Georgios Aristos

H.A.Q., a young person with a substantial youth record, pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences including discharge firearm and possession of cocaine for trafficking.

The Crown applied to have H.A.Q. sentenced as an adult, seeking a custodial term in the 6-7-year range.

The defence resisted, arguing for a significant youth sentence.

The court applied the two-pronged test under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to determine if an adult sentence was warranted, assessing diminished moral blameworthiness and sufficient accountability.

The court found the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was rebutted due to the young person's maturity, planning, and profit-driven criminality.

However, the court ultimately denied the Crown's application, concluding that a maximum youth sentence of 36 months custody and supervision, considering 20 months of presentence custody, would be of sufficient length to hold the young person accountable, aligning with the lower end of the adult sentencing range for similar offences.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit three defendants to stand trial on charges of human trafficking and prostitution-related offences.

The court examined the essential elements of trafficking in persons under sections 279.01-279.04 of the Criminal Code and prostitution-related offences under sections 286.1-286.5.

The decision provides comprehensive analysis of the statutory framework, including the definition of exploitation, the requirement for exploitative purpose, and the distinction between trafficking and prostitution offences.

The court applied the legal test for committal at a preliminary inquiry.

At a preliminary inquiry, the court determined whether three accused should be committed to stand trial on charges of human trafficking, prostitution-related offences, assault, and uttering threats.

The complainant testified that she engaged in sex work from December 2014 to April 2015 under the control of the three accused.

The court analyzed the essential elements of trafficking in persons under section 279.01 of the Criminal Code and prostitution-related offences under sections 286.1 to 286.3.

The court committed all three accused to stand trial on various counts, finding sufficient evidence of control, direction, and influence over the complainant's movements and earnings for exploitative purposes.

The court discharged certain counts where insufficient evidence existed.