnny.
[516] In this regard the Crown notes that each complainant was
questioned by the Crown respecting who precisely they spoke to about
Johnny’s behaviour, either at the time when they said it had happened
so long ago, or later as the years passed. The Crown also notes that
each complainant was questioned respecting what rumours they may
have heard about Johnny Meeko.
[517] And, says the Crown, in each instance the testimony of the
complainants was clear – namely, that any such communication
between the complainant or others about Johnny was minimal, lacking
in detail, and certainly did not influence either what they told the police,
or the Court. Further, the complainants who did say they had heard
about Johnny’s behaviour testified that such rumours did not influence
what they told the police, or the Court.
[518] Further, says the Crown, there is no evidential basis for the Court to
suspect that the prospect of financial compensation motivates the
complainants to give testimony. The testimony of the complainants in
this regard was to the contrary and unchallenged.
77
[519] The Crown also says that the Court should discount or reject Johnny
Meeko’s testimony that he is innocent and never touched any of the
complainants in an inappropriate fashion. The Crown says simply that
this testimony is a lie and has been exposed as such during cross-
examination.
[520] Finally, the Crown says that Court should accept the truth of
Johnny’s police confession where he admits to sexually assaulting six
of the nine complainants. The Crown says that Johnny’s statement
corroborates the testimony of the complainants that he admitted to
assaulting.
(b). The similar fact evidence application
[521] The Crown also seeks to have the evidence from the complainants
applied across the counts in the Indictment, with each complainant’s
evidence considered as a similar fact in support of the counts involving
other complainants. More simply, the Crown asks me to infer that the
account of each complainant about what had happened supports and
corroborates the accounts of the others.
[522] The Crown says it is highly improbable that the degree of similarity
of the allegations which involve touching students in the classroom is
simply a matter of coincidence. Rather, these similarities show Johnny
has demonstrated a pattern of behaviour which reveals a situation-
specific propensity to sexually abuse young students.
[523] Further, the Crown says it has discharged the burden of establishing
there was no collusion among the complainants, so that the Court may
be confident the similarities in their narrative are not intentionally
fabricated or unintentionally concocted.
[524] The Crown says these numerous identifying or similar features of

Johnny’s modus operandi should be considered by me as proof that
Johnny did what the complainants said he did – that is, in support of the
credibility of the complainants, and as proof of the actus reus of the
offence.
[525] The Crown also asks me to conclude that these similarities rebut
Johnny’s suggestions that his association with the complainants was
innocent.
78
2. Defence
[526] The Defence says that the testimony of eight of the nine Crown
witnesses is simply unreliable and accordingly it is too dangerous –
given the standard of proof required to found a criminal conviction – for
the Court to enter any convictions respecting these complainants.
[527] The Defence says the remaining complainant, F, is also unreliable.

More importantly, however, the Defence says that F is also not credible
– that she has fabricated stories about Johnny Meeko.
[528] The Defence says the testimony of the complainants consists of

stories which have been tainted by inadvertent collusion, and because
of this the stories are so fantastic as to be implausible.
[529] The Defence says it stretches the imagination to believe reports that
Johnny Meeko would, over so many decades, overtly sexually touch
students on hundreds of occasions, while during the same period, he
would covertly engage in similar assaults on others.
[530] The Defence suggests that the Crown cannot ‘have it both ways’
and expect the Court to accept such an incongruous scenario – namely,
that Johnny would publicly flaunt his abuse of children in his care, yet at
the same time take care to do so privately.
[531] The Defence says that the contrast between Johnny being accused
of hiding what he did and the stories of him taking up so much class
time doing the very same things hundreds of times in public is so
striking that it calls into question the reliability of his accusers.
[532] The only explanation, says Defence Counsel, for such an

implausible fact pattern is that it never took place, and that the people
who say it did take place – the complainants – have been somehow
deluded into honestly believing that what they say is true.
[533] Further, says Defence Counsel, adding to this air of delusion is the
whiff of profit, as many of the complainants have come to expect
financial compensation for Johnny’s wrongdoing.
[534] The Defence says the question of whether Johnny Meeko

inappropriately touched the many complainants in this case is one
79
which can never be answered at all, and that after the passage of so
many years it is impossible to determine what had actually happened.
[535] Indeed, Defence Counsel put this proposition to the Court, bluntly,
as follows:
Sanikiluaq has a curious history. The famous Belcher Island

murders of winter 1941, mingled religious fervor with a
community-wide delusion.
And I mention those tragic events of long ago merely as an

illustration of what can happen when a small community is gripped
by a story. The distinction between what is real and true and what
is merely a dream or better yet a nightmare can become blurred. So
there is a question and the question is: Did Johnny Meeko abuse
children over many years and so betray his role as a community
leader and a teacher? That is a question which we say can never be
answered by this Court.
Johnny says and we say he did not do it, others say he did. But the
others who say that Johnny abused them have told stories which
we say are tainted by inadvertent collusion and, what is more, are
at least in some cases on their face fantastic and we say impossible.
… And remember the promise of compensation is floating out
there, further muddying the waters. And a lawyer went on
community radio the week before trial, to ask for complaints
against Johnny Meeko to come forward.
[Trial Transcript, Final Submissions, 8 December 2015, pp. 85-86]
[536] Defence Counsel was clear that his position, namely that the
testimony of the complainants is the product of inadvertent collusion
and is implausible per se, allows the Court not to be concerned with the
alleged dates of the various offences, or whether the actus reus of the
individual crimes have been established.
[537] Defence Counsel, in characteristic frankness and fairness, said that

if the Court accepts the testimony of the complainants, then these
aspects of the case are satisfied in favour of the Crown.
[538] Similarly, the Defence does not take issue with the fact the
complainants were students in Johnny’s class at various times (with
one exception respecting the complainant F).
80
[539] Rather, Defence Counsel asked the Court to focus on the larger
issue of whether the incongruous scenario put forth by the Crown
witnesses is even possible, particularly in light of the criminal standard
of proof required.
[540] Similarly, Defence Counsel rose to object very early in the

proceedings where a complainant offered up testimony about Johnny’s
classroom activities respecting other children who were not named in
the Indictment.
[541] However, Counsel was clear that he would not be rising to object at
each and every such narrative, but would rely on the Court to pay heed
or ignore such testimony in accordance with the normal rules of
evidence.
[542] Indeed, and as the case progressed, Counsel actually relied on

posed questions about such narrative to advance the Defence position
respecting its implausibility.
[543] The Defence asks the Court to accept the testimony of Johnny
Meeko that he did not molest any of his students, and that he is
innocent of all the charges against him. In the alternative, the Defence
argues that the Court should at least be left with a reasonable doubt
about Johnny’s guilt as a result of having heard his testimony.
[544] The Defence further suggests that the Court ought to disregard
Johnny’s confession to the police. The Defence says that this was a
stress-induced confession made under duress.
[545] In particular, the Defence notes the overarching colonial context of

the confession and asks the Court to accept Johnny’s explanation for
confessing to the police – namely, that he wanted to please or placate
the police and so he told them what they wanted to hear, rather than
the truth.
[546] I pause to note here that I conducted a voir dire prior to the trial of
this case and found as a matter of law that Johnny’s statement to the
police was made voluntarily and could, thus, be entered into evidence
at his trial.
[547] Nonetheless, Johnny is still free to disavow the statement at his trial
on the basis that it was not true because it was given under duress –
and that he simply told the police what they wanted to hear. The
81
admissibility of the statement and the truth of the statement are

separate matters.
[548] I note as well that there is an important stipulation or agreement

between the Crown and Defence respecting Johnny’s statement:
namely, that the video and audio recordings of Johnny’s police
interview [EX. P-6 and P-8], as well as the accompanying transcript
[EX. P-5] are a complete record of all interaction between Johnny and
the RCMP, and have not been altered, edited, or redacted in any way
(except to protect the identities of third parties not relevant to the case).
[549] Another aspect of this stipulation or agreement is that the portions

which were redacted to protect third parties contain or show nothing
untoward, violent, or threatening on the part of the RCMP towards
Johnny. [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 606, lines 12-15, p. 618, lines
13-16, p. 641, lines 8-14]
[550] Johnny testified that the redacted portions in the recordings of his
statement show the police behaving in an aggressive and hateful
fashion. He testified that because of this, and because the police told
him he would be taken out of the community to BCC if he did not
confess, he agreed with the police that he had sexually touched some
of his students.
[551] In light of this stipulation between the parties, Defence Counsel did
not ask the Court to accept Johnny’s testimony about aggressive
behaviour on the part of the police which Johnny says was edited out of
the recording played in Court.
[552] Rather, Defence Counsel made a more nuanced suggestion as to

why the Court should not accept the truth of what Johnny told the
police. Counsel reminded the Court of Johnny’s earlier testimony where
he said that his grandfather had taught Johnny as a child to respect and
listen to the RCMP, as well as the nurses in the community.
[553] Johnny had told the Court: “[‘]the police are the club of God. You
have to respect the police or they will knock you down. So whatever
they have to say you have to listen to them.[’] That’s what my
grandfather said.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 5, p. 553, lines 5-9]
[554] Defence Counsel’s position was that the absence of aggressive

behaviour on the part of the police is essentially a red-herring.
Counsel’s position was that it was due to the overarching long-term
82
colonial relationship between Johnny and the RCMP, that Johnny,

because of his upbringing, felt the need to please or agree with the
police even to the point of lying about assaulting his students.
D. THE LAW
1. Assessing witness testimony in historical sexual assault cases
[555] It is now well accepted that victims of any type of sexual abuse may
not make a complaint, if at all, for some time after the event. And the
fact that a victim delayed reporting or failed to report an alleged assault
at the earliest opportunity does not mean that the allegations they now
make are false.
[556] Our law has matured to the point where judges will instruct jurors
that while some victims of sexual abuse will complain immediately,
others may wait for years before making a complaint, and that still
others may never complain at all and suffer in silence. Jurors are told
that there is no one rule to tell us how human beings will behave in the
aftermath of an unexpected or frightening situation.
[557] Today, courts are keenly aware of the reasons why victims of sexual
abuse may not make a complaint. Some are driven to silence by fear.
Some fear the court process and possible public humiliation. Some may
even feel a false sense of guilt or shame because they believe that they
contributed to their victimization. Many, particularly young children, do
not know what to do, so they do nothing.
[558] In cases of historical child sexual abuse, it is not unusual for the
victims of such abuse not to report it for many years quite simply
because they feel that no one would believe them had they complained
at the time when they were children, or even later as they matured from
adolescence into young adulthood.
[559] Indeed, since the perpetrators of child sexual abuse often attempt to
“normalize” the activity involved, some child victims may not even be
fully aware they were being abused until many years after the event.
[560] And finally, when dealing with small isolated communities, the Court
must be cognizant of the many familial, societal and cultural factors
which may operate to dissuade victims of child sexual abuse from
83
coming forward. Such pressures may be further enhanced when the

abuser is a prominent member of the community.
[561] For all of these reasons, the Court cannot focus upon a
complainant’s failure to make a timely complaint as a reason to
disbelieve the complainant’s evidence.
[562] In making its assessment of credibility, the Court must consider not
only the relationship of the parties, but the sensitive nature of the
allegations, and the personality, age, and life circumstances of the
individual complainants. The reasons given by these complainants for
the delay must also be considered.
[563] The phrase ‘historical childhood sexual abuse’ simply means that the
victim first made a complaint to the police years later, when they were
an adult. It is fairly common in such cases that the victims are unable to
say, with any degree of certainty, the dates upon which such offences
were committed, or even sometimes the year when an offence was
committed.
[564] Often such victims are only able to approximate their age at the time,
or what grade they were in at school. Although sometimes, an external
marker such as a birthday may help them approximate when the abuse
occurred.
[565] It is a fairly common phenomena as well that victims of multiple acts

of child sexual abuse may easily confuse the sequence of events in
terms of which acts of abuse occurred before or after other acts of
abuse.
[566] Further, and particularly within a family or small community setting, it

is not uncommon that victims of sexual abuse will interact with the
perpetrator of the abuse at various times afterwards. Some victims may
have a decreased sense of risk in terms of subsequent contact.
Conversely, some may fear that further abuse will result if they do not,
for example, accept an invitation to simply meet or socialize with the
abuser.
[567] Judges must also be sensitive to the unique and inherent problems
that victims of any type of sexual abuse experience in re-living their
experiences in a courtroom setting.
84
[568] It is not uncommon that such victims will, for example, be reluctant to
say what happened to them, or even ‘freeze up’ in Court to the point
where they are unable to continue. Sometimes, depending upon the
specifics or detail of the testimony, such reluctance may be telling in
favour of the witness’ veracity, and other times just the opposite.
[569] Judges must, however, guard against accepting such testimony on

the basis of demeanor — that is to say, how generally the witness
appeared or behaved in presenting their evidence. This is a particular
danger in cases where the witness is a child.
[570] And so, on the one hand, in assessing testimony in a sexual abuse
case, the Court must be sensitive to the context of such a crime, and
the reality of how such a crime may impact a victim.
[571] On the other hand, however, this sensitivity cannot replace scrutiny.
And such testimony must be put to scrutiny to ensure that a conviction
will only result where the testimony passes muster in terms of the
criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[572] It is, however, a sad irony that people who have been the victims of
sexual abuse – sometimes by multiple perpetrators over long periods of
their childhood and youth – are also people whose testimony is most
vulnerable in terms of satisfying this required criminal standard of proof.
For such unfortunate victims, the criminal courts may not be the best
forum to adjudicate their claims or to bring them much needed
resolution and comfort.
(a). Human memory and the prosecution of historical offences
[573] The effect of delay upon the prosecution and defence of criminal
allegations has been canvassed thoroughly by Kilpatrick, S.J., first in R
v Horne, 2008 NUCJ 6 at paras 33-35, 38-43, 2008 CarswellNun 9
[Horne] and then again in R v DeJaeger, 2014 NUCJ 21 at paras 4-39,
2014 CarswellNun 23 [DeJaeger].
[574] As months turn into years, as years turn into decades, the Court’s
ability to distill historical facts from fiction becomes increasingly difficult.
And in both Horne and DeJaeger, Kilpatrick, S.J., had occasion to
review some of the perils associated with fact-finding in relation to
historical events.
85
[575] In turn, much of my own observations below are taken from or reflect
the dicta of Kilpatrick, S.J., in these two seminal cases.
[576] Delayed reporting and the passage of time can interfere with the
collection of credible evidence – both forensic evidence as well as
potential corroborative testimony.
[577] The result, of course, is that the Court can be left with no
independent evidence of a crime in situations where the fact-finding
process would greatly benefit from there being just such evidence. For
example, where the complainant and the defendant agree there was
interaction between the two of them, but clash markedly about what
happened during the incident.
[578] It is undisputed that, as a matter of law, corroborative evidence is no

longer required to found a conviction in a case of sexual assault. It
remains, however, a difficulty in some cases of historical allegations of
abuse for the Court to be satisfied that the case is made out on the
basis of a simple oath-on-oath assertion and denial.
[579] And this is particularly so where it appears that such testimony or

other evidence was available to support a complainant’s narrative of
events (or even a portion of the complainant’s testimony), as was the
case in Horne.
[580] It is within this context that the Crown must assemble its evidence.
Instead of alleging a specific date or dates when the alleged offence or
offences occurred, the Crown is left to indicate only a range of time
which may extend over months or even years.
[581] Instead of physical evidence or corroborative testimony, the Crown

is left only with the testimony of an alleged participant in the events
being described.
[582] And the Defence inherits many of the same problems: exculpatory
evidence will often disappear or become degraded; a Defendant’s
memory, like that of a complainant, will also deteriorate.
[583] In turn, while the Crown and Defence may have formidable
challenges presenting their respective cases, there is an even greater
problem faced by the Court tasked with assessing the credibility and
reliability of historical allegations.
86
[584] In the absence of independent or corroborative evidence, the Court

must rely upon cross-examination and the adversarial process to test
the strength and ultimate reliability of the Crown’s evidence.
[585] Effective cross-examination, however, is best applied at a point

