A Toronto private school teacher pleaded guilty Thursday to sex offences involving minors and making child pornography.

Because of a publication ban, the media can’t name the accused, the victims or the school he taught at.

The teacher, now 43 years old, taught physical education and music at the school in question from 2003 to 2016. He pled guilty to sexual interference, sexual exploitation and making child pornography.

According to an agreed statement of facts, he tutored the first complainant, who was 14 years old at the time, in math on an almost weekly basis at his home. During those sessions, which spanned from late June 2009 to early September 2009, he kissed the complainant on the mouth and fondled her hips, buttocks, and breasts over her clothes. He also sent sexualized text messages to the complainant.

“He was my teacher and supposed to protect me, not hurt me,” the victim said during the hearing Thursday.

She said the defendant “used his charm and charisma on an insecure young girl.”

“There were no boundaries with him, he blurred the lines of my understanding of what was appropriate and what healthy intimacy should look like,” she said. “My former teacher was so good at making me feel as if this sexual abuse was something I wanted and not what it is — violence.”

She said her family has spent thousands of dollars on therapy following the ordeal.

The second victim began receiving sexualized text messages from the teacher in September 2012, when she was 16 years old, according to the agreed statement of facts.

During the hearing, she said the defendant “groomed” her to “believe that the scariest thing to say to him was no.”

She was also convinced by the defendant to share sexualized pictures and videos of herself.

During their acquaintance, the defendant kissed the victim, digitally penetrated her and performed oral sex on her.

“I now never take my emotional or physical safety for granted. I feel extremely scared,” the complainant said during the hearing.

During his appearance in court, the teacher, a father of two, was emotional as he apologized to the victims and their families.

“Words cannot express the self-loathing and horror I’m confronted with daily,” he said. “I was selfish, unkind and oblivious to all the lives I would end up hurting.”

Defence lawyer Owen Wigderson argued the accused’s name should be included in the publication ban because it could reveal the identity of the complainants “given the history” between himself and the victims and “the detailed facts regarding the offences,” according to documents covering the ban.

“In certain instances to protect the identify of the victim, you’ll have to do more than just not publish their name,” Wigderson said in an interview.

Crown attorney Patricia Garcia agreed with the ban on the victims’ names and the school’s name but argued “effectively, the ‘cat was out of the bag’ regarding the accused’s name” as he’d been identified in media reports prior to the ban.

The ban would “have little effect regarding protection of the complainant’s identities going forward,” Garcia argued, according to documents surrounding the ban.

Under the Criminal Code, if sexual assault victims, or victims under 18 of any offence, ask for a publication ban, it is automatically granted.

“It’s extraordinary and unusual anytime there’s a publication ban on an accused’s name,” said Iain MacKinnon, a lawyer representing the Globe and Mail and CBC, who attended the hearing Thursday to contest the publication ban that was ordered in February.

A judge will decide later this month whether to hear arguments against the publication ban of the accused’s name.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“It’s critical for the public to know the identities of people charged with crimes,” MacKinnon said. “It’s even more critical for them to be aware of people convicted of crimes, especially something like a sexual assault case.”

This ban, he said, “completely undermines the open court system.”

Sentencing for the case will take place in July. The Crown has asked for a prison sentence of three years while the defence has asked for 16 months.