7 convictions against ski coach should be tossed, Crown says
Concessions could lead to reduced sentence
• Prosecutors concede that former national ski coach Bertrand Charest should not have been convicted of seven of the 37 sex-related offences involving young athletes.
The Crown makes the rare concession in a document filed this week at the Quebec Court of Appeal, calling into question several of the decisions made in June 2017 by Quebec Court Judge Sylvain Lépine. The document bluntly states that Charest should be acquitted on seven of the charges.
The investigation into Charest began in 2015 after former Canadian Olympic skier Geneviève Simard filed a complaint against him. Eleven other women also filed complaints and, last year, Lépine found Charest guilty on charges involving nine of the victims. The victims were sexually abused during the 1990s and the concessions made by the Crown would not reduce the number of people he was found guilty of having abused.
The prosecutor representing the Crown in the appeal, Alexis Marcotte Bélanger, also concedes that Charest should have a new trial on two of the charges he was convicted and that 10 other charges should be “conditionally suspended.” The Crown also concedes that another conviction, that Charest sexually assaulted one of the victims in New Zealand, should be annulled. In that case, the Crown concedes that Lépine “did not have the jurisdiction to make a decision on a sexual assault offence committed in New Zealand.”
The seven charges the Crown concedes on call into question whether Charest sexually exploited the teens and young women he coached during very specific time frames. A conviction on the sexual exploitation charge depends on whether the victim was under 18 at the time of the offence.
“The task of the trial judge was complicated by the fact that the birthdates of the victims were generally not proven,” the prosecutor wrote while noting it appears that the judge made errors in determining the ages of three of the victims’ ages when they were sexually exploited.
The Crown maintains that Charest was convicted on other sexual exploitation charges involving time
frames when the victims were definitely under the age of 18.
For example, Émilie Cousineau, one of the victims who asked that a publication ban be lifted on her identity this year so she could talk openly about what she suffered, was 38 when she testified at Charest’s trial at the St-Jérôme courthouse in March 2017. The Crown noted in its reply that this is sufficient proof, in terms of Cousineau’s age, to convict Charest of sexual exploitation when he touched her in a sexual manner during the 1995-1996 ski season.
However, the prosecutor concedes, it is also proof that she was 18 when something happened between her and Charest in Mont-Tremblant in May 1997. For that reason, the prosecutor wrote, Charest should be acquitted on the sexual exploitation charge related to the Mont-Tremblant incident but should remain convicted for what happened during the 1995-1996 ski season.
The Crown also concedes it did not present sufficient evidence of sexual exploitation on three of the seven charges and that Charest should have been acquitted of them anyway, regardless of whether the victims were 18 at the time. It also concedes it presented insufficient evidence on two other sexual exploitation charges but argues the victims were minors at the time. The Crown has requested that Charest undergo a new trial on those charges.
It is rare to see the Crown make such a concession while defending a case it won. The concessions could eventually reduce the 12-year sentence Charest is serving. Last month, Charest filed a second appeal seeking to have his sentence reduced to a prison term of between four and six years.
The Quebec Court of Appeal has yet to hear arguments on either of Charest’s appeals.
THE BIRTHDATES OF THE VICTIMS WERE GENERALLY NOT PROVEN.