Publication Restriction Warning

WARNING

The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file:

An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:

486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences;

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order.

(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community.

486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 20230704 Docket: C66799

Before: Fairburn A.C.J.O., Zarnett and George JJ.A.

Between:

His Majesty the King Respondent

and

M.L. Appellant

Counsel: Brian Snell, for the appellant Kevin Pitt, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: June 26, 2023

On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Robert Wadden of the Ontario Court of Justice on June 22, 2018, and from the sentence imposed on January 31, 2019.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant was convicted of four counts: exercising control for the purpose of exploitation, under s. 279.01 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, receiving a financial benefit from exploitation, under s. 279.02, receiving a financial benefit from prostitution, under s. 286.2, and advertising sexual services, under s. 286.4.

[2] The Crown’s case turned almost entirely on the K.G.B. statements provided by the complainant which she later recanted at trial. There is no issue that the trial judge correctly stated the law as it relates to the admissibility of those statements. We see no error in his admissibility analysis.

[3] The real question is whether the statements were sufficiently reliable to support the convictions entered. Notwithstanding Mr. Snell’s capable argument focused upon the reasonableness of the verdicts, we see no error in the trial judge’s reasons.

[4] The trial judge looked for and described what he considered to be corroborative evidence supporting the content of the K.G.B. statements underpinning the elements of each offence. In essence, the trial judge treated the complainant as a Vetrovec witness in his reasons for judgment, looking for corroboration before convicting. He made findings that were open to him on the record. We would not interfere with those findings.

[5] The conviction appeal is dismissed. The sentence appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

"Fairburn A.C.J.O."

"B. Zarnett J.A."

"J. George J.A."