WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:

486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. (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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 212, 212, 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 at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant's sexual integrity and that conduct 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) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — 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 complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and

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

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

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(3) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(3), read as follows:

486.4(3) CHILD PORNOGRAPHY — (1) 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.

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

Court Information

Court: Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2018-11-02

Court File No.: York Region 17 03937

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Christian Crosdale

Before: Justice Marcella Henschel

Heard on: June 19, 20, 25, 26, and 28, 2018; August 22, and October 19, 2018

Reasons for Judgment released on: November 2, 2018

Counsel:

• Kelly Hutchinson — counsel for the Crown
• Michael Caroline — counsel for the defendant Christian Crosdale

HENSCHEL J.:

A. Overview

[1] Christian Crosdale is charged with human trafficking, child pornography, assault and other related offences in respect of his relationship with M.C. and T.T.

[2] It is alleged that Mr. Crosdale was M.C.'s pimp and was in an exploitive relationship with M.C. in the summer of 2016 for a period of a month and between November 2016 and March 8, 2017. The Crown alleges that Mr. Crosdale recruited M.C., and exercised control, direction, and influence over her movements for the purpose of exploiting her and facilitating her involvement in the sex trade so that he could materially benefit by taking the money she earned. It is alleged that he took control of her identification in order to facilitate her exploitation, prepared and posted the backpage.ca ads that offered her services in the sex trade, and that he assaulted her during the relationship as part of his exploitation.

[3] In respect of T.T., it is alleged that in late February and early March 2017, M.C. was contacted by 16-year-old T.T. T.T. initially told M.C. that she was M.C.'s age (19), and told her she wanted to work with her. M.C. told Mr. Crosdale about T.T. He said that she should work with her if she was "down for the team". On March 6, 2017 T.T. met M.C. at a condominium unit in Toronto. Mr. Crosdale came to the condominium in the early morning hours of March 7, 2017 and was introduced to T.T. While he was at the condominium T.T. and M.C. took photographs of themselves to be posted by Mr. Crosdale on backpage.ca in order to advertise their sexual services individually and as a duo. It is alleged that Mr. Crosdale participated in the taking of the photographs and posted the backpage.ca ads. As a result of the ads, T.T. and M.C. saw clients and provided sexual services. After meeting T.T. in the early morning hours of March 7, 2017, it is alleged that Mr. Crosdale spoke with her over BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) regarding her sex trade related activities on March 7 and 8, 2017 until her arrest by the police on March 8, 2017.

[4] It is alleged that Mr. Crosdale recruited T.T. for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating her exploitation, that he procured her to offer sexual services for consideration, that he exercised control, direction or influence over her movements for the purpose of facilitating her participation in the sex trade, and that he posted her backpage.ca ads that advertised her services in the sex trade. It is alleged that Mr. Crosdale, in participating in the creation of the photos of March 7, 2017 and in receiving, editing and posting the pictures of T.T. on March 7 and 8, 2017 made, possessed, accessed, and distributed child pornography.

[5] On March 8, 2017, the York Regional Police (YRP) located T.T. and M.C. at the Anndale Drive condominium unit. M.C. did not initially cooperate with the police investigation and did not implicate Mr. Crosdale in the first two statements she provided to the police. It was only in a third statement, given in May 2017, that M.C. provided detailed information about her pimp, whom she identified as Ty.

[6] T.T. provided two statements to the police, one on March 9, 2017 and one on March 16, 2017. Her mother was present during her first statement, and at that time she did not name and was not forthcoming about her involvement with "Zaddy", a person she later described as M's pimp. In her second statement T.T. provided DC Owen with more detailed information about Zaddy and her relationship to him and provided a series of BBM messages she exchanged with him. T.T. subsequently identified "Zaddy" as Christian Crosdale in a photo line-up.

[7] In relation to M.C., the defence submits that she is not a credible or reliable witness, particularly given prior inconsistent and admittedly false statements to the police. The defence submits that her evidence does not establish that she was in an exploitive relationship with Mr. Crosdale and does not establish that he recruited her, or that he exercised control, direction, or influence over M.C.'s movements. The defence submits that M.C. freely chose to participate in the sex trade, and that Mr. Crosdale did not take control of her identification or assault her. The defence submits that M.C. asked Mr. Crosdale to hold her money and identification for her and he returned it when she asked for it back.

[8] In relation to T.T., the defence submits that there are serious concerns about her reliability and credibility due to her prior inconsistent statements. The defence submits that Mr. Crosdale did not recruit T.T. for the purposes of exploitation. He met her only once and was not in an exploitive relationship with her. The defence submits that he did not procure T.T. to engage in prostitution, and did not exercise control, direction, or influence over her movements. He never received any money from T.T. and T.T. was interested in participating in the sex trade prior to meeting Mr. Crosdale. She freely chose to offer sexual services for consideration. The defence submits that Mr. Crosdale did not take the photographs of T.T. and that the images do not constitute child pornography. Moreover, the defence submits that the Crown has failed to establish that Mr. Crosdale knew that T.T. was under the age of 18 years. He was told by M.C. that T.T. was over 18 and had an honest but mistaken belief that this was the case.

[9] The issues of credibility and reliability are important to many of the determinations in this case. The defence pointed to material inconsistencies in the evidence of both M.C. and T.T. Despite these inconsistencies, I have concluded that on the key issues, with one factual exception in relation to her knowledge of the age of T.T., M.C.'s evidence is credible and reliable, as is that of T.T. Their evidence was strongly corroborated by data extracted from a number of cellular phones analyzed by the police including BBM messages between Mr. Crosdale and T.T. that speak clearly and directly about the nature of Mr. Crosdale's and T.T.'s relationship, backpage.ca postings, photographs taken by the YRP at the Anndale condominium, items seized from Mr. Crosdale and his vehicle following his arrest, surveillance footage from the Anndale condominium from March 6, 7, and 9, 2017, the evidence of Debra Munny, and the evidence of M.C.'s mother, S.I.

[10] Mr. Crosdale's knowledge of T.T.'s age is an essential element of a number of the offences including count 1 trafficking of a person under the age of 18 years contrary to s. 279.011 of the Criminal Code; count 2 procuring a person under the age of 18 years contrary to s. 286.3 of the Criminal Code; and counts 5-8, the child pornography offences contrary to s. 163.1(4), 163.1(4.1), 163.1(2), and 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code.

[11] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that T.T. was under the age of 18. In respect of those offences which require that the accused take all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale did not honestly believe that T.T. was over 18 years of age, and did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain T.T.'s age.

[12] At trial, the Crown called M.C., T.T., and M.C.'s mother S.I. The Crown also called two police witnesses, DC Owen and PC Chiu. The police evidence was primarily related to the analysis of a number of electronic devices that were seized and analyzed, BBM messages obtained by DC Owen from T.T., and backpage.ca advertisements located by the police. In addition, the parties prepared two agreed statements of fact relating to other evidence obtained during the investigation, including a photo line-up conducted with T.T. in which she identified Mr. Crosdale as "Zaddy" and regarding evidence seized from Mr. Crosdale and from his vehicle following his arrest. No evidence was called by the defence. I am satisfied that the evidence when viewed as a whole establishes beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Crosdale's guilt of all of the offences charged with the exception of count 10 which the parties jointly recommended that I dismiss. These are my reasons.

B. Summary of the Evidence

i. Evidence of M.C.

