M. Little

The accused, charged with human trafficking and sexual assault, brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the two complainants on their prior involvement in the sex trade.

The accused argued the evidence was necessary to challenge the complainants' credibility regarding statements made to police about their unfamiliarity with escort work.

The court largely dismissed the application, finding the proposed questioning either relied on prohibited twin-myth reasoning or lacked relevance to a live issue at trial.

Limited evidence of prior sex work was permitted solely through an Agreed Statement of Facts to contradict specific statements made to police.

The Crown applied under s. 714.2 of the Criminal Code to have a key complainant in a human trafficking case testify via videoconference from outside Canada.

The accused opposed the application, arguing the witness's disruptive behaviour at the preliminary inquiry demonstrated that remote testimony would impede the court's ability to control the proceedings and undermine effective cross-examination.

The court granted the application, finding the accused failed to show that remote testimony would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

The court permitted the witness to testify from her home, subject to strict conditions to ensure the integrity of the proceedings.

The applicants, charged with human trafficking and related offences, brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 37 months.

The court deducted periods of defence-caused delay, bringing the net delay below the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

Furthermore, the court found that exceptional circumstances, including a complainant's disruptive conduct at the preliminary inquiry, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the overall complexity of the multi-accused case, justified the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, charged with human trafficking offences, brought a Charter application to exclude text messages extracted from a seized cell phone, alleging multiple s. 8 breaches.

The court dismissed arguments that the police failed to file timely Reports to Justice, conducted an unlawful warrantless search during intake, and relied on a facially invalid warrant.

Although the Crown conceded a minor s. 8 breach because the police retrieved the phone from a locker 25 minutes after the warrant's time window expired, the court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breach was minimal and the evidence highly reliable.