Ellison trial raises more questions than answers

Quest case serves up salacious melodrama, but fails to address the accountability of authorities who kept quiet

The first week of an expected three-week Provincial Court trial of former teacher Tom Ellison for sex offences three decades old raised more questions than the proceedings promise to answer.

The tall, chisel-featured 63-year-old has pleaded not guilty to charges involving 12 former students between 1972 and 1983 when he ran the tony Prince of Wales high-school Quest survival-skill program.

This is salacious melodrama without question — a good-looking, charismatic man who was between 29 and 40 when the alleged offences occurred with the teens 14 and up — nubile daughters of the elite who were in his thrall.

Still, outside of these allegations, the white-haired, self-employed adventure tour guide, with a supportive wife and a nine-year-old daughter, apparently has lived a decent, hard-working life.

Ellison, who left teaching after the program was replaced in 1987 with a similar but more academically focused course, admits to most of the alleged activity.

His lawyer Bill Smart insists, however, that in its time the goat-like behaviour wasn’t a crime.

He may be right.

Ellison is being prosecuted under Criminal Code provisions that have been substantially revised since the time of the alleged offences. As well as changes to the gross indecency provisions, there was no law at the time — as there is today — prohibiting sex between a person in a position of authority and someone under 18 even if there was consent.

It was unethical and unprofessional, but not necessarily criminal.

There are questions, too, in this case around consent and the legislation in that area.

Our sex laws have changed dramatically over the last quarter-century, reflecting the revolution in mores.

But not only have the laws changed, the Constitution has arrived and brought with it new legal standards and benchmarks for legislation.

In part, the Criminal Code was changed in 1988 to eliminate the kind of vague, ambiguous language that wouldn’t pass muster under the new constitutional regime.

Parliament created new offences — “sexual interference,” “sexual exploitation,” and “invitation to sexual touching” that prohibit adults from engaging in virtually any sexual contact with either boys or girls under the age of 14, irrespective of consent.

It also became illegal for an adult in a position of trust or authority to have any sexual contact with a boy or a girl in their charge over 14 but under 18. Seduction offences were also erased.

Ellison’s alleged offences all predate the Constitution and the amended Criminal Code, so which laws should apply? There are very live legal questions at the heart of this prosecution.

There are other issues, too.

The genesis of this case is connections made among women and a complaint to police more than 12 years ago. While it might be perversely fitting that Ellison, who knew he was under investigation, lived for more than a decade anxiously awaiting the proverbial knock-at-the-door, what were the cops doing? Why did it take a decade to charge Ellison? And then — why keep the charges a secret?

This case also speaks of educators and administrators turning a blind eye to obvious shenanigans and widespread reports of questionable conduct at the time.

What of the handful of other teachers identified as having engaged in the same kind of behaviour — will we see them charged? Why were they allowed to continue teaching if these reports were made back in the early 1990s? I’d like to hear from those who worked with Ellison — school board officials who knew of these goings-on. I’d like to hear why the cops failed to conclude an investigation for 12 years.

And I’d really like to know why the charges remained secret for two years until the whole affair was exposed by The Sun’s Janet Steffenhagen, Lori Culbert and Neal Hall.

I’m troubled that this appears to be one more sex-crimes investigation that went off the rails at the Vancouver police department during the mid- and late-1990s.

I think this was kept quiet in part because everyone hoped Ellison would cop a plea.

The authorities kept their fingers crossed that rather than be dragged through this embarrassment, Ellison would make a deal and all this would be handled quietly, with a single appearance — and little attention. Too bad.

Ellison was a sexual predator and a complete disgrace to the teaching profession, according to what we’ve heard so far.

His admitted actions would be criminal today — they may yet be found so by Judge Mark Takahashi.

The evidence already, though, suggests that there are others who should be held to account for what happened — perhaps others deserving of criminal charges.

Unquestionably, there should be repercussions for those who allowed what went on in the Quest program to occur and to continue for so long. The handling of these women’s allegations and the conduct of the investigation and prosecution also need to be more fully explained.

I don’t think this trial will provide those answers — it is focused on Ellison’s shameful behaviour. Too bad. We need answers to the other questions too.

Previous entry: It’s dangerous to rely on faith as a magic elixir
Next entry: Convicted bigamist appeals to U.S. Supreme Court

More articles about Quest program (Vancouver)