WARNING: This article contains content which may be distressing to some readers. Reader discretion is advised. If you are a child or youth and you or someone you know is unsafe or being abused, call the Helpline for Children at 1-877-631-8282 at any time. For mental health help and information, call 310-6789 (no area code) To see all the services and help available, visit bc211.ca.
After a four-day trial, a former Penticton man has been convicted of multiple sexual offences involving a minor dating back to the early 2000s.
Originally set for eight full days, the trial of James Bruce Strang wrapped up with closing arguments on June 4, following three days of testimony.
Strang is charged with one count of sexual interference of a person under 14, one count of giving an invitation to sexual touching to a person under 14, and one count of sexual assault.
Justice Gregory Koturbash found Strang guilty on all counts, deeming his own testimony unbelievable and failing on the grounds of common sense, and that even while the complainant’s testimony had inconsistencies with the other two witnesses, it was understandable given the length of time since the offences.
The identity of the complainant is protected under a publication ban, however, at the outset of the case, Justice Koturbash noted it did not extend to Strang’s identity. In line with other media reporting, the complainant will be referred to as M.M. At the time of the incidents in the early 2000s, M.M. was under the age of 14.
The complainant took the stand on the opening day of the trial, sharing her experiences with Strang that began with regular trips to the pool at the local Super 8, where he would often give her “dares” or challenges, such as staying underwater for 30 seconds and rewarding her with coins. That, the Crown argued, was the beginning of Strang’s grooming behaviour.
“There was one time when I dove down and, I did a really good dive, and when I came out, he said, ‘You know, you did a really good dive’… and his next question was to ask me to take my top off, to dare me to take my top off,” said M.M.”It was a little bit, confusing but also I was very enamored with the attention that I was getting, so, I did it.”
Strang also didn’t limit his behaviour when he and M.M. were not alone, as when they were joined at the pool by M.M.’s friend — who testified to the incident during the trial — dared them to take their tops off and hug each other.
On a different trip, Strang showed M.M. his erection and told her that she had given it to him, asking her to touch it before taking her hand and putting it on his penis. In her own testimony, M.M. admitted that she couldn’t recall every detail of Strang’s behaviour and the different incidents she experienced.
“I can remember that instance, I can see it very clearly in my mind, but I don’t remember how it ended,” M.M. admitted. “I don’t remember when we left. I don’t know if I went back in the pool after.”
Later on during the trial, M.M. was recalled to the stand, where she stated that she hadn’t laid out all of the incidents that she could remember, just the six key ones that most stood out.
The most important one was when Strang sexually assaulted M.M., which she described after he had been led into his bedroom and had put her on the bed before Strang pushed her legs apart.
“There wasn’t any warning or anything, he just penetrated me, and I remember being pretty scared because my brother was in the room next door and I didn’t quite understand what was happening and [Strang] was being very aggressive and he was grunting very loudly and making quite a disturbing face,” said M.M.
That incident was the focus of substantial arguments by both Crown and defence, about things like the thickness of the walls and whether M.M.’s brother often wore headphones and if he should have heard the sexual assault or not.
M.M. testified that at one point, Strang had sat her down and told her that her mother knew about what he had done, and made M.M. promise not to say anything, using the threat that “Child Protective Services” would come and take away M.M. and her siblings if she did speak.
That was a lie, and M.M.’s mother only found out after M.M. read the book Identical by Ellen Hopkins when she was several years older, and Strang had long left. The book covers two young girls who have a sexual relationship with their father, and after reading the book, M.M. broke down in tears. When her mother asked what was wrong, M.M. shared that she had experienced the same thing.
M.M thought she had put Strang behind her until 2022, when a friend was scrolling through a dating app and Strang’s profile showed up. It was then that she was finally pushed to contact Women Against Violence and move towards bringing the case to the police.
“I had such a reaction, I threw up on the floor, and I couldn’t stop crying,” M.M. admitted. “…I couldn’t understand how somebody could do that to a child. I really wanted to fully move on and not have the responses, the emotional response, throwing up on the floor.
“I had a pretty difficult childhood in many aspects, and it’s my number one goal to make sure my children don’t have an unstable upbringing, and so at the time when I had once again had another quite visceral reaction to seeing him, I just wanted those reactions to end, and I wanted to move on with my family.”
On the stand, Strang stated that none of the incidents which M.M. had testified to had happened. He also stated that his memory of the single time M.M.’s friend joined them at the pool was that nothing happened, recalling that it was close to spring, because it was warming up, and that they had gone in the evening after a decent day without much wind.
“I’m so sure that none of this happened,” said Strang. “If something like that were to have happened, I would definitely have remembered it.”
Following the testimony, the court spent a portion of the afternoon of June 3 discussing whether to make an application to put Strang’s criminal “record to him,” meaning the legal system or society imposes them. Under the Canada Evidence Act, the fact that an individual has been charged and convicted of an offence can be put to them, however, such evidence can be excluded due to posing a risk of prejudice, which would violate the individual’s Charter Rights to a fair trial.
According to a search of B.C.’s online court services, a Bruce James Strang was convicted in 1998 of two counts of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference of a person under 14 in Victoria, for which he received a sentence of seven months for each of the sexual assaults and a four-month sentence for the sexual interference. An eight-year registration on the sexual offender list was also issued.
The outset of the trial also included information about Strang missing a court date, and according to online court records, in an associated case for failing to appear indicated that James Bruce Strang has Bruce James Strang as an alias and shares the same birth year, 1968.
He was also subject to a missing persons report from Prince George in 2025. Strang currently resideds in Hope, the court heard.
On the witness stand in Penticton, Strang admitted to having changed the order of his name, stating it was with the goal of improving his success with music.
The Crown decided not to move forward with putting that evidence to Strang, and instead moved into closing arguments by stating that Strang’s flat denial of M.M.’s claims was not believable, noting that it provided no alternatives for things that M.M. may have misinterpreted, nor an explanation for why the trips to the pools were to quieter, hotel pools instead of the community pool.
Justice Koturbash agreed and found that while M.M. may not have had firm memories on all aspects, even admitting to not remembering things that might have helped her case, she had given consistent and believable accounts of the main allegations that were free of exagerration.
“Her overall account described an adult grooming a young child, beginning with seemingly innocuous, playful games, and flattering comments, then escalating to various forms of sexual touching and culminating in forced penile penetration,” said Koturbash. “While the absence of a demonstrated motive does not establish that none existed, there was no evidence before the court suggesting that [M.M.] had a motive to fabricate the allegations.”
Koturbash noted that in comparison, Strang’s lack of memory on certain issues, while keenly remembering other aspects from events decades prior, strained his credibility.
“In essence, Mr. Strang asks the court to accept that he can accurately recall the details of an otherwise mundane event from more than 20 years ago,” said Koturbash. “Nothing about the incident suggests it would have been sufficiently memorable to remain fixed in his mind for decades. I therefore reject the evidence on this issue and find that he was not being truthful.”
Finding no reasonable doubt based on the evidence before him, Koturbash convicted Strang on all three charges.
A presentencing report with either a psychiatric or psychological component focused on the risks of recidivism was ordered to be prepared prior to sentencing, which will be scheduled at a later date this year.