where the memory of the witness is recent and reasonably intact. In
relation to very dated events, there are very real limits to what can be
achieved by cross-examination.
[586] Human recollection diminishes obviously with the passage of time,

and this process is more rapid with children. As observed by Cory J. in
R v F(CC) [1997] 3 SCR 1183 at para 19, 120 CCC (3d) 225, the
younger the child, the more pronounced this memory loss is likely to
become over time.
[587] As I noted earlier, adult victims of historical sexual abuse are often
not able to remember matters peripheral to the abuse itself.
[588] However, in matters involving child witnesses, the law is clear that a
child’s capacity to remember is not suitably assessed using standards
appropriate to a reasonable adult.
[589] The case authorities suggest that the omission of peripheral detail is
not usually a basis for rejecting the testimony of a child. See, R v D(GN)
(1993), 81 CCC (3d) 65, 1993 CarswellOnt 798 (ONCA).
[590] The case authorities further suggest that for reasons related to the
child’s cognitive development and memory capacity, an inability to
remember time, date, or location; or confusion about sequences,
frequency or separation of days, may not necessarily be as damaging
to a child witness as it would be for an adult. See, R v B(G), [1990] 2
SCR 30, 56 CCC (3d) 200.
[591] It follows that memories carried forward from childhood into

adulthood will likely suffer from these same deficits. The deficits
common to children and adolescents apply at the point the memory is
first imprinted. It is not likely that a childhood memory will improve to
recover details not recorded in childhood.
[592] And so the question becomes, in cases of historical child sexual

abuse, how the Court is to deal with and assess the testimony of an
alleged victim where there is an absence of contextual (peripheral)
87
detail, or significant gaps in memory, or contradictions or

inconsistencies in the evidence.
[593] In Horne, Kilpatrick, S.J., said two possible inferences could be

drawn. First, such memory deficits can certainly be explained by the
age and life circumstances of the witness when the experience was first
imprinted and by the subsequent passage of time since memories can
be expected to degrade over time. Second, it is equally possible to
conclude that these memory deficits exist because the events
themselves were contrived. [Horne at para 38]
[594] In DeJaeger, Kilpatrick, S.J., added a third possible inference –

namely, that these memory deficits may be present where a false
memory had been inadvertently created during the process of memory
recovery in later life. [DeJaeger at para 21]
[595] In DeJaeger, some of the Crown witnesses said they had a

continuous memory of the alleged abuse suffered at the hands of the
defendant. However, a significant number of the witnesses claimed to
have recovered a memory of the abuse at some point later in their lives.
[596] It is with respect to this second type of witness noted in DeJaeger –

namely, a complainant who claims to have ‘recovered’ a memory – that
the danger of wrongful conviction is perhaps greatest.
[597] Some complainants who claim to have recovered memories have

experienced abuse at the hands of persons other than the person
charged. And sometimes during therapeutic treatment or counselling for
unrelated abuse, such a complainant will assert that specific memories
of abuse by the accused have been recovered. Other complainants will
claim to have recovered memories of abuse at the hands of an accused
as a result of hearing others speak of their experiences.
[598] Regardless, however, of the process of recovery, it is typical that

many complainants who claim to have recovered their childhood
memories will testify in court that they experienced repetitive
‘flashbacks’ of such memories. Many as well claim to have experienced
some form of blackout during these alleged events and are
consequently unable to relate any details of what may have happened
following this.
[599] It follows, therefore, that the jurisprudence respecting recovered

memories requires the Court to examine how and when the memory
88
was recovered and what may have influenced the memory retrieval
process, before it can be satisfied that the danger of a false memory
has been eliminated, and that the recovered memory is a bona fide
one.
[600] More recently Courts have been relying heavily on the use of experts
such as forensic psychologists in the assessment of memory recovery.
And some of these cases illustrate what types of indicators, according
to such experts, point to accuracy in cases of recovered memories, as
well as in cases of continuous memories of historical events.
[601] In one such case the expert evidence led suggested that ‘created’ or
false memories tend to be vague and less detailed than real memories,
and that age appropriate descriptions of the physical sensation,
thoughts and emotions being experienced at the time of the alleged
events are important indicators of accuracy. [See, DeJaeger at paras
31-38]
[602] It is very important, however, to note that this case before me – R v

Meeko – does not involve recovered memories. None of the
complainants are claiming to have recovered lost memories. Nor does
the Defence assert that such is the case.
[603] The Defence position in this regard is clear: Counsel says simply
that the complainants (with one important exception) have memories
which have been constructed as a result of contamination.
[604] Counsel does not suggest that these complainants have told stories
which are false as a result of a flawed recovered memory process.
Rather, he says the stories are false because they have been seriously
tainted by inadvertent collusion — full stop.
[605] In assessing the validity of a complainant’s recovered memory, the

Court must exercise caution and examine the retrieval process which
led to the recovery of the memory.
[606] However, in assessing the validity of a complainant’s memory which

they claim has been a continuous one from childhood, the Court must
also exercise caution. This is so because at the end — and regardless
of how the memory is characterized — the Court is faced with the task
of separating fact from fiction.
89
[607] As in the case of an honest but mistaken identification, the witness

with a false memory will typically present as a very convinced and
convincing witness. They sincerely believe that the incident being
described by them is true.
[608] Their demeanor on the witness stand may be entirely consistent with
one who has been victimized. There may well be an unconscious
transference of the emotions associated with real trauma to a false
memory. There may well be signs of anger and indignation, disgust and
embarrassment. The emotions behind the words may ring true, but this
is not a guarantee that the events being described by the witness had
occurred as described, if at all.
[609] It is within this context that the Court must not only be careful in
assessing such testimony, but also must do so within the greater
overarching context that presumes the Defendant innocent unless and
until the Crown is able to discharge the burden of proving the case
against him.
[610] In addition, and in a case where the Defendant has chosen to testify,
the Court must exercise additional caution in assessing his testimony.
2. Assessing testimony of an accused person
[611] The complainants in this case say that they were sexually assaulted
by Johnny Meeko.
[612] Johnny denies that such was the case. He says it never happened.
[613] Johnny is presumed by the law to be innocent of the charges against

him. He does not have to establish his innocence. It is the Crown that
must establish guilt. This burden of proof remains on the Crown
throughout the trial. It never shifts to the defendant.
[614] And the standard of this proof in a criminal trial is a high one. Guilt
can only be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[615] This high standard of proof is necessary because so much is at

stake. A criminal conviction can be a devastating thing in a person’s life.
90
[616] The Crown is not, of course, required to prove the case against a
defendant to a virtual or 100 per cent certainly. That would be
impossible. However, it is only proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
can displace the presumption of innocence. Suspicion or even
“probable” guilt is not enough.
[617] In a civil trial, the parties involved may be in dispute over the right to
certain property, damages for alleged wrongdoing, or the custody of
children. These are serious matters, to be sure. However, in a civil
case, the liberty of the citizen is not at stake.
[618] In a civil case, the Court is allowed to make a decision based on

whether it prefers or favours the testimony of one party – the plaintiff or
defendant – over that of the other. The Court is allowed to base its
decision on which party’s case is probably true or more likely credible.
[619] A criminal trial is not, however, such a credibility contest between

Crown and Defence witnesses. It is not simply a matter of choosing one
side’s version of events over another.
[620] Indeed, in a criminal trial there is no burden on the defendant to

present a case at all. The defendants have the same right to silence as
they do upon arrest.
[621] The defendants in a criminal trial may, of course, choose to testify on

their own behalf. In such a case, and unlike a civil trial, the Court is not
allowed to make a decision by simply choosing one version of events
(the Crown witness’ version) over another (the defendant’s testimony).
Such an approach would suggest that a defendant has some burden to
convince the trier of fact that his or her version of the truth is more
accurate or reliable. The defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to the
benefit of any reasonable doubt on the issue of credibility arising from
the testimony of witnesses heard in the trial.
[622] And the burden of making the case to the required criminal standard
of proof remains upon the Crown – from start to finish – irrespective of
whether the defendant chooses to respond by calling evidence or
testifying on his own behalf.
[623] It is within this context, and given that so much is at stake in a

criminal trial, that the Supreme Court of Canada has in the case of R v
W(D), [1991] 1 SCR 742, 63 CCC (3d) 397 [W(D)], provided guidelines
to assist trial judges in assessing a defendant’s testimony.
91
[624] In this case, Johnny Meeko is charged with abusing a number of

complainants. The number of complainants does not, however, affect
my approach to assessing his testimony in each instance in accordance
with the analytical framework mandated by our Supreme Court in W(D).
[625] My approach to Johnny’s testimony is the same whether there is one

complainant or many complainants – and the spirit of W(D) must be
embraced and applied respecting each complainant.
[626] If I believe Johnny’s testimony, then I must, obviously, find him not
guilty.
[627] If I do not believe his testimony, but I find that his evidence raises a
reasonable doubt about any essential element required to be proven by
the Crown, then Johnny must be given the benefit of that doubt and I
must accordingly find him not guilty.
[628] If, at the end of the day, I do not know who or what to believe, then
similarly the law demands that I must find Johnny not guilty. Once
again, it is the Crown that must establish guilt. The defendant does not
need to prove his innocence.
[629] Finally, even if I do not believe Johnny’s testimony, and even if I

believe that his testimony does not raise a reasonable doubt about his
guilt, I may only find Johnny guilty if on the evidence which I do accept
his guilt has in fact been proved by the Crown to the requisite criminal
standard.
[630] So, even if I reject Johnny’s denial that he assaulted any or all of the
complainants, I can only find him guilty if the evidence which I do
accept – in this case the testimony of the complainant and/or
complainants – has been proven to my satisfaction to establish
Johnny’s guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.
[631] Within the context of this cautionary approach mandated by W(D),

there are other specific pitfalls which trial judges must avoid in the
assessment of a defendant’s testimony.
[632] In this regard, Defence Counsel has presented case authorities

which illustrate the two most common ways that trial judges may fall
into error: first, by applying a different and more critical level of scrutiny
to the defendant’s testimony than that of the complainant; and second,
92
by requiring the defendant’s testimony to be ‘reasonably true’ before it

is accepted or raises a reasonable doubt concerning guilt.
[633] Such errors by a trial judge in assessing a defendant’s testimony are

most often made in cases where the defendant and complainant, or the
Crown witnesses generally, agree that there was incident or meeting
between them but disagree on what exactly happened.
[634] The defendant is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt

arising from the testimony of witnesses. And if the trial judge does not
know who to believe, then the defendant is entitled to an acquittal.
[635] A trial judge must, therefore, guard against applying a tolerant or

relaxed approach to real and significant weaknesses in the testimony of
the Crown witnesses and a strict or less tolerant approach to
insignificant weaknesses in the defendant’s testimony.
[636] The Court may not be troubled by some inconsistencies,

contradictions, or weaknesses in a complainant’s memories from
childhood. They may be simply unimportant and tolerated as such.
However, the Court must seriously scrutinize any inconsistency,
contradiction, or weakness where it is significant to the complainant’s
credibility and, thus, material to proof of the defendant’s guilt.
[637] Similarly, in assessing the testimony of the defendant, the Court

must avoid applying any double standard of tolerance. The Court must
not be troubled by inconsistencies, contradictions, or weaknesses in the
defendant’s testimony unless they are significant in terms of his
credibility or are directly material to the question of whether he
committed the offences.
[638] In cases where there is contradictory evidence between the

defendant and the complainant about what happened between the two
of them, the trial judge must also guard against requiring that the
defendant’s version ‘might reasonably be true’ before he is entitled to
be acquitted.
[639] Such an approach amounts to imposing a positive obligation on the

defendant to disprove guilt, and undermines the presumption of
innocence. The proper approach is for the trial judge to determine
whether the defendant’s evidence raises a reasonable doubt and to
acquit if it does.
93
[640] The case before me, R v Meeko, does not involve a situation where
the defendant and the complainant(s) agree that there was a common
meeting or incident between them but disagree on what exactly
happened.
[641] The only common area of agreement between the complainant(s)

and Johnny is that (with one exception) Johnny was a teacher in the
Nuiyak school and the complainants were at various times his students.
[642] Otherwise, as I stated earlier, the complainants say that they were
sexually assaulted by Johnny. Johnny denies that such was the case.
He says it never happened.
[643] In addition, the accusations are historical. They happened, if they

happened at all, a long time ago.
[644] In this regard I must caution or remind myself, in assessing Johnny’s

testimony, that detail does not, per se, trump denial.
[645] Oftentimes, an innocent defendant who is faced with a historical

accusation of misbehaviour might not be able to recall where they were
on the day the complainant alleges it happened. In such a case, the
absence of such a memory is a neutral fact.
[646] An innocent defendant faced with an accusation of a historical crime

may be able to say only that the incident never occurred. In such a
case, the simple denial is a neutral fact.
[647] And so it follows that the specific testimony from a complainant

about what she says a defendant did to her many years ago does not
by itself, and because it is so detailed, detract from the defendant’s
credibility.
[648] In DeJaeger, Kilpatrick, S.J., noted that in cases of historical crime

where the memory of the complainant is vague, the absence of any
detail (as well as contradictions) can readily be explained away by the
witnesses’ fading memory. Kilpatrick, S.J., made the observation that
there is a natural tendency for a judge or jury to be more forgiving of
such a flawed memory; and he said that this tendency is doubly
enhanced where the events being described are not only historical but
also alleged to have been witnessed by a child. [DeJaeger at para 13]
94
[649] In my view, the danger of the tendency alluded to be Kilpatrick, S.J.,

in DeJaeger is amplified where the witness professes to have not a
vague childhood memory of abuse, but rather a more specific and
detailed memory.
[650] Accordingly, a Court must not only resist such tendency but also
remind itself that a simple denial by the defendant does not alter, in any
way, the burden of proof which is upon the Crown to establish the
veracity of its own witnesses. It is never, for example, upon a defendant
to amplify their simple denial of guilt by explaining why the
complainant’s version of events may not be true.
E. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
1. Assessment of the Crown’s case
(a). General assessment
[651] As I noted earlier, under “Assessing testimony of an accused

person”, the defendant, Johnny Meeko, is presumed by the law to be
innocent of the charges against him.
[652] Johnny Meeko does not have to establish his innocence. The
burden of proof remains on the Crown throughout his trial – it never
shifts to the defendant. And it is only proof beyond a reasonable doubt
that can displace the presumption of innocence. Suspicion alone is not
enough.
[653] Johnny Meeko has given up his right to silence. He has testified in
his own defence.
[654] If I believe Johnny that he did not assault any or all of the
complainants, then I must find him not guilty of the charge or charges in
relation to that complainant or those complainants.
[655] Even if I do not believe Johnny Meeko’s testimony, but find his
evidence raises a reasonable doubt about any essential element
required to be proven by the Crown, Johnny Meeko must be given the
benefit of that doubt. If, at the end of the day, I do not know who or what
to believe, the law demands that the defendant be acquitted.
95
[656] And finally, even if I reject Johnny Meeko’s evidence, and even if I
find that his evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt, Johnny
Meeko can only be convicted if on all the evidence his guilt has in fact
been proven by the Crown to the requisite criminal standard.
[657] I will articulate, under “Assessment of the defendant’s testimony”,

why I found Johnny Meeko’s testimony to be problematic in terms of his
credibility.
[658] The key question is whether the Crown has proven that the evidence
of the individual complainants, together with the statement which
Johnny Meeko gave to the police, establishes his guilt at the required
criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[659] The complainants E, D, Y, X, Z, A and C gave compelling testimony

itemizing the sexual abuse which Johnny had perpetrated upon them.
[660] In my view, the testimony of these seven complainants, standing

alone – more precisely, separate and apart from anything Johnny said
to the police by way of a confession – is sufficient proof beyond a
reasonable doubt of Johnny’s guilt in relation to all charges involving
these complainants. I have itemized the convincing aspects of their
individual testimonies under “Findings and verdicts respecting the
individual complainants”, below.
[661] I did find in some complainant testimony inconsistencies between