[13] The evidence of M.C. and T.T. was detailed and lengthy. I have attempted to provide a summary of their evidence that outlines the core aspects of the evidence, including some of the frailties, which will provide context for my subsequent analysis. I have woven some additional facts into my analysis and conclusions.

[14] M.C. was vulnerable when she met Christian Crosdale, whom she knew as "Ty". M.C. began working as an escort in the sex trade around the summer of 2016 when she was 19-years-old. In the time frame leading up to when she started escorting, M.C. was not getting along well with her mother, S.I., and had not seen her father for many years. M.C. had dropped out of high school, was working in a factory, and was living with her boyfriend. When she began escorting M.C. first worked for a pimp named "JP" who was very abusive.

[15] Around August 2016, M.C. was contacted by "Ty" over BlackBerry Messenger. He obtained her contact information through her "backpage.ca" advertisement. After speaking with him over BBM for a week or two, M.C. agreed to meet Ty at a Motel 6 in Burlington, Ontario. He talked with her about whether she wanted to work with him and told her that her life would be better with him than it was with JP. Three days after she met Ty, M.C. was assaulted by JP and suffered bruising to her face and a concussion. As a result, she decided to move to the Best Western and work with "Ty".

[16] After agreeing to work with Ty, M.C. worked with him for about a month. She described working every day from when she woke up until when she went to sleep. She explained that she worked all the time because she had nowhere else to go. She no longer had an apartment and would stay at a hotel for a week and then move to another hotel often in another city. Generally, she moved on Mondays. M.C. explained that because she was still new to escorting Ty decided the locations where she should work and "put her" in higher-end hotels. She booked the rooms herself and Ty would give her money from the money she gave him to pay for the rooms.

[17] M.C. saw fifteen to twenty clients a day and made approximately $5000 a week. She gave Ty all the money she earned. She explained that when she reached $2000, Ty would come and pick up the money. M.C. testified that if she made less than $500, Ty would tell her that it was a waste of his time. M.C. testified that she gave Ty her money on the understanding that he was going to put it in a safe for her so that she could get a condominium. She testified that she did not end up getting any of the money.

[18] M.C. used backpages.ca to post her advertisements. She took photos of herself to post on backpages.ca and sent them to Ty to post. He sent her a paragraph to send to clients telling her what to tell them but she decided what services to provide. M.C. explained that at the beginning of their relationship she posted her ads herself. However, over time Ty took over posting because he said he knew best when to post.

[19] When asked to describe their relationship in the first month, M.C. said that Ty was "very kind" to her. However, after approximately a month, M.C. stopped working with Ty after she was in a serious hit and run car accident in which the driver was killed. On the night of the accident, M.C. went out with a friend without telling Mr. Crosdale because she felt she deserved a night out after having worked a month. M.C. testified that Mr. Crosdale thought she was lying about what happened, deleted her from social media, and stopped talking to her. On the night of the accident she had only $500. Ty kept the remainder of what she had earned up to the point when he cut her off.

[20] After Ty cut contact off with her, M.C. went back to working with JP. Once again he was violent and aggressive. M.C. attempted to leave JP and worked on her own for a period of time. After she left, M.C. testified that JP had some of his friends come after her and she was with them for a period of time before she was able to leave.

[21] During this period, around the first week of December 2016, M.C. began to speak with Ty again. He obtained her new phone number from backpages.ca and initiated a meeting with her. He asked her if she wanted to talk business and she met him at the Holiday Inn in Oakville. They talked about what happened previously and he told her that she needed to act better than before. He spoke of honesty, loyalty, and respect. M.C. testified that she believed that she did not deserve the money she earned during the first period that she worked with Ty because she disrespected him by not telling him where she was going the night of the accident and she decided to work with him again. She testified that in addition she knew that he had the money that belonged to her, she had no money to support herself, and believed that he would help her. M.C. continued to work with Ty until her arrest by the YRP on March 8, 2017. She testified that at the point of her arrest she did not have safety concerns and at that point was not considering ending the relationship with Ty.

[22] During the second period that M.C. worked with Ty her work schedule was the same as it had been previously. She worked every day and generally moved between hotels on Mondays. In cross-examination, M.C. agreed that she was not forced to work every day and that she chose to do so.

[23] M.C. testified that during the first period she had set the rates she charged clients, however, after she began working again Ty set the rates. He prepared a paragraph for her to send to clients. M.C. testified that she decided the type of sexual services she would provide. During the second period, M.C. estimated that she made about $60,000. She gave all of it to Ty. He would come and meet her at the hotel room, they would talk, and she would give him the money.

[24] M.C. testified that usually Ty would pick the locations that she worked out of and drive her to the hotels. She continued to book the hotels herself and Ty gave her the money to pay for the hotels. Sometimes she had to request that he provide her with the identification necessary to do a booking because he had her identification.

[25] On two occasions M.C. went to Niagara Falls. Ty drove her there and picked her up on both occasions, but did not stay with her. She made four or five thousand dollars while in Niagara Falls and gave the money to Ty.

[26] In regards to her identification, M.C. testified that when she was working with JP, JP took her identification from her and threw it out. Ty helped her to get new identification, and once she obtained her identification, it was in her possession for a period of time. However, Mr. Crosdale took possession of her bank card, credit card, health card, and driver's licence because he did not trust her after an incident occurred around New Year's when she went out without his permission. During her testimony, M.C. identified images of her driver's licence and credit card located on Mr. Crosdale's Samsung phone. She explained that he sent her the pictures over BBM so that she could book a hotel.

[27] While working with Ty, M.C. testified that she did not have any friends outside of the sex trade. She testified that Mr. Crosdale did not permit her to have friends unrelated to the business because it interfered with his money and he would get upset. He wanted to know where she was. However, M.C. testified that during the second period her relationship with her mother began to improve and she went to visit her a few times. When she went to visit her mother Ty drove her once or twice.

[28] Mr. Crosdale and M.C. had a sexual relationship and were often intimate when he came to see her. She had feelings for him, but explained that she knew the relationship would not progress because she worked for him. M.C. testified that she and Ty did not socialize often, but while she was in Cambridge they went to the movies and sometimes on Mondays they would go to strip clubs. Occasionally, they went to dinner or went shopping together. M.C. did not know where Ty lived. She did not know his family or friends, and she did not know his real name. She knew him only as Ty, or Zaddy, a name associated to his BlackBerry messenger identity.

[29] The New Year's incident that led to Mr. Crosdale taking her identification because he did not trust her occurred shortly after New Year's day 2017. M.C. described the incident as the only occasion that Ty was physically violent towards her. M.C. explained that she was staying at the Delta Chelsea in Toronto and ended up working over New Year's because she had nowhere to go. She said because it was not going well she decided to go to a bar with a friend. At around 2:30 a.m. Ty called and asked where she was and became upset when he learned she was at a bar with a friend.

[30] Ty came to see M.C. at the Delta Chelsea a couple of days later to have a "conversation" with her. She explained that when he came up to her room he looked "pissed off" and she believed that he wanted to hurt her. He took off his rings, put them on a cloth, and hit her twice in the face. She explained that he backhanded her, describing what he did as a "pimp slap", which she described as occurring when a sex trade worker disrespects the person they are working for by "acting out of pocket". She explained that this means not acting how the person you are working for thinks you should be acting. He told her that the next time she did something wrong it would not only be a slap, that he would break her jaw or her nose. After he hit her he wrote "honesty", "loyalty", "respect" and "teamwork" on a piece of paper. M.C. said that she felt like she had "brought him down". She did not consider ending the relationship because she knew that if she left him she would start off with nothing. He had all her belongings. After this happened, M.C. proceeded cautiously and made sure she did not upset him again. She tried to work harder. She testified that this incident was the only time that he was physically violent with her, and said that he was apologetic afterwards.

