A judge is expected to deliver a decision in September after the second trial involving allegations of historical sexual offences against a Penticton city councillor concluded this week.
In response to a question from Superior Court of Ontario Justice Russell Raikes, following closing submissions on May 28, Coun. James Miller expressed his desire for a quicker decision, but the Justice stated he simply did not have any time available sooner than September 18.
Miller is charged with multiple counts of sexual interference of a minor dating back to the 90s, while he was a coach of the Sarnia Mini-Colts basketball team in the Ontario community.
Two complainants, both former members of the team, testified during the previous week.
READ MORE: Penticton city councillor’s second trial on historic sex crimes underway
Family members of the complainants, additional members of the team, the school principal, one of Miller’s friends from Sarnia, and Miller himself have all testified in the case.
Miller has denied all of the allegations of impropriety and has maintained a not-guilty plea to the charges.
READ MORE: Penticton councillor returns to the stand for 2nd historic sex crime trial
During closing submissions, Miller’s defence counsel, Donald Elliott, argued that the testimony of the complainants simply lacked an “air of believablity”, stating that their claims lacked support and at times conflicted with the testimony of the other witnesses.
He noted that one of the complainants testified he had joined the team after his friend had left, yet there were photographs showing the two on the team together.
Elliott also argued that testimony from two players, along with three additional witnesses, failed to establish a pattern of behaviour by Miller.
“[Miller’s] evidence was that over the 17 years, he, with the exception of some of them being girls, had 700 players,” said Elliott. “So much for propensity if only two of them have come forward, indicating that there’s been a problem.”
Crown prosecution presented case law and the argument that there was legal precedent recognizing in cases of historical claims brought forward by complainants years after the fact that minor details could be mis-remembered, or mixed up, but that as long as the core testimony was strong and believable — which they argued was the case with Miller’s complainants — those minor inconsistencies aren’t automatically disqualifying.
The Crown also laid out what they claim was the progression of Miller’s behaviour, starting from when he began coaching, to the time of the offences, and how he used that time to refine his approach and get closer to the young boys.
“He coached this team in a way that had never been done before. Never before had players been given opportunities on the court and off that Mr. Miller provided them. All parents could arguably see was a well-intention young man acting in their boys’ best interests and giving them what they could not otherwise have,” Crown argued. “In the end, he was revealed not to be a charitable person doing good works, but more akin to the witch in Hansel and Gretel, using an array of enticements that he offered to his targets to offend against them.
” Everyone saw the outward benevolent figure; only the victims, the complainants, and the teammates, including the extrinsic, similar-fact witnesses, saw the more sinister elements behind the facade. Mr. Miller wants us only to see the facade, Your Honour.”
The testimony of one of the complainants brought forward a question from Justice Raikes, as B.B., whose name is protected under a publication ban, openly stated he had launched a campaign to get Miller to resign from council and brought to court, as well as delivering a furious phone call to Miller laying out his intention to do so.
“Should I be concerned from a reliability standpoint with the fact that he has a campaign, or a movement, as I think was the word used, for retribution or wants to ruin Mr. Miller’s reputation?” Raikes put to the Crown. “Police told him, don’t do stuff, and he went ahead and did it anyway, and the, the documents evidence huge anger — I’m not saying that anger is inappropriate, where someone has been sexually abused, it’s a reasonable reaction —but he’s going next level in terms of reaching out and trying to ruin Mr. Miller’s reputation…
“Is this a man who is so enraged, so committed to his objective that he would say anything?”
Crown stated in response that, from B.B.’s testimony, how he testified on the stand, and how there was no evidence for any other motivation, that he was still a believable complainant when it came to his allegations.
Justice Raikes noted at the end of submissions that neither Crown nor defence should read deeply into his questions, and that when he delivers his decision on Sept. 18, that would speak for him.
Earlier in the month, a second trial involving a separate complainant was heard by a different Justice.
A decision in that trial is also pending, and will not be issued until June at the earliest.
Miller was arrested on the historical charges in August of 2024. Since then, he has been on paid leave from his role as a city councillor.
While initial reporting on the charges by Miller’s employer, the Okanagan Newspaper Group, stated he had been placed on administrative desk duty, the contact page for the Kelowna Daily Courier at some point in time was updated with (on leave) next to his information. The Penticton Herald, for which he also serves as editor, does not list his name or contact email.