On Thursday, Jun. 4, 2026, a witness in the trial of Kingston tech entrepreneur Michael Haaima spoke about a “degrading” incident, explained why she took years to come forward with allegations involving child pornography, and described Haaima’s ongoing attempts to reach her after his arrest.
Haaima is currently being tried before Justice Robyn Ryan Bell in Superior Court in Kingston. He has pleaded not guilty to 96 out of 98 charges. The trial at the Frontenac County Court House has been ongoing for more than a year.
During questioning by Crown attorney Megan Williams on Thursday, the witness, who had been testifying since Tuesday, June 3, shared details about an encounter she claimed happened at Haaima’s home during their relationship.
The witness recounted that while they were engaged in consensual sexual activity, Haaima suddenly slapped her across the face and then spat on her. She stated that neither action was discussed beforehand, she hadn’t given permission for either act, and she did not consent to them.
She said she was taken aback by the slap and found the spitting particularly humiliating.
“It felt really degrading,” she testified.
The witness mentioned that she didn’t confront Haaima about what happened afterward. When asked why not, she explained that she felt raising concerns often led to arguments or emotional manipulation where blame would be placed back on her.
A large part of Thursday’s testimony also dealt with the complainant’s claims that Haaima showed her child pornography.
The witness admitted that she didn’t initially tell police about those allegations and only brought them up years later. She explained how difficult it was to discuss what she’d seen and how long it took her to feel comfortable talking about it.
When asked what made her decide to come forward, the witness said she felt a duty to report what she’d witnessed in order to protect children.
She eventually provided a formal statement to investigators.
Exhibit 74, the image of the teddy bear, was obtained from court evidence files by Kingstonist.
Williams then turned attention towards another teddy bear-a large “Ted” character which belonged to Haaima. The witness testified seeing this bear at his residence as well and later viewed several photos of “Ted” in order to identify which one resembled it most closely.
The witness also answered questions regarding a large safe she’d observed at the residence along with what items might have been stored inside it. Earlier witnesses had testified about this black safe too, alleging it contained cannabis along with computer-related items.
The videos were shown in such a way as to respect the dignity of those depicted while ensuring evidence could be presented openly before the court. This marked the end of Williams’ examination-in-chief.
Following this, the defence filed what’s commonly known as a section 276 or Kinamore application. The court then moved into camera for legal discussions surrounding this matter.
Section 276 applications are utilized when defense seeks permission to present evidence concerning previous sexual activity related to a complainant. Generally speaking, such evidence is prohibited if it’s intended to imply consent or question credibility. Before introducing any such information, defense must convince the judge it’s relevant for valid issues within trial proceedings; its value must outweigh possible bias involved. Typically, this process includes private hearings where proposed proofs are reviewed alongside legal arguments from counsel members; complainants can also seek independent legal representation and participate through their own lawyers. If permitted by judges ultimately, strict regulations may limit how any allowed evidence is used throughout trials; should applications get denied, defense cannot pursue these lines anymore.
The trial will continue later this month.Unwanted contact from accused
The witness also described receiving multiple attempts at contact from Haaima after his arrest. According to her testimony, Haaima called her from custody using phone numbers of other inmates. He also sent letters through others. The witness said she eventually stopped believing his claims that the accusations against him were false and decided that she wanted no further communication with him. She testified that despite telling him she no longer wished to talk with him, he continued trying to reach her afterward. Court proceedings were briefly paused Thursday morning after Williams informed the court that the witness felt uncomfortable due to gestures and head-shaking from Haaima during her testimony. Defence counsel Natasha Calvinho challenged this description, noting no independent observer had reported witnessing any inappropriate behavior. Justice Ryan Bell mentioned that while she hadn’t seen any such conduct herself, it was important for witnesses not to be distracted while giving evidence. Ted the bear The Crown also spent significant time questioning the witness about a large teddy bear she’d seen at Haaima’s home. This line of questioning seemed relevant because a teddy bear had previously been referenced during earlier testimonies when another complainant spoke about one related to incidents mentioned in their evidence. The Crown first presented Exhibit 74 during trial-The photograph features a teddy bear which was identified by the witness as one gifted to her from a family member. The witness confirmed this photo was taken at Haaima’s residence on the day of his arrest.Exhibit 74, the image of the teddy bear, was obtained from court evidence files by Kingstonist.
Williams then turned attention towards another teddy bear-a large “Ted” character which belonged to Haaima. The witness testified seeing this bear at his residence as well and later viewed several photos of “Ted” in order to identify which one resembled it most closely.
The witness also answered questions regarding a large safe she’d observed at the residence along with what items might have been stored inside it. Earlier witnesses had testified about this black safe too, alleging it contained cannabis along with computer-related items.
Crown concludes examination-in-chief, defence makes application
The court viewed three short video clips on Thursday afternoon, which Williams previously referred to as “serious inculatory evidence,” showing actions alleged by the Crown indicating sexual violence against the witness.Source link
