Maria Rosa Muia

The court considered 19 charges against MB, including human trafficking, procuring, and related offences, all arising from his relationship with the complainant, AAP.

The evidence, primarily from AAP, was found to be unreliable due to memory gaps, inconsistencies, and lack of corroboration.

While some technological and witness evidence supported parts of AAP’s narrative, significant contradictions and missing evidence (such as banking records and the content of communications) left the court unable to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

All charges were dismissed.

The Crown applied under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code to permit a witness, T.A., to testify by video at trial due to her lack of stable housing and inability to travel.

The court found the hardship to the witness, the limited scope of her evidence, and the arrangements for secure testimony justified granting the application, despite late notice.

The judge noted that while in-person testimony is preferred, the circumstances warranted an exception, and the application was granted.

The applicant, Marcus Bryan, facing charges including human trafficking, sought a Stage 2 ruling under s. 276 of the Criminal Code regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning the complainant's prior sexual activity.

The court granted the application in part, allowing limited questioning on the complainant's prior and ongoing involvement in sex work, her use of advertising websites, earnings, and work for other individuals, as well as the nature and conclusion of her relationship with the applicant.

The court found this evidence relevant to the defence narrative and to challenge the complainant's credibility, provided it did not engage the "twin myths" and had significant probative value.

This pre-trial ruling addresses the applicability of the s. 276 regime of the Criminal Code to charges including human trafficking, firearm offences, kidnapping, and uttering threats.

The defence sought an order that s. 276 does not apply or, alternatively, to permit cross-examination on the complainant's past sexual history.

Following the guidance from R. v. A.M., the court determined that while the charges are not explicitly listed in s. 276, the Crown's allegations of violence and threats compelling sexual services implicate sexual assault, thereby engaging the s. 276 regime.

The court directed the parties to proceed to a Stage 1 / Stage 2 s. 276 hearing to determine the scope and admissibility of evidence related to the complainant’s sexual activities.

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.