Machiavellian or Delusional? Called a ‘disgusting pervert’ by one victim, music teacher finally sentenced for unrepentant criminal harassment still addled by conspiracy theories

Bevin van Liempt, 34, refuses to recognize serious harms caused, promises to persist with appeals, lawsuits, social media campaign

March 16, 2026

Former Chilliwack Symphony Orchestra president Bevin van Liempt is a knight in shining armour who lavishes young girls with praise and attention prompting their affection, even love for him, as he swoops in to rescue vulnerable teenagers from controlling parents.

At least that’s what he thinks of himself.

He also claims claims to be an expert in Renaissance music, an amateur polymath who speaks seven languages (two of them dead), he is a genius with an IQ of at least 140, and, I promise I'm not making this up, he gave up a Catholic knighthood to pursue his budding relationship with his first victim, EG.

Van Liempt is in reality a narcissistic 34-year-old mama’s boy with a saviour complex so divorced from reality, so devoid of empathy and self-reflection that he tormented (at least) two 17-year-old girls with unwanted romantic advances long after being fired from his job for doing so, long after being told “leave me alone” by one and “fuck off” by another.

Van Liempt was finally sentenced for two counts of criminal harassment in Abbotsford provincial court last Thursday (March 12, 2026) by Judge Paul Sandhu in a case that has been both vexing and unending, fascinating and disgusting.

While summing up this case means looking at a period starting in April 2023 ending in March 2026, the behaviour ranging from aberrant to abhorrent that so many people witnessed in the classical music community started long before that time period. And the vindictive retribution will echo for many more months and years to come.

EG had been scared and creeped out by van Liempt's increasingly inappropriate emails for some time, leading up to April 2023. The 17-year-old had wondered if it was odd that his choral teacher at Bakerview wanted to give her private viola lessons even though van Liempt doesn't know how to play the viola. He had also promised EG that he could get her into any university music program by picking up the phone with his personal recommendation.

It's hard to know if this was Machiavellianism or personal delusion, but both of these were bizarre things to tell a 17-year-old girl amid a teacher-student relationship at a music school. He had blatantly violated his position of authority over this girl several times even if EG was interested in this romantic courting. And she absolutely was not.

But it was the “hear you moan” text that really freaked out EG and upped the ante. Once her mother got involved, EG's mother went to Bakerview where van Liempt worked. Program director Heidi Epp promptly fired him.

Any normal adult would have been humiliated and ashamed about losing a job for such childish, lecherous behaviour. Van Liempt, however, was emboldened regarding EG and enraged at all the adults. He messaged EG to tell her that he was now free from what was holding him back. Now they could be together. She didn’t have to worry or feel guilty. With his unshakeable delusion intact, he was set to continue.

Van Liempt didn't respect the obvious if polite request of EG to stop contacting her. Later in 2023 and into 2024, now that she was 18, she was terrified he would show up somewhere, at her school, at music practice, anywhere. He continued to torment her and instil that fear firmly enough that she went to the Abbotsford Police Department who investigated, and he was charged with one count of criminal harassment.

A trial began in November 2024, During the break in proceedings over Christmas, likely knowing he would go to jail again for violating a no-contact order if he kept emailing EG, he settled on a new target, a Chilliwack member of his mother's choir, a girl that fit his target demographic nicely.

He started emailing 17-year-old AY over the holidays heaping praise upon her, complimenting her ability and her looks, eventually asking her out to dinner. Of course, as he himself reiterated in court as a defence of his actions, he wasn't pursuing these girls to date them as minors, he was preparing them for when they were 18 and then they would go out with him, whether they liked it or not.

Where EG had showed van Liempt's increasingly predatory emails to a teacher at her high school leading to the music school where van Liempt taught, culminating in the polite “leave me alone now” email, AY was exponentially more unequivocal.

In an email under the subject heading “Fuck off,” AY was as blatant and harsh as a teenager can be, an email even her mother later said was much more forceful than anything she would ever say.

But van Liempt didn't take the hint. He wouldn't stop, maybe couldn't stop himself, addicted to the delusion that not only did he desperately seek out 17-year-old girls to be romantically involved with once they turned 18, if he was rejected via text or email, that wasn't really the girls themselves. Their phones had been hacked or co-opted by controlling parents or they had been manipulated by the adults around them into daring to question these blossoming May-to-December romances.

It never occurred to van Liempt that he actually might be seen by teenage girls as a “repulsive, pathetic freak” with a “drunken, insane delusion.” Among all the adults involved in the Bevin van Liempt debacle, from victims' family members to teachers to lawyers to police to judges to third-party observers, it's telling that the most honest and accurate assessment of the situation came from the youngest of them all, a 17-year-old victim.

2025: Not a good year

Van Liempt did not heed the demand by AY in her forceful Dec. 28, 2024 email to “fuck off” and “go to hell” as any normal self-respecting man with any sense of dignity would do. No, as with after EG's rejection of his advances, he came back at AY with more, including with similar sexual overtones, in one email saying “I asked you to dinner. Not to sit on my face.”

