Sexual exploitation

The accused was convicted after trial by judge and jury of human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused recruited and transported a vulnerable young woman living in a shelter, directing her to engage in sex work through online advertisements and hotel-based services.

The accused controlled the victim's earnings, imposed daily quotas, and restricted her access to food and money.

The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of five years, with credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions, resulting in 41 months to be served.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing objectives while considering the accused's age, limited criminal record, and rehabilitative potential.

The accused was convicted of eleven criminal offences related to human trafficking of two female complainants in the sex trade.

The offences included exercising control over the victims for exploitation, receiving financial benefits from their sexual services, assault, and sexual assault.

The accused played a critical leadership role as the "Queen of the Preem Team," grooming and controlling the victims while working with her boyfriend and his associate.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7½ years imprisonment (effectively 8 years with custodial credits), finding the accused was not a victim but a perpetrator who played an integral role in the exploitation.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons contrary to section 279.01 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought the mandatory minimum sentence of four years imprisonment.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum under section 12 of the Charter, arguing it was grossly disproportionate to his circumstances.

The court found the mandatory minimum infringed section 12 and could not be justified under section 1.

The court determined an appropriate sentence of 21 months was warranted based on the circumstances of the offence and offender, and declared the mandatory minimum invalid in these proceedings.

The appellant appealed his convictions for luring, sexual exploitation, and making, possessing and accessing child pornography involving two complainants, as well as his 20-month custodial sentence.

The appeal was allowed on the basis that the application judge erred in dismissing the appellant's Charter s. 11(b) application regarding unreasonable delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the delay of approximately 43 months from charge to trial exceeded both the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 30 months and the Morin guideline of 14-18 months.

The court identified errors in the application judge's analysis, including: (1) incorrectly characterizing the adjournment of the exit judicial pre-trial as a discrete exceptional event; (2) inflating the neutral intake period for Crown disclosure to five months when only 2.5 months was appropriate; (3) treating institutional delay as neutral rather than attributable to the Crown; and (4) failing to consider inferred prejudice from the length of delay.

The court concluded that transitional exceptional circumstances did not justify the delay, and the proceedings were stayed.

The appellant appealed her conviction for sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and sexual invitation involving two foster children.

The appeal raised multiple grounds including reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's prior involvement in the appellant's former husband's trial, improper elicitation of evidence from a key witness, failure to consider lost evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and alleged errors in the trial judge's reasoning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the trial was fair, counsel was competent, and the trial judge's reasons were adequate and supported by the evidence.

The accused was charged with three offences: recruiting, holding, concealing, harbouring or exercising control over a person under 18 years of age to offer or provide sexual services for consideration contrary to section 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code; receiving a financial or material benefit from the commission of an offence under section 286.1(2) contrary to section 286.2(2); and knowingly advertising an offer to provide sexual services for consideration contrary to section 286.4.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a vulnerable 17-year-old who was homeless, drug-addicted, and desperate for money when she met the accused through Instagram.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, and determined that the accused recruited her into sex work, controlled her movements, plied her with drugs, created a Backpage advertisement using her photographs, and took money from her after she engaged with a client.

The accused was found guilty on all three counts.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences including sexual assault and sexual exploitation against his former common law wife and her three daughters.

He appealed on five grounds: refusal to sever the sexual assault charge involving the adult complainant; refusal to allow him to sit at counsel table; improper application of the collateral fact rule; jury instructions on similar fact evidence; and failure to correct alleged impropriety in Crown's closing address.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while some errors occurred, they were not material and did not result in an unfair trial.

The accused pleaded guilty to making available child pornography, possessing child pornography, making child pornography, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation of his stepdaughter between 2014 and 2017.

The offences involved the systematic grooming and sexual abuse of the victim from age 13 to 17, the creation and distribution of hundreds of sexually explicit images of the victim, and the possession of numerous child abuse images of other children.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4.5 years imprisonment, with specific counts running concurrently and consecutively as required by statute, less credit for pre-trial custody.

The sentencing emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives given the serious nature of crimes against children.

The appellant was convicted at a second trial of four counts of sexual exploitation involving two teenaged girls from the Netherlands who stayed at his family home in 1997 and 2001.

The appellant's first convictions were overturned on appeal and a new trial was ordered.

At the second trial, the trial judge admitted evidence concerning a "mouse incident" that had resulted in an acquittal at the first trial, to challenge the credibility of one complainant.

The trial judge found both complainants credible and rejected the appellant's categorical denials.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and reasoning.

The accused was charged with sexual exploitation and sexual assault of a minor (E.T.) between October 2013 and June 2014, and with sexual interference and sexual assault of another minor (M.P.) on or about April 18, 2015.

The Crown sought to amend the information to extend the timeframe for the E.T. charges back to April 2012.

The court permitted the amendment and, after hearing evidence from both complainants and their mother, found the accused guilty of sexual assault of both complainants.

The court rejected the defence argument that the accused was in a position of trust or authority over E.T., finding instead that she was capable of consenting but did not.

The court acquitted on the sexual exploitation charge regarding E.T. but convicted on the sexual assault charge.

A young person pleaded guilty to procuring a person under 18 years of age to provide sexual services for consideration, contrary to s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code.