what they said at the preliminary inquiry and what they subsequently
said at trial. Similarly, there were inconsistencies within the trial
testimony of some complainants, and between complainants, which
were explored during cross-examination. However, these areas of
discrepancy were, in my view, explicable by the fact that adults were
testifying about events which had occurred when they were children.
More importantly, these areas of discrepancy were not central to
conduct which established Johnny Meeko’s liability.
[662] Respecting the complainant B, I had some reservations concerning

her reliability, and again, I have itemized these reservations under
“Findings and verdicts respecting the individual complainants”.
However, any reservations I did entertain respecting B’s reliability are
negated as a result of Johnny’s police confession, where he stated that
he did, in fact, sexually abuse B.
96
[663] Respecting the complainant F, I have a reasonable doubt

concerning her credibility generally, regardless of Johnny’s denial at
trial that he ever assaulted her. Again, I have articulated why I found F’s
testimony to be problematic under “Findings and verdicts respecting the
individual complainants”.
(b). Indicators of truth in the testimony of the complainants
[664] Going forward, I use the word ‘complainants’ for the sake of
convenience only as a reference to the individual complainants whose
testimony I have accepted.
[665] There are some aspects in the testimony of the complainants worthy
of note.
[666] I find that some of the complainants testified as to what I would call
age-appropriate reactions when they were assaulted or accosted by
Johnny.
[667] These are memories of adult witnesses who recall their responses,
as children, when events out of the ordinary happened to them.
[668] A few examples will serve to prove the point.
[669] Y testified that she was eight years old and in Grade 3 when Johnny
touched her for the first time. She remembered wearing snow pants.
She said that she was seated at her desk and got up, at which point
Johnny rubbed her bum over the top of her pants. Y said she felt
uncomfortable, “[b]ecause no one did that to me before.” [Trial
[670] This made an imprint on Y’s memory because to her, as a little girl, it
was out of the ordinary for an adult to do such a thing.
[671] Y also had a clear memory, as a more mature teenager, of another

notable event – namely, the time when Johnny put his hand on her
breast and she pushed him away when they were alone in the hallway
at Ranger practice. And she remembered her reaction immediately
afterwards, as a teenager at the time, of being too embarrassed to tell
her fellow Rangers what had happened.
97
[672] A teenage memory is, of course, more recent than a childhood

memory, and for this reason arguably even more reliable.
[673] Another example of a convincing teenage memory is E’s testimony

about an incident which happened when she was about 15 years old. E
testified about Johnny putting his hand down the front of her pants
when they were alone in the kitchen. She remembered telling Johnny
that she was going to complain to her mother and Johnny warning her
that he would then do the same to E’s mother. In turn, E never did tell
her mother what Johnny had done.
[674] D – who suffered some of the most invasive and memorable abuse
by Johnny – remembered being held back after school for a detention.
She was eight years old and in Grade 3. She testified that “[o]ne time
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]
[675] This testimony has the ring of truth to it because it is the reaction of
a child being asked to perform something novel or bizarre outside of the
child’s normal life experience. And because it was out of the ordinary, it
made an imprint on her memory.
[676] Johnny was also in the habit of saying things which made imprints
on the complainants’ memories at the time. For example, some
complainants recalled being taken aback, as little girls, at some of
Johnny’s lewd commentary about how their breasts would grow, or
questions about whether they were growing pubic hair.
[677] Z’s reaction to such lewd commentary was typical of other

complainants. She testified that she thought such comments and
questions were “stupid … [b]ecause we were kids. We didn’t know
things were going to develop.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 14, lines
22, 25-26]
[678] In addition to these age-appropriate reactions to Johnny’s activity,

some complainants testified about the immediate and/or lasting effect
that Johnny’s abuse had on them. Much of this testimony was
compelling.
[679] For example, D recalled that things were so bad she started skipping
school. In particular, she remembered heading out to school, but sitting
by a local lake for the day and then returning home, pretending she had
98
been at school.
[680] D testified that she actually told her mother at the time about what
Johnny was doing, but that her mother did not believe her. She said her
mother told her, “he’s a nice person, I know he’s not doing that.” D
testified that after this she never said a word to anyone about Johnny’s
abuse until the police came to see her in 2012. Up until then, she said,
she thought she was Johnny’s only victim. [Trial Transcript, Volume 1,
p. 101, line 26-27]
[681] Indeed, when the police first came to D she said nothing had
happened. It was only when the police told her Johnny had confessed
to assaulting her, that she was able finally to speak out. Previously, she
had kept it all bottled up: “[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]
[682] D was not the only complainant who started to skip school because
of Johnny – Y pretended to be sick and C started missing two or three
days a week without her parents knowing.
[683] Some complainants also testified about remarkable aspects of

Johnny’s abuse.
[684] X was eight years old in Grade 3 and 11 years old in Grade 6. He
was Johnny’s student in both grades. X recalled Johnny reaching into
his shirt and pinching his nipples “[l]ike a crab.” [Trial Transcript,
Volume 4, p. 368, line 15]
[685] C remembered the shock of finding blood in her underwear after

Johnny had digitally penetrated her. She also remembered Johnny
laughing at her when she told him she would tell her mother what he
was doing.
[686] Z remembered specifically Johnny telling her “if I tell my parents that
God would cut out my tongue.” Z also remembered how when it was
time for gym class Johnny would require that she and two or three other
students remain in his classroom. She said Johnny would then first
cover the small window on the classroom door with a paper towel
before coming over to her desk to touch her on the chest. [Trial
99
[687] And finally, in my view, the fact some complainants testified that they
actually told someone at the time about Johnny’s actions lends
credence to their narratives because, by saying this they have, at least
to a certain extent, left themselves open to contradiction.
[688] In this regard, I was particularly impressed by E and the frustration

she expressed when testifying that she had told the principal about
Johnny. She testified that:
We 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.
(c). The Defence theory of the Crown’s case
[689] The starting point here is that it is not necessary that a defendant
have a ‘theory’ about why the Crown’s case may be flawed. It is never,
for example, upon a defendant to provide a reason or motive why a
complainant has made up a story or is unreliable. Rather, it is for the
Crown to satisfy the Court as to the veracity and reliability of its
witnesses, regardless of what the Defence may say about them.
[690] In this case, however, the Defence does put forward a reason why
the Crown witnesses are unreliable and, in turn, why it is simply too
dangerous to make a finding of guilt against Johnny Meeko.
[691] The Defence says it stretches the imagination to believe reports that
Johnny Meeko would, over so many decades, overtly sexually touch
students on hundreds of occasions, while during the same period, he
would covertly engage in similar assaults on others.
[692] The Defence suggests that the Crown cannot ‘have it both ways’
and expect the Court to accept such an incongruous scenario – namely,
that Johnny would publicly flaunt his abuse of children in his care, yet
also resort to parallel behaviour privately.
[693] The Defence offers that this contrast is so striking that it calls into
question the reliability of Johnny’s accusers.
100
[694] I reject this theory.
[695] While all forms of sexual assault are both traumatic and invasive,
Johnny was, in my view, brazen enough to engage in what the Crown
has characterized as ‘less invasive’ sexual assault in full view of the
class – for example, reaching down shirts, touching chests over the
clothes and patting bums.
[696] He was also canny and devious enough, however, to engage in

‘more invasive’ sexual exploitation out of sight, after school hours. He
made his most vulnerable victims serve detentions so that he could
accelerate the abuse by violating them in private, one-on-one.
[697] It is, in my view, just that simple.
[698] Johnny was sometimes, however, also brazen enough to engage in

some invasive activity during free time, as students mingled throughout
the classroom – as, for example, when he put his hand down the back
of C’s pants.
[699] Further, it is my view that Johnny tried to ‘normalize’ much of the

less invasive sexual activity in the eyes of his young victims by
attempting to make it seem unremarkable, or even funny: for example,
by tickling A as well as sexually touching her, or by rewarding Z with a
kiss on the lips for finishing her work, which made other students laugh.
[700] Indeed, the very act of touching eight-year-old girls on the chest
(and making lewd comments) while other students were in the class
was, in my view, an effort by Johnny to make the activity seem normal
or unremarkable.
[701] The complainants were clear, and I accept, that even though much
of this less invasive activity took place in full view of the class, Johnny
was also careful to ensure that it did not happen within the view of any
teachers. Johnny never engaged in this activity as a classroom
assistant while another teacher was present. He only harassed the
students sexually when he was the only adult present – either as a
classroom assistant in charge of the class by himself, or later as a
teacher.
[702] In this regard, the physical setting of the classrooms benefited

Johnny. The portable classrooms as well as the classrooms in main
101
school building had large windows to the exterior, but were well above
an average person’s height; and there was only one small window on
the classroom doors in the main school building. I accept as well the
testimony of Z, who noted that sometimes Johnny put a paper towel
over the small classroom window.
[703] In my view as well, while there was always a chance the principal
might visit his classroom, Johnny was nonetheless confident that no
students would complain about the abuse, and if they did, they would
not be believed. Indeed, E’s testimony about being brushed off by the
principal when she complained is proof of this.
[704] It is clear, however, that Johnny was careful to ensure that no one
was around to witness the more invasive sexual abuse. For example, D
was kept after school for a detention, at which time, in a one-on-one
setting, Johnny was able to engage her in simulated sex and remove
her pants to stare at her. Similarly, Johnny was careful to ensure that
his sexual interest in X, a boy, would not attract attention. As with D,
Johnny had X stay after school for a detention.
[705] The fallacy of the Defence theory – namely, that it is incongruous

that Johnny would abuse his students both publicly and privately – is,
however, predicated upon an even greater fallacy. The Defence says
that the only possible explanation for the fantastic and implausible fact
pattern is that the assaults never took place.
[706] The lynchpin of the Defence theory is that the testimony of the
complainants consists of stories which have been tainted by collusion.
The Defence suggests that this collusion has taken on a force and
power akin to a community delusion.
[707] The Defence says that the complainants have been somehow
deluded, because of inadvertent collusion among them, into honestly
believing that what they say is true.
[708] Respectfully, I reject this hypothesis. It is, in my view, a fallacy.
[709] In my view, there is no evidential air of reality to such a notion.
[710] First, there is no evidence of any contact among the complainants as

a group at all. The sole occasion when the complainants were together
as a group was when they travelled to Iqaluit for trial. This was well
after they had each made independent statements. Further, prior to this
102
trip they were advised by the RCMP not to discuss the case with each
other; the complainants who were questioned about this at trial
confirmed that they complied with these instructions.
[711] Second, each complainant was questioned at trial by the Crown

respecting who they spoke to about Johnny’s behaviour, either at the
time when they said it happened so long ago, or later as the years
passed. In each instance, the testimony of the complainants was clear
– any such communication about Johnny between the complainant and
other people (including other complainants) was minimal, lacking in
detail and certainly did not influence what the complainant told the
police or the Court.
[712] The Crown also questioned each complainant respecting rumours

they may have heard about Johnny Meeko. Defence Counsel cross-
examined most of the complainants respecting this same testimony. In
response to such questioning, the complainants were clear that any
rumours they may have heard about Johnny’s behaviour did not
influence what they told the police or the Court.
[713] The complainants refuted any suggestion that their testimony may
have been ‘shaped,’ even inadvertently, by speaking with others. In this
regard, E 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.”
[714] Further, in my view, the notion that the testimony of the

complainants is analogous to a community-wide delusion is simply an
unfounded bare assertion.
[715] The Defence has further suggested that the prospect of financial
compensation for Johnny’s wrongdoing serves to undermine the
complainants’ testimony. Again, I reject such a hypothesis.
[716] It is, of course, legitimate for the victims of sexual abuse to pursue
civil remedies against their wrongdoer or those responsible vicariously
for the wrongdoer’s actions.
103
[717] Each of the complainants was questioned by the Crown about

whether they had thought about compensation when they made their
initial complaints to the police in 2012. In response, the complainants all
said that such was not the case and none had talked to any personal
injury lawyer for this purpose prior to making their complaints.
[718] Some of the complainants did offer that their motive for going to the
police was simply because Johnny had done wrong and that they
wanted young girls to be safe. In particular, C testified that she first
went to the police in the spring of 2012 because she heard Johnny had
applied to teach again and she was fearful for her daughter, who was
starting kindergarten in the fall.
[719] Finally, and since 2012, only a couple of the complainants have
even made contact or been contacted by any personal injury lawyers.
And the contact these complainants did have was recent and in the
nature of an initial consultation.
[720] It is clear that in 2012, when the complainants first gave statements
to the police, the idea of financial compensation was far beyond the
horizon. And I am satisfied that since that time, for the few
complainants who have even looked into it, the possibility of
compensation has not affected their testimony in the slightest degree. I
am also satisfied that rumours of any past notorious sexual assault
cases resulting in civil compensation in no way affected the
complainants’ decisions to go to the police or their testimony at trial.
(d). Findings respecting the Crown’s similar fact evidence application
[721] It is clear that the law allows similar fact evidence to apply across the
counts in an Indictment, with the evidence on each count corroborating
the evidence on each of the other counts. The evidence on each count
is then admissible on the other count to assist in proving an allegation
beyond a reasonable doubt. [Guay v The Queen [1979] 1 SCR 18, 89
DLR (3d) 532; R v Arp [1998] 3 SCR 339, 129 CCC (3d) 321.]
[722] I am satisfied in this case that the testimony of the complainants

about being touched by Johnny in the classroom may properly be
considered as similar fact evidence. And in this regard I am further
satisfied that the Crown has demonstrated the absence of any collusion
between the various complainants.
104
[723] I agree with the Crown that the proposed similar fact evidence is
both cogent and probative.
[724] Indeed, the probative value of similar fact evidence may actually
increase where all the allegations against the defendant (including the
similar fact component) are unproven, and where there is, as in this
case, no other independent or corroborative evidence in the case.
[725] I am not persuaded, however, that the probative value of a similar

fact approach in this case outweighs the prejudicial effect such an
approach has upon the defendant, Johnny Meeko.
[726] If this were a jury trial, I would instruct the jury how to deal with
similar fact evidence: I would tell the jury that, as they assess the
truthfulness of one particular complainant, they may consider the
testimony of other complainants.
[727] At the same time, however, I would tell the jury that they are not
permitted to consider similar facts from other complainants to infer that
Johnny is the type of person to commit the offence charged in relation
to that particular complainant.
[728] Such distinctions can be often lost on juries and because of this
judges are sometimes reticent to allow a jury to consider external or
extrinsic similar fact evidence, or to allow a jury to consider the
evidence across counts from a similar fact perspective.
[729] The danger, of course, is that a jury will struggle with any cautionary
instruction and fall into the very error which the instruction warns
against – namely, inferring guilt from the defendant’s bad character and
general disposition to commit similar crimes. Further, this danger is
obviously proportionate to the number of counts in the Indictment – the
greater the number of counts, the greater the potential that a jury could
fall into error despite any cautionary instruction.
[730] Evidence of bad character is not inadmissible because it may

demonstrate a predisposition to commit a certain crime. It is
inadmissible when that is all it demonstrates. The Crown, however,
suggests that since this case proceeds as a judge-alone trial, the risk of
such moral prejudice is essentially non-existent – and particularly where
the similar fact evidence relied upon by the Crown is the same
testimony which the judge has already heard.
105
[731] The Crown’s similar fact application asks me to consider the

testimony of one complainant within the context of what the other
complainants say. Essentially, the Crown is asking that I think in a
certain way and support or corroborate the testimony of each
complainant by using the testimony of the others.
[732] Inherently, the application asks that I also avoid thinking in another
way – that I avoid the pitfall of inferring the defendant’s guilt from his
character rather than the specifics of what the other complainants said
he did.
[733] And while I agree that a judge’s experience will render it less likely
that he or she will be distracted by sentiment or revulsion related to the
similar fact evidence, I do note that a judge’s ability to self-instruct is not
a cure-all.
[734] In this case, I consider the Crown’s evidence to be sufficiently

cogent proof of Johnny Meeko’s guilt, separate and apart from the
analytical framework of similar fact evidence. Consequently, I see no
need to assess the evidence from the similar fact perspective.
[735] Accordingly, the similar fact application is denied.
(e). The absence of independent corroborative evidence
[736] I will address the failure of the Crown to call any independent
witnesses in support of the complainants’ testimony.
[737] In particular, some of the complainants testified that they complained

