A. Wine

The defendants were found guilty of exercising control over the movements of a complainant to provide sexual services, receiving a material benefit, and advertising sexual services.

One defendant was also found guilty of trafficking MDMA.

The court found that while the defendants did not coerce the complainant into the sex trade, they exploited her serious drug dependency for financial gain.

The court sentenced A.M. to a global term of 24 months and M.P. to a global term of 18 months, ordered forfeiture of their cellphones as offence-related property, and granted pre-trial custody credit including for house arrest but not for curfews.

The defendants, charged with human trafficking and related offences, brought a pre-trial application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the complainant on her history in the sex trade.

The Crown alleged the defendants used drugs to coerce the complainant into sex work.

The court applied the two-stage s. 276 framework, ruling that evidence of the complainant's prior sex work and subsequent sex work was inadmissible as it engaged the twin myths.

However, the court permitted cross-examination regarding the complainant's initial meeting with a third party and her independent sex work during the time of the allegations, finding this evidence relevant to the issue of coercion and not barred by s. 276.

The applicant, facing charges related to a serious motor vehicle collision, brought a pre-trial Charter application alleging his s. 8 rights were violated when a police officer smelled his breath while he was receiving medical treatment in a hospital.

He sought to excise this observation and his admission of 'drinking' from the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant for his blood samples, and to exclude the blood evidence under s. 24(2).

The court dismissed the application, finding no s. 8 breach occurred in the hospital setting.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the impugned evidence were excised, the remaining facts in the ITO—including excessive speed, the nature of the collision, and the presence of intoxicants at the scene—provided ample grounds to issue the warrant.