Victim of alleged violent sex offender faces persistent scrutiny in Kingston court

Editor's note: This article contains graphic details of sexual violence which readers may find disturbing.

The first month with a new baby can be a stressful time, and one new mother this week faced the additional challenge of testifying --- and undergoing intense cross-examination --- in court about sexual assaults she allegedly suffered almost two decades ago.

One of three women who lived with Michael Haaima in 2007 has been grilled by defence counsel for three days this week. The woman, whose name is protected by a publication ban, has been appearing by video at the Kingston Ontario Superior Court of Justice where Justice Robyn M. Ryan Bell is presiding over Haaima's trial. The accused has pleaded not guilty to 96 of 98 charges involving sexual assault, trafficking, and more.

Because the woman recently gave birth and lives in another community in Ontario, she was granted special permission to appear from the Ontario Victim Services office in that community, with a victim service worker and a police detective assisting her on that end.

Called by the Crown on Tuesday, Jun. 5, 2025, and led through her testimony by assistant Crown attorney Holly Chiavetti, the woman gave evidence that morning that she had been sexually assaulted by Haaima three times while she and two other young women lived with him in Kingston’s west end in 2007. She was 20 years old at the time (and previously referred to as "Roommate Three"). 

She admitted to having had a consensual sexual encounter with Haaima early in their relationship, though she did not describe it to the court in detail. After that first encounter, she alleged, she was assaulted by Haaima three times: once when she woke from sleeping to find him digitally penetrating her vagina, once when he forced oral sex on her in public at a pool hall in Kingston's west end, and again that same night when he violently raped her with another man in the bathroom of the shared house.

The first morning of testimony, Tuesday, Jun. 3, 2025, had a bumpy start because when the witness appeared on camera, she was wearing her infant in a baby wrap. Haaima’s lawyer, Natasha Calvinho, raised objections to this, saying that she had agreed to receive the testimony over Zoom under the understanding that “we maintain the solemnity of the situation” and that the baby would cause distractions. Justice Ryan Bell concurred and asked the Crown attorneys, Chiavetti and Megan Williams, if alternative arrangements could be made. The court recessed to allow the Crown to talk to the witness and the victim services staff in her community.

Because no one else was available to care for the baby, and the mother was anxious about the child being cared for by someone she didn’t know well, it was decided that the woman could wear her baby on her person as long as the child slept. If the child became disruptive, breaks would be taken.

Calvinho had her chance to begin her cross-examination Tuesday afternoon. The defence attorney had been challenged the day before on her use of police notes, which she would put in front of the previous two witnesses and refer to often. She continued to use the same sort of notes, but they had now been heavily redacted with black strikeouts and were visible on a screen in the courtroom.

The defence's cross-examination of the witness has been fraught with tense moments and objections. On multiple occasions, the witness was put in the waiting room, and the public were asked to clear the courtroom twice.

The woman was able to leave her baby with a relative for the next appearances on Wednesday, Jun. 4, and Thursday, Jun. 5, 2025.

On Wednesday morning, a woman who appeared to be in her 50s or 60s attended court with another woman who appeared to be approximately 30. They sat directly behind Haaima, who sits in a prisoner’s dock encased in bulletproof glass throughout the trial.

At recess, the two women interacted with the accused: “This will all be over in a few months,” the older woman told Haaima. He blew her kisses with both hands through the glass.

Sometime in the afternoon, the Crown asked for the courtroom to be cleared because she needed to read some notes aloud that were not part of the agreed case, “and I don’t think it is appropriate for Mr. Haaima’s mother to be here.” 

Calvinho clarified that the woman was Haaima’s aunt, not his mother.

On Thursday, Jun. 5, 2025, the intense cross-examination continued as the witness became increasingly frustrated with Calvinho’s questioning. 

The witness alleged in her testimony that Haaima had sexually assaulted her on a night when she had fallen asleep in bed while watching a movie. Haaima and another female roommate were also in the bed. The witness described waking up to Haaima digitally penetrating her vagina. Calvinho led her through some questions to determine her position in bed. She said that she was on her side and that she could feel his body against her back, and his arm “was draped over” her to carry out this action.

Calvinho reminded the witness that in her 2022 statement to police, she had told them she woke up to Haaima fondling her and her best friend simultaneously. Calvinho presented her with a transcript of the conversation from three years ago and further suggested that if Haaima was on the bed with his arm draped over her, he would not physically be able to simultaneously touch the roommate.

“My words have been mixed up. I understand, it's not what I said in the transcript; however, the act happened,” the witness stated as a tear slid down her cheek.

“Your words aren't mixed up. They're in black and white on the page,” Calvinho retorted. "You said Haaima was fingering 'me and her at the exact same time.'"

The witness testified that she had shoved Haaima away and then exited the bedroom to go to sleep on the couch in the living room. Calvinho made much of this, saying that in the witness's 2022 statement to police, she didn’t say she left the room, which was a critical detail to leave out. 

“I said I stopped him and got away from him,”  said the visibly frustrated witness, rolling her head back.

"Put yourself in my position," she urged the lawyer. "Would you remember all the details? Many years have gone by. I thought I had moved on with my life… Then out of the blue, the police call.”

“Out of the blue?” Calvinho persisted. “You were contacted on the second of May 2022, and you gave your statement four days later on the sixth of May.”

This intense questioning continued for hours. Calvinho variously suggested that the three had engaged in consensual three-way sex, and that the witness had only stopped sleeping in Haaima’s bed because a roommate left and another bedroom opened up.

Later in the day, Calvinho asked the witness to draw a diagram of the west-end bar where she said Haaima had forced her to perform oral sex on him in 2007 in front of another man named Ronnie. 

“I can’t,” the woman replied. “It's not going to be accurate because I was only in there a couple of times.” 

She had earlier testified that she had been there once before with a friend nearly 20 years ago in 2007, and then again to pick Haaima up.

Calvinho went on, “As best you can… where the pool tables were, where the bar was… [the] tables. And then I'd like... specifically for you to mark on it where, when you enter the bar, you see Mike and Ronnie.”

“It's not going to be accurate; I can tell you that right now," the witness said. "I do not recall many details. And you keep saying 'the best that you can.' I don't recall… I know that there's a kitchen… I know there are pool tables… I don't know how many chairs… I don't recall the area… This is a very terrible drawing.”

Calvinho had the drawing the woman had made entered into evidence and projected on the courtroom television screens so she could refer to it and ask questions. 

Another point of contention was the witness’s inability to describe the man named Ronnie, who was said to be present for two of the alleged assaults, other than that he was short and had dark hair.

Calvinho said, “I'm going to suggest to you that you don't offer more of a description of Ronnie than that to the police because you were concerned if you offered more details, they would actually be able to locate this Ronnie person, right?”

“No, that's not correct," the witness replied, "and I don't recall… I don't remember, I don't recall what he looked like or any details of him. They could find Ronnie and ask him. Whether he tells the truth or not, that's up to him.”

The trial continues.