A Quebec Superior Court judge found former Montreal-area youth baseball coach Robert Litvack guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 13-year-old boy in September 2024. The verdict followed a trial focused on private coaching sessions and touching that Litvack had described as massage for sore muscles.
The coach worked individually with the teenager
Litvack had been hired to help the boy improve his baseball performance. Their one-on-one sessions created a position of trust in which a young athlete and his parents reasonably expected professional boundaries.
The case showed why informal coaching arrangements still require clear safeguarding rules.
The touching went beyond the stated injury
Evidence concerned massages of the boy’s legs and exposed buttocks. The teenager felt uncomfortable and eventually told his parents.
The Crown argued that Litvack was not a massage therapist and that touching the buttocks did not follow from the complaint of sore legs.
Parental consent was absent
Justice Josée Bélanger found that the parents had not authorized the massages and that Litvack had not told them what was occurring. Consent from a child cannot be understood without the legal protections that apply to age, authority and sexual purpose.
A coach’s description of conduct as therapeutic does not make it professionally authorized.
The defence denied sexual intent
Litvack testified that the massages were not a significant matter, and his lawyer argued there was insufficient evidence of a sexual purpose. The judge rejected that account after considering the nature, secrecy and circumstances of the touching.
The resulting verdict, not the earlier allegation, established criminal guilt at trial.
The child’s identity remained protected
Canadian courts restrict publication of information that could identify young complainants in sexual-offence cases. Reporting should avoid details about the team, family or schedule that could defeat that protection indirectly.
The public interest lies in accountability and safeguards, not identifying a child.
Disclosure can take time
Young people may struggle to name behaviour that occurs under the guise of training, treatment or mentorship. Fear of losing a valued activity or disappointing adults can delay a report.
Adults should respond calmly, believe the disclosure enough to ensure immediate safety, preserve evidence and seek qualified help.
Sports organizations need enforceable boundaries
Policies should limit isolated one-on-one situations, require parental knowledge of physical treatment and direct injuries to licensed health professionals. Background checks alone cannot monitor conduct after someone is hired.
Children need multiple, accessible ways to report discomfort without retaliation.
Sentencing was a separate stage
Litvack was due to return to court later in September to schedule sentencing. The court would consider the offences, harm, statutory principles and submissions from both sides.
A guilty verdict resolves liability; it does not predetermine every sentencing detail.
The case carried a wider safeguarding lesson
Coaches often build constructive, lasting relationships with young athletes. That trust makes strong boundaries more important, not less.
The judgment recognized the boy’s sexual integrity and rejected the normalization of concealed touching by an unqualified adult. Clubs and parents could honour that outcome by making safe practice routine: observable sessions, informed consent, professional treatment and a culture where a child’s discomfort is enough to stop.
