Human trafficking

The offender pleaded guilty to four offences: exercising control over a person for sexual services, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, advertising sexual services, and sexual assault.

The offender exploited a vulnerable 22-year-old woman by forcing her into sex work, taking a percentage of her earnings, and sexually assaulting her.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years, reduced to one year net after crediting 1,074 days of pre-sentence custody at a 1.5:1 ratio and applying a one-year reduction for egregious remand conditions.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including DNA collection, lifetime weapons prohibition, non-communication order, 20-year SOIRA registration, and forfeiture order.

The accused was sentenced following convictions on multiple counts including human trafficking and sexual assault.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2,155 days (5.9 years) less pre-sentence custody of 232.5 days, resulting in a net sentence of 1,922 days (approximately five-and-a-quarter years).

The court applied Downes and Duncan credit as mitigating factors, reducing what would have been a seven-year sentence.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, lifetime Sex Offender Registry order, ten-year firearms prohibition, non-communication order, and forfeiture of a cellular telephone.

All sentences were ordered to run concurrently based on the principle of totality.

The offender, Mr. Swaby, pleaded guilty to multiple offences including human trafficking, receiving material benefits from human trafficking, advertising sexual services, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and drug trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the manipulation of vulnerable victims through drugs and alcohol, the use of violence, and the presence of a firearm in an apartment with a child.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, insight into his substance abuse, and efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The court imposed a global sentence of 11 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody, along with a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a restitution order of $30,000.

The applicant sought a s. 525 Criminal Code detention review, arguing that his continued detention was no longer justified due to a material change in circumstances, including new disclosure and an enhanced release plan with new sureties.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed release plan did not sufficiently mitigate the secondary and tertiary ground concerns, particularly given the applicant's alleged repeated breaches of non-communication orders and the serious nature of the human trafficking and prostitution-related charges.

The court also ruled that the new evidence regarding the complainant's post-offence conduct was inadmissible without a s. 276 application.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for human trafficking charges due to alleged unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from arrest to anticipated trial conclusion was 33.3 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework, deducting defence-attributable delay, which included time for prioritizing other matters, unavailability for earlier judicial pre-trials, and unavailability for court-offered summer 2024 trial dates.

The net delay was calculated to be approximately 28.3 months, falling below the Jordan ceiling.

The court found that the case, involving human trafficking, did not take "markedly longer than it reasonably should have" and was not a "clear case" warranting a stay.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

This decision addresses three pre-trial applications in a criminal proceeding involving charges of human trafficking, firearm offences, and kidnapping.

The court granted the Crown's application for the complainant to testify via CCTV, finding it would facilitate a full and candid account given the nature of the offences and the complainant's expressed anxiety.

The court also ruled that the complainant's 911 call was admissible under the res gestae exception, the principled approach to hearsay, and as narrative circumstantial evidence.

However, the admissibility of the complainant's statements to her aunt was deemed premature.

The Defence's application regarding the applicability of the s. 276 regime to human trafficking was deferred pending a Court of Appeal decision.

This criminal trial concerned charges against Johnathan Cox and Steven Cox related to sex trafficking, procuring, advertising sexual services, financial benefit from sexual services, and aggravated assault.

The complainant (C) alleged Johnathan initiated her involvement in the sex trade, managed her activities, and took her earnings, as well as physically assaulting her.

Steven, Johnathan's father, was accused of facilitating C's sex work by renting hotel rooms and paying for advertisements.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and largely reliable, while rejecting Johnathan's evidence as unbelievable.

Steven's evidence was found conflicted, acknowledging his efforts to help C but also his knowledge and facilitation of her sex work.

Johnathan was found guilty on all counts except one procuring charge (over 18), while Steven was found guilty only of advertising sexual services, being acquitted of procuring and financial benefit charges due to a lack of specific intent to facilitate the purchase of sex.

Following a non-jury trial, the defendant, Mark Taylor, was found guilty of 18 Criminal Code offences, including human trafficking, financially benefitting from human trafficking, receiving material benefit from human trafficking, advertising, exercising influence, sexual assault, obtaining sexual services for consideration, and breaching recognizance.

The court considered the legal parameters, positions of the Crown and Defence, the Kienapple principle, the nature of the offences, the offender's background, victim impact statements, and sentencing principles, including the Lopez factors for human trafficking.

The Crown sought a 23-year sentence, while the Defence sought 9 years.

The court imposed a global custodial term of 15 years, deducting pre-sentence custody and a Duncan credit for harsh COVID-19 conditions.

Ancillary orders were issued, but restitution orders were dismissed due to lack of quantifiable pecuniary damages and evidence of the offender's ability to pay, directing complainants to civil avenues.

The applicant, previously found guilty of eight offences including human trafficking and sexual assault involving a 13-year-old complainant, sought a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter.

The application alleged a breach of section 7 Charter rights due to the police's loss of relevant cellphone evidence from the complainant.

The court found that the police's failure to properly label, bag, tag, or securely store a USB drive containing the downloaded cellphone contents constituted unacceptable negligence, leading to a breach of the applicant's section 7 rights.

However, the court determined that the loss was due to human error and inadvertence, not intentional wrongdoing or abuse of process.

Furthermore, the court found that the lost evidence did not cause actual prejudice to the applicant's right to make full answer and defence, as other evidence was available to him.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, as it did not meet the high threshold of being one of the "clearest of cases."

The offender, Dylan Dolman-Kencher, pleaded guilty to exploiting a person under 18 (s. 279.011(1) Criminal Code) and breach of probation (s. 733.1(1) Criminal Code).

The Crown sought a six-year sentence, while the defence sought five years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including breach of trust, victim vulnerability, provision of drugs, and prior breach of probation, and mitigating factors such as youth, guilty plea, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions (Duncan credit).

The court imposed a six-year sentence, reduced by a nine-month Duncan credit and a 1.5:1 Summers credit for 792 days of pre-trial custody, resulting in a remaining sentence of 2 years less 2 days, plus 6 months concurrent for the probation breach, followed by two years probation.

This decision provides written reasons for oral rulings made during a jury trial for human trafficking and related charges.

The court addressed the admissibility of two key pieces of evidence: a police bulletin seeking information on other alleged victims and escort advertisements found using a commercial computer program called "Traffic Jam." The police bulletin was deemed inadmissible due to its minimal probative value and significant moral and reasoning prejudice, as it suggested the accused's involvement in wider trafficking without sufficient corroboration.

The escort advertisements themselves were found admissible as they corroborated the complainant's testimony about engaging in sex work.

However, information generated by the "Traffic Jam" program, such as an associated email address, was ruled inadmissible as hearsay and for lacking proper expert foundation, requiring redaction.

The applicants, Patrick Agpoon and Shea Flemmings, sought a stay of proceedings due to an alleged breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating total delay, deducting defence-caused delay, and assessing the impact of the global pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

While significant defence delays were attributed to both applicants, the Crown failed to adequately explain a 12-month delay in preferring a direct indictment, particularly given its earlier contemplation of this route and its successful use in a similar case during the pandemic.

The court found that even after reasonable adjustments for defence delay and a limited period for the pandemic, the net delay for both applicants exceeded the 30-month Jordan ceiling for superior courts.

Consequently, the court found an infringement of their s. 11(b) rights and stayed the charges.

The defendants, A.M. and M.P., were charged with ten offences including human trafficking, exercising control or influence over a person, drug trafficking, uttering threats, and advertising sexual services.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the complainant, A.K., whose credibility and reliability were significantly challenged due to inconsistencies between her trial, preliminary inquiry, and police statements, and her admitted attempt to protect the accused.

The court found A.K. to be generally an honest witness but cautioned against relying solely on her testimony.

A.M. was found guilty of advertising sexual services (Count 5), exercising control over movements for sexual services (Count 4), receiving financial benefit from sexual services (Count 3), and trafficking Molly (Count 8).

M.P. was found guilty of advertising sexual services (Count 5), exercising control over movements for sexual services (Count 4), and receiving financial benefit from sexual services (Count 3).

All other charges, including human trafficking (Count 1), receiving financial benefit from human trafficking (Count 2), uttering threats (Count 6), assault (Count 7), and trafficking cocaine and cannabis (Counts 9 and 10), were dismissed for both defendants due to insufficient evidence or credibility concerns.

