The Cornwall Standard Freeholder
Thursday, July 13, 2017 7:58:17 EDT PM
By Alan S. Hale, Cornwall Standard-Freeholder
All that’s left in the trial of Denis Vaillancourt is the verdict.
Vaillancourt’s trial came to a close on Thursday afternoon after Crown and defence attorneys completed their closing submissions to the judge, with the case due back in September for a verdict.
The Roman Catholic priest with the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall is accused of sexually assaulting a young man in his early 20s in 2015. The victim and other witnesses who testified related to him cannot be identified because of a court-imposed publication ban.
The encounter at the heart of the case took place at the victim’s family cottage. During earlier testimony last month, the victim testified he had returned from water skiing when Vaillancourt offered him a drink, which he declined.
The priest began probing the victim about his personal life, leading to overtly sexual comments. These comments included asking if he “spits or swallows” in relation to having oral sex with other men, whether his male friends ever told him he had a nice body, complimenting and touching his “treasure trail,” as well as asking how big his penis was.
The victim also testified he had given Vaillancourt a hug similar to the ones sometimes exchanged after a confession at church. But when the priest had asked for a second one, the victim testified the older man hand placed his hands on his buttocks for five seconds and squeezed gently.
That Vaillancourt – who is in his 70s – touched the younger man on his buttocks and lower abdomen without his consent is not in dispute. The question is whether the encounter at his family’s cottage was a sexual assault.
According to the priest’s defence counsel, Don Johnson, it was not.
“The position of defence is taking in this particular matter is that while we are not denying that there was touching … but what we are submitting is that the allegation of sexual assault has not been made out,” said Johnson.
During his submissions to the court, Johnson bolstered his argument his client’s actions did not meet the threshold to be considered sexual assault. Using case history, Johnson argued that for touching to count as sexual assault it had to meet two criteria: there was no consent to the sexual touching, and the defendant had to be “reckless of or willfully blind” to that lack of consent.
On the first point, Johnson attacked the Crown’s contention that as priest and family friend, Vaillancourt was in a position of trust over the victim which would preclude consent. The defence argued the victim had not been a regular church goer and was not close to the priest, even if he was a friend of the family.
On the second point, Johnson said Vaillancourt had shown during testimony he has an honest – if mistaken – belief the touching had been consensual.
“The air of reality in this case centre’s around the first contact (hug) between the parties,” argued Johnson, who also noted the victim had not given any outward protest and had even laughed during the encounter.
During her submissions, Crown attorney Elaine Evans vehemently rejected there was any air of reality to Vaillancourt’s belief of consent. She attacked the idea a hug could be taken as a sign of consent of sexual touching and characterized Vaillancourt as having a “warped view of consent.
“A hug is not an invitation to have your sexual integrity violated,” she declared.
Consent is not a defence in this case anyway, she said, because the priest held a position of trust over the victim as a friend of the family, as well as being their long-time priest.
It was a relationship he abused to get to the victim, said the Crown, using information gained from the victim’s grandmother during confession to start engaging with him about his personal sex life during the encounter.
Evans also attacked Vaillancourt’s testimony as “self-serving,” “inconsistent,” saying he had continually changed his story from the one he had told police after his arrest, including an admission he was attracted to men.
He also continually refused to answer questions while under cross-examination because he did not want to break the seal of confession, said Evans, and smirked at times while exercising that privilege. Taken together, argued Evans, Vaillancourt’s testimony cannot be trusted.
The trial judge is scheduled to deliver her verdict on Sept. 14.
The incident did not occur at the victim’s family cottage. It occurred at at Father Vailancourt’s cottage.
The victim had not returned from water skiing.
Also I don’t believe there was ever any testimony that Father Vaillancourt used information which he gained through hearing the grandmother’s confession. There was however inference by the Crown both in cross-examination of the priest and in closing arguments that Father Vaillancourt had used information which he acquired while hearing the complainant’s testimony.