[31] M.C.'s indication that Ty's use of physical violence against her was isolated was given despite the fact that there was also an incident of sexual violence which investigators learned about when a video and still images of the incident were located on Mr. Crosdale's phone. When shown a copy of the image in her examination-in-chief, M.C. acknowledged that the video depicts her in a black mask that covers most of her face performing oral sex on Mr. Crosdale. M.C. testified that she did not willingly participate in the sexual activity while wearing the mask but it was something he wanted her to do and she did everything he told her to do.

[32] After the slapping incident at New Year's, M.C. testified that she continued to work every day, although sometimes on Mondays she worked only enough to pay for her room. Ty continued to post for her on backpage.ca. M.C. controlled the phone associated to the number listed on the backpage.ca advertisement and received the text messages from clients responding to the backpage.ca ads. M.C. said that on at least one occasion Ty looked through her phone to make sure she was not talking to anyone behind his back and this made her feel anxious.

[33] M.C. described her routine. She would wake up and text Ty, tell him she was up, get ready, eat something, and then text Ty when she was ready to work. He would then post on backpage.ca. He would post three times a day. After the initial post, he would also post before or around dinner time and at 11:00 p.m. If M.C. was not receiving many contacts on her phone she would contact him and he would post when he felt it was necessary. Each night before M.C. went to bed she would contact Mr. Crosdale to tell him how much she made. If she made a sufficient amount he would come to where she was working and pick up the money in the morning.

[34] M.C. continued to give Ty the money she earned. She explained that she never "held money" and that she kept only enough to pay for food and hotels. She did not have a set quota for how much money she was required to make daily, but she and Ty discussed quotas occasionally. Sometimes Ty would text her and ask if she had a quota or earning goal for the day and they spoke of landmark goals. M.C. said that Ty rarely made an issue about the amount of money she was making, but if things were really slow he would get a bit irritated, but he did not get angry. This continued until she was arrested on March 8, 2017. She considered leaving a couple of times, but did not because he had all her money.

[35] M.C. said that as an incentive, Mr. Crosdale told her that for every $5000 she earned he would buy her a special item. However, he followed through only once. On that occasion they went shopping together and he purchased a Luis Vuitton purse for her. M.C. said that she did not ask for things because she thought he would say no and she did not want to upset him. She testified that if she asked for things he would tell her not to act greedy like the other girls. Ty also helped her to "upgrade" by arranging for her to get her hair and nails done, and tanning so she would present better and could make more money. He booked the appointments, drove her to them, and paid for the services.

[36] In January 2017, M.C. got a tattoo which included the name "Ty" on her left shoulder. M.C. explained that Ty knew she liked tattoo's and he contacted her to tell her that he had booked an appointment for her to get a tattoo. She testified that Ty picked the tattoo artist, drove her to the appointment, and picked the tattoo, the eye of Horus. He dropped her off and then left to run errands. She said that the decision for his name to be part of the tattoo was a last minute decision of Ty's. While the tattoo was being completed he messaged her and told her to add "Ty" to the tattoo.

[37] On March 6, 2017 M.C. met T.T. for the first time. M.C. said prior to meeting her in person, T.T. contacted her over social media. They spoke over Facebook, Snapchat, and by phone for about a week before meeting. She did not know her previously but T.T. brought up JP's name and the name of another escort, Cora, who M.C. knew. M.C. testified that T.T. said that Cora and JP were very demanding and as a result she wanted to work with M.C. M.C. testified that she and Ty had previously spoken about her working with someone. Initially, Ty told her to keep to herself, but after a while he spoke to her about finding someone else so she would not be alone. He told her that he had picked up another girl and that within two weeks she had a friend working with her. M.C. indicated that she wanted to please him and this motivated her to find someone but indicated that it was coincidental that T.T. ended up contacting her.

[38] After T.T. contacted her, M.C. spoke to Ty about her. She told Ty that T.T. wanted to work with her. Mr. Crosdale told her to keep talking with T.T. and to determine if she was "down for the team". If so, he instructed her to tell T.T. to take a cab to meet M.C. and he would pay for the cab.

[39] On March 6, 2017, M.C. arranged for T.T. to meet her at unit 1504, 2 Anndale Drive, Toronto, a condominium she was going to be working out of that week. Ty drove M.C. to the condominium, she picked up the keys, and Ty gave her the money to pay for T.T.'s cab. Ty planned to meet T.T. later that evening. T.T. arrived by cab in the evening and M.C. paid the driver. After T.T. arrived, M.C. and T.T. went out to get some food and some items for T.T. from the Rexall drug store.

[40] Later that night, Ty returned to the condominium and met T.T. Ty wanted them to take pictures to be posted on backpage.ca. He brought earrings, a diamond choker, and a diamond wristlet for them to wear in the pictures. M.C. and T.T. took the pictures using their phones. They took individual pictures and a number of poses together.

[41] After they took the pictures, Ty looked at them, chose the ones he liked, and deleted others. M.C. and T.T. sent Ty the photos to post. M.C. then deleted the pictures from her phone. Ty decided which photos would be posted on backpage.ca He initially posted the photos of T.T. and subsequently posted the photos of M.C. including one of M.C. and T.T. together. Ty sent M.C. the links to the backpage.ca ad after he posted. M.C. indicated that she provided Ty a description to be used in the backage.ca ad but did not know if he used it. She knew that the ad was posted on backpage.ca because she was contacted by clients.

[42] M.C. testified that after the ad was posted she saw clients on her own, T.T. saw one client, and they saw a client together. When she was arrested she had approximately $1000 and T.T. had approximately $500 from these transactions. They worked together less than twenty-four hours. M.C. said that she did not discuss with T.T. what would happen with her money but M.C. believed that T.T. would be giving Ty her money, and Ty asked her if she told T.T. "how it's going to go." She understood that he was asking her whether she told T.T. that she would be handing her money over to him.

[43] In respect of T.T.'s age, M.C. testified that before she met T.T., T.T. told her that she was 19 and M.C. relayed this to Ty. When she met T.T. in person, T.T. told her she was only 18 and she believed her. She could not recall if she told Ty that T.T. was only 18.

[44] T.T. never provided any identification. M.C. asked T.T. if she had identification and she told M.C. that she did not have any identification, but would get identification in four weeks. T.T. told M.C. that she was not in school and was working at an outlet. She said different things about where she lived and mentioned Barrie and Toronto. M.C. did not make other inquiries to confirm that T.T. was 18 or older and she was not aware of Ty making any inquiries. During cross-examination, M.C. testified that she first learned T.T. was under 18 when she was arrested.

[45] On the night of her arrest, M.C. was expecting a client to attend the condominium for a duo with T.T. When she answered the door a number of police officers entered and she was arrested. She was placed in a police cruiser and taken to the police station. M.C. had never been arrested prior to March 8, 2017.

[46] M.C. was interviewed by the police three times, shortly after her arrest on March 8, 2017, following a subsequent arrest on April 12, 2017, and on May 4, 2017. M.C. testified that in the first statement following her arrest she was aggressive and did not say anything. She did not want to talk to the police and did not tell the police about Ty. She said that the police asked her about "Jay" (a name provided to the police by T.T.) and she said she did not know who that was. She said that if the police had directly asked her about Ty, she probably would not have told them anything because she did not want to get him in trouble.

[47] M.C. was released from custody and continued to have contact with Ty following her arrest. Her mother texted Mr. Crosdale and asked him to meet them to return M.C.'s identification. M.C. asked him for money and told him she did not have any. He met her and her mother in a parking lot outside of a nail salon in Mississauga and brought her identification and $500. She told him that she had been arrested, and he told her that he thought she had run off with T.T. He commented that he was glad she had not run off or he would have gotten his friends after her.

[48] M.C. agreed that in her April 12, 2017 statement she said things that were not true. She testified that she knew the statement was under oath and that she was obliged to tell the truth and she was cautioned by the police that if she lied she could be charged with a crime. She explained that at the time of her second statement her life was in transition, but she was still uncertain about whether she would return to escorting. She indicated that she was more willing to talk to the police, however, she continued to feel badly about implicating Mr. Crosdale and was not very open. She did not have contact with Ty after her arrest on April 12, 2017 as a result of a no contact provision.

[49] M.C. provided the May 4, 2017 statement because she contacted the police and requested an opportunity to provide a further statement in order to correct information she had previously given to the police and to provide further information. M.C. explained that she was subject to house arrest for eight months and had a lot of time to think. She said that she was beginning to appreciate that Mr. Crosdale had betrayed her, that he was not trying to help her, and his involvement with her was for his benefit. She realized that he had been using her. In addition, she knew that it was wrong to lie to the police.

[50] In cross-examination the defence established a number of important inconsistencies between M.C.'s first two statements and her evidence at trial including:

• At trial she indicated that Ty had her identification because he did not trust her after the New Year's incident. In her April 12, 2017 statement she said he had her identification because she asked him to hold it for her because someone tried to steal money from her purse. During cross-examination, M.C. said this was not true and she corrected the false information when she provided her third statement. In her third statement M.C. said that Ty would leave her with her driver's licence because she needed it to get into the hotels, but he took everything else including her health card and bank cards so she could not deposit money. She said that it was a means of controlling her because he did not trust her and thought she would run away.

• At trial, M.C. testified that after her arrest when she asked for her identification and money back Mr. Crosdale gave her only $500. In the April 12, 2017 statement she said that he gave her the money she asked for and had returned $1000. At trial M.C. agreed that she never asked for all her money back but said that this was because she was still thinking about going back to him. In her May 4, 2017 statement M.C. said that when she told him she needed money she knew she would not get it back. He met her and returned $500 and her identification. She told him that she needed money for a lawyer and related expenses and he said when it gets to that point they would talk about it. After that, he would not talk to her for weeks and when she would bring it up he told her that when she got back on her feet they would get things going again. She said she needed more money, and he said "don't dip too much into your funds".

• M.C. agreed that on April 12, 2017 when asked if she was ever fearful of Ty she said "never", and when asked if he was ever intimidating, she said "No". At trial M.C. testified that this was not true, and agreed that she lied. She said that she was fearful of him for weeks after he hit her.

• At trial M.C. testified that although Ty promised to get her something each time she made $5000 the only thing she received was the Louis Vuitton purse. In her April 12, 2017 statement, she said that after reaching the second $5000 he "introduced" her to having her hair done. In her testimony, M.C. explained that he did introduce her to having her hair done but that was not what she requested. In re-examination it was established that in the May 4, 2017 statement M.C. indicated that after she received the Louis Vuitton purse she did not get anything further stating "after I made like probably 20 grand after my purse, I didn't get anything. Like I got my hair done. Like probably once, and that is about it".

[51] In cross-examination Mr. Caroline identified a number of prior inconsistent statements that M.C. made to T.T. during the time they were together:

• She agreed that she told T.T. that Ty was a good guy and he was not bossy, did not tell her what to do, and did not beat her.

• She agreed that she probably told T.T. that he was not abusive and that T.T. was free to leave any time she wanted. In re-examination M.C. explained that she believed that she was being manipulated by Mr. Crosdale and although she did not think he was abusive during the time she was working with him after she had time away from him and thought about the situation she came to realize that he was abusive.

• She may have told T.T. that she did not have to give money to Ty. In re-examination M.C. clarified that she did not recall if she told T.T. that she could keep her money.

• It was possible she asked T.T. over social media to be her rider girl. In re-examination M.C. clarified that she did not recall speaking about being a rider girl with T.T. and "rider girl" was not an expression that she used.

[52] One additional and important inconsistency relates to M.C.'s knowledge of T.T.'s age. M.C. testified that she did not know T.T. was under 18 until she was arrested. However, T.T. testified that M.C. learned she was only 16 when Cora saw a photo of them together on Instagram and told M.C. that she was 16. She said M.C. said she should have told her.

[53] In addition, in cross-examination M.C. agreed that Ty did not tell her to find someone else to work with her. She wanted to work with T.T. to have companionship. However, in re-examination, M.C. clarified that although he did not directly tell her to find someone, he told her that a girl he had for a short time had already found someone to work with her and she wanted Ty's attention and did not want him to feel that the other girl was better so she felt she needed to find someone to work with her.

[54] M.C. was asked a number of questions regarding the tattoo she obtained in January 2017. She agreed during cross-examination that she instructed the tattoo artist, Neil Kelling, to add the name Ty after she received a text from Ty. She agreed that after the tattoo was completed she told the tattoo artist that it was a good job and that she would recommend him and that she posted the tattoo on Instagram. She also agreed that she contacted the tattoo artist sometime in 2018 to indicate that she was interested in participating in a contest for a free tattoo. However, M.C. explained that the tattoo was completed about a week after Ty assaulted her and she was not going to say no to him when he suggested the tattoo and told her to add Ty to the tattoo. M.C. explained that although she was proud of the tattoo when it was done, she later regretted it but this did not change her view that the tattoo artist was talented. She subsequently had the tattoo removed.

[55] At the time of trial, M.C. had no outstanding charges. Prior to trial she pled guilty to one offence in relation to the events at the Anndale condominium. On October 24, 2017 M.C. received a conditional sentence with house arrest for 12 months and 12 months' probation. The defence suggested that M.C. had a motive to fabricate exploitation by Mr. Crosdale in order to better her situation vis a vis her own charges.

[56] The key areas of inconsistency related to whether Mr. Crosdale possessed M.C.'s identification and money for safekeeping, or as a tool of control and for his own benefit, whether he withheld her money, whether he was physically abusive and controlling, whether she was fearful of him, and whether she knew T.T. was under 18-years-old prior to her arrest. In order to avoid repetition, I have dealt with some of the specific inconsistencies and issues raised by the defence in my analysis of the charges.

[57] Mr. Caroline suggested that I should treat M.C. as a Vetrovec witness. I have approached M.C.'s evidence with caution recognizing that she has made prior inconsistent statements on material matters, including inconsistent statements that were under oath and subject to caution and that at the time she gave her statement she was also charged with criminal offences related to the events at the Anndale condominium. However, aside from these facts, M.C. had no prior criminal record, had not been previously arrested, and did not have a history of dishonesty. I have kept in mind that I may choose to believe and rely upon all, some, or none of her evidence.

[58] Despite the prior inconsistent statements, and the fact that M.C. was also charged with offences related to the events at the Anndale condominium, I find that her evidence at trial was largely credible and reliable. The key exception relates to M.C.'s knowledge of T.T.'s age. I accept the evidence of T.T. that on the second day they were together M.C. learned through Cora that she was only 16-years-old. I also believe that M.C. knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that T.T. was under 18-years-old when she first met her. T.T. appeared very youthful, made inconsistent statements to M.C. about her age, and was unable to provide any identification. She was vague about where she lived and worked previously. I also believe that M.C. understated her role in the recruitment of T.T.

[59] Like many honest witnesses, M.C. had some minor difficulties remembering the chronology of certain events and the exact timing of certain incidents.

[60] Subject to these exceptions, I found M.C. to be generally a credible and reliable witness who was sincere and did her best to be accurate and truthful. I accept that at the time of M.C.'s initial statement, immediately following her arrest, and at the time of her April 12, 2017 statement, M.C. wanted to protect Ty. She was reluctant to identify him or implicate him in wrongdoing and was not truthful with the police about the nature of their relationship. I accept that at that time she cared for Mr. Crosdale and did not fully appreciate the extent to which he exploited her or the control that he exercised over her. M.C. was immersed within the sex trade, a place where some of the exploitive behaviours were normalized and a part of everyday life. I accept that it took time and separation from her life with Mr. Crosdale for M.C. to recognize and be ready to openly discuss the true nature of their relationship.

[61] In addition, it is not surprising that M.C. was initially reluctant to implicate Mr. Crosdale. Although he was her pimp, she was emotionally attached to him. They shared an intimate relationship, and although M.C. knew the relationship would not progress she cared for him. In addition he had isolated her from others for months and was one of her only sources of companionship. I accept that despite his acts of violence and control towards her she saw him as kind and believed he was remorseful. That she would perceive him as kind is not shocking given the contrast between his behaviour, exploitive as it was, and the serious physical abuse she suffered at the hands of her previous pimp, JP.

[62] In addition, at the time of her first and second statements, M.C. thought she may continue working in the sex trade with Mr. Crosdale and he had all of her money. She had a significant interest in protecting him and seeking to maintain the relationship. After a period of time away from Mr. Crosdale, M.C. took the initiative to speak with the police and correct the inaccurate information she had provided.

[63] I do not accept that M.C. fabricated information to better her own circumstances. The evidence did not show that the information that she ultimately provided implicating Mr. Crosdale was given as a quid pro quo in exchange for favourable treatment of her criminal charges. There is no evidence that the police offered her a deal, or that there was any assurance that she would benefit by way of a less severe sentence if she agreed to testify. Finally, M.C. did not appear to display any particular contempt for Mr. Crosdale and did not present as vindictive. She often painted him in a positive or sympathetic light. She did not overstate the evidence.

[64] Significantly, many aspects of M.C.'s evidence are supported by extrinsic confirmatory evidence and overall her evidence made sense.

ii. Evidence of T.T.

[65] T.T. was also called as a witness by the Crown. In addition to her viva voce evidence two statements provided by T.T. to the York Regional Police on March 9, 2017 and March 16, 2017 were adopted by her and admitted pursuant to s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

[66] T.T.'s birthday is […], 2000. In March 2016, T.T. was 16- years-old, and in grade eleven. Like M.C., she was vulnerable. She was living with her mother in Barrie. Her father lived in Aurora but her relationship with him had deteriorated and she was depressed. She was not attending school regularly because she was being bullied. She could not work because she did not have a social insurance number. When she was 14 years old, T.T. learned that her parents were not her biological parents when her biological mother contacted her in an effort to establish a relationship. In the timeframe leading up to the allegations, T.T. was in contact with her biological mother and father. Both were involved in the sex trade. In addition, T.T. was involved in a relationship with a 22-year-old man, whom she described as abusive.

[67] T.T. knew JP, M.C.'s former pimp, because he was her sister's ex-boyfriend. She knew his new girlfriend Cora and understood that M.C. and Cora had worked as escorts for JP. T.T. indicated that she followed M.C. on Instagram and then added her on Snapchat and M.C. messaged her and invited her to hang out with her. This led to her meeting M.C. at the Anndale condominium on March 6, 2017. T.T. indicated that she first started talking to M.C. about a week prior to meeting her and she told her about how escorting works. M.C. told her she was getting a condominium and invited her to come and see it.

[68] In her March 9, 2017 statement T.T. said that she got involved in the sex trade because she wanted to earn money and could not work because she did not have a social insurance number. She said that March 7 and 8, 2017 was the first time she had worked as an escort, although she had previously thought about escorting with Cora. She emphasized that it was her choice to become an escort and denied that M.C. had convinced her. She indicated that she did it because she needed the money and noted that she saw M.C.'s Louis Vuitton purse and thought that it was "all lavish".

[69] T.T. indicated that she took a cab to the Anndale condo and M.C. paid for the cab. She was at the condominium with M.C. from March 6, 2017 until she was arrested on March 9, 2017. On the night she arrived she went for dinner with M.C. and they went to Rexall to buy some things including condoms and lube before returning to the condominium. After they returned to the condominium, M.C. went downstairs to get Zaddy, her pimp, and he came to the unit. This was the only time she met Zaddy.

[70] T.T. indicated that when they met he told her that she looked prettier in person than on Instagram. He then told her that they were going to "get into it", and they then took photographs to be posted on backpage.ca. He gave her a choker to wear. Although she did not like it, he told her "all my girls have something glamorous in their pictures" so she wore it. M.C. and T.T. took pictures using their phones. T.T. said that Zaddy was present the entire time but did not take the pictures. She did not recall him telling her how to pose. She initially used her phone, but it was not working well so she used M.C.'s and sent the pictures she took on her phone to M.C. She took a lot of pictures and Zaddy picked the ones he liked. T.T. indicated that it took a while to take the photos because they were trying to get ones that Zaddy was satisfied with. She thought he was at the condo for one to two hours. M.C. sent the pictures to Mr. Crosdale to post on backpage.ca and he posted the ad.

[71] While Zaddy was at the condominium he spoke with T.T. about how things would work. He instructed her to text him when she had a half hour call and he would text her over BBM half an hour later to make sure they were okay.

[72] T.T. testified that after the ads were posted she and M.C. "ran their own phones", meaning they communicated directly with clients responding to the ads on their phones. She testified that she did two duos before the police attended and when the police arrived she was expecting to do another duo with M.C. She and M.C. both had oral sex with the first client and they had intercourse with the second client the next day. M.C. did more calls than she did because she was not comfortable doing singles. She sat in the living room while M.C. was doing single calls. She thought M.C. did four or five calls the first night.

[73] T.T.'s evidence about the prices and money she made had slight variations. She said that she and M.C. set the prices for services including a duo price, and that the prices started at $280 for "head" for half an hour with the prices increasing from that point. In her second statement she said the prices were $240 for a half hour, and $400 for an hour. In one statement she indicated that she made $400 in total, which was seized by the police with her coat and phone when she was arrested, while at another point she indicated that she did two half hour calls and made $480.

[74] In relation to her routine while at the condominium, T.T. said that Zaddy would call them to wake them up and then they would get ready. They woke up at around 9 a.m., got ready by 10:30 a.m. or 11:00 a.m. and went for breakfast and exercise. Once they were ready, M.C. would message Zaddy, and he would post and they would get calls. They would stop around 4 p.m. and then do the same thing again. She indicated that Zaddy told them when to sleep and when to work but also indicated that M.C. told her when to wake up and told her they had to "grind" when she wanted to sleep longer.

[75] T.T. said that on Wednesday, March 8, 2017 she and M.C. went to McDonald's for breakfast at 8 a.m., returned to the condo, and then showered and washed up and called Zaddy and told him they were ready. They did the second duo and M.C. saw other clients. They went to Burger King for food and when they returned the police came.

[76] In her statement of March 16, 2017, T.T. provided DC Owen with numerous BBM messages she exchanged with Zaddy. I have no doubt that "Zaddy" is Christian Crosdale, and that the BBM exchanges were between T.T. and Christian Crosdale. The BBM icon contains a photo identified by M.C. as Mr. Crosdale. The photo utilized in the icon was located on Mr. Crosdale's Samsung S6 phone seized from his vehicle on the day of his arrest and M.C.'s cellular phone also had contact with "Zaddy". T.T. indicated that she met Zaddy at the condominium the first night she arrived and he gave her his BBM contact information that night and they continued to communicate over BBM after he left the condominium. The surveillance footage from 2 Anndale referenced below shows Mr. Crosdale attending and leaving the 2 Anndale condominium in the early morning hours on March 7, 2017.

[77] The BBM messages obtained from T.T.'s phone (Exhibit 13) provide compelling evidence of the nature of Mr. Crosdale's relationship with T.T. T.T. indicated that she and Mr. Crosdale began exchanging messages shortly after Mr. Crosdale left the condominium. Most of the relevant messages and dates are set out below. The messages from Mr. Crosdale are italicized for ease of reference.

[Link to backpage.ca advertisement] http://toronto.backpage.ca/FemaleEscorts.bella-marie-petite-mixed-spanish-filipino-girl-amazing-mout-skills [Mr. Crosdale sent a link to the backpage.ca advertisement advertising T.T.'s sexual services. The descriptors match the backpage ads containing photos of T.T. and M.C. posted on March 7 and 8, 2017 and located by the police (see exhibits 4, 5, and 14). T.T. identified the ads and explained that M.C. and Zaddy picked the name Bella Marie for her].

March 7 Hi hun, my rates are 120hh, 220hr full service. BBBJ included. Ima real girlfriend experience. [Ms. T. indicated that Zaddy sent her this message to send to each client. BBBJ referred to bare back blowjobs].

With me the grass is always greener on my side of the fence. There's no goal to big to accomplish. You can have anything you want form me. I'll be taken care of you with no worries at all anymore your journey to to living lavish an becoming an upscale starts today. As long as you grind hard and you're loyal and respect everything, everything will run smoothly. [T.T. explained that grind means to have sex for money]

Thank you so muchhhh! So nice meeting you today. Super excited to start this journey. FrFr. Of Course. All those are a must, I have them. An all I gotta do is prove it.

March 7: Exactly, your head is on straight you have a lot of potential. Your future is looking bright.

Super excited. Thank you so much!

March 7: Get a good sleep I'll talk to you tomorrow.

Gnite.

March 7: Sorry, the wifi got turned off last night & I did not see your message til now.

March 7: Good morning. Your official first day so get ready brush your teeth do ur make up straighten your hair an get dressed an you and M.s gonna go grab food an when you guys get back Ima post both yall.

March 7: Morning!! Aw ok! Sounds good.

Yess. We're getting ready both rn.

March 7: We're back.

March 7: Aight cutie.

Mar 7: When you get a call you message me hh or an hr and when they leave you msg me out so I know it went well.

Mar. 7: ok. I will 100%.

You have a lot to prove. Ima be watching you closely, making sure you on point and making smart choices. We are all about positivity an living lavish. You gonna have pimps messaging you talking pure shit. ignore them you with me now and there's nothing a nig can do for you that I can't.

This is your week to show me u down. S o let's have a good week and after we gonna go celebrate and pop a bottle toast to the journey we gonna take an the good life you gonna live .

March 7: Definitely will be making positive choices! I'm so happy I met you. You're a good person and so is m. Sounds like a plan. Can't wait

!Grindgrindgrind.

March 7: Half hour duo.

Aight.

Would you consider me a ho for doing this? I just want somebody's honest opinion for real, like I'm so in the game but I feel like I'm I guess because it's my first time, I got to get used to it." [this message is not contained in Exhibit 13 but was read by T.T. from her phone during the s. 715.1 statement of March 16, 2017. I accept that this message exists but was not captured when the messages were sent to Det. Owen.]

March 7: You aren't a ho, you a go-getter. You a hustler. in regular life u can't accomplish your goals as fast as u can in this game. no guy wants a relationship. The wanna smash and dash so why not get paid for it an stack up and live lavish an ho is a girl who fucks for free an wastes her pussy for no reason u are smart for grinding we do it the classy way look at the girls in the states they strip a ball out an live lavish.

That's so true. That made me feel so much better.

March 7: I respect you for taken a step to change ur life. As long as ur on this game an u living lavish, and u ain't a druggie or a drunkie an u have goals no one can talk down on you.

u wanna be a baddie, u on the right path.

Never dat. Never a druggie. An I barely drink even, once in ….

I have connections for real estate course at a good price a good friend of mine runs the course.

SAY WORD. OMG.

Word. You young u got plenty of time your only focus is upgrading yourself an getting ahead in life. everything else will fall into (place).

Hh duo. An for sure K I'll msg u when we're done.

March 7: I just posted u .

March 7: Haven't I been posted.

Lol. I post u more than once. Thousands of girls post when I post your ad. Your ad goes down on the list, so I post more than once to keep you girls at the top of the list.

Yeah thought so babe. Hh duo. Talk soon.

March 7: Done the hh.

Aight. Tricks be loving you guys . lol

March 7: they legit loving us Zaddy. ADORING us.

March7: you two are a good duo team! A tricks fantasy. Keep up the good work!

I know! I have not done a single one. I am still super shy. I needa get use to it first. But I'm loving this so far still. The money. Not even pleasure. Lol.

It's all about the $$$.

It issss. We have bare calls rn. Back too back.

Where u when she in the individual call .

Downstairs. I'm waiting. I got the guy from downstairs, opened the door.

When you downstairs keep to urself nigs will try. I'm holla cuz u cute. 9 times out of 10 a nig is a pimp or a dboy or wants to be a pimp.

I ignore everybody. So I'd just ignore. Ya. 100 gotchu. Don't talk to no nigga. I have respect.

If you see a man who's a potiental trick then you can tell something like if he likes what u can see if him ur work number tell him the rates and keep it moving. a true baddie can pull tricks anywhere .

Ofc

March 7: What kind of shoes u like. U too cut to b wearing those.an u can't wear that around me at a stripclub when I take you.

Air max still. Yeah I know.

What's ur fav colour and foot size

Pink and purple and 8, or 8.5.

Duo call hh.

March 7: Out

Aight.

He was so fuccked we kawalled him haaardd.

$300 for bb and we snuck a condom on. Between our fingers and he didn't even noice. Notice.

March 7: Sneaky girl .

M.(M.C.) told me that trick.

You got skillz. You a natural. [T.T. testified that they did not give service to this client because he wanted unprotected sex. Instead they "kicked him out" and kept the money. She lied to Zaddy when she said that they had given him service.]

March 7: What's your goal today. Let's see if we on the same page .

1300.

Well that's an odd number. Lol

Or more. I know Ima hit it tho. Ima grind all night. Haha.

Aim for 1000 first then u work on a next goal. never get too ahead of uself .

March 7: I was gonna say 1000 actually. Yea for sure.

What you at now?

500. Not that good. But It'll improve. An I'm gonna reach that goal.

[ Zaddy sent a screen shot of the goal discussion] each day that's your goals aim for 500 then once you do that aim for 1000.

What happen?

then again that's the key.

Yeah. Okay. It il build up. I can tell already.

I gotta get you elastics . [T.T. testified that M.C. had a conversation with Zaddy that she overheard in which he told M.C. to teach her about elastics. She explained that elastics are used to wrap quantities of money.]

March 7: Yes please Zaddy.

I usually get these cute colourful ones for girls .

Pleasee & when can u come check us next.

I live in sauga. I'm not far. Right now just running around handling business.

Okayyyy. Okayyyy. Okay.

Could I get smokes or no? I'm not jus gonna go get them without asking so I thought I'd ask.

Ya. I didn't know u smoke. U have 500 she has 560 so she taken the 60 and u guys get food an smokes. The key to stacking is stacking the even amount spending the odd.

Only sometimes! A pack would last me a week! An I like "the key to stacking is stacking the even amount spending the odd."

March 7: We're back.

Aight. Posted .

Okay . Thank you.

March 7: Super slow wyd?

When was ur last 5 msgs

Hug boo?

Ur last 5 messages from tricks. I wanna know the flow.

Ohhhh Okay one sec.

1029. But they were 1029, 1024, 933.

Slow flow right now.

Yea super. We stay up right?

What's ur sleep schedule. U a early morning girl. Or a nite owl.

Usually during the week mon-wed. there is the much need to stay up hella late thursday-weekend staying up late is the smart thing to have do cuz ppl looking to have fun. All nite.

March 7: Yeah super the weekend must be boominnn.Yea. Did we get a repost.

At 12 I'm gonna.

Okay sweet. Another thing. Once I reach my goal can we go get me some eyelashes? Need to stock up & m.(M.C.) said there's a lit makeup factory. In Saugus I think it was. [T.T. explained that she asked Zaddy about spending her money for eyelashes because she believed she had to ask him if she wanted something.]

Eyes isn't light work. I'll pick some up for u next time I see u. do u like hers? The length and thickness?

Yessss & perfect. Ty so much. I always buy the king an thick.

March 8: Aight. An I posted.

March 8: Okay perfect thank you.

Speaking of cleaning up. Go through your ig an get rid of any Ps on your ig.an snapchat. [ig is a reference to Instagram]

I'm not honestly and truly sure that I have any, do u see any on my insta that I'm following? I'll go and unfollow them rn. I use to keep my account unlocked, but now its locked so I can see who tries to add me. Snapchat I don't have any.

March 8: I haven't been on your insta, but if you do tho. handle it. Not sure if u can tell but usually in their bio it be some slick shit about making money an bitches u know.

Okay. Yes, I will go through them now & look & ill put zaddys girl wit some good? (happy face emoji) I posted earlier with m.(M.C.) and put this. One sec. [T.T. sent an image of her and M.C., with the hashtags Barbie.ak.#zaddysangels #moneymachines #wifey #condolife #workhardplayharder #rider #baabygurl. She explained that she put Zaddy's name in her bio on Instagram so that men would know that she has a pimp.]

March 8: Tired? Let's shut it down ." [T.T. understood this meant Zaddy would delete the ad so they could sleep.]

Yeah super okay.

All the calls came from the a.m. so hopefully tomorrow is even better than today?"

Yeah I know or in the evening when they get off work! Tomorrow will be a better day. Just gonna set my alarm too 9am an be ready by 10?

I'll message u in the am as soon [portion of the message is cut off].

Yeah exactly those times is good to catch the business tricks who on lunch break.

Hey.

March 8: Gm toooooo you.

Did u reply to any missed msgs.

March 8: Yes.

March 8: U ate an u ready I just posted.

Yea. Thank u. Ms (M.C.) being weird today. hmmm wonder if I did something…

How she acting weird . She broke her nail today. I think she just upset.

I know she was putting her shoe on. Even before that. I dk.

She isn't mad at u don't worry. So far you perf3ct.

Okay & ok thanku.

Stay this way and as long as you respectful an loyal an grind hard there's no issues on my part. I'm glad I met u. We both are glad u a cool girl.

Always respecting people & …

Today is Wednesday, also known as HUMP DAY. Let's make it a MONEY day. Let's mil. let's empty these tricks' wallets.

Oh yeah. It is hump day! Okaaayyy!

March 8: ur short term goal today is? lets see if u catching on.

500?

U have 500 now, so ur short turn goal is to turn it to 1000. Then u do it again .

Okay but man I'm not getting nooooo calls rn.

March 8: I just posted you. U getting txt tho.

Ohhh like right right now or like 5 min ago when u posted me? Yea but they think I'm an $80 whore.

Why u say that?

They asking me too do 80hh and shit. Like hell na.

March 8: Ur reception is bad. I sent that msg a while ago.

Oh it said u just sent it. When u gonna post again? What are the usual times? Sorry for buggin u.

(Missed BBM call.)

Call

U gonna need lipstick to to. Ima get red matte colour. Like a cherry red?

The kylie ones a red mat. I think I have a photo. Not cherry. Hold on. I'll send a photo. This really isn't a good one. I couldn't find a picture but its more poppin in person.[Image of T.T. with red lipstick] file transfer failed.

Ur internet slow didn't let me upload.

Mar 8 Ah. This sucks ok I'll.

At 4 ima post.

Ok when do u post us again?

8

Sweet ok.

March 8: just posted. What u eat.

McDonalds and I feel soooo sick rn. But I should be good when we have our duo calls. Idc moneys money, weather I feel shitty or not u know. But we regret eating it. Ha ha.

[78] T.T. first spoke to DC Owen on March 9, 2017 after the YRP arrested her at the condominium at 2 Anndale, Toronto. She provided the first statement in the early morning hours following her arrest. She was provided with the right to counsel, cautioned and spoke with duty counsel prior to providing her statement. Her mother was present during the statement.

[79] At the outset of the March 9, 2017 statement T.T. told DC Owen that on the advice of duty counsel she did not want to speak to the police about the events at the condominium. At trial, T.T. indicated that she was anxious, tired, cold, and was not feeling well. She said that she was not comfortable providing details and speaking about having sex for money in front of her mother. She also expressed in the statement that she did not want to be a rat.

[80] T.T. gave a second statement on March 16, 2017. The second statement was under oath and cautioned. T.T.'s mother was not present during the second statement and she provided much more information in the second statement.

[81] The defence identified a number of inconsistencies between T.T.'s previous statements and her evidence at trial:

• In her first statement T.T. said that she did not know M.C.'s pimp' s name and said that it was "Jay" or something and that he was not from Canada. She said that she spoke to M.C.'s pimp on M.C.'s phone but "that was about it". In her second statement T.T. disclosed that M.C.'s pimp was named Zaddy.

• In her first statement M.C. suggested M.C.'s pimp was not going to be her pimp and she did not intend to give him her money. At trial she testified that she believed Zaddy was her pimp and expected that she would have to give him her money. T.T. explained that she initially said he was not her pimp because her mother was present and she did not feel comfortable explaining that she would be giving her money to a pimp. In re-examination T.T. explained that she understood he was her pimp from the content from the BBM messages and although he did not explicitly state he was her pimp, it was implied. She indicated that it was also implied that she would be required to give him the money she earned.

• In her first statement Ms. T. said she wanted to make enough money to get a tattoo done and then planned to go home. In the March 16, 2017 statement T.T. said that she expected that Zaddy would move them to another city on Friday, March 10, 2017.

• In her statement of March 9, 2017 T.T. said that M.C. did not know her age during the first two days, but learned her age four or five days prior to March 9, 2017. At trial, T.T. indicated that she did not know why she said that because she was not with M.C. for 4 or 5 days.

• She agreed that in her statement of March 16, 2017 she said that she would consider M.C. as her pimp. At trial she explained, that she believed M.C. was being controlled to control her, and it seemed that way because she was with her all the time. In respect of Zaddy she said that while she said he did not seem bossy in her first statements, she believed he was bossy in the text messages because he was telling her what to do.

[82] In cross-examination, T.T. agreed that she decided to work with M.C. to make money. M.C. convinced her it was a good lifestyle and she was not forced or tricked. She agreed that neither Zaddy nor M.C. asked her for money directly and she never gave them any money. When she learned Zaddy was involved, she never indicated that she did not want to continue to work with M.C. T.T. agreed that she was making a lot of money and she was not unhappy at the point the police intervened.

[83] T.T. testified that although she believed she was working for Zaddy he never forced her to do anything she did not want to do, he was polite, and her understanding from M.C. was that he was not abusive. In her March 16, 2017 statement, T.T. said that she tried to be nice to him because he scared her. When asked why, she explained that he was a big guy. She also testified that he told her if she wanted to leave she should let him know. She said she did not know what would happen if she left and when he kept saying "loyalty" and "respect" it made her feel that if she left or did not comply there would be a problem.

[84] I am satisfied that T.T. was not forthcoming in her first statement with the police because she did not want to implicate M.C. and Zaddy and was not comfortable speaking about the events in the presence of her mother. I accept that T.T. was more truthful and forthcoming in her subsequent statement and at trial.

[85] I find as a fact that T.T. met Zaddy for the first time in the early morning hours of March 7, 2017. After briefly meeting him, he instructed her and M.C. to take photos for backpage.ca. After the photos were completed he left the condominium but continued to communicate with T.T. through BBM.

[86] Despite her failure to initially name Zaddy and despite the inconsistencies, I am satisfied that both she and Mr. Crosdale understood that he was her pimp, and that she would be required to turn her money over to him. His relationship to her as a pimp is clearly implied throughout the BBM messages in which his exercise of control, direction, and influence is evident. In addition, the BBM messages show that T.T. acknowledged this relationship in her Instagram post of March 7, 2017. The BBM messages also clearly establish the foundation for her expressed concern about what might happen if she refused to comply with his direction and control.

[87] I am satisfied that during her contact with him in person, and over BBM Mr. Crosdale engaged in conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause T.T. to fear for her safety if she did not comply with his direction to grind hard (provide sexual services for money) and that his conduct in fact caused her to feel uncomfortable and fearful. In addition to the BBM messages, T.T.'s evidence was corroborated in many respects by other extrinsic evidence, set out below. T.T. was a youthful witness and I found that at times she did not appreciate the nuances of certain questions, particularly in cross-examination, which at times led to her becoming frustrated. However, on the whole she gave her evidence in a straightforward manner and did her best to be accurate and truthful. She did not embellish or exaggerate what happened and if anything understated Zaddy's conduct. I accept her evidence at trial as credible and reliable in respect of the events of March 6-8, 2017 and her relationship with Mr. Crosdale and M.C.

iii. Corroborative Evidence

[88] Exhibit 7 included a number of backpage.ca ads from December 20, 2016, and February 17, 20, 25, 2017, March 5, 2017 and April 4, 2017 which contain photographs of M.C. and advertise the sale of the sexual services of M.C. The different ads show that M.C.'s services were offered at many different locations including Cambridge/401, Hespeler Road, Guelph; Young and Sheppard (Toronto); Airport and Dixon Road, Mississauga; Pickering at Whites Road and the 401, Durham Region; and Fallsview, Niagara. These advertisements corroborate M.C.'s evidence that during the time she was working with Mr. Crosdale she was working out of hotels, and moving frequently from place to place.

[89] Exhibit 4 contains the backpage.ca advertisement posted on March 7, 2017 at 2:21 a.m. containing images of T.T. and M.C. M.C. and T.T. identified the images as the photos taken when Ty (Zaddy) was present at the condominium. Some of the photos are of T.T. alone, and some are of M.C. and T.T. together. In the images T.T. is wearing only stockings, a diamond choker, earrings and a bracelet. In one image she is wearing a bra. M.C. is also naked and is wearing diamond neck chokers, bracelets, and earrings. Images of jewelry of the same type in boxes was located on Mr. Crosdale's phone, and the evidence together tends to corroborate T.T. and M.C.'s evidence that Ty brought jewelry with him for them to wear in the photos. This supports the inference that Mr. Crosdale intended to take photos of T.T. and M.C. for backpage.ca before he met T.T., and that was part of his purpose in attending the Anndale condominium on March 7, 2017.

[90] The images and text in the March 7, 2017 backpage.ca ad are for the provision of sexual services by Bella-Marie, or for a duo with "Bella Marie" and "Alexis". T.T. indicated that "Bella-Marie" was the name suggested by Zaddy for her and that "Alexis" was M.C. The ad indicates that the age of the poster is "19". The location is identified as downtown Toronto, in an upscale condo. The contact phone number provided is 647-XXX-XXXX, identified by T.T. as her "text now" number, consistent with her evidence that she received contact directly from clients. The time of posting, 2:21 a.m., is consistent with T.T.'s evidence that the photos were taken in the early morning hours and Zaddy posted before he left the condominium. This is also consistent with the timeline established by the condominium video surveillance.

[91] Exhibit 14 is a photocopy of the notebook of DC Owen. DC Owen began the investigation when T.T.'s father contacted him because he was concerned about his daughter. Her father provided DC Owen with the name "Bella Marie" and DC Owen did a search on backpages.com and located and printed exhibit 14, the backpage ad containing the images of T.T. After printing the ad, he put it into his notebook. The ad was posted on March 8, 2017 at 4:02 p.m. It contains the same photos as those contained in exhibit 4 and the text of the ad is almost identical to the text in exhibit 14. It corroborates the evidence of T.T. and the content of the BBM messages that the backpage.ca ad for T.T. was posted more than once.

[92] Exhibit 5 is a copy of a backpage.ca ad containing images of M.C. identified by M.C. It was posted on March 8, 2017 at 4:04 p.m. It contains 6 images of M.C. alone, and three images of M.C. and T.T. together. In the images M.C. is wearing only jewelry, and T.T. is wearing only stockings and jewlery. It advertises sexual services and indicates "duos available with my friend Bella Marie". The location is identified as an "upscale condo at Young and Sheppard". The posters age is listed as 19. The contact number provided is 647-XXX-XXXX, a number identified by M.C. as associated to her phone. T.T. and M.C. confirmed that the images were taken at the condