Witness, detective in Haaima trial face tough questions over phone call

Monday, Jun. 23, 2025, marked the beginning of the fifth week in the trial of Michael Haaima -- but a 'trial within a trial' ended up taking place, with a witness and a detective at the heart of it.

The trial of 40-year-old accused serial sex offender Haaima began on May 29, 2025, and has been presided over by Justice Robyn Ryan Bell without a jury because it is expected to last well into next year. In fact, it has already dragged on due to objections and illness. So another delay was certainly not welcome, and frustrations in the courtroom were palpable on Monday. 

Questions arose about a phone call between a witness and a police detective, grinding proceedings to a halt and forcing the court to consider those implications rather than the matter before the court.

After a week-long break, a woman returned to the witness stand. In her examination in chief, the witness had testified that Haaima violently sexually assaulted her in his apartment in 2008. 

Last Monday, Jun. 16, 2025, Haaima’s lawyer, Natasha Calvinho, was just beginning her cross-examination of the witness when the court day ended. Justice Ryan Bell ordered the woman not to discuss her testimony with anyone until she returned to court on Wednesday. The only exception was a court-appointed lawyer who was to aid the witness with accessing old Facebook messages at the defence’s request.

Later that night, however, the witness contacted Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Detective Bev Mackey by phone and text. Mackey has been working with the Crown throughout the trial as the investigating officer on behalf of the extensive OPP investigation team. Part of that job entails organizing Crown witnesses.

The woman testified that she wanted to ask Mackey about the expected schedule because her employer had been difficult about her work schedule and didn’t seem to understand that trial schedules fluctuate.  

Unfortunately, she also asked Mackey why the defence would want her old Facebook messages, given that they were “not of a sexual nature.” This is where the problems began, as this question made direct reference to her testimony and evidence.

Mackey immediately emailed the Crown to say what had happened, and shared her notes. The Crown then informed the judge and the defence, but the damage was done.

The Haaima defence requested an adjournment, arguing that the phone call breached Haaima’s rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically section 11(d), guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal when a person is charged with an offence. 

Much of Monday, Jun. 23, 2025, was spent in a voir dire hearing about the phone call, debating how questions would be asked.

Finally, in the afternoon, the witness was questioned by Calvinho. 

Witness claims pressure from employer

“I wasn’t thinking straight,” the witness said, explaining that she was stressed out by her employer and by the trial in general and was legitimately seeking answers about her schedule and how Facebook messages requested by the defence could impact her time in court.

Calvinho bombarded her with questions about why she was asking Mackey about the importance of the Facebook messages: “You’re not a lawyer on this case, correct?”

“You are levelling very serious allegations against my client, correct?”

"You understand that your role as a witness is to come here and to answer questions... but you took it upon yourself to seek clarification and do your own investigation into these messages, correct?" 

"You're not a police officer either, right?"

"That's not your job... That's our jobs … So instead of just letting it be and waiting for the clarification when you got your court-appointed lawyer, you decided 'I'm going to ignore Her Honour’s very clear order, and I'm going to speak to Detective Mackey about this,' right?"

The witness, visibly frustrated and embarrassed, stated, “Again, I wasn't intentionally ignoring the order. Yeah, I understand that's what happened, but it wasn't intentional. It wasn't out of spite.”

Calvinho replied, “To be intentional about something means that you were actually doing it with purpose, and I don't mean with purpose as in any ill intent. You knew you were intentionally speaking to Detective Mackey about the content of those messages.”

This kind of tough questioning continued, with Calvinho variously accusing the witness of not being able to follow simple instructions and suggesting her conversation with the detective may have influenced her testimony or been an attempt to block the Facebook messages from being used as evidence.

Frustrated at one point, the witness pushed back. “I have nothing to hide,” she said. “[The Facebook messages] have nothing to do with the trial. There is nothing sexual [in the messages]. I just wanted to expedite it. It’s stressful to be here. I wasn’t intentionally ignoring the order, not doing it out of spite… I’m aware now that it’s wrong.”

Calvinho seized on this. “How do you know it’s wrong?” she asked, as if to imply the woman might have discussed the case with someone else.

“I heard you [Calvinho] talking about it in the parking lot,” the witness said. “I put two and two together.”

In contrast to Calvinho, assistant Crown attorney Megan Williams’s approach was more low-key.

In examining the witness, Williams made much of the fact that Calvinho had been discussing the case in the courthouse parking lot loudly enough for the witness --- who said "I was sitting in my car" about 30 feet away --- to overhear.

Detective Mackey then took the stand. 

Detective on the hot seat

Calvinho emphasized the importance of the integrity of the traditional process in the courtroom and asked Mackey if she understood her role, even entering into evidence a portion of the “Police Services Act.” (It was unclear if she was referring to the Community Safety and Policing Act (CSPA), which came into effect on April 1, 2024, and replaced the Police Services Act in Ontario.)

Mackey admitted that she had had a phone conversation with the witness while she was under a court order not to discuss her evidence with anyone.

During the call, the witness discussed messages from the now-defunct “Facebook Chat,” which was replaced in 2011 by Facebook Messenger. Those messages were dated 2011 despite being from 2008, according to the witness, who asked Mackey how that might affect them as evidence.

Mackey admitted she should not have engaged in this conversation and that she did not take precautions like audio recording or immediately stopping the discussion about evidence. But, she said, after the 10-minute call she emailed the Crown prosecutors with details of the conversation, including the witness's description of the Facebook messages.

Calvinho used the text of that email to suggest that Mackey was not acting in good faith but rather trying to help the Crown with its case. “There is no ‘Oops, my bad,’” in the message, she said.

Mackey was visibly annoyed. “No, I did not say ‘Oops,’” the detective agreed flatly. But, she countered, she wouldn’t have emailed the Crown to let them know about the conversation if she had not realized that it was a mistake and that it was her “professional and legal obligation” to let them know immediately.

After Mackey’s testimony, Calvinho raised several concerns with Justice Ryan Bell. One was that next year, Calvinho is scheduled in a homicide trial in Ottawa, which, because the Haaima trial has already fallen weeks behind schedule, would end up overlapping with it. The two courts have been discussing how to reschedule.

Calvinho also took vehement exception to an email sent to the Crown attorneys of Kingston and Ottawa by assistant Crown Megan Williams, in which Williams stated that “the case has gone off the rails” because Calvinho hadn’t properly planned the time she would need for cross-examination.

“That is not at all the case,” Calvinho said, explaining that not only were there technical issues, but that witnesses had revealed new information on the stand, which required exploration.

“I think it is egregious… It needs to be stated for the record that that is an unfair characterization. I lost my voice a week ago Friday; that's on me. I was sick partway through one day; that's on me. But we can’t control witnesses, and quite frankly, Your Honour… the bulk of [their testimony was new]. I have a job to do, and the cross-examinations are going to take as long as they need to.”

The trial is now scheduled to resume on Wednesday, Jun. 25, 2025, at noon.