2 total
The court revoked the accused's bail post-conviction on secondary and tertiary grounds due to ongoing breaches and recruitment activities.
The Crown applied to revoke the accused's bail on secondary and tertiary grounds following his conviction for 12 counts of human trafficking related offences.
The Crown relied on the accused's prior human trafficking conviction, historical and recent breaches of court orders, and new uncharged breaches involving recruitment of models and entertainers.
The defence argued the accused had complied with conditions and the new breach evidence was unreliable.
The court found the accused's detention warranted on both secondary grounds (substantial likelihood of re-offending given his history, nature of offences, and continued recruitment activities) and tertiary grounds (to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, considering the gravity of the offences, the strength of the case post-conviction, and the likelihood of a lengthy penitentiary sentence).
The court vacated the previous release order and ordered the accused's detention.
Human trafficking convictions entered after proof of coercive control and exploitation.
Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused of human trafficking, procuring, material benefit, assault, and advertising sexual services arising from an escort operation involving four complainants.
The evidence established recruitment of vulnerable women through online advertisements, a 100 percenter arrangement requiring surrender of all earnings, extensive control over housing, movement, finances, advertising, and access to necessities, and the use of deception, emotional manipulation, and in some cases violence.
Applying the jurisprudence on exploitation and the safety-based purpose requirement under ss. 279.01 and 279.04 of the Criminal Code, the court held that the accused's conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the complainants to believe their safety would be threatened if they stopped providing sexual services.
The court also found the accused materially benefited from the operation, procured the complainants to provide sexual services, and knowingly advertised those services through his agencies and associated phone numbers.
