Warning: This story contains descriptions of alleged sexual assaults
THUNDER BAY — The three complainants alleging they were subjected to unauthorized breast examinations by a former Canadian Forces medical technician during the recruitment process all denied they came forward with the allegations to receive financial compensation from the military.
The jury heard testimony from the three complainants on day two of the trial for James Wilks in a Thunder Bay courtroom.
On Monday, Wilks pleaded not guilty to three counts of sexual assault, three counts of breach of trust, and one count of sexual exploitation.
The allegations date back to between 2005 and 2008 while Wilks, who was the rank of petty officer second class, was stationed in Thunder Bay and London, Ont. as a medical assistant and later a medical technician with the Canadian Forces.
The identity of the complainants is protected by a publication ban.
According to the testimony of the first complainant, who was under the age of 18 at the time, she decided to join the military and underwent a medical examination by Wilks in Thunder Bay as part of the recruitment process.
During the medical, the complainant said Wilks performed a breast examination on her.
“I will never forget that look, or that touch,” she said.
The complainant added that she was never given an explanation for why the examination was performed and that she felt naive for allowing it.
“My understanding was he was the equivalent of a doctor who I could trust,” she said. “It did seem like a strange request. But I didn’t second question a person in authority. I was doing what I needed to do to secure my spot in the Canadian Armed Forces.”
A second complainant also testified to being examined by Wilks during enrollment with the Canadian Forces, which included him performing a breast examination.
“The examine itself was a bit bizarre in my head, because I didn’t understand why I would need a breast examine to join the military or my spine checked,” she said. “Reflexes and breathing I understand. I felt very uncomfortable, but this was part of the process so I went with it.”
The complainant also testified to believing Wilks was a doctor but learned later that he was a physician’s assistant at the time.
The third complainant testified that during her enrollment medical, Wilks offered her a breast examination.
“He said it wasn’t required but that it was highly recommended,” she said. “I was not fully aware of everything that goes on in the military and thought I wouldn’t always have a female practitioner. So he conducted the breast examination. He was very professional. I didn’t feel uncomfortable at any time.”
According to the complainant, after she became aware of media coverage involving other allegations against Wilks, she obtained her enrollment medical examination record prepared by Wilks and noticed that it stated no breast examination was performed.
“That was concerning because I remember this exam -- it was the first time I ever had a male medical professional do a breast examination,” she said. “The fact that it says not examined was very contradictory to my experience.
“Once I realized what happened after reviewing the paper, it was very disconcerting because it was very much a breach of trust and privilege that someone could do that. That has been almost harder to deal with.”
All three complainants testified to no one else being present in the room during the examinations and no chaperone or escort was offered or not recalling if that offer was made.
During cross-examination, defence counsel David Hodson suggested to each complainant that the exams never took place, which they all denied.
Hodson also questioned the complainants regarding financial compensation offered to members of the Canadian Forces as part of Operation Honour, which was launched to address issues of discrimination, harassment, and sexual misconduct in the military.
The first complainant said she was told she could be entitled to financial compensation for her experience and that she should put in an application.
“You were aware you could receive some kind of financial compensation for coming forward?” Hodson asked.
“Some sort of closure,” the complainant replied, saying previously: “It wasn’t about the money when they came down. It was about justice.”
Hodson asked the second complainant about seeking financial compensation as the reason for coming forward with the allegations, which he said was done one month before one of the cut-off deadlines for submitting an application.
“This was never about getting paid,” the complainant said.
The third complainant testified to submitting an application for financial compensation, which she said was denied, but added her coming forward was not because she became aware that money was available.
“No, that was not the reason for my application,” she said. “The reason for my application was based on my encounter with Mr. Wilks, I was in-line with the parameters of the compensation package. I put in my application but it was denied because it happened prior to my time in the actual military.”
All three complainants were also asked by Crown attorney Rob Kozak when they became aware of media coverage involving other allegations against Wilks.
In 2011, Wilks was convicted of sexual assault and four counts of breach of trust. He was sentenced to 11 months in custody.
Wilks was sentenced to another 30 months in custody after being found guilty of 10 counts of sexual assault and 15 counts of breach of trust.
In 2017, a five-member court martial panel in Gatineau, Que. found Wilks guilty of one count of sexual assault and three counts of breach of trust.
The first complainant said she became aware of the media coverage involving Wilks six years ago and described it as a very hard time for her. After encouragement from her therapist she decided to come forward.
The second complainant said she made the report against Wilks a few years after seeing his name in the media.
“Once I became aware of that name, I needed to report it because I had feelings during my exams that something was off,” the complainant said. “I didn’t feel right.”
The jury will hear closing submissions on Thursday, to be followed by the final charge by Justice John Fregeau before beginning deliberations.