Francois Dulude

The accused brought a motion to quash counts 3 and 4 of the indictment, arguing they did not meet the requirements of section 574 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown had added these counts based on a witness's testimony at the preliminary inquiry regarding 'movements in the water' in a hot tub involving the accused and a complainant.

The court found that the testimony did not clearly reveal a sexual offence and, even if it did, such evidence of prior sexual activity required a Seaboyer application to be admissible.

The motion was granted and the counts were quashed.

The accused was tried on multiple counts including procuring a person under 18 for prostitution, living on the avails of prostitution of a minor, human trafficking of a person under 18, receiving a material benefit from trafficking, assault, and breaches of recognizance.

The Crown alleged that the accused lured a vulnerable 17‑year‑old complainant to another city, exercised control over her movements, used threats and violence, arranged hotel rooms and online advertisements for sexual services, and collected the proceeds from prostitution.

The defence argued the complainant voluntarily engaged in sex work and that the accused believed she was an adult.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence as credible and corroborated by documentary evidence and third‑party witnesses, rejecting the accused’s account.

The court found the accused exercised control and coercion over the complainant and knowingly exploited her as a minor.