Fraser Valley music teacher convicted of criminal harassment of teenage girls files defamation lawsuits against witnesses, victim's mother, media
Dozens of people in local music community independently tell stories about Bevin van Liempt’s behaviour; he says it’s a giant conspiracy
To meet him, it’s easy to think Fraser Valley music teacher Bevin van Liempt is intelligent, articulate, polite.
That’s why it’s particularly perplexing to see him continue to vex the criminal justice system by delaying his own sentencing proceedings for his convictions in February for two counts of criminal harassment of two different female teenage music students.
There are the four or five Charter challenges he's filed that need to be heard in advance of his sentencing. Now Van Liempt has filed two lawsuits naming approximately 20 defendants in total who he says are conspiring with one another to destroy his life. Those defendants include witnesses from his trial, court watchers who have seen his behaviour, even the media (me) reporting on it, and most shockingly of all, the mother of one of his victims.
Van Liempt pleaded guilty mid-trial in February 2025 to the criminal harassment of two different female students for asking them on dates then sending relentless messages despite unequivocal orders to stop. For example, he continued to send harassing emails to one victim after her final 161-word email to him beginning with:
““Bevin, I am not interested in you.
“You have created a drunken, insane delusion in your mind….
And ending with:
“I hope you feel every bit the disgusting pervert you are. I hope the truth about you gets out and mothers know to keep their daughters far away from scum like you. You aren't worth the shit on the bottom of my work boots.
“Go to hell where you belong, ”
In and out of jail
Van Liempt has been released on bail at least four times since January by my count, three of those times later arrested for breaching, and in some, criminally charged with violating conditions of his release.
In one case he was accused of sharing names protected under a publication ban with another news outlet. Once it was for contacting a friend of one of his victims despite being banned from using social media. And once for posting a 40-minute selfie video discussing the case in detail in violation of court orders.
His sentencing hearing was delayed multiple times, all by him, and then on Oct. 20, 2025, was delayed again when Judge Paul Sandhu addressed the fact that van Liempt filed multiple Charter applications that need to be dealt with before sentencing can be considered.
Keep in mind by six months ago he had likely already served more time in pre-trial custody than anyone would receive as a sentence for two counts of non-violent criminal harassment. After a summer behind bars because of a breach in June, he has now served 175 actual days at the Surrey Pretrial Centre, which he would be credited for 263 days at the normal credit of 1.5-to-one.
Among the applications filed include that his rights were violated under the Charter, sections 2 (which deals with freedom of expression), 7 (life, liberty, security of the person), 9 (not to be arbitrarily detained), and 15 (equal protection without discrimination). Anecdotally, he told the court on Oct. 20 that one application will argue the criminal code section 264 covering criminal harassment is itself a violation of section 2(b) of the Charter, which covers freedom of expression. He has not yet made that argument in court.
Because he had been in custody from June 5 after contacting a third girl up until the hearing on Oct. 20, and because the Charter applications will take considerable amount of court time, Judge Sandhu suggested van Liempt might want to consider applying for bail again so they could be dealt with while he is out of custody. This was exceedingly generous of Judge Sandhu who didn’t have to give the self-represented offender advice (in fact he shouldn’t), but it was clearly wise given the circumstances and is what took place that afternoon.
Judge Sandhu granted him bail to again live at the house of his mother, Paula DeWit, where the index offences and the breaches occurred. Bail was a further $750 on top of sureties previously paid. His conditions include not working or volunteering with anyone under the age of 18 and a total ban from using social media. He argued against a ban on alcohol, and was permitted to be intoxicated at home but not in public and not while being on a computer or smartphone.
Van Liempt was back in court on Oct. 27 to face trial for the charge that he violated release conditions in June by contacting the third girl, one of his victim’s friends. This charge was dropped by Crown counsel James Barbour in exchange for van Liempt agreeing to a two-year peace bond that forbids him from contacting this young woman. He was ordered to have no contact with her while acknowledging her fear and the objective basis for that fear.