to the principal about Johnny at the time he was abusing them. These
complainants named the principal and said essentially that he did not
believe them – that he brushed them off.
[738] Other complainants testified that they had told their parent or
parents about Johnny’s abuse – and again, they did so around the time
it was happening when they were children. And at least one of these
complainants testified that her parents did not believe Johnny would do
such a thing.
106
[739] None of these prospective witnesses – neither the principal nor

individual parents – were called by the Crown to corroborate the
testimony of the complainants involved.
[740] During final submissions I queried Crown Counsel to explain why

such testimony was not called, or at least to provide an explanation as
to whether any effort had been made to contact and take statements
from these prospective witnesses. In so doing, I was mindful that such
prospective witnesses may not even be alive. Nonetheless, I felt an
explanation from the Crown was called for.
[741] The Crown was not, however, able to say whether any attempt had
been made by the police to obtain statements from such witnesses. In
fairness to the police, however, the responsibility with ensuring that
sufficient evidence is mustered to make the case is not with the police,
but with the Crown.
[742] Nonetheless, the Crown’s position was simply that such testimony
would not be admissible at the trial because of the evidential rule
against calling previous consistent statements by the complainants.
[743] With respect, I disagree.
[744] The Crown was well aware that the Defence theory in the case was
that the allegations of the complainants were false – whether through
innocent collusion or intentional fabrication.
[745] Accordingly, in my view, testimony from people that the

complainants, as children, talked to at the time to complain about
Johnny is clearly admissible evidence – both to corroborate the
testimony of the individual complainants’ narratives and to rebut the
theory of the Defence.
[746] As I alluded earlier in this judgment, it is correct for the Crown to say
that as a matter of law, independent corroborative evidence is no longer
required to found a conviction in cases of sexual assault. However,
where there is a real prospect that such evidence may exist and could
be used by the Crown to further support its witnesses, I see no reason
why the Crown would not pursue this avenue of inquiry, particularly in
historical cases.
[747] In the case of Horne, Kilpatrick, S.J., made the observation at

paragraph 20 that:
107
As a practical matter however, such evidence may sometimes be

necessary in order to move the Crown’s case beyond mere
suspicion, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. … In circumstances
where oath is pitted against oath, prudence and common sense
sometimes demand that there be corroborative evidence … to give
greater certainty to the decision-making process.
[748] I do not have before me the dilemma which faced Kilpatrick, S.J., in
Horne. I am satisfied that the case against Johnny Meeko has been
made out on the accepted testimony of the individual complainants.
Accordingly, I am confident in finding Johnny Meeko guilty as a matter
of law, as well as a practical matter, without corroborative evidence.
[749] Nonetheless, after hearing Crown Counsel respecting the absence

of any corroborating testimony, I am left with a strong suspicion that the
Crown could have done more. And again, I stress that the responsibility
for ensuring that such efforts are made lies with the Crown, not the
police.
[750] Sexual assault cases deserve to be thoroughly investigated and

prosecuted. Courts should not be faced an oath-versus-oath dilemma in
a case where all the available evidence was not mustered.
2. Assessment of the defendant’s testimony
[751] I accept Johnny Meeko’s testimony that it was only in September of

1973 that he taught school for the first time – and that the 1973-74
academic year was when Johnny first taught in Sanikiluaq.
[752] I accept Johnny’s testimony that he was in attendance at the

Churchill Vocational Centre for the entire 1972-73 academic year, and
that he graduated from the Centre in the spring of 1973.
[753] I accept as well that after graduation Johnny came back home to
Sanikiluaq only briefly, for a period of three days, which allowed him to
see his father before his father passed away. And that shortly
afterwards he moved to Chesterfield Inlet to attend a classroom
assistant training program, which he completed at the end of July in
1973.
108
[754] Johnny was clear, and I accept, that he then returned to Sanikiluaq
in August of 1973, and only began working as a classroom assistant
“when the teachers returned” and school opened in September of 1973.
I also accept that prior to this time he had never worked in the school.
[755] Johnny was also clear, on at least two occasions during his police
interview, that he started teaching at the beginning of the 1973 school
year.
[756] There is also filed documentation which supports Johnny’s timeline

and his assertion that he only started teaching in September of 1973
and not earlier. For example, Johnny’s 25 Year Service Certificate
covers the years 1973-98. [EX. P-7, Letter from Baffin Divisional Board
of Education, 12 July 1999]
[757] This question of when Johnny actually started to teach is relevant to

the case only in relation to the complainant F, who testified Johnny had
molested her in the furnace room of a portable classroom when he was
a teaching assistant in the spring of 1973.
[758] I did not accept F’s testimony that she was molested by Johnny in
the spring of 1973. However, separate and apart from when it was that
F said Johnny molested her in the furnace room, I was troubled by
other aspects of her testimony. For example, F said it happened three
times, and then later, that it happened only “a couple of times.”
[759] During cross-examination, the Crown questioned Johnny about a

news interview he had given around the time of his retirement. The
Crown suggested to Johnny that he had told the reporter involved that
he may actually have started teaching earlier than September of 1973.
Johnny denied leaving the reporter with such an impression and
maintained his start date was in the fall of 1973.
[760] In fairness, and during final submissions, the Crown conceded that
any conclusions to be drawn from the interview were somewhat
ambiguous. And the Crown did not press any further with Johnny the
point that he may have started teaching before September of 1973. Nor
did the Crown attempt to introduce any documentary evidence to the
contrary.
[761] Initially, Johnny testified that he only remembered teaching in a

portable for one year, when he was a classroom assistant in the late
1970s. Later in his testimony, however, he said he remembered
109
teaching in portables from 1977 until 1979. And still later, during cross-
examination, he agreed that he had “probably” taught in portables for
several years.
[762] Similarly, Johnny testified that all classes were conducted in

portables until the main permanent school building was completed. He
later said, however, that even after the new permanent structure was
put up, there was still a need for portables.
[763] Johnny said that he was not that good at keeping track of dates and
explained that he had been anaesthetized twice – once for heart
surgery in 2009 and again for bladder surgery in 2010. And he added
that he thinks the anesthesia he received has had an effect on his
memory generally.
[764] I accept Johnny’s testimony that over the years he upgraded himself
from a classroom assistant to a certified Aboriginal language specialist
teacher. In this regard, Johnny identified a government record from
1992 which formally recognized this change in status from classroom
assistant to an aboriginal specialist. [EX. P-7, Letter from GNWT
Personnel, 6 February 1992]
[765] Johnny acknowledged, and I accept, that over his 35 years at the
school he taught a variety of subjects, including Inuktitut, science,
health and math. Johnny said that he taught from kindergarten up until
Grade 6, but not any high school classes.
[766] It appears, however, from the documentation before the Court that
Johnny may well have taught beyond Grade 6 as well. For example, a
letter written by the Nuiyak School principal in 1989 celebrating
Johnny’s 15 years of service says, “Johnny Meeko has been employed
as a classroom assistance since 1973. During this time he has taught
Kindergarten, and Grades 1 through 4. At present, Johnny is teaching
the Grade 3/4 class in [I]nuktitut during the morning and is instructing
the cultural course to the Grade 7/8/9 students in the afternoon.” [EX.
P-7, Letter from the Principal, 11 April 1989]
[767] During cross-examination, Johnny agreed that sometimes he had his

own class to teach even before he was certified as a teacher and that
he moved from classroom to classroom, as well as between the main
building and the portables. And he agreed that many of the classes he
taught had students from different grades in the same room.
110
[768] It is clear – and not in dispute between the Crown and Defence –
that Johnny had extensive teaching experience at various different
grade levels throughout his long career, both assisting teachers as a
classroom assistant and conducting classes on his own, as a classroom
assistant and later as a teacher.
[769] It is also clear – and not in dispute between the Crown and Defence
– that with exception of one complainant, Johnny did in fact teach the
various complainants at different times throughout his career.
[770] Accordingly, at the end of the proverbial day, I accept Johnny’s

testimony about the breadth of his teaching experience.
[771] There are, however, other more important aspects of Johnny’s

testimony which are problematic and which I do not accept. I was
troubled by some of Johnny’s testimony about his interview with the
police. And I was also troubled by some of Johnny’s testimony which
had nothing to do with his police interview.
[772] I was troubled by Johnny’s testimony respecting his letter of

reprimand dated 9 January 2009. [EX. P-9] This letter, written by the
Superintendent of Schools, is before the Court for the truth of its
contents, which includes the fact it was given personally to Johnny. The
subject matter of the letter is captioned as: “Reprimand – Inappropriate
Touching of Students”. The letter says there had been a complaint from
students that Johnny had touched them inappropriately some seven
years earlier, when they were in Grade 3.
[773] As a result of the complaint, there was a fact finding meeting on 8

January 2009, the day before the letter was written and given to
Johnny. During the fact finding meeting, Johnny admitted that it was his
practice to pat students on the bottom to get them to sit down at their
desks. But he maintained that this patting was never “touching,” and
that after realizing such conduct was wrong he discontinued the
practice and has not done it since.
[774] The letter concludes with the Superintendent’s finding that such
touching is unprofessional and unacceptable. The Superintendent then
issues a written reprimand as punishment, but warns Johnny that if this
type of thing happens again he could face dismissal.
[775] I pause to note that there is nothing said in the letter to indicate that
these allegations of ‘bottom touching’ were sexual in nature. And
111
Johnny’s position that his ‘patting’ was never ‘touching,’ implies that he
did not do so for any ulterior sexual purpose. Nonetheless, the clear
direction from the Superintendent was that regardless of his motive,
Johnny had crossed the line by touching students in such a fashion.
[776] Crown Counsel asked Johnny if, in fact, he actually touched

students on their bottoms to get them to sit down. Johnny denied ever
having done so, and maintained that the only time he ever touched a
student on their bottom was to give them a birthday spanking.
[777] Crown Counsel then presented a copy of the 9 January letter for
Johnny to read and also read parts of the letter out loud to Johnny, as
follows:
This letter will confirm the fact-finding meeting held January 8, 2009, at
Nuiyak School. … At the meeting you stated that at the time it was your
practice to pat primary students on their bottoms to get them to sit down at
their desks.
[778] After he read the letter, Johnny said simply: “I don’t remember any of
this”. He agreed that the letter said he had touched students
inappropriately, but he added, “[i]t may say that but I never did it.” [Trial
Transcript, Volume 6, p. 614, lines 4, 7]
[779] Johnny did admit that he had received the letter, but in doing so he
also said: “I never did it though.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 614,
line 27, p. 615, line 1]
[780] Johnny initially denied ever having attended the fact finding meeting
referred to in the letter, but then said that he did not remember any
meeting.
[781] Crown Counsel asked if Johnny’s surgeries had taken place after he
got the letter and Johnny said they had.
[782] Crown Counsel asked Johnny if it was possible he had just forgotten
about the letter, and Johnny replied by saying, “Maybe.” Crown Counsel
asked Johnny if it was possible he had forgotten about the meeting, and
Johnny replied by saying “Probably.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 616,
lines 2-5]
[783] Crown Counsel then asked Johnny if it was possible he had also
forgotten about touching students on their bottoms, as the letter
112
described. Johnny, at first, answered by saying, “Maybe.” He then

denied ever having done so. [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 616, lines 8,
17, 20, 23]
[784] The Prosecutor then asked Johnny why he told people at the fact
finding he had touched students on the bottom to get them to sit down.
In fairness, it was clear that Johnny was a little confused by this
question, and his answer, “[m]ight be”, is simply non-responsive. [Trial
[785] Johnny then continued to deny having ever touched students on the
bum to get them to sit down and continued to deny as well that he might
have done so but simply forgotten about it.
[786] In my view, Johnny was less than forthright in answering questions

about this letter of reprimand. In 2009, any teacher confronted with a
formal complaint of inappropriately touching children in their care would
be shocked to the core by such an allegation – and all the more so if
they were completely innocent.
[787] Such an accusation, as well as the follow-up investigative process

involved, is not the kind of event that a reasonable person would simply
forget over the years.
[788] When confronted with the letter of reprimand, Johnny could have
easily told the Court what he had said at the fact-finding meeting –
namely, that it had been his practice at one time to pat students on their
bottoms to get them to sit down at their desks, but that this was not
sexual ‘touching’ at all. And that he discontinued the practice after
realizing it was wrong.
[789] I find Johnny’s professed loss of memory about the fact-finding

meeting is disingenuous, and simply a convenient way of avoiding a
difficult topic – namely, touching students on their bottoms. And I do not
accept the implication that his memory of events has been somehow
affected by subsequent surgeries (particularly since his memory of so
many other non-contentious events after these surgeries is remarkably
clear).
[790] I also conclude that Johnny intentionally lied under oath at his trial
when he disavowed what he had said at the fact-finding meeting and
testified that he never touched students on their bottoms to get them to
sit down at their desks. I find that Johnny lied in order to avoid
113
answering questions about a difficult and uncomfortable subject. He

took the easy way out by feigning a loss of memory and lying.
[791] By extension – as a matter of common sense and logic – this lie in

such a critical area of inquiry casts a shadow over Johnny’s denial that
he ever sexually assaulted any of the complainants.
[792] I was also troubled by Johnny’s testimony that he and the

complainant F had engaged in consensual sex.
[793] Much of Johnny’s in-chief testimony was concerned,

understandably, with his upbringing as a child, his education, his own
family and his accomplishments as a teacher. Towards the end of this
testimony, his Counsel turned Johnny’s attention to the allegations
against him. And Johnny was clear that he had never assaulted any of
the complainants. The following excerpt shows the precision of
Johnny’s denial of any wrongdoing:
Question [Defence Counsel]: Did you in fact ever touch any of

your students in a sexual way?
complainants while they were children?
complainants?
Question [Defence Counsel]: Now, I just want to be clear. When I

say “complainants” I mean the people who we saw testify in the
last week. You understand that?
Answer [Johnny]: Yes.
[794] During cross-examination, Johnny confirmed that he only became

familiar with F after he graduated from school in Churchill and began
114
teaching in Sanikiluaq, at which point F was a teenager.
[795] Crown Counsel asked Johnny if he and F were ever “sort of friends”.
In response, Johnny said, “[y]es, because at one time she tried to be
with me”. [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 584, lines 23-27]
[796] Johnny then elaborated that in the late 1970s (when he would have
been around 23 and F around 19 years old) F initiated a sexual
encounter with him.
[797] Johnny testified that F had come to his house on an ATV, and from
there they went to his shack where they had sex. He said she had been
crying at the time “[b]ecause she wanted to have sex with me.” He said
he had sex with her, essentially as a favour, “to calm her down so she
would stop crying.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 6, p. 588, lines 4, 6]
[798] Crown Counsel then asked Johnny why he had not told the Court
about this sexual encounter with F during is in-chief testimony, when his
lawyer asked if he had ever had sex with any of the complainants. In
response, Johnny said that he had misunderstood and thought his
lawyer was asking only if he ever had sex with any of the complainants
while the complainants were children.
[799] I do not accept this explanation.
[800] First, Johnny was clear that he never knew F as a child. Second,
Defence Counsel’s questions, above, about sex with the complainants
were measured and precise.
[801] Counsel first asked Johnny whether he ever had sex with any of the
complainants when they were children. Counsel then asked Johnny
whether he ever had sex with any of the complainants, full stop. This
next question was clearly aimed at eliminating any ambiguity.
[802] And for the sake of further clarity, Counsel then had Johnny confirm
that he understood the “complainants” to be the people – all now adults
– who had given testimony against him over the course of the past
week.
[803] It was crystal clear to me as I observed Johnny’s responses that he

understood precisely what Defence Counsel was asking – namely,
whether Johnny ever had sex with any of the complainants, at any time.
115
[804] F had testified that Johnny raped her three times while she was still
a student in his class. Accordingly, evidence that she actually initiated
sex with him only a few years later would be relevant evidence to refute
such testimony – subject only to Defence Counsel making an
application pursuant to section 276.1(1) of the Criminal Code.
[805] But no such application was made. And, thus, Defence Counsel did
not question F about any such consensual sexual encounter with
Johnny in the late 1970s. And Johnny offered no testimony in-chief
about any such encounter. Indeed, Johnny’s only in-chief testimony
concerning sexual encounters with F or any other complainants was an
outright denial.
[806] It was obvious to me that Johnny found himself in a ‘sticky’ situation

