Julia DeVuono

Following a jury conviction for sexual interference, the accused applied for a stay of proceedings based on the loss of the complainant's diary and the late disclosure of a police officer's email regarding the diary.

The trial judge assumed jurisdiction to hear the post-verdict application but dismissed it on the merits.

The court found that the police acted reasonably in photographing rather than seizing the diary, and that while the late disclosure of the email breached the accused's section 7 Charter rights, it was not a deliberate attempt to undermine the trial's fairness and did not warrant the drastic remedy of a stay of proceedings.

The three accused were charged with various offences related to the human trafficking and sexual exploitation of an 18-year-old complainant.

The Crown alleged that one accused recruited the complainant into the sex trade, acted as her pimp, and exploited her while she suffered from a severe cocaine addiction.

The other two accused were alleged to have participated in her exploitation, sexual assault, and procuring.

The court carefully assessed the complainant's credibility, noting her memory was affected by trauma and heavy drug use, but found her core allegations against the primary accused were corroborated by digital evidence and the recovery of firearms she disposed of on his behalf.

The primary accused was found guilty of human trafficking, procuring, receiving material benefits, advertising sexual services, unauthorized possession of a firearm, and uttering threats.

The second accused was found guilty only of receiving a material benefit from sexual services (selling her cocaine), and acquitted of the other charges due to reasonable doubt.

The third accused was acquitted of all charges due to the unreliability of the complainant's evidence against him.

A defence application for a stay of proceedings based on lost police cruiser video and unrecorded interviews was dismissed.

The accused, charged with human trafficking and related sexual service offences, sought to introduce evidence of the complainant's continued sex work after their relationship ended.

The Crown argued the accused must bring an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court held that s. 276(1) does not apply to the charged offences, as they lack 'some connection' to the listed sexual offences.

However, applying the common law principles from Seaboyer, the court required a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the evidence to prevent twin-myth reasoning.

The court also exercised its inherent jurisdiction to appoint counsel for the complainant on the voir dire.