The offender recruited a 12-year-old victim through Facebook and facilitated her exploitation in the sex trade over a 10-day period in Niagara Falls and Toronto.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed a discharge with one year of probation, but the court rejected this as contrary to the public interest and inappropriate given the offender's lack of remorse, minimal engagement in rehabilitation programming while in custody, and serious criminal record including violent offences.

The court imposed 16 months of probation with strict conditions including mandatory counselling, non-association orders, and restrictions on social media access.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of procuring under s.212(1), one count of uttering a threat to cause death under s.264.1(1), and one count of failing to comply with a recognizance under s.145(3).

The accused lured two young women into working as dancers at strip clubs and encouraged them to engage in prostitution, taking all their earnings.

He also made violent threats against a former partner.

The Crown sought one year additional jail time, while the defence sought time served or a short intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation, citing the accused's extended pre-trial custody and house arrest, his demonstrated rehabilitation while on strict release, and his stable employment and family relationships.

A youth was convicted of multiple offences arising from events in 2013 involving the recruitment and exploitation of a 14-year-old girl for sexual services in Toronto.

The offences included attempt to procure, exercise control, living off avails of a person under 18, perjury, intimidation, obstruction of a peace officer, and failure to comply with orders.

The court imposed an adult sentence of four years imprisonment, with 306 days remaining after credit for pre-sentence custody calculated at 1.5:1.

The court also imposed three years of probation with conditions including counseling, education/employment requirements, no contact with the victim, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving his step-daughter over a 38-month period prior to her 16th birthday, and with two forms of sexual exploitation during periods following her 16th birthday.

The Crown proceeded by indictment; the accused elected trial in Ontario Court of Justice and pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The case turned on credibility in a classic "she said/he said" scenario.

The court found the complainant credible and the accused's evidence riddled with material inconsistencies and implausibilities.

The accused was found guilty on all charges.

The accused, R.G.1, was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor under section 153(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

The complainant, M. JCP, alleged sexual contact occurred between September 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008, when he was between 16 and 18 years old.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The trial judge found the complainant's testimony credible despite significant credibility issues, including a history of lying, substance abuse, and violent behavior.

The court accepted that sexual contact occurred in a bathtub at the accused's residence on the military base in Rockliffe, Ottawa.

The accused was found to be in a position of trust or authority over the complainant based on their relationship history, age difference, financial control, and emotional dependency.

The court convicted the accused of one count of sexual exploitation.

The accused, a personal care attendant at a long-term care facility, was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of two elderly female residents with advanced dementia.

The Crown proceeded by indictment on four counts arising from two separate incidents in December 2011.

The accused was acquitted on three counts but convicted on one count of sexual assault.

The court found that while the Crown failed to prove direct penile contact as required for the sexual exploitation charge, the conduct constituting the sexual assault—allowing himself to be undressed while caring for a naked resident with his genitals in close proximity to her face—violated the resident's sexual integrity and constituted sexual assault under the objective test established in R. v. Chase.

A bail hearing for a youth accused of serious charges including human trafficking, forcible confinement, sexual assault, possession of child pornography, abduction of a child under fourteen, sexual exploitation, robbery, assault, and administering a drug.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused proposed release to her older sister's residence with a $2,000 bond and house arrest conditions.

The court found the Crown had shown cause for detention based on concerns regarding the strength of the case, the gravity of the offences, evidence of organized and escalating violence, and inadequacy of the proposed supervision plan.

The court detained the accused on both secondary and tertiary grounds, finding that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined by release.

The accused pleaded guilty to extortion under section 346(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

He threatened to disseminate intimate images of a young female complainant unless she engaged in sexual intercourse with him.

The Crown sought 9 to 12 months custody plus probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of 12 to 18 months or alternatively 90 days intermittent jail.

The central issue was whether the offence constituted a "serious personal injury offence" that would preclude a conditional sentence.

The court found that the threats, while abhorrent and extortionate, did not constitute violence or attempted violence as contemplated by the legislation, distinguishing the case from robbery or assault cases involving weapons.

The court imposed a 15-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including 12 months house arrest, followed by 21 months probation.

The defendant was convicted after plea of internet child luring contrary to Section 172.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant communicated online with a 17-year-old complainant under false pretences, claiming to be a pornographic modelling agent, and arranged to meet her for sexual purposes.

The defendant also engaged with a fictional 14-year-old character created by police.

The Crown sought 9 to 12 months imprisonment plus three years probation, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation.

The defence argued for a lengthy conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence to be served in the community with strict conditions, including electronic monitoring, house arrest for the first nine months, curfew for the second nine months, community service, counselling, and restrictions on internet use.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence and need for deterrence against the defendant's guilty plea, lack of prior relevant record, and prospects for rehabilitation in the community.

The accused, an uncle by marriage and high school visual arts teacher, was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a 17-year-old niece who lived with him and his wife.

The Crown alleged that on February 15, 2010, the accused engaged in a pattern of grooming and sexual misconduct, including touching the complainant without consent in her bedroom.

The accused denied the allegations at trial but had made admissions to police.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's trial testimony as fabricated rationalizations, and accepted his police admissions as genuine confessions.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual exploitation and stayed the sexual assault charge at the Crown's request.