when it came to answering Crown Counsel’s questions about his
relationship and dealings with F.
[807] And I find Johnny’s testimony that F made a sexual advance towards
him – and that he only agreed to have sex with F in order to calm her
down – to be ludicrous.
[808] I was also troubled by some of Johnny’s testimony about how he

disciplined students who had misbehaved. A big contradiction between
Johnny’s testimony in Court and what he had told the police during his
interview concerning this question of discipline – more precisely, the
extent to which he used physical force with his students.
[809] When Johnny was interviewed by the police, his initial response to
the allegations against him was that the complainants were
troublesome students who at various times in the past he had been
required to discipline for misbehaviour. He told the police that these
students were just making up stories out of spite to get even with him
because he was a very strict teacher.
[810] Indeed, Johnny was insistent in telling the police that the charges
against him had nothing to do with inappropriate sexual touching at all –
but rather were all about discipline. Johnny volunteered quite a bit of
detail about how, from time to time, he resorted to physical discipline by
slapping students on their hands, sometimes with a ruler, or spanking
them. And he insisted that it was because students were angry at him
for being disciplined that they made up false stories about inappropriate
sexual touching.
116
[811] However, during his in-chief testimony, Johnny was clear that he
was a strict teacher but that he never resorted to any form of physical
correction such as spanking or a strap. He was clear that he had taken
courses which directed that teachers are never to use physical force
when disciplining students, and also that his father had given him this
type of advice as well. Specifically, Johnny said that at no time in his
career did he ever hit, punch, squeeze, or even touch any student to
discipline them.
[812] During cross-examination, Johnny maintained this positon that he

had never used corporal punishment. As noted earlier, he also denied
patting students on the bottoms to get them to sit down.
[813] It was clear that by denying that he had ever resorted to corporal
punishment Johnny was trying to portray himself to the Court in what he
considered the best possible light. He was also sending a message to
the Court that physical contact with students was something which had
never occurred, in any context.
[814] I do, however, accept the testimony of the complainants in this case
who said Johnny did use corporal punishment as a disciplinary
measure. For example, I accept the testimony of D, who said Johnny
punished her for her bullying behaviour by striking her on her hand with
a ruler until her hand was bruised.
[815] It is not material to this case whether Johnny ever resorted to

physical correction, or not. It is material, however, in terms of Johnny’s
general credibility that his testimony respecting the use of corporal
punishment was in such a direct contradiction to what he told the police
when confronted with allegations that he had sexually abused students.
[816] Further, it is material that Johnny made no attempt to address this

contradiction. Indeed, it was clear that the subject of discipline was
something he simply preferred to avoid. For example, when his lawyer
first asked Johnny if he was a strict teacher, Johnny’s reply was, “If I
may go on to another subject.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 5, p. 544, line
12]
[817] A final troubling aspect of Johnny’s testimony was his explanation of

how, during his police interview, he was able to identify D as a person
he had sexually assaulted when she was a child in his class.
117
[818] Towards the end of his interview, and after Johnny had confessed to
assaulting several of the complainants, the police provided him with
several Sanikiluaq yearbooks which contained photos of the residents
of the hamlet. The police wanted to see if Johnny might identify from
the photos one person that he had assaulted during his time as a
teacher.
[819] From the police perspective, Johnny’s ability to identify a victim

unknown to the police would independently confirm the truth of his
earlier confession.
[820] Johnny pointed to a photo of D and told the police she was one of
his victims. Subsequently, of course, the police approached D and she
became one of the complainants in this case.
[821] Crown Counsel pressed Johnny about this – about how it was, given
the hundreds of students he had taught over the years, that he picked
out D from the yearbook. In response, Johnny said he identified D’s
photo because the police were yelling at him and generally behaving in
a hateful and angry fashion during the interview. He said the police
were “crooks” and threatened to take him to BCC if he did not provide
them with two more names of victims.
[822] Johnny also said that the police had redacted or edited out all their
threatening behaviour from the video and audio which was played in the
courtroom. He said, as well, that the police interviewers had pointed out
people in the photos to him.
[823] I reject Johnny’s testimony that the police somehow removed

evidence of their threating behaviour from the materials which were
viewed in the courtroom and which form part of the record of the
proceedings.
[824] I also reject Johnny’s testimony that the police somehow helped or
directed him to pick out D’s photo. Clearly, they did not do so and this is
obvious from viewing the video and reading the accompanying
transcript.
[825] First, the police at that point in their investigation would have no
idea, from among all the photos in the books, who Johnny may have
assaulted. Second, for the police to make suggestions would have
defeated the very purpose of their own exercise.
118
[826] The police did go through the photos with Johnny and ask about
various people, but they were careful to avoid making any suggestion
about a prospective victim, and certainly did not identify or point out D’s
photo to Johnny.
[827] Johnny’s response for supplying D’s name to the police was a non-
response to Crown Counsel’s question. He may have given someone’s
name because he felt pressured by the police. But this does not explain
how he chose D’s name – unless, of course, it is true that Johnny
sexually assaulted D, which I conclude he did.
[828] I also reject the position that I should not accept Johnny’s confession
as true, or that I should have a reasonable doubt about its truth.
[829] As I noted earlier, I had conducted a voir dire prior to the trial of this
case and found as a matter of law that Johnny’s statement to the police
was made voluntarily and could, thus, be entered into evidence at his
trial.
[830] Nonetheless, Johnny is still free to disavow the statement at his trial
on the basis that it was not true because it was given under duress –
and that he simply told the police what they wanted to hear. The
admissibility of the statement and the truth of the statement are
separate matters.
[831] Johnny had told the Court, “[‘]the police are the club of God. You
have to respect the police or they will knock you down. So whatever
they have to say you have to listen to them.[’] That’s what my
grandfather said.” [Trial Transcript, Volume 5, p. 553, lines 5-9]
[832] Defence Counsel’s position was that, regardless of the police

behaviour, Johnny felt pressured – due to his upbringing and the
overarching colonial influences – to agree with and please the police
even to the point of lying about assaulting his students.
[833] Respectfully, I do not agree.
[834] In many respects, Johnny Meeko is a traditional man. He is a skilled

hunter able to provide for his family and community.
[835] He is a man whose second language is English. Johnny’s English is

not, as I alluded during the trial, particularly sophisticated
grammatically. However, it is abundantly clear from viewing his
119
interview with the police that he is both competent and comfortable in

English.
[836] He has also accomplished great success in the wage economy. He

had taken many courses over the years to upgrade from working as a
classroom assistant to a certified Aboriginal language teacher. He
remained employed with the Department of Education for over 30
years.
[837] And he has been active in his community, both in the church (on the
vestry council) and with the Canadian Rangers (as an instructor).
[838] There is no such thing as a stress-free police interview. And Johnny

was under great stress, to be sure, as a result of being accused of
serious crimes. There were times, however, during the interview when
Johnny was quite ‘chatty’ with the police and comfortable enough, at
one point, to leave his chair and help himself to a drink.
[839] The police were firm with Johnny, but the tone of the interview was
not remarkable. Obviously, Johnny was less comfortable answering
questions about sexual misconduct than with small talk about life in
Sanikiluaq, but the difference was minimal.
[840] Johnny is some 40 years or more removed from his grandfather’s

advice about how to behave when dealing with the RCMP, which during
his grandfather’s time was a powerful colonial presence. And, no doubt,
there are many remnants of this colonial relationship alive and
operative still today in small communities. However, as I viewed
Johnny’s interview, there was not the slightest red flag indicating that he
was simply ‘pleasing’ the interviewers to the point of providing a false
statement.
[841] Accordingly, I accept as true Johnny’s statement to the police that he

had assaulted the complainants X, Y, Z, A, C and B.
[842] This statement also contains sufficient narrative to corroborate the

testimony of these complainants.
[843] Following the Crown’s meticulous cross-examination of Johnny

Meeko, there was little left of his credibility.
120
[844] I reject Johnny’s testimony that he did not sexually assault the
following complaints: E, D, X, Z, A, C, Y and B.
[845] Further, Johnny’s testimony does not leave me with any reasonable
doubt respecting his guilt.
3. Specific credibility findings and verdicts
(a). Complainant E
[846] I found E’s testimony to be both persuasive and compelling. In my

view, her description of what Johnny did to her is the recollection of
someone who has suffered true indignity.
[847] In particular, I found the frustration that she expressed in her

testimony about being “brushed-off” by the principal when she
complained about Johnny to be genuine and lasting, even after so
many years.
[848] E presented – both in-chief and through rigorous cross-examination

– as a forthright and thoughtful witness. She made no attempt to
embellish her testimony in any way and, in my view, made an honest
effort to clarify any unclear or challenged aspects of her testimony.
[849] I accept E’s testimony that Johnny inappropriately touched her

almost on a daily basis while she was a student at the school. I also
accept E’s testimony respecting the incident at Johnny’s mother’s place
where Johnny Meeko put his hand down her pants and threatened to
do the same to her mother if she told her mother what had happened.
[850] I accept as well E’s testimony about the numerous times Johnny
grabbed at her or attempted to grab at her at the Northern Store both
when she was a student and after she left school.
[851] I further accept E’s testimony that when she was in her thirties she
spoke to her sister F and to others about what Johnny had done, but
that nothing in these conversations in any way influenced her testimony
about what had happened to her.
[852] I also accept E’s testimony that she was in no way motivated by the
prospect of receiving money. She had made her complaint to the police
121
in 2012, years before any lawyer spoke to her about possible

compensation.
[853] I accept E’s testimony that she only went to the police after she
discovered that her own daughter, B, had done so. And further, I accept
that up until that time E had no idea of what B may have gone through
as a child.
[854] And in my view there is no evidential traction to the notion that E’s
testimony is the product of any type of inadvertent collusion or innocent
tainting as a result of discussions with other complainants or as a result
of hearing rumours about Johnny in the community.
[855] I make the following findings respecting the charges involving E:
1. I accept as true all of E’s testimony about what Johnny

Meeko did and said to her.
2. In particular, I accept E’s testimony that Johnny Meeko

touched or pinched her chest over her clothes almost on
a daily basis, often while making lewd comments. I find
as well that on some of these occasions he also
touched her crotch area over her clothing.
3. In particular, I accept E’s testimony that on one

occasion Johnny Meeko put his hand down E’s pants
and threatened to do the same to E’s mother if E told
her mother what had happened.
4. In particular, I accept E’s testimony about the numerous

times Johnny Meeko grabbed at her or attempted to
grab at her while making lewd comments at the
Northern Store, both when she was a student and after
she had left school.
[856] On Count 27, that Johnny Meeko on or between August 1, 1972 and
June 30, 1980, at or near the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq, now in the Territory
of Nunavut, did indecently assault a female person, to wit E, contrary to
section 149 of the Criminal Code, I find the accused Johnny Meeko,
guilty.
122
(b). Complainant D
[857] D was a most convincing witness. The painstaking difficulty she

experienced in giving much of her in-chief testimony favoured the
veracity of what she told the Court, particularly as she described and
demonstrated how Johnny invited her to perform oral sex. Her
testimony of this incident was compelling, to say the least, as she
particularly remembered Johnny lowering his pants and seeing his blue
underwear. She also compellingly described how the shock of Johnny’s
invitation sent her running without her shoes out of the classroom and
to her friend’s place.
[858] D’s testimony of how Johnny took advantage of her by making her
stay behind alone in the classroom (either after school with a detention,
or during the school day when the other students were at the gym) and
her detailed description of how Johnny simulated sex – precisely what
clothes, for example, were taken off or not – was most convincing.
[859] In general, I found D’s recollection of events from so many years

past to be genuine. In my view, she expressed herself without any
embellishment (for example, she said that at no time did Johnny ever
tell her not to tell anyone about what he had done).
[860] It is also remarkable that D never actually came forward on her own
to report Johnny. Rather, she was approached by the RCMP after
Johnny had identified her as one of her victims. Up until that point, she
said the she had thought she was the only one. And I can say that this
sense of isolation which she expressed struck me as genuine.
[861] I was further impressed by D’s testimony that while she remembers
her early days at school, her school years after Grade 3 are essentially
a blank because of the abuse she had suffered throughout Grade 3 at
the hands of Johnny Meeko. This testimony struck me as genuine,
particularly as D detailed how she would leave her house in the
morning and pretend to go to school, but actually spend the day sitting
beside a local lake rather than face more abuse in school.
[862] It is also worthy of note that D testified – just as E did – that she
actually told someone what Johnny had been doing to her. E testified
that she told the principal and D testified she told her mother. And both
E and D testified that nobody believed them. In my view, this testimony
supports D’s veracity as a witness (and, for that matter, E’s as well)
because although we do not know if, for example, D’s mother is alive
123
today, by saying she told someone she has left herself open to
contradiction to at least some extent.
[863] During cross-examination, D was, in my view, honestly confused by

much of Defence Counsel’s questioning, particularly as it related to her
testimony from the preliminary inquiry. Nonetheless, she was not
shaken respecting her testimony.
[864] She was upfront in admitting that she intentionally did not tell the
judge at the preliminary hearing in Sanikiluaq about things Johnny did
to her. And I accept her explanation for this failure or refusal to testify –
namely, that she felt intimidated while testifying in front of the accused’s
family (and in a physical courtroom setting much different than the
Iqaluit courtroom).
[865] I accept all of D’s testimony respecting what she said Johnny Meeko
had done to her, both in kind and number of instances.
[866] For clarity, I make the following findings respecting the charges
involving D:
1. I accept as true all of D’s testimony about what Johnny

2. In particular, I find that Johnny Meeko touched D’s chest

area over her clothes on at least three occasions and
under her shirt on one occasion. He also touched her
buttocks on a couple of occasions. I find that these
incidents took place when D was less than 14 years of
age.
3. In particular, I find that Johnny Meeko touched D’s

genital area over her clothes and on occasion also
pulled down her pants and underwear and stared at her
genital area. I find that at the time these incidents
occurred D was under 14 years of age.
4. In particular, I find that on three occasions Johnny

Meeko touched D while simulating sexual intercourse
and on one such occasion he pulled down her pants,
but not her underwear.
124
5. In particular, I find that when D was less than 14 years

of age Johnny Meeko invited her to perform oral sex
upon him.
[867] Respecting Count 21, that Johnny Meeko on or between August 1,

1988 and June 30, 1989, at or near the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq, now in
the Territory of Nunavut, did for a sexual purpose touch the breasts of
D, a person under the age of 14 years, directly with a part of his body,
to wit his hand, contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, I find the
accused, Johnny Meeko, guilty.

the Territory of Nunavut, did touch the breasts of D, thereby committing
a sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, I find the

the Territory of Nunavut, did for a sexual purpose touch the vaginal
area of D, a person under the age of 14 years, directly with a part of his
body, to wit his hand, contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, I
find the accused, Johnny Meeko, guilty.

the Territory of Nunavut, did touch the vaginal area of D, thereby
committing a sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal
Code, I find the accused, Johnny Meeko, guilty.

the Territory of Nunavut, did touch D while simulating intercourse with
her, thereby committing a sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the
Criminal Code, I find the accused, Johnny Meeko, guilty.

the Territory of Nunavut, did for a sexual purpose invite D, a person
under the age of 14 years, to touch his body directly with a part of her
body, to wit her mouth, contrary to section 152 of the Criminal Code, I
125
(c). Complainant Y
[873] Y gave straightforward detailed testimony about two incidents

involving Johnny Meeko: one when she was in Grade 3, and the other
later, when she was in Grade 9 and a Junior Ranger. And I accept that
what she said happened is true in both incidents.
[874] It was clear from Y’s testimony that Johnny had detained her after
school for the very purpose of molesting her. And while there were both
other teachers and support staff still around and present in the main
school building, Johnny was nonetheless safe to assault her in the
solitude of the Grade 3 portable.
[875] In particular, I found it believable that Y felt uncomfortable when

