Ex-preacher found guilty of sexually abusing girl
A former minister at a church in Upper Hammonds Plains has been found guilty of historical sex-related offences involving a 17-year-old girl who was a member of the youth group he oversaw.
Michael Oliver Fisher, 41, stood trial last month in Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Halifax.
Justice Darlene Jamieson delivered her verdict Monday, finding the Halifax man guilty of both sexual exploitation and sexual assault for taking advantage of the girl over a six-month period in 2008, before she turned 18.
Fisher was youth minister at Emmanuel Baptist Church at the time. He became a full-time employee of the church in June 2008 after graduating from Acadia Divinity College the previous month, and was ordained in November 2009.
The church terminated Fisher's employment in 2014 after receiving a complaint from the victim. The young woman, whose identity is protected, went to police in 2016.
By the time charges were announced in June 2017, Fisher was working at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish as co-ordinator for students of African descent. The university placed him on leave and said there was no evidence students there were ever at risk.
The judge scheduled Fisher's sentencing hearing for March 10. Crown attorney Rick Woodburn said he will seek a custodial sentence.
“This has been a long road for the complainant,” Woodburn told reporters. “She understood that there were grave ethical concerns, but she never really realized that it was illegal for him to have sexual relations (with her) when he's in a position of trust like this.
“He took advantage of her. It broke her heart and moved her into a place where she was in a dark period for a long time. Hopefully, this will help bring her out of that.”
Woodburn said he anticipates the victim, now 29 and working abroad, will file an impact statement for sentencing. Her mother was in court for Monday's decision.
The complainant testified that she first met Fisher at the church when she was 14 and started attending meetings of the youth group when she was
15. She testified that she and Fisher communicated on MSN Messenger every day and often late at night.
She said Fisher made comments about her being his girlfriend and would call her beautiful and kiss her on the cheek, which made her feel special and important. She said she treasured every word and every look from him.
The woman said Fisher's flirting increased after she turned
16. She said Fisher told her that some people were concerned about how close they were so he wanted her to stop acting like she cared about him so much. She said Fisher began tutoring her in math and essay writing and she shared her whole heart and deepest problems with him during webcam conversations that went until 4 a.m. or 5 a.m.
After she turned 17, she said she took on various responsibilities with the youth group and began attending leadership meetings. The late-night and early-morning video chats and phone calls with Fisher continued, and she said she trusted him with everything and considered him a gift from God.
After Fisher returned from a trip home to Bermuda for Christmas in 2007, she said he began telling her he had feelings for her, that he loved spending time with her and that he wanted to hug her. She testified that his comments got more sexual as the months went on and he would say he was horny and wanted her to come massage him.
While cuddling and watching a movie at her stepsister's apartment in February 2008, she said she gave him a light kiss on the lips and it was like an explosion happened. She said their relationship took a linear path that continued quite quickly to full nudity, sexual touching, oral sex and, by May 2008, intercourse.
She testified there were a few more times that they were physical before her 18th birthday and that she didn't understand what Fisher meant when he told her she would be “legal” soon. She said she thought he meant she would be able to get married without adult permission.
Fisher acknowledged at trial that there was some sexual activity prior to the complainant's 18th birthday but said it consisted only of two incidents of kissing and one that was close to intercourse, which he described as partial penetration but not full stroking. He said the incidents were initiated by the complainant and denied there was any oral sex or “actual intercourse” before her 18th birthday.
The Crown alleged that Fisher, acting as the girl's mentor and spiritual adviser, developed an emotional, physical and spiritual hold over her and abused his position of trust by engaging in sexual activity with her while she was member of the youth group.
Defence lawyer Michelle James argued that Fisher and the complainant were friends and, by early 2008, were equals on the youth ministry team, with no power imbalance between them. She said relationships can evolve over time and that a person's title in and of itself is not determinative of a position of trust.
In her decision, the judge said she found large sections of Fisher's evidence to be “inconsistent, implausible and evasive” and lacked credbility and reliability.
“Mr. Fisher was selective in how he presented his evidence concerning their relationship,”
Jamieson said. “He minimized evidence that supported the complainant's narrative and maximized any events supporting his own narrative."
Conversely, the judge said the complainant was “believable, forthright and a compelling witness. … She was firm in her recollections and she had a clear recall of the events surrounding the evolution of the relationship and the escalation of the sexual activity.”
Jamieson said inconsistencies in the woman's evidence were minor and were not indicative of an attempt to mislead the court.
The judge was satisfied that Fisher used his position of trust as a minister and youth group leader to build a close relationship with the complainant, and then abused that position by engaging in sex.
“Any consent to sexual activity by the complainant was rendered illusory by the dynamics of the relationship between Mr. Fisher and the complainant, and by the misuse of the influence vested in him by virtue of that relationship. This is not consent.”