David Michael Barrison

Two young persons were charged with multiple offences related to the trafficking and exploitation of a 14-year-old girl for prostitution in Toronto over a ten-day period in September and October 2013.

The charges included procuring a minor to become a prostitute, attempting to procure a minor to become a prostitute, failing to comply with youth court orders, obstructing police, living on the avails of prostitution of a minor, exercising control over a minor for exploitation, intimidating a minor to perform acts of prostitution, and participating in the activity of a criminal organization.

The court found that the defendants organized and facilitated a crude but deliberate criminal enterprise involving the recruitment, transportation, and exploitation of underage girls for sexual services.

The victim was recruited through peer networks, transported to Toronto, housed in hotels, advertised online, and forced to engage in multiple sexual transactions while receiving no compensation.

The court convicted on most counts but dismissed counts relating to counselling and certain control offences due to insufficient evidence on those specific elements.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The incident occurred when the defendant, having consumed 10-12 drinks, drove at excessive speed through a residential area and collided with trees and a light post, injuring his passenger.

The defendant fled the scene and fabricated a false story to police.

The Crown sought 8-12 months incarceration; the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, considering the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and significant cognitive impairments resulting from a prior brain injury, while balancing denunciation and deterrence objectives.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence charges involving two complainants who were his step-daughters.

The court reviewed the governing principles on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the W.(D.) framework, delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases, the assessment of evidence concerning childhood events, and the distinction between sincerity and reliability.

Although the court found the complainants and supporting witnesses sincere, it concluded that extensive inconsistencies, the frailties of memory concerning distant events, and collective post-disclosure discussions rendered the evidence unreliable.

Applying the second branch of W.(D.), the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude a police interview statement on the basis that his s. 10(b) right to counsel was breached.

Although the accused had spoken with duty counsel after arrest, he later expressed confusion about whether duty counsel was a lawyer and repeatedly requested to speak with a lawyer during a subsequent police interview.

The police declined to facilitate further consultation because the accused could not name a specific lawyer.

The court held that the detainee’s comments demonstrated a reason to question his understanding of the right to counsel under the framework established in R. v. Sinclair.

Applying the exclusion analysis from R. v. Grant, the court found the Charter breach serious and concluded that admitting the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.