Johnny rubbed her bum over top of her snow pants, because as she
said: “no one did that to me before.” I consider this particular aspect of
Y’s testimony to be an age appropriate memory, which is an indicator of
truth. As an adult woman, Y recalled her reaction at the time. She
recalled being surprised as a little girl at being touched inappropriately
because it had never happened before. I also accept her testimony
about how after this, when Johnny touched her on the chest under her
sweater, she immediately put on her boots and ran from the classroom.
[876] In addition, I accept Y’s detailed testimony about what Johnny did to
her years later at Junior Ranger practice. Her memory of this incident is
not a childhood memory, but rather the memory of a more mature and
observant teenager.
[877] I was impressed with the adolescent confidence and courage that Y
displayed by simply pushing Johnny away when he reached out and
squeezed her breast. At the same time, I understand and accept her
testimony that immediately afterwards, when she returned to the gym
and joined her fellow Junior Rangers, she was simply too embarrassed
or uncomfortable to tell them what Johnny had done.
[878] Further, Defence Counsel did not directly confront Y by suggesting

to her that the incident never happened or even that she and Johnny
were not alone in the hallway. Counsel’s position was simply that I
should be suspicious about Y’s testimony because of where she said
the incident took place, and that in such a public setting anyone could
have walked into the hallway and seen what may have been going on.
126
[879] Frankly, it matters not to me that anyone – other Junior Rangers or

the other supervisor – could have walked into the hallway at the very
moment Johnny was alone with Y. The point more simply is that I
accept that the two of them were alone and that Johnny took advantage
of this opportunity.
[880] Y was forthright in saying that the rumours around town in 2012 that
others had made statements to the police about Johnny prompted her
to come forward.
[881] I found certain aspects of Y’s testimony to be most compelling. For

example, I found persuasive Y’s testimony that after she gave her
statement to the police, she spoke with her sister Z and her mother,
telling them how she had pretended to be sick to avoid going to school.
[882] Y was also forthright in saying to who she spoke about Johnny, both
before and after she made her complainant – in particular respecting
the conversations she had with her younger sister Z.
[883] Y explained and I accept that in these conversations very little, if

anything, was shared by Y or others about what Johnny had done. And
I accept her testimony as well that no such conversations in any way
affected her own complaint about Johnny or her testimony in Court.
[884] Accordingly, I make the following findings respecting the charges

involving Y:
1. I accept as true all of Y’s testimony about what Johnny

2. In particular, I find that Johnny Meeko touched Y by

rubbing her buttocks over her snow pants and placing
his hand over her chest between her sweater and her T-
shirt when Y was under the age of 14.
3. In particular, I find that years later, when Y was a 14-

year-old Junior Ranger, Johnny Meeko on one occasion
placed his hand on her chest over her hoodie without
her consent while they were in the hallway of the school
during a Ranger practice.

127
the Territory of Nunavut, did for a sexual purpose touch Y, a person

under the age of 14 years, directly with a part of his body, to wit his
hand, contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, I find the accused,
Johnny Meeko, guilty.

the Territory of Nunavut, did sexually assault Y, contrary to section 271
of the Criminal Code, I find the accused, Johnny Meeko, guilty.
[887] Respecting Count 6, that Johnny Meeko on or between March 3,

2000 and March 2, 2001, at or near the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq in the
Territory of Nunavut, did sexually assault Y, contrary to section 271 of
the Criminal Code, I find the accused, Johnny Meeko, guilty.
[888] Respecting Count 7, that Johnny Meeko on or between March 3,

2000 and March 2, 2001, at or near the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq in the
Territory of Nunavut, did assault Y, contrary to section 266 of the
(d). Complainant F
[889] F testified that Johnny had violated her in a number of ways: by

touching her on a daily basis while she was in Grade 7 or 8; by digitally
penetrating her when she sat on his lap while he showed a movie to a
class; by raping her three times in the furnace room of the portable
classroom; by raping her at a location outside of town after he picked
her up and gave her a ride on his ATV; and, finally, many years later,
when she was 34 or 35 years old, by raping her when he showed up
unexpectedly at her home.
[890] Defence Counsel has argued that F’s delay of some 40 years in
making a complaint to the police should factor into my assessment of
her credibility. In this regard Defence Counsel contends that I should be
suspicious of F’s testimony that she was afraid to report Johnny
because of his prominent position in the community (in particular with
the church) and because she felt that no one would believe her, had
she complained. Defence Counsel notes that F was not hesitant to
report to the police another person who she testified had assaulted her
in much the same fashion as she said Johnny assaulted her, despite
the fact this other person was also a prominent person in the
community.
128
[891] I do not agree, however, with the Defence position that F’s delay in
reporting this alleged sexual abuse should factor into my assessment of
her credibility.
[892] As I noted earlier in this judgement, it is now well settled law that
there are many legitimate reasons why the victims of childhood sexual
abuse may delay reporting of such abuse, if indeed they report it at all.
[893] Further, I accept that Johnny’s position in the church and to a lesser
extent as a Ranger supervisor was such that his victim might easily be
dissuaded from reporting the abuse to the authorities, either out of fear
of repercussion or simply out of fear that they would not be believed.
[894] And F was clear during cross-examination as to why she had no

such fears respecting the other person she did report to the police,
even though she had told the police that this person was somewhat
prominent in the community.
[895] The more important question is whether the charges involving F

have been sufficiently proven – that is, proven to the criminal standard
of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[896] I will deal first with the allegation that Johnny sexually assaulted F
while she sat on his lap while he was showing the class a movie.
[897] F testified that this incident took place in a portable classroom during
her first full academic year in September 1973, when she was 15 years
old and in Grade 7 or 8. She said there were about 20 students in the
class, some in different grades and of differing ages. She said,
however, that the age difference between the students was only two or
three years.
[898] At this time, in September 1973, Johnny was 19 years old, and a
classroom assistant. F testified, however, that he often had the entire
class to himself. She said that sometimes he would play a movie for the
class.
[899] F said that when Johnny showed a movie he would darken the room
and sit next to the projector. She said that he also made it a habit to
have a “little girl” on his lap while the movie played. F said she became
curious as to what Johnny might be doing with these little girls, and so
129
she volunteered to sit on his lap to find out what Johnny might have
been doing.
[900] 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. When she was
asked by Crown Counsel how long his hand stayed in her pants, she
said: “[a]s long as the movie was on or until 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.”
[901] The prosecutor then asked F if she actually knew whether Johnny
had ejaculated, and she replied by saying, “[y]es, because I could feel
my back wet.”
[902] I find F’s claim that Johnny ejaculated on her back while the class
was still in session to be problematic. In my view, it is an
embellishment which casts doubt on her testimony as to the actual
incident itself.
[903] On the one hand, I have found that Johnny was quite brazen and
open in touching students over their clothing in full view of the class, as
well as touching students under their shirts, ensuring only that no
teachers were around. And I have found that on at least one occasion
he was brazen enough to put his hand down the back of a student’s
pants during free time.
[904] It is clear, however, that Johnny’s pattern of abuse or modus

operandi was such that he was careful to reserve a private opportunity
to exploit any student in a more serious fashion – for example, by
holding the student back after class for a detention in order to simulate
sex or invite the student to participate in oral sex.
[905] Accordingly, and even if the classroom lights may have been turned
off, it is difficult to accept F’s testimony that Johnny ejaculated on her
back while the movie was being played.
[906] In turn, I am unable to conclude at the standard of proof required in

a criminal case – proof beyond a reasonable doubt – that Johnny
Meeko fondled or touched F in the manner she described while the
movie was being played.
130
[907] Further, in my view, this testimony casts significant doubt on F’s

testimony that she was groped or touched “[e]very day for a whole
school year, as long as I was there.”
[908] Johnny testified that while he had seen F at the school, she was not
one of his students. And F herself said that she stopped attending
school part way through the 1974-75 academic year, only one year or
so after Johnny had started teaching.
[909] During cross-examination Johnny agreed that while he is only three

years older than F, the two of them never grew up together and that by
the time he returned to Sanikiluaq and started teaching she was already
a teenager.
[910] F testified and I accept that she returned to Sanikiluaq in December

of 1972 and attended the Nuiyak school briefly until leaving again in the
spring for Churchill to have her baby.
[911] I have accepted, however, Johnny’s testimony that he did not start
teaching at the Nuiyak school until September of 1973. F testified that
this was also her first full year at the Nuiyak school, when she was 15
years old and either in Grade 7 or Grade 8.
[912] I accept as well that there was much mixing of ages and grade levels
in these early years at the Nuiyak school. For the most part, this age
difference between students in the same class was described as a two
or three-year difference.
[913] The most, however, that I am able to conclude with any confidence
is that F may have witnessed Johnny touching other girls and may have
been touched or groped by Johnny.
[914] Such possibilities, however, fall short of proof beyond a reasonable

doubt that Johnny did in fact actually grope or touch F in the manner
she described.
[915] I will now deal with the allegations of rape in the furnace room – the
allegations that Johnny confined her in the small furnace room and
raped her on three separate occasions.
[916] During cross-examination Johnny refuted F’s testimony about what

she said happened in the furnace room. His testimony in this regard
131
was clear and unequivocal. He said simply, “I understand what she was
talking about but I’ve never – I didn’t do what she said.”
[917] Johnny maintained that F was never with him after school hours. He
said he was aware of the portable classroom which F had described in
her testimony (the one with the darkroom in addition to the furnace
room). He said, however, that he did not remember if he had actually
taught in that particular classroom.
[918] During her in-chief testimony, F said that Johnny raped her in the
furnace room “a couple of times.” She then told the Court about two
incidents.
[919] The Prosecutor then asked F if there were any more times – other
than these two occasions – when something happened in the furnace
room. She responded by saying, “[y]es and no … But not sure of the
dates. I am sure there was in between.”
[920] F then gave details about this third or “in between” incident.
[921] F testified and, of course, I accept that she gave birth to her baby in
May of 1973 in Churchill, when she was 15 years old.
[922] Johnny testified and I accept that he was in attendance at the

Churchill Vocational Centre for the entire 1972-73 academic year. He
remained in Churchill until graduation in June of 1973.
[923] Johnny took further teacher training during the summer of 1973 in
Chesterfield Inlet. He then began his teaching career in Sanikiluaq that
same fall as a first-year teaching assistant at the start of the 1973-74
academic year.
[924] During the preliminary inquiry F had testified that all three of the
rapes in the furnace room took place before her baby was born – that
is, before May of 1973. During the trial she testified that only the first of
the three rapes took place before the baby was born.
[925] F explained this discrepancy by saying that perhaps she was

nervous at the preliminary inquiry, but also that:
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
132
mistakes on the dates. So Johnny must know the exact dates he did those
[things] to me.
[926] During cross-examination Johnny denied knowing or being aware

that F was ever pregnant. He said that when she had her first baby he
must have been away at school in Churchill.
[927] F would not, however, agree with Defence Counsel when he

suggested that Johnny was actually living in Churchill and going to
school until after her baby was born.
[928] As I noted earlier in this judgement, Courts should not expect the
victims of child sexual abuse to remember with any degree of certainty
– and certainly without some outstanding external marker as a reminder
– the dates when the offences were committed, or even sometimes the
years when the offences were committed.
[929] In this case, I am of the view that the detail respecting when these
alleged rapes in the furnace room supposedly took place is important.
[930] I consider it troubling that F testified during the preliminary hearing

that all three incidents took place before her baby was born and then at
the trial testified that only the first incident took place before the baby
was born.
[931] In particular, I am troubled by F’s insistence that the first rape in the
furnace room took place before her baby was born. In May of 1973,
Johnny was still in school in Churchill and had not yet begun his
teaching career in Sanikiluaq.
[932] During final submissions, Defence Counsel raised what I consider to

be the very real prospect that F changed her testimony about when the
rapes took place because she had heard Johnny was telling people he
was not even in town at the time.
[933] I was also troubled by F’s testimony in-chief when she was first
asked about how many times Johnny had raped her in the furnace
room.
[934] F had already testified at the preliminary inquiry that there were
three incidents.
133
[935] And she testified further that between the preliminary inquiry and the
trial she had thought hard about the sequence and dates of the
incidents because she had heard that Johnny was telling people she
had the wrong dates respecting these three incidents.
[936] Yet, when the prosecutor first asked F during her in-chief testimony
how many times Johnny had raped her in the furnace room, she replied
to this simple question by saying only “a couple of times.”
[937] In my view, however, based on the incompatible dates and the

discrepancies respecting the number and sequence of these incidents, I
am left with a reasonable doubt as to whether Johnny raped F in the
furnace room on even one occasion.
[938] I now turn to the allegation that Johnny picked up F on his ATV,
drove her out of town and raped her.
[939] As I noted earlier in this judgement, there are many reasons why
victims of sexual abuse may accept offers to socialize with their
abusers.
[940] F testified that she was walking to a store on a fine summer day
when Johnny drove by on his ATV and offered her a ride.
[941] She testified in-chief that she was scared but took the ride because,
“I felt guilty because he taught me how to feel guilty around him.”
[942] In cross-examination, however, she said the reason she took the
ride was because the store was closing and “[t]he time is ticking … I
had to get something before the store closed.”
[943] F testified that she soon realized that Johnny was not taking her to
the store, but instead was heading out of town fast. She said at this
point she thought “oh, shit”. But she was unable to simply jump off the
machine on such rocky terrain because, “I wanted to live too.”
[944] F testified that Johnny then took her to a spot where he told her he
took other women. She said Johnny put her on the ground, pulled down
her pants and raped her.
[945] 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.”
134
[946] During her in-chief testimony F said that she could not remember
how she got back to town after this incident on the land.
[947] During cross-examination, Defence Counsel reminded her of her

testimony from the preliminary inquiry, where she had said that Johnny
drove her back to town and dropped her off at the Co-op.
[948] In response, F said, “[i]t 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.”
[949] I am not troubled that F may have taken a ride from Johnny when he
offered it. Given Johnny’s position in the community, I understand how
it would have been difficult for a teenager to refuse such an offer.
[950] On the one hand, it is odd that F has no memory of how she got
back to town afterwards, considering that at the preliminary inquiry she
had testified that Johnny gave her a ride back to the Co-op.
[951] At the same time, I am mindful that her professed reason for not
remembering how she got back to town may simply be her inability to
discuss the incident because, as she said, “I don’t remember what
happened after. I told you I am still there in the school.”
[952] It is not uncommon that victims of sexual abuse may simply freeze
up and become unable to speak when asked about their experiences,
particularly in a courtroom setting.
[953] There is, however, one aspect of F’s testimony respecting this
incident on the land which I find problematic: namely, her insistence
that the spot where Johnny put her down on the ground was “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.”
[954] In my view this is an embellishment which casts significant doubt on

F’s testimony as to the actual incident itself. Accordingly, and in light of
other noted discrepancies, I am left with a reasonable doubt whether F
was taken out on the land and raped by Johnny Meeko.
[955] I will now consider the allegation that Johnny raped F around 1992
or 1993, when she was 34 or 35 years old.
135
[956] F testified that Johnny simply showed up at her house, uninvited.

She said she had only recently moved back to Sanikiluaq from Quebec.
F explained that she was experiencing some financial difficulties at the
time and went on the radio to ask people in the community for food.
[957] F testified that Johnny took advantage of this opportunity to show up

at her house. She said she only realized he was there when she saw
him in the house. She said that immediately she experienced “[f]eeling
of being back to know[ing] him as a teacher’s assistant, all over again.”
[958] F testified that Johnny told her he wanted to have sex. She did not
recall if she said anything in response but was clear that she did not
want to have sex with him. She felt she had to go along with what
Johnny wanted because “he is still the same teacher with the same
face.”
[959] F said Johnny then directed her to the bedroom and that she
complied. She said that she felt she would get hurt or beaten if she
resisted. F testified that when they got to the bedroom, Johnny pulled
down her pants and raped her. She said that he only took his own 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.”
[960] F testified that afterwards Johnny left her $20. She said that prior to
this there had been no discussion about money and that she did not
want this money. She said it made her feel lousy and like a “prostitute”.
She said she did not keep this money, but rather gave it to the church
because “he [Johnny] is a church warden[,] an angel.”
[961] Johnny denied this accusation of rape. His lawyer asked him
whether he ever had sex with any of the complainants when they were
children and he said he had not. His lawyer then asked him if he ever
had sex with any of the complaints. And again, Johnny replied that he
had not.
[962] During cross-examination, however, a different story emerged.