A blatant violation of his bail release conditions for the EG criminal harassment case that was mid-trial, van Liempt was again arrested for a breach. This time the Chilliwack RCMP investigated, passed on the file to Crown counsel, and he was charged with a second count of criminal harassment of AY, an offence date listed as Jan. 5, 2025.

Over the next 12 months, van Liempt showed his disdain for the criminal justice system, his disrespect for the courts, unapologetically breaching over and over and over, all the while claiming victim status, something he maintains to this day in March 2026. By my count, he spent 247 out of 365 days in 2025 at the Surrey Pretrial Centre:
• Jan. 6 - Arrested in the middle of his trial for criminal harassment of EG for his criminal harassment of AY
• Feb. 26 - Released on bail to live with his mother, Paula De Wit
• March 1 - Arrested for posting a 40-minute selfie video discussing elements of the case protected by publication ban. 
• March 13 - Released on bail to live with his mother.
• June 5 - Arrested for contacting a third female via social media and for sharing names of the first two with a reporter (not me, although he had shared most of the evidence with me already), both violations of his release conditions.
• Oct. 20 - Released on bail to live with his mother.
• Oct. 31 - Arrested for contacting Chilliwack victim AY via social media on Oct. 29
• Dec. 17 - Released on bail to live with his mother.

That first release in 2025 on Feb. 26 is because that was also the day that he abruptly pleaded guilty to both counts of criminal harassment in the middle of EG testifying on the stand. Over the subsequent months he changed his mind why he pleaded guilty ranging from, he heard EG speak about him and that it was true what she said. Then there is today in 2026 when he claims the court duped him and he only pleaded guilty because it meant he would be released and given a conditional discharge. This is nonsense, of course. Or, as Crown counsel Jim Barbour put it, “unrealistic and concocted.”

After his summer behind bars, instead of continuing with the sentencing hearing, at which he would have received no more time behind bars given what he had already served, instead he applied to revoke his guilty pleas. Judge Paul Sandhu rejected the application because van Liempt was not misinformed about the consequences of his plea, a crucial first test to revoke guilty pleas.

He was released on bail on Oct. 20, again to live with his mother Paula De Wit where he committed all the index offences and numerous breaches. He lasted 11 days before re-arrest for contacting AY, and then on Dec. 17, 2025, he was released on bail for the last time.

In late January 2026, in advance of the sentencing hearing in front of Judge Sandhu, finally, van Liempt came forward with five (or six?) foolish Charter applications in a hail Mary attempt to get his situation reversed, his conviction overturned, something.

Among them, van Liempt tried to argue that section 264 of the criminal code that addresses criminal harassment is itself a violation of his Charter rights to freedom of expression; he claimed his Section 7 Charter rights (life, liberty, security of the person) were violated because he didn't get to see all his victim's texts/emails; he claimed his Charter rights were violated for contacting people he was forbidden from contacting; he claimed his time in custody for all his breaches of conditions amounted to "oppressive state conduct"; he asked for a summary conviction based on nothing relevant; and he tried to appeal the case to the very judge that convicted him, which is not how appeals work.

After that, the sentencing hearing for the two convictions was finally held, on Jan. 29, 2026, 11 months after he pleaded guilty.

“The complainants have been enduring ongoing torment with what the Crown submits is vexatious litigation with respect to all these matters,” prosecutor James Barbour told the court. “The complainant in this matter, as you have seen in their victim impact statements, are essentially tormented and their life is turned upside down as a result of the actions of Mr. van Liempt toward them.”

Barbour suggested a fit sentence would be three months jail for each count of criminal harassment to be served consecutively (less than actual time he has served) followed by two to three years of probation. Van Liempt argued he should be granted a conditional discharge.

Finally, on March 12, 2026, Judge Sandhu read his sentencing decision, which was 60 days for the EG conviction, as a first offence, then 90 days for AY in part because of the inherent abuse given that she was a minor. Because of his lengthy time in custody in 2025 from breaches before sentencing, the sentence amounts to time served. He was also given three years probation, which started immediately.

In this decision, Judge Sandhu pointed to van Liempt's inability or refusal to recognize his criminal and damaging behaviour, noting that van Liempt claims what he did was not criminal harassment but amounted to “minor boundary infractions.”

“Though the pre-sentence report author did not see the psychological report, he also noted that Mr. van Liempt ‘expressed difficulty in understanding how his behaviours and what he categorizes as reassuring texts can be seen as either criminal harassment or sexual in nature,’” Judge Sandhu said.

Reading further from the pre-sentence report, Sandhu noted: “He portrayed surprise that others found his approach and communication to be inappropriate. Mr. van Liempt takes no responsibility for his actions and believes he, along with EG and AY, are being victimized by people who have no understanding of him or his true intentions.”

As for the abuse of authority as an aggravating sentencing factor, van Liempt's mental gymnastics got it backwards. He says both his job loss along with some fantastical claim that he missed out on some sort of Catholic “knighthood” to be with EG were sacrifices on his part rather than examples of his abuse. He also claimed that when AY responded with the “fuck off” email, he went out of his way to permit her to decide to date him or not and if she decided not to, there would be no repercussions. This van Liempt somehow sees as him being heroic and reassuring rather than what it really was: abusive and narcissistic.

