Haaima allegedly told fiancée he was a sex addict and abuse victim

By Michelle Dorey Forestell, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Kinstonist.com

Editor’s note: This article contains references to sexual abuse, sexual assault, child pornography, and related matters that readers may find disturbing.

The massive trial of Michael Haaima, who is charged with 98 offences, heard from a critical Crown witness this week: a woman who dated, became engaged to, and lived with the alleged sex predator over seven years.

On Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2025, at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at Frontenac County Court House, assistant Crown attorney Megan Williams attempted to show Justice Robyn Ryan Bell that although Haaima is not charged with a crime against his former fiancée, his deceitful and manipulative behaviour toward her made her another in a long list of his victims. 

Twenty-eight women have accused Haaima of sexual assault, forcing them to watch child pornography, and various other abuses. Two of the women have specifically claimed he raped them while his fiancée slept in the next room.

Under examination by Williams, the former fiancée described having met Haaima at a bus stop in 2011; at the time she was a student in her early 20s and he was six years her senior. They dated for a year, became engaged in 2012, and began living together in 2014.

The woman testified that between 2013 and 2016, both she and Haaima were involved in counselling — she as a supportive partner, and he as part of treatment for what was described as a sex addiction. The two had attended some group sessions together, and their respective therapists, she said, had communicated with one another about their relationship.

As the questioning turned toward the nature of that counselling, Haaima’s lawyer, Natasha Calvinho, interjected, cautioning the court to avoid straying into medical diagnoses. The lawyer reminded those present that the witness could testify about what Haaima told her or how she understood the situation, but not about any formal diagnosis or clinical determinations. The judge accepted that clarification, and the questioning resumed with more careful phrasing.

Under questioning by Williams, the witness clarified that Haaima told her he was being treated for sex addiction. Her therapist told her that her role in that therapy was to work on therapeutic coping strategies and to be supportive of him during his recovery. 

As part of that process, the woman testified, the couple was advised to remain abstinent — a therapeutic measure intended to help Haaima “reset” and focus on his recovery.

She then described what was called a “day of disclosure,” a therapy session in which Haaima shared details about his past with her. She said he told her he had been sexually assaulted as a child and had had early sexual experiences with an older woman. 

At this point, the defence objected, and the witness was asked to leave the room. Calvinho argued that Haaima’s personal sexual history was irrelevant to the charges before the court. 

Crown attorney Williams argued that the subjects were absolutely relevant, saying, “We’re talking about disclosures made to [his fiancée] out of Haaima’s own mouth, explaining his perspective in what he describes as a sex addiction… how he attempts to justify his conduct. Certainly, this court is no stranger to intimate, embarrassing details; it doesn’t make them irrelevant.”

As well, Williams continued, “this is the beginning of understanding the fiancée and the role she ultimately plays” in what the Crown attorney called a well-thought-out “long game” in terms of how Haaima ultimately manipulated this woman in a variety of ways.

Previously, the court has heard from two women that Haaima variously had sex with them or raped them while his fiancée was in their home, sleeping in her bedroom. They said the fiancée was a shift worker and was often sleeping during hours when Haaima was supposed to be conducting his home business, Ferus Media.

“We don’t actually care if what Haaima told his fiancée [about the sex addiction] was true,” Williams pointed out. However, she went on, it was relevant because it was part of how he explained his own mental state to his fiancée.

Haaima had been in the relationship for over six years, Williams observed, a period of which overlapped with what the Crown described as an “elaborate game” he had been orchestrating and playing at the Holland Crescent residence while his fiancée was present. His fiancée was directly involved in his “daddy–mommy” fantasy role-play during the same period Haaima was allegedly sexually assaulting two other women in the home, Williams said.

“You may well be wondering how this young woman came to be sleeping nearby while her fiancé is engaged in this ‘daddy play’ fantasy,” Williams went on, arguing that Haaima was essentially using his own tale of trauma and addiction to explain to her why she should stay with him and go along with being his abstinent partner. 

Williams told Justice Ryan Bell that after the court heard what Haaima had told his fiancée, “you’ll begin to understand the situation she found herself in and the beginnings of his manipulation of her.” 

The witness, Williams argued, was essentially being used as a pawn by Haaima, “as a part of his public façade as a successful businessman, a nice guy.” He was attempting to display himself as being in “a stable, loving relationship to the outside world, when really their relationship is essentially a front. It’s a sexless relationship where they do not do the things together that couples would.”

The judge asked for clarification on how the intimate details of Haaima’s disclosure to his fiancée would be relevant.

Williams answered that Haaima had disclosed that his first sexual experience as a teenager was with an older woman who acted as a “dom,” establishing a submissive-dominant dynamic. This disclosure was relevant to understanding Haaima’s later behaviour, Williams asserted, given that Haaima was “engaging for the better part of three decades in the reverse of that scenario, where he is the dominant and the various complainants are forced into roles where they have no control.” 

“It’s also expected that he’ll talk about a pornography addiction,” Williams went on, “particularly child pornography.” 

This and his pattern of exerting control over women and children, she said, was “not hearsay; it’s out of his own mouth. And it will give Your Honour insight into how he frames it in his own mind and how he frames it when speaking to others: casting himself as the victim. It’s relevant, and it is the basis of how this very manipulative journey with [his fiancée] begins.”

Defence attorney Calvinho insisted that this information amounted to bad character evidence (that is, evidence which relates to the accused’s conduct or reputation outside of the period of the alleged offences and which might therefore be deemed inadmissible.) She said she would not object to the references to abstinence, cheating, or pornography; however, she said, the detailed disclosure of early sexual experiences was irrelevant to the material issues at trial and unfairly prejudicial.

After an extended break, Justice Robyn Ryan Bell ruled in Calvinho’s favour, and Williams took up another line of questioning.

Kingstonist will publish the second part of this witness’s testimony and cross-examination on Monday, Nov. 17, 2025, when the Haaima’s trial begins a week-long break before resuming on Monday, Nov. 24, 2025.