When pressed by the Prosecutor as to whether he and F were friends,
Johnny responded by saying, “[y]es, because one time she tried to be
with me … around 1976, ’77, around there.”
[963] The Prosecutor then asked Johnny whether on this occasion,

around 1976, the two of them had sex. In reply, Johnny offered how F
had solicited his company, was crying and wanted to have sex. He said
136
that he then had sex with her “to calm her down so she would stop
crying.”
[964] The Prosecutor asked Johnny why he had not talked about this
incident when his lawyer asked if he had sex with any of the
complainants. Johnny said that he may have misunderstood his
lawyer’s question and thought his lawyer was asking if he had sex with
any of the complainants when they were children.
[965] Johnny said that this sexual episode with F happened away from the
school, at a time when F was not a student. He said he made a point of
not having any such relationship with a student while he was a teacher.
[966] I am suspicious of Johnny’s testimony concerning the supposed

encounter in 1976, and I reject it. No application was made to lead such
evidence, and it appeared at trial that both Crown and Defence Counsel
were taken by surprise when this testimony emerged during the
Crown’s cross-examination. This testimony is, thus, irrelevant to any
assessment of F’s credibility.
[967] Returning to F’s claim that she was raped around 1992 or 1993 in
her home, Johnny’s defence is a blanket denial that the event took
place.
[968] F says that she submitted to Johnny out of fear based on his
previous abuse. In turn, proof of this alleged rape turns on whether this
underlying premise is valid.
[969] However, I have found F’s testimony of prior abuse problematic.

Accordingly, I am not persuaded at the required criminal standard of
proof beyond a reasonable doubt that F was raped in her home around
1992.
[970] There is a final aspect of F’s testimony which leaves me suspicious

of her general credibility. This has to do with the prospect that she
might receive monetary compensation for Johnny’s alleged wrongdoing
as a teacher.
[971] Like the other complainants in the case, F made her complaint to the
police in 2012, long before she had talked to any lawyers about
compensation. And, like the other complainants, she was adamant that
her complaint was not about money but about seeking justice and
137
ensuring other little girls did not suffer abuse from Johnny and others
like him.
[972] I found many complainants to be convincing in their assertion that

the prospect of compensation in no way influenced their initial decision
to report Johnny, or their in-court testimony afterwards.
[973] I did not find F so convincing.
[974] F’s sister E testified in-chief that a lawyer named Alan Regel
contacted E in Sanikiluaq about a week before the trial and told her that
he was trying to help Johnny Meeko’s victims get financial
compensation.
[975] During cross-examination, E said that when she went to the hotel to
meet with Mr. Regel, her sister F was already there and told her that
Mr. Regel would explain things to E.
[976] Beyond this basic introduction, however, E knew nothing about Mr.
Regel’s law firm or how he was going to help her get compensation.
She said essentially she went to meet him because it was the polite
thing to do.
[977] F, however, exhibited no such informational deficit. She offered up

that Mr. Regel and his colleague, Ms. Oliver, were associated with the
law firm of Ahlstrom Wright and Oliver and that she had met with Ms.
Oliver in 2014.
[978] Defence Counsel asked F why she met with Ms. Oliver and F
responded that she was a residential school survivor, but that she did
not know if Ms. Oliver was helping her with a residential school claim.
[979] Further, when Defence Counsel suggested to F that she had sued
the Government of Nunavut for harm done by Johnny Meeko in a
Statement of Claim dated 30 January, 2015, F responded by saying
she was unaware of any such claim.
[980] And, finally, Defence Counsel asked F if any claim for damages had
been discussed during the meeting in Sanikiluaq with Mr. Regel and her
sister E. F’s response was: “No.”
138
[981] In my view, F was clearly familiar with the lawyers involved with her
claim for compensation, but she exhibited an intentional evasiveness in
answering any questions surrounding this issue.
[982] Specifically, I view as simply untruthful her testimony that she was
unaware of any lawsuit as well as her testimony that there was no
discussion about compensation during the Sanikiluaq meeting.
[983] Any victim of an assault is entitled to seek compensation through

civil means. That is not the issue. My concern is that F was clearly quite
prepared to give an untruthful answer when challenged with a
discomforting question.
[984] In more general terms, I have concluded that F’s testimony leaves
me with a reasonable doubt about Johnny’s guilt.
[985] I make the following findings respecting the charges involving F:
1. I find that the Crown has failed to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that Johnny Meeko sexually touched F
while she was a student in his class.

reasonable doubt that Johnny Meeko raped and confined
F on three separate occasions while she was a student.

reasonable doubt that Johnny Meeko raped F after she
had ceased to be a student but was still a teenager.

reasonable doubt that Johnny Meeko raped F in her
home when she was an adult.
[986] Respecting Count 28, that Johnny Meeko on or between December

1, 1972 and January 1, 1974 at or near the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq, now
in the Territory of Nunavut, did indecently assault a female person, to
wit F, contrary to section 149 of the Criminal Code, I find the accused,
Johnny Meeko, not guilty.

139
in the Territory of Nunavut, did rape F contrary to section 143 of the

Criminal Code, I find the accused, Johnny Meeko, not guilty.

in the Territory of Nunavut, did confine F without lawful authority,
contrary to section 247(2) of the Criminal Code, I find the accused,
Johnny Meeko, not guilty.
[989] Respecting Count 31 that Johnny Meeko on or between June 1,

1974 and September 30, 1976 at or near the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq, now
in the Territory of Nunavut, did rape F contrary to section 143 of the
Criminal Code, I find the accused, Johnny Meeko, not guilty.
[990] Respecting Count 32, that Johnny Meeko on or between September

1, 1992 and November 30, 1992 at or near the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq,
now in the Territory of Nunavut, did sexually assault F contrary to
section 271 of the Criminal Code, I find the accused, Johnny Meeko,
not guilty.
(e). Complainant X
[991] I found X to be a sincere and believable witness. He had difficulty in

the early stages of his testimony and said simply that his experience
with Johnny was “scary.” However, and as with some of the other
complainants, I found this initial reticence and hesitancy to speak out in
Court actually bolstered his credibility.
[992] Further, X’s memory of events was more recent than memories of
many other complainants. He was 19 years old when he testified about
things which he said happened when he was eight years old in Grade 3
and 11 years old in Grade 6.
[993] And so, when Crown Counsel asked X what had made him feel
scared, he answered – in an obvious effort to get it all out – by saying
“[w]hen I was leaning on my desk he was grabbing my ass … [p]inching
my nipples and telling me to close my eyes while he had my penis.
That’s all I remember.”
[994] It was obvious that from this point X had overcome his initial
nervousness of testifying in Court and was able to articulate in more
detail what Johnny had done.
140
[995] I accept X’s testimony that in Grade 3 Johnny pinched his nipples
under his shirt approximately two times and grabbed his bottom over
his clothes on two occasions.
[996] I also accept X’s testimony that, also in Grade 3, Johnny invited him
to show his bare bottom, which X did.
[997] I accept X’s testimony that in Grade 6, Johnny had pinched X’s
nipples under his shirt on two occasions.
[998] I also find that X’s childhood memory of the physical sensation he
experienced when Johnny pinched him to be a specific and supportive
indicator of truth. X testified that whenever Johnny pinched his nipples,
he did so in a very hard fashion, “like a crab”.
[999] I further accept X’s testimony that whenever Johnny engaged X in

any sexual touching, it took place in the classroom after school –
usually when X had been required to serve a detention and always
when Johnny and he were the only two people present.
[1000] In my view, it is not surprising or remarkable that Johnny

would touch X, a boy, only out of sight of any other students.
[1001] I also accept X’s testimony that on one occasion, when he

was in Grade 3, Johnny touched X’s penis or genital area.
[1002] During his in-chief testimony, X said Johnny grabbed his bare
penis under his pants. He was upfront, however, during cross-
examination in agreeing that his memory is not as clear as it was during
the preliminary inquiry when he said that Johnny had touched his penis
over his pants.
[1003] Frankly, in my view, nothing turns on this discrepancy in X’s

testimony. I accept that Johnny did touch X’s penis. It matters little
whether this was under or over X’s pants.
[1004] I accept X’s testimony that he first went to the police because
he had heard Johnny was being charged and that a person in the
community, Z, told him he could do the same (i.e., have Johnny
charged).
141
[1005] I also accept X’s testimony that Z had not said anything to X
about Johnny doing anything to her.
[1006] Z had been the guard on the evening of 10 August, 2012,

when X was booked into the cells overnight for intoxication. An hour
after he was lodged in cells, Z told Constable Allen that X had
complained about being touched by Johnny. [Agreed Statement of
Facts: EX. P-6(b), clause 14]
[1007] In turn, Constable Allen told X to contact him the next day to
make arrangements to give a statement. X did not contact Constable
Allen the next day. However, on 12 August, 2012, Constable Allen ran
into X and asked him to come to the detachment later in the day to
provide a statement, which X did. [Agreed Facts: EX. P-6(b), clauses
14-15]
[1008] I accept as well that after he made his statement to the police
X did not tell anyone he had spoken to the police and further that after
he made his compliant no one in the community told X that anything
had happened to them.
[1009] And, finally, I accept X’s testimony that he had never talked to
or received any correspondence from lawyers about compensation for
[1010] Accordingly, I make the following findings respecting the

charges involving X:
1. I accept as true all of X’s testimony about what Johnny

Meeko did and said to him.
2. In particular, I find that on multiple occasions while X was

under the age of 14 Johnny Meeko touched his buttocks
over his clothes and pinched his nipples under his shirt.
3. In particular (although it is not essential to liability), I find

that Johnny Meeko invited X to pull down his pants and to
show his buttocks, which X did.
4. In particular, I find that Johnny Meeko touched X in the

genital area.
142
[1011] Respecting Count 1, that Johnny Meeko on or between

August 1, 2003 and June 30, 2007, at or near the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq
in the Territory of Nunavut, did for a sexual purpose touch X, a person
under the age of 14 years, directly with a part of his body, to with his
hand, contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, I find the accused,
Johnny Meeko, guilty.

in the Territory of Nunavut, did sexually assault X contrary to section
271 of the Criminal Code, I find the accused, Johnny Meeko, guilty.

in the Territory of Nunavut, did assault X contrary to section 266 of the
(f). Complainant Z
[1014] I found Z’s testimony to be both straightforward and

believable. It had some unique factors which, in my view, pointed to the
truth of her statements because they were the kind of events which
made a lasting imprint on her childhood memory. And again, as with
many of the other complainants, these specific or unique features were
not challenged by the Defence.
[1015] Johnny was Z’s Grade 3 teacher in the 1994-1995 academic

year. And Z had a clear memory that her Grade 3 class started the year
in the main school building, but then moved towards the end of the term
to a portable.
[1016] I accept what Z said about Johnny’s practice, on an almost

daily basis, of keeping her and two or three other students back from
gym class in order to finish their writing assignments.
[1017] I further accept Z’s testimony that it was while she sat at her
desk after school that Johnny would touch her, again on almost a daily
basis, on her breast or chest area both over and under her clothes,
sometimes from under her shirt.
[1018] And I further accept that while touching her in such a fashion,
Johnny would also sometimes tell her that her breasts were growing.
143
[1019] I also accept Z’s testimony that sometimes Johnny was in the
habit of placing a paper towel over the small window on the classroom
door.
[1020] And I further accept her testimony that Johnny told her that “if I
tell my parents … God would cut out my tongue.” It is clear that this
threatening comment made a lasting imprint on Z’s memory and was
the reason that she never told anybody about what Johnny was doing
at the time.
[1021] I also accept Z’s testimony that Johnny was in the habit of
telling these few students he had chosen to keep after class that the
last one of them to finish their writing assignments would get a kiss from
him. And further, I accept that on one occasion he did in fact kiss Z on
the lips for a few seconds, which made the other students laugh.
[1022] In my view, the fact the other students thought this kissing to
be funny is all part and parcel of Johnny’s attempts to normalize, or at
least de-sexualize, his predatory behaviour in front of these pre-
pubescent children.
[1023] In addition, I accept Z’s testimony that it was not until 2010
that she told anyone about Johnny, and that the person she told was B
when the two of them were on a flight to Winnipeg to attend some
counselling sessions.
[1024] And I accept Z’s testimony that B told her that Johnny had
touched her (B) as well.
[1025] Most importantly, however, I accept Z’s testimony that nothing

B told her affected Z’s version of events.
[1026] And I accept Z’s testimony that while she had approached the
police in 2012, she was nonetheless reluctant to give a statement until
someone else came forward – that she did not want to be the first
person to do so. And I accept that it was only when the police came to
her on 7 August, 2012, and told her that an unnamed person had made
such a statement, when she mustered up enough courage to make a
statement. [See also, Agreed Statement of Facts: EX. P-6(b), clauses
3, 7]
144
[1027] I also accept Z’s testimony that around the time she was
considering making a statement to the police she told her sister Y about
[1028] I accept as well that Z’s motivation in reporting Johnny was a

desire to right a wrong, and that the thought of receiving some kind of
compensation never occurred to her at the time.
[1029] It is clear, for what it is worth, that while Z did receive a written
solicitation from a lawyer shortly before the trial, she never in fact met
up with him when he visited Sanikiluaq.

charges involving Z:
1. I accept as true all of Z’s testimony about what Johnny

2. In particular, I find that Johnny Meeko touched Z on her

chest over and under her shirt on an almost daily basis
while Z was a student in Johnny Meeko’s Grade 3 class
and under the age of 14 years.
3. In particular, I find that on one occasion Johnny Meeko

kissed Z on the lips, also while she was a student in his
Grade 3 class and under the age of 14 years.

August 1, 1994 and June 30, 1995 at or near the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq,
now in the Territory of Nunavut, did for a sexual purpose touch Z, a
person under the age of 14 years, directly with a part of his body, to wit
his hand, contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, I find the

now in the Territory of Nunavut, did sexually assault Z, contrary to
guilty.

145
now in the Territory of Nunavut, did assault Z, contrary to section 266 of

the Criminal Code, I find the accused, Johnny Meeko, guilty.
(g). Complainant A
[1034] In my view, A had a clear childhood memory that Johnny had

given her a spanking on her ninth birthday. Indeed, during cross-
examination as well as during his police interview, Johnny admitted to
giving students birthday spankings.
[1035] I believe that A also had a clear childhood memory that her
desk in Johnny’s class was near the door, so if Johnny left the
classroom at any point, she would be the first student he saw as he
came back in.
[1036] In his police interview, Johnny said that he kept the smallest
students, including A, near the front of the class, whereas A testified
that her desk was near the back of the class. I do not, however,
consider this apparent discrepancy important. I accept simply that A’s
desk was near the entrance to the classroom.
[1037] In my view, A presented as genuinely annoyed about what

Johnny had done to her as a child. This annoyance was clear as she
demonstrated with a wide sweep of her hand around her lower neck
and chin, how Johnny tickled her on the right side of her neck on an
almost daily basis.
[1038] And A’s testimony that quite often Johnny would also put his
hand down her shirt is corroborated by Johnny’s own statements during
his police interview. Johnny admitted bluntly: “Yes, I did that.” [Police
Interview Transcript, p. 153, line 25]
[1039] During the interview, the police told Johnny that: “She [A] said
every time you walked through that door, you would either touch her
breasts, or you would pretend to tickle and then would go, reach around
quick. Every time[,] she said.” In response Johnny said only, “I can’t
remember the times. I did, maybe I did that many times.” [Police
[1040] A testified that Johnny had touched her perhaps 100 times
during her time in his Grade 3 class. During his police interview,
146
however, Johnny admitted to touching A only about 20 times and

certainly less than 100.
[1041] I do not consider it telling against A that she had no memory of

Johnny touching her skin when he put his hand down her shirt, or that
she could not remember exactly how far he stuck his hand down her
shirt.
[1042] I accept that Johnny did put his hand down A’s shirt and that
her most vivid memory is simply her annoyance at the tickling, which
took place prior to this. Indeed, I find that her lack of any embellishment
is actually telling in favour of her credibility.
[1043] I find that, by putting his hand down the front of A’s shirt,
Johnny committed the offences of sexual interference as well as sexual
assault. Such activity from an objective standpoint is clearly sexual in
nature.
[1044] I now turn to the so-called birthday spanking.
[1045] A made it clear that she did not want to be spanked. Further,
A was under age and Johnny was in a position of trust so that even had
she agreed to be spanked, she was incapable of giving legal consent.
[1046] Johnny, therefore, committed a simple or common assault by

spanking A.
[1047] The question if Johnny also committed a sexual offence by

spanking A is a more nuanced one. Sometimes a spanking will also
amount to sexual assault, and sometimes it will not.
[1048] I accept that Johnny made it a practice to give all students

(boys and girls) their birthday spankings. And I note that Johnny did not
simply have the students bend over for such a spanking. Instead, he
put them on his lap to administer the spanking.
[1049] The prevalence of Johnny’s practice – albeit that it raises

suspicions – does not speak to whether it is sexual in nature.
[1050] I am simply not persuaded at the criminal standard of proof

that by administering a birthday spanking to A in this manner, Johnny
committed the offence of sexual interference or sexual assault.
147
[1051] He did, however, as I alluded earlier, commit the included

offence of common or simple assault.

charges involving A:
1. I accept as true all of A’s testimony about what Johnny

2. In particular, I find that Johnny Meeko engaged in

unwanted tickling by touching A on the right side of her
neck on an almost daily basis while she was a student in
his Grade 3 class and under 14 years of age. On many
such occasions, at least 20 times, Johnny Meeko also put
his hand into A’s shirt and touched her chest area.
3. In particular, I find that Johnny Meeko gave A an

unwanted birthday spanking (on her ninth birthday) when
she was a student in his Grade 3 class. However, I have
concluded that this spanking constitutes a simple assault
as opposed to a sexual offence.

August 1, 1995 and December 31, 1995 at or near the Hamlet of
Sanikiluaq, now in the Territory of Nunavut, did for a sexual purpose
touch A, a person under the age of 14 years, directly with a part of his

Sanikiluaq, now in the Territory of Nunavut, did sexually assault A,
contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, I find the accused, Johnny
Meeko, guilty.

Sanikiluaq, now in the Territory of Nunavut, did assault A, contrary to
guilty.
148
(h). Complainant C
[1056] C’s testimony about coming home at the end of the school day
and finding blood in her underwear shortly after Johnny put his finger
into her vagina and caused her a sharp pain is not the stuff of fiction.
Rather, it is a vivid and defining childhood memory of the abuse she put
up with in Johnny’s Grade 3 class.
[1057] Similarly, I was impressed by her testimony about the

insecurity she felt at the time this abuse was going on, as well as the
annoyance she expressed at Johnny for dismissing her attempt to get
him to stop. I also found C’s testimony about how she began to skip
school rather than face Johnny to be genuinely reflective of the fact that
missing school was not something she wanted to do.
[1058] I accept as well C’s testimony about the lewd remarks Johnny
often made to her. In my view, such unusual commentary coming from
an adult has made a lasting imprint on C’s memory.
[1059] In my view, nothing turns on the fact C testified that the abuse
she suffered took place in front of other students. C said, however, that
Johnny was in the habit of touching her during “free” time when
students were permitted to wander around the classroom. She said that
she usually was at the back of the class when Johnny would approach
her and that the other students were simply not paying any attention to
what he was doing.
[1060] Once again, I am of the view that Johnny was a man of such
brazen confidence that he felt immune from repercussion and certain
that none of his victims would be believed. In this regard, I accept C’s
testimony that when she told Johnny she would complain to her mother,
he simply laughed.
[1061] I was impressed as well with C’s motivation in going to the

police in July of 2012, when she found out that Johnny had applied to
teach again. I accept that C was angry and frightened for the fate of her
own daughter, who was scheduled to start kindergarten in September.

charges involving C:
149
1. I accept as true all of C’s testimony about what Johnny

2. In particular, I find that Johnny Meeko touched C in her

genital area, underneath her clothing. I further find that on
one occasion Johnny Meeko engaged in digital
penetration of C’s vagina. I find that these incidents took
place when she was under 14 years of age.
3. In particular, I find that when C was less than 14 years of

age Johnny Meeko touched her numerous times both on
her chest and buttocks, over and under her clothes.

August 1, 1995 and June 30, 1997, at or near the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq,
now in the Territory of Nunavut, did for a sexual purpose touch the
vaginal area of C, a person under the age of 14 years, directly with a
part of his body, to wit his hand, contrary to section 151 of the Criminal

now in the Territory of Nunavut, did sexually assault C by touching her
vaginal area, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, I find the

now in the Territory of Nunavut, did for a sexual purpose touch the
breasts of C, a person under the age of 14 years, directly with a part of
his body, to wit his hand, contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, I

now in the Territory of Nunavut, did touch the breasts of C, thereby
committing a sexual assault, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal
(i). Complainant B
150
[1067] Some aspects of B’s testimony are problematic in that they

raise concerns about the reliability of her childhood memories.
[1068] For example, she is the only complainant who says that
Johnny put the girls in a line-up at the front of the class and then
touched them on the chest and buttocks over their clothes.
[1069] C, for example, who I accept was in B’s class and whose
testimony I wholly accept, had no memory of any such line-up
procedure, nor any memory of seeing Johnny actually touch B.
[1070] C recalled that she and B were together not in Grade 5, as B

had asserted, but in Grade 3. However, this discrepancy alone is not
particularly important given the mixing of lower grades that often
occurred.
[1071] In addition, B testified that Johnny touched her on the chest

and “sometimes” on the bum, yet when she was interviewed by the
police she was clear that Johnny did not touch her bum.
[1072] Similarly, B testified that Johnny “told us not to say anything to

our parents”, yet when she was interviewed by the police she was clear
that Johnny never said any such thing.
[1073] Further, B’s testimony that she told her mother about the
abuse at the time it was happening is actually contradicted by her
mother’s own testimony that she knew nothing about this until she
heard in 2012 that B had gone to the police.
[1074] By her own admission, B had talked to numerous people

about Johnny’s criminal behaviour.
[1075] For example, before she went to the police to complain about
Johnny, B had a talk with her mother, E, who told her what F had said
about Johnny.
[1076] B also talked with Z about Johnny when she and Z were in
Churchill. And B acknowledged hearing gossip in the community and on
social media about Johnny. These conversations raise the question of
whether B’s testimony is a genuine childhood memory, or is something
influenced, however subtly and unconsciously, by discussions with
others or by B’s observations of Johnny’s conduct towards other girls.
151
[1077] I am not, however, left with any doubt about Johnny’s guilt in
relation to B. The reason for this is because Johnny made a clear
admission of guilt during his police interview, and even provided his
motive for targeting B.
[1078] Johnny admitted to the police that he touched B on the chest

over her clothes on more than one occasion, albeit, as he said, “[n]ot
many times.” In addition, he told the police that he was attracted to B in
particular because her father was a white man, and, he said, “[m]aybe
because … I like white.” [Police Interview Transcript, p. 156, lines 34,
39]
[1079] B testified that Johnny also “sometimes” touched her on the

bum. Johnny, however, made no such admission during his police
interview. And B had told the police when she first made her complaint
about Johnny that he had not touched her on the bum, but on the chest
only.
[1080] Constable Allen had phoned B on the morning of 9 August,

2012, and asked her to come to the detachment, which she did at 11
a.m. Constable Allen is a male officer and while the questions which B
was asked were fairly simple and straightforward, I do accept her
explanation that she felt rushed or hurried during the interview.
[1081] Thus, I accept B’s testimony that in addition to touching her on

the chest, Johnny touched her “sometimes” on the bum as well. And I
conclude that “sometimes” implies at least two times.
[1082] Finally, it is clear that B’s differing time estimates about how
long Johnny took in touching the girls in the line-up are simply her ‘best
honest guesses’ as an adult looking back in time. At the end of the day,
since I accept that Johnny did in fact touch B inappropriately, it matters
little how much time he took in doing so.

charges involving B:
1. I find that Johnny Meeko touched B on her chest over

her clothes on approximately five separate occasions.
In addition, I find that he touched or fondled her
buttocks over her clothes on at least two occasions. I
find that these incidents took place when she was
152
under 14 years of age.

September 1, 1996 and June 30, 2000 at or near the Hamlet of
Sanikiluaq, now in the Territory of Nunavut, did for a sexual purpose
touch B, a person under the age of 14 years, directly with a part of his

Sanikiluaq, now in the Territory of Nunavut, did sexually assault B,
contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, I find the accused, Johnny
Meeko, guilty.

Sanikiluaq, now in the Territory of Nunavut, did assault B, contrary to
guilty.
4. Multiple jeopardy issues
[1087] I would note, of course, that although I have found the

accused, Johnny Meeko, guilty of a number of offences, at the end of
the day the law respecting multiple jeopardy will determine more
precisely which convictions will be registered in accordance with the
principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Kienapple v
R, [1975] 1 SCR 729, 44 DLR (3d) 351.
F. CONCLUSIONS
1. Specific Findings
[1088] First, I do accept at the criminal standard of proof beyond a

reasonable doubt the testimony, standing alone, of the following
complainants: E, D, X, Z, Y, A and C. And I find Johnny Meeko guilty on
all charges relating to these complainants.
153
[1089] Second, I do not accept the testimony of the complainant F at

the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and I find
Johnny Meeko not guilty on all charges relating to this complainant.
[1090] Third, I do not accept the testimony of Johnny Meeko that he

did not assault the complainants E, D, X, Z, Y, A, B and C.
[1091] Further, nothing in Johnny Meeko’s testimony leaves me with

a reasonable doubt about his guilt respecting these same complainants.
[1092] Fourth, I do accept the truth of Johnny Meeko’s police

interview where he confessed to sexually touching six of the complaints
– namely, X, Y, Z, A, B and C.
[1093] Further, and for clarity: the testimony of X, Y, Z, A and C is

sufficient proof at the criminal standard required of Johnny Meeko’s
guilt on all charges involving these complainants, even in the absence
of any confession by Johnny Meeko that he had sexually touched them.
[1094] Further, and for clarity: the testimony of the complainant B is

not, standing alone, sufficient proof at the criminal standard required, of
Johnny Meeko’s guilt on the charges involving her. However, B’s
testimony, together with Johnny Meeko’s confession that he sexually
touched B, does constitute such sufficient proof of guilt.
2. Commentary
[1095] Johnny Meeko is a sexual predator. He engaged in decades-

long pattern of abuse involving young students in his charge. As a
teacher, he breached the trust not just of these children, but also of
their parents, as well as of his community and his employer.
[1096] He was brazen enough to engage in some of this activity in full

view of the class, attempting even to normalize his sexual advances as
unremarkable or funny in the eyes of these young children.
[1097] He was also canny and devious enough, however, to engage

in more invasive sexual exploitation out sight, after school hours. He
made his most vulnerable victims serve detentions so that he could
violate them in private, one-on-one.
154
[1098] And throughout all this time, Johnny Meeko suffered no

repercussion for this behaviour.
[1099] As a respected teacher and church warden, he was above

suspicion. Once, in 2009, school officials called him to task for patting
students on the bottom a few years earlier. But for this he was merely
reprimanded, and he retired shortly afterwards.
[1100] Otherwise, year in and year out, Johnny continued to prey on

his young charges, oblivious or mindfully dismissive to any harm he
may have been inflicting upon their fragile psyches, and confident that
he would remain untouched and free from interference, as he always
had been.
[1101] Year in and year out, Johnny Meeko remained confident that
none of his young victims would dare to complain – or, if they did, he
was confident that they would not be believed.
[1102] Eventually, however, things changed, and the RCMP

conducted an investigation as a result of which criminal charges were
laid.
[1103] The victims who testified in this trial displayed remarkable

courage and resilience in so doing. Finally, they are now believed.
Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 19th day of March, 2018
__________________________
Justice N. Sharkey, SJ
Nunavut Court of Justice
155
ADDENDUM
[1] On December 1, 2017, I orally delivered the verdicts which I have

reached in this matter.
[2] These verdicts were an excerpt from this full Judgement.
[3] The following finding was omitted from the verdicts delivered on
December 1, 2017:
“In particular, I find that Johnny Meeko touched X in the

genital area.”
[4] In this full Judgement, it is included as the fourth finding respecting

the charges involving X.

R. Versus Meeko 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

R. Versus Meeko 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit

NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE

Citation: R. v. Meeko, 2018 NUCJ 6

Crown: Her Majesty the Queen

Accused: Johnny Josie Meeko

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice N. Sharkey

Counsel (Crown): Amy Porteous & Priscilla Ferrazzi

Location Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT

(NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

Restriction on Publication: By court order made under section 486.4

This judgment has been anonymized to comply with legislative

1. Testimony of the Complainants .................................................................................................... 6

2. Testimony of the defendant ......................................................................................................... 55

3. The defendant’s statement to the police ................................................................................... 67

C. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ................................................................................... 75

1. Assessing witness testimony in historical sexual assault cases......................................... 82

2. Assessing testimony of an accused person ............................................................................ 89

E. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 94

1. Assessment of the Crown’s case ............................................................................................... 94

2. Assessment of the defendant’s testimony ............................................................................. 107

3. Specific credibility findings and verdicts ................................................................................ 120

4. Multiple jeopardy issues ............................................................................................................ 152

F. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 152

1. Specific Findings ......................................................................................................................... 152

2. Commentary ................................................................................................................................. 153

[12] I found the testimony of one complaint, however, to be problematic

1. Testimony of the Complainants

[16] This charge is Count 27 in the Indictment: it states that between

[20] E first encountered Johnny Meeko when she started Grade 3.

[Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 25, lines 20-27]

[31] E also described an incident at Johnny’s mother’s house, when she

[34] E testified that Johnny continued to grab or touch her, or at least

[37] She also testified, however, that Johnny persisted in sexually

[Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 32, lines 6-11]

[Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p. 36, lines 18-23]

[48] Under cross-examination, E maintained that she had discussed little

[50] Defence Counsel also questioned E about the incident at Johnny’s

[53] In this regard, Defence Counsel reminded E that during the

[56] E clarified some further aspects of her testimony as well. For

[57] Defence Counsel questioned how daily touching in front of other

[58] Defence Counsel challenged E about her assertions that Johnny

[61] These charges are Counts 21 to 26 (inclusive) in the Indictment.

[64] In Count 25, Johnny Meeko is charged with touching D while

[96] D was questioned extensively by Defence Counsel about previous

[97] Two aspects of this cross-examination are worthy of note. In each

[100] The second instance where D had declined or refused to testify at

[103] Much of Defence Counsel’s cross-examination of D from her

manner she had described by Johnny. [Trial Transcript, Volume 1, p.

[106] These charges are Counts 4 to 7 (inclusive) in the Indictment. They

[108] In Count 6, Johnny Meeko is charged with touching one of Y’s

[109] In Count 7, Johnny Meeko is charged with committing a common

[112] Y’s Grade 3 class took place in a portable classroom unattached to

[113] Y testified about an incident which happened while she was in

[125] Y confirmed her earlier in-chief testimony respecting conversations

was avoiding school because of Johnny.

[130] Y agreed with Defence Counsel’s suggestion that in the small

[133] Defence Counsel reminded Y about her testimony from the

[135] During re-examination, Y said that the windows on her Grade 3

[136] The accused, Johnny Meeko, is charged with five offences in

[137] These charges are Counts 28 to 32 (inclusive) in the Indictment.

[138] In Count 28, Johnny Meeko is charged with indecent assault

[144] F returned to Sanikiluaq in December of 1972 and began classes at