Guelph Implodes

I have many times, you don't listen if you dont agree with it...now lets wait to see if the police agree with me or you...will you agree to let them mediate our little disagreement here?

I know what he did should be illegal even if it was not. Sex with a minor over whom you have authority should be considered rape. That he was married makes it even worse. From the article, we know it was not some one time consensual thing where one party or both made a mistake, but DST was grooming her for a relationship and even took steps to prevent her leaving their situation. Rape isn't just where one party forcibly overpowers the other, it can be done with bonds, emotions, and authority over another as well. Its obvious with Megan Brown checking into a psyciatric hospital and leaving the Guleph program that things weren't right. This wasn't a consensual relationship, and its not because MB was in love with DST who wouldn't leave his wife or some crap like that or whatever jimmy and other defenders are alleging. 17 year olds don't fall in love with 38 year old coaches, this was rape.

Except it is illegal. This is directly from the Criminal Code of Canada:

Sexual exploitation

A 16 or 17 year old cannot consent to sexual activity if:

their sexual partner is in position of trust or authority towards them, for example their teacher or coach

If Megan, Athletics Canada or University of Guelph files a complaint with the Guelph police they will investigate and arrest, if they have enough evidence.

So if he found a random 16yo on Tinder and b@nged her, then in Canada that would NOT constitute criminal activity....

Jimbo - I trained at UofT from 2005-2010. Did we overlap?

Trent & his wife knew what was going on.

jimmyx wrote:

https://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/9847086-u-of-guelph-and-athletics-canada-respond-to-allegations-against-dave-scott-thomas/

You can look at the dates...Police have been aware of the story for awhile...Its not rape, and vaguely falls into the person of authority with someone over 16 and under 18...its not worth their time, he would be found not guilty...and for MBs future civil suit, its better to have the threat of criminal charges and also not having the criminal charges beaten in court...

Whoever you are, please, please don't ever coach anyone or put yourself in a position where are you seen as a leadership or authority figure to women. You're a disgrace.

Below is the current statute. If you note however the statute has been amended about 4 times since the time period in question. The issue for the police may be that the law was different enough in the time period in question that the behavior while no illegal may not have been back then. Another issue would be whether there are any statute of limitations issues which would prevent prosecution this length of time later. I have no idea on either.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-35.html#docCont

Sexual exploitation

153 (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who

(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or

(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.

Marginal note:Punishment

(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days.

Marginal note:Inference of sexual exploitation

(1.2) A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including

(a) the age of the young person;

(b) the age difference between the person and the young person;

(c) the evolution of the relationship; and

(d) the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

Definition of young person

(2) In this section, young person means a person 16 years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 153R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 12005, c. 32, s. 42008, c. 6, s. 542012, c. 1, s. 132015, c. 23, s. 4

Previous Version

doesn't matter, UofG, AC, and the rest of DST's enablers are full steam ahead at re-writing history. wouldn't be surprised if anonymous posters like some of the dbags on this site try to destroy MB again and have close ties to the gryphs. people have short attention spans, everyone will move on until another abuse case comes to light. the pres of UofG made his obligatory phone call so he's off the hook. the rest of the enablers will stay in hiding like the cowards they are until the smoke clears and the attention is gone.

Do you think this jimmy person is just a troll? I wonder if it's fun to troll a thread about the sexual abuse of a minor? Jesus.

Fred and Jimmy, maybe you can just exchange numbers and take your discussion offline. Please. Thanks.

levenegsp______ wrote:

Do you think this jimmy person is just a troll? I wonder if it's fun to troll a thread about the sexual abuse of a minor? Jesus.

Fred and Jimmy, maybe you can just exchange numbers and take your discussion offline. Please. Thanks.

She's not a "minor" and did not experience "sexual abuse." She's a "young person" per statute above, and she CAN consent to sexual activity although not under all circumstances. She may have been the victim of "sexual exploitation" but that's not what you stated above. That would be statutory rape - which it is clear, did not happen.

Now I see why the authorities are not gungho to prosecute. It seems the circumstances of dependency and control would be hard to prove and with the evolution of the statute, particularly so. The degree of voluntary attachment shown by the young person over time also conditions the nature of the relationship ...kind of hard to argue "force and coercion" into sexual activity when she's 22 or 23, outside Guelph, and still going back for more of the same.

It seems abundantly clear DST sexually exploited at least young woman and rightfully deserves firing, censure and moral judgment.

However, the most opprobrious (publiciszed) actions of DST seem to have occurred prior to 2006 Canadian criminal code changes relating to age of consent, particularly as defines and pertains to situations of power imbalance, and also predates Athletics Canada rules mirroring and expanding on that.

(Canadian) Law is a shifting landscape - for example "buggery" at the time was an offense in Canada punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Similarly, a legal test for rape of young women considered whether the victim was "previously of chaste character."

Quoting current law doesn't provide solid framework for establishing criminality of past action.

Local police consulted with a Crown Prosecutor (Canadian version of a District Attorney) as to whether a chargeable offense may have occurred and whether there is sufficient evidence to make arrest - and were told "no".

We shall see if new publicity causes that to be re-examined, but I wouldn't expect that.

I think a lot of people are forgetting just how powerful DST was in running in Canada, it was hard for people to (especially student athletes or athletes hoping to get on a team or aspiring assistant coaches) to really stand up. It seems like either you went along with it or left. Some people were very active enablers at the adminastrive level and I hope that will also be investigated, as a such a Guelph/SR power structure has been problematic for well over a decade.

Here is a discussion of the relevant supreme court case:

The leading case in this area of law is the Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Audet[1], in which the accused was charged with sexual exploitation under s. 153(1) of the Criminal Code, a section that prohibits every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, from engaging in any sexual activity with that young person, even where the activity is consensual (in the Criminal Code, a young person is defined as being between 14 and 18 years old).

Note that the MB case checks all the boxes:

1. Dave was in a position of trust or authority

2. Sexual activity occurs

3. MB was a young person by definition (14-18)

4. Consent does not matter according to the SCC case.

The original R. vs Audet case was argued in 1996; a full decade before DSTs actions.

Mtn, the same power people that enabled the predator are still in charge and in charge of the investigation of themselves. They cut DST loose when they knew the jig was up.

The same article (linked in message below) provides contemporary example of a 30-year old coach not being charged after sex with a 14 yo athlete. Aside from changing laws, tests for power imbalance are murky. Law is best left to lawyers, but this article will provide added insight to R vs. Audet and other considerations relating to sexual exploitation pertaining to the coach-athlete relationship. Keep in mind this is not current, but does give a window into the legal landscape around the time of historic allegations against DST. http://albertalawreview.com/index.php/ALR/article/view/400/397

danewrunner wrote:

Mtn, the same power people that enabled the predator are still in charge and in charge of the investigation of themselves. They cut DST loose when they knew the jig was up.

Absolutely. I hope this comes up in the investigations. Or at least trackie for the sake of running in Canada.

Ernest wrote:

The same article (linked in message below) provides contemporary example of a 30-year old coach not being charged after sex with a 14 yo athlete.

Aside from changing laws, tests for power imbalance are murky.

Law is best left to lawyers, but this article will provide added insight to R vs. Audet and other considerations relating to sexual exploitation pertaining to the coach-athlete relationship.

Keep in mind this is not current, but does give a window into the legal landscape around the time of historic allegations against DST.

http://albertalawreview.com/index.php/ALR/article/view/400/397

Yes Ernest, in the article there is an example of a 30-year old coach not being charged after sex with a 14 yo athlete; however the circumstance was much different than the MB case.

The article states:

In Weston, the accused was the coach of the team, exercised control and domination over all the players on team. The players followed his directions so there is no doubt that he was in a position of authority and trust, but that position ended at the end of the season. At the time of the incident, the accused had no status as a coach, the complainant was not a student, nor was she on the team coached by the accused, therefore the accused had no special duty placed on him and was not in a position of trust or authority.

So in the case, Weston got off because the incident occurred after the season and the athlete was not on the team coached by the accused. In the MB case the assaults occurred during the season and she was directly coached by DST.

Specifics in the Globe and Mail article reinforces a position held by Tunt and others; a coach/athlete relationship and power imbalance existed between DST and an underage athlete with whom he had sexual contact. That would be a crime now - and may well have been a crime when it occurred. This much everyone seems to agree on. Prosecution may be frustrated by the 15-year delay in the victim coming forward. Witnesses and other evidence have been lost - and there might be a statue of limitation. Police recently stated there was no active investigation. Perhaps that will change. DST is guilty as sin in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, finding him guilty in a court of law now could be more challenging. No doubt there will be more on this in coming weeks and months.

Tunt wrote:

...In the MB case the assaults occurred during the season and she was directly coached by DST.