Van Liempt is barred from going to any place where she lives, works, attends school, worships, or happens to be, and he is specifically banned from attending Clearbrook Mennonite Church or Gateway Community Church in Abbotsford.
Van Liempt is self-represented and has taken numerous unusual legal steps along the way, which was no different on Oct. 27. He asked the court to issue a publication ban on the name of the young woman he is forbidden from contacting. He claimed it was to protect her. This was rejected, but I am still not naming her. There is no newsworthy reason to do so.
“I'm worried for Miss R. that she will be identified in a sensationalized way that will be harmful to her,” van Liempt said, referring to this website specifically. “I have no confidence that the quasi-reporting that is occurring, will have the judgment required to protect her interests.”
Both Barbour the prosecutor and Judge Sandhu pointed out that publication bans are applied for at the start of proceedings not the end, and that discretionary bans are applied for by witnesses, victims, or the prosecution, not defence.
“I can advise for what it's worth, that Miss R. was aware that this was a public proceeding and it required trial,” Barbour said. “She was prepared to go through with that.”
Judge Sandhu agreed there was no compelling reason to issue a discretionary ban that the witness didn’t even ask for. It was also irrelevant, Barber pointed out, because the charge was dropped that day in court so the case is resolved, and the publication ban would not apply to the peace bond.
The Oprah Winfrey of lawsuits
In between the bail hearing on Oct. 20 and the peace bond court appearance on Oct. 27, van Liempt sent notices of civil claim (lawsuits) he has filed against several people, including witnesses, the victim's mother, and yours truly.
In an email to myself and two members of the music community who have watched the proceedings for almost a year (in which he also cc’d Crown counsel and his former defence lawyer), van Liempt attached PDF copies of the filed lawsuits.
One is against Bakerview Music Academy (BMA), its program director Heidi Epp, two other employees of the school, and a dozen or so others, mostly unnamed, who sat or sit on the BMA board of directors. One of those board members van Liempt says is a close associate of his victim in the first criminal harassment case. He was fired from his job at BMA after the harassment came to light, for which he is suing for defamation, intimidation, abuse of process, and institutional negligence “which was predicated on discriminatory stereotypes and resulted in the complete and irreparable destruction of the plaintiff's career, reputation, and well-being.”
He claims the responses of all involved were not legitimate concerns but were a personal animus against him based on “moral panic” because of the age differences between he and his victims. Van Liempt was in his 30s when he began asking his 17-year-old music students out on dates followed by his criminal harassment of the girls when he was rebuffed by them and/or their mothers.
The second lawsuit is against myself; Jonathan Leung a member of the music community described as a former acquaintance of van Liempt; Maria Brisebois, mother of one of the defendants in the BMA case; and a person named only as “Z,” the mother of his second victim.
This lawsuit van Liempt says is in response to a “deliberate and conspiratorial campaign of extrajudicial punishment” where the four named supposedly worked together to “fabricate and disseminate a false public narrative that portrayed [van Liempt] as a dangerous sexual predator.”
The “why” of the conspiracies to bring van Liempt down are not addressed in the lawsuits, nor are “how” these two separate groups of people, many of whom have never met one another, managed to convince RCMP officers to investigate and recommend charges, how they convinced the B.C. Prosecution Service to approve charges along with multiple provincial court judges to agree to revoke his bail repeatedly after he frequently disobeyed court orders.
The vast majority of those named in the lawsuits have not yet been properly legally served, although one may have been. Notices of civil claim cannot be served via email. Van Liempt has no-contact orders for some of the people named in the lawsuits so it’s unclear how he can legally serve those people without violating those court orders and without hiring process servers.
Meanwhile, Judge Sandhu is scheduled to hear van Liempt's Charter applications Jan. 28 and Jan. 29, 2026 in advance of the sentencing hearing, which is unlikely to take place before spring.
If he is unable to avoid violating release conditions yet again, it will take a considerably adept argument to keep him from having his bail revoked yet again.
Links to some previous stories on this case
-30-
Want to support independent journalism?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber or make a one-time donation so I can continue this work.
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social