Skip to content

Former North Van school custodian faces child porn charges

64-year-old Burnaby man has not worked in North Van schools since arrest last year
Lynnmour Elementary
North Vancouver's Lynnmour Elementary.

This story has been edited to make a correction.

Criminal charges have now been sworn against a former North Vancouver school district employee accused of possessing and distributing child pornography.

On Dec. 8, the school district issued a statement saying they had learned from the North Vancouver RCMP that one of their staff members had been arrested in a child pornography investigation.

“The person arrested in this case is no longer an employee of the school district,” the statement read at the time. “The employee did not work directly with students, and we would like to assure members of our community that schools are safe.”

Police had arrested Ernesto G. Bihis, a 64-year-old Burnaby man, at his home the day before, court records show. Police allege the crimes happened in Aug. 2020, in North Vancouver.

Bihis has since been charged with one count of possession of child pornography and one count of distribution of child pornography. He made his first appearance in North Vancouver provincial court on Feb. 24.

Both charges carry mandatory minimum prison sentences if he is found guilty.

Old posts on the district website refer to him as a custodian who worked Capilano Elementary and members of the Lynnmour Elementary parent advisory council acknowledged at the time of his arrest a “serious police incident related to a school employee.”

North Vancouver RCMP Sgt. Peter DeVries said he could not comment on the specifics of the case, but he said their investigators frequently work with the RCMP’s integrated Internet Child Exploitation unit.

Bihis is not in custody but he is under orders not to communicate with anyone under the age of 16 unless another adult is present with them.

He is due back in court in April.

An earlier version of this story stated Bihis worked at Highlands Elementary. That was not correct. Another person with the same surname did.