“Mr. van Liempt's argument on this aggravating factor betrayed an apparent inability to acknowledge the circumstances of his offending through the perspective of either EG or AY. The submissions were not based on the victims' views, but on a perspective that supplanted their lived experience for his own version of how their world ought to be.”

Further examples of his delusion, and his potential danger, addressed by Judge Sandhu included:

• “He was pretty sure he was the only person looking out for EG.”
• “The probation officer who authored the pre-sentence report noted that Mr. van Liempt maintained the belief that at least one of the current victims would be waiting for him at the conclusion of the court matters and after sentencing.”
• “Following psychological testing, Mr. Van Liempt met the criteria for alcohol-use disorder and provisionally diagnosed with substance-induced depressive disorder. He also presented with cluster B personality traits.”
• “Utilizing the stalking assessment and management tool… the forensic report concluded that without any management plans in place, Mr. van Liempt ‘likely poses a relatively high risk for stalking that is imminent with a low to moderate severity, psychological versus general harm.’”

As for mitigating factors, van Liempt suggested his loss of employment and a supposed “public campaign” against him “has destroyed his life,” and should mitigate sentencing. 

On the former, Judge Sandhu said loss of a job can be a mitigating factor, but in this case he wasn't fired for his criminal behaviour. He was fired because of his grooming behaviour when EG was 17, which led to him contacting her as an 18-year-old and the criminal behaviour.

“In this case, his employment provided a vehicle for his offending.”

On the public campaign and media coverage, that is a reference to this website, Something Worth Reading, and the numerous stories on this case prompted by obvious public interest to start, fair comment as it went along, then fuelled by more and more unusual twists and turns, increasing public interest, including a groundswell of support to uncover van Liempt's behaviour like nothing I've ever seen before. In 20 years of reporting in Chilliwack, 15 of those with much focus on the courts, I've never been contacted by so many people offering insights, background, context, praise, thanks, and expressing relief that finally someone is letting the community know about this behaviour.

Judge Sandhu said that while van Liempt referred to the media coverage in court, “no evidence was called to address the scope of such coverage or whether it was significant and beyond the inevitable or foreseeable consequences of his offending.”

The judge also pointed out the obvious public interest in stories about a music teacher being charged with criminal harassment of students.

“He committed these offences having been a music teacher in a private music academy in a relatively small community. Media coverage in such circumstances was inevitable and not a fact that was disputed by the Crown. I also recognize that in cases such as this it may be expected that members of the public or within the small music community will form divergent and strongly held views.”

Finally, it’s over... but not  

If anyone who has followed any bit of this histrionic legal theatre over the last 14 months thinks it’s finally time for van Liempt to be an adult, recognize the fear, anxiety, and torment he causes teenage girls, the life-altering harm he has caused to their families and other third parties, I’m here to tell you, not by a long shot. 

With seemingly endless funds and chauffeured around by his devoted mother, Bevin van Liempt is just getting started.

A Facebook post from van Liempt soon after sentencing: “It’s emails. In one case, emails that the victim did not even read. You read that right. Nine unread emails. No exaggeration.”

That’s what he believes the criminal charges were about, what the last three years of behaviour amount to, only a portion of which is outlined above.

“I’ll be appealing, and in all likelihood I’m gonna take a swing at the law itself via constitutional challenge,” a reference to his “manifestly frivolous” attempt in court in January to argue that the criminal harassment provision in the criminal code is a violation of his Charter-protected right to free expression. 

Good luck. And good luck bridging the hypocrisy canyon by claiming emails relentlessly pursuing teenage girls are a violation of his free expression, yet accurate reporting on criminal proceedings is not.

He has filed two lawsuits, one against Heidi Epp and Bakerview and close to 20 people in total connected to the school, another against AY's mother, the mother of a former colleague who has attended court, another member of the music community who has watched the proceedings, and yours truly. This is a flagrant case of what is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), and a hearing to have it tossed out under B.C.'s relatively new (2019) anti-SLAPP legislation known as the Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA) has been filed but, surprise, van Liempt is stalling with every tool he can. It might be heard in May, I'll be shocked if it is.

Quite clearly his lawsuits against the school that fired him, the mothers of his victims, various third parties and yours truly are simply out of a pathological, unapologetic, obsessive need for retribution. There is no possible merit, this is about shutting people up in my case and vengeance for most of the others. During one element of his court nonsense, Crown counsel Jim Barbour made a point specific to the criminal proceeding but one that is apt as a way of explaining what van Liempt continues to do with promised appeals and lawsuits.

“The non-closure of the incident is basically, Mr. van Liempt saying ‘I’m going to make you pay in another way for what you’ve done to me.’”

Bevin van Liempt has made a great many people pay with wasted time, money, and mental torment. But most importantly, he wants to make two 17-year-old girls who are now young women, and anyone who supports them, to pay for rejecting his romantic advances.

“I think I have been way too nice,” van Liempt posted on Facebook soon after his sentencing. 

An admission, maybe a threat, that despite all of this, his harassment is just getting started.

-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