Lawyers make closing arguments at assault trial for former director at Saskatoon Christian school

Lawyers have made their closing arguments at the trial for a former director of a private Christian school in Saskatoon.

John Olubobokun, 64, is charged with nine counts of assault with a weapon for allegedly using a wooden paddle to hit students. The charges date back to when he was the director at Christian Centre Academy for four years starting in 2003.

The school was later renamed Legacy Christian Academy, then Valour Academy.

The trial in Saskatoon provincial court began in June 2024 with testimony from nine students and other Crown witnesses, then continued in March with defence witnesses.

On Friday, defence lawyer Ron Piché argued the testimony Olubobokun gave in his own defence, as well as the testimony of other defence witnesses, raises reasonable doubt.

"He was very clear that as director, he was not responsible for this type of conduct, this type of discipline," Piché said.

Piché questioned why the students didn't go to their parents or to police at the time of the alleged paddlings and why there are no photographs of bruising.

Judge Lisa Watson interjected to note that Piché's musings were "speculative," particularly given the insular nature of the community of the school and its associated church.

Piché also insinuated the former students have a financial interest in the outcome of the case, as there is a separate civil case — a proposed class-action lawsuit — against the school and connected church.

There was some discussion about Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which reads: "Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances."

In 2004, a Supreme Court of Canada ruling narrowed the scope of the section, including by saying an object cannot be used. It defined "reasonable" force as that which would have a "transitory and trifling" impact on the child.

Referencing the use of objects, Watson asked Piché if he had any case law where an instrument is used and it falls within the parameters of Section 43.

"No," Piché answered.

Crown prosecutor Sheryl Fillo argued that by virtue of the allegations, "with the implement being used," there is no defence under Section 43.

She said it was important for the court to hear about the "unique situation" of how the school was run and interconnected with the church, and the consequences students and their entire families would face for speaking out. The school and the church are in the same building.

"These were people that were at the church almost daily — at the school, at the church, at this building, almost daily," Fillo said.

In response to Piché's reference to the civil suit, Fillo pointed out how, during their testimonies, she asked each former student about when they decided to come forward to police, and that they all had reasons for doing so when they did.

The judge is scheduled to give her decision on July 21.