The applicant, S.B.S., convicted of drug offenses and serving a sentence, sought a bail review of his continued detention on new charges including human trafficking, breach of recognizance, and drug trafficking.

He proposed a stringent release plan with three sureties and electronic monitoring, citing his nearing parole eligibility and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown opposed, arguing an unacceptable risk to public safety.

The court found that the applicant had not met his onus to establish that continued detention was not justified on the secondary ground, citing the egregious nature of the new allegations, his prior flagrant breach of recognizance, and the inadequacy of the proposed surety plan.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

Jalaledin Eftekhar was found guilty by a jury of procuring, obtaining sexual services for consideration, common assault, and human trafficking/exploitation.

The court conducted a sentencing hearing, rejecting the accused's version of events and finding the complainant highly credible and vulnerable.

The primary sentencing objectives were denunciation and deterrence.

Considering aggravating factors such as the complainant's vulnerability, the violence involved, and the duration of exploitation, balanced against mitigating factors like the accused's short criminal record, rehabilitative prospects, and lack of material benefit, the court imposed a global sentence of four years for exploitation, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

Credit for pre-sentence custody and onerous release conditions was applied, resulting in three years remaining to serve.

Ancillary orders included a communication prohibition, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

Two young men were charged with ten offences related to human trafficking, procuring, and sexual services offences occurring between September 1, 2014 and April 13, 2015.

The Crown's case rested almost entirely on the testimony of the complainant, a young woman with a history of mental health issues who had herself been charged with similar offences and made her complaint to police approximately one year after her own arrest.

The trial lasted nearly 27 months across 64 court days.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable due to significant contradictions with her prior statements, inconsistencies regarding key facts such as how she met the accused and her ownership of a vehicle, and most critically, Facebook Messenger communications that contradicted her account of meeting one of the accused.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove exploitation, which was essential to the human trafficking and material benefits charges.

All counts against both accused were dismissed.

The defendant, Courtney Salmon, was found guilty by a jury of human trafficking, receiving material benefit from human trafficking, procuring/exercising control, and receiving material benefit from sexual services for consideration.

The Crown sought a global sentence of ten years of incarceration, while the defence proposed five years.

The court applied sentencing principles, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and utilized the "whole panoply of factors" from R. v. Tang and R. v. Miller to assess the seriousness of the human trafficking offences.

The court conditionally stayed counts for procuring/exercising control and receiving material benefit from sexual services under the Kienapple rule, finding a sufficient factual and legal nexus with the human trafficking charges.

A global sentence of six years of incarceration was imposed for the remaining counts, to be served concurrently.

The court also applied pre-trial custody credits, including additional credits for harsh conditions (Duncan) and strict bail (Downes).

Ancillary orders included a non-communication order, DNA sample, lifetime weapons prohibition, forfeiture of electronic devices, and 20 years registration under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of eight years (less credit for pre-sentence custody) imposed for five offences related to human trafficking.

The appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred by: (1) failing to grant qualitative credit under R. v. Duncan for conditions of pre-sentence incarceration including triple bunking and lockdowns; (2) admitting and misusing voluntary videotaped jail-house interviews; and (3) imposing an excessive sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's discretionary decisions and confirming that the sentence was fit given the gravity of the offences and the appellant's degree of responsibility.

The Crown applied for an order permitting a complainant in a human trafficking case to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) from outside the courtroom, and to have a Human Trafficking Advocate sit close to her during testimony.

The accused opposed both aspects of the application.

The court granted the CCTV order but denied the request for the advocate's close presence.

The decision addresses the evidentiary threshold under the amended Section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, which changed from a "necessity" test to a "facilitate" test, and considers what evidence is required to support such applications.

The accused was charged with two counts of human trafficking offences (exercising control over movements for exploitation and receiving money from exploitation), three counts of assault with a weapon, two counts of threatening, three counts of assault, and four counts of breach of recognizance.

The trial involved a credibility assessment of the complainant, who admitted to being a con artist and fraudster, against the accused's denials.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon, simple assault, and breach of recognizance counts, but acquitted him of the trafficking offences due to insufficient evidence of control exercised for exploitative purposes.

The court applied a Vetrovec warning regarding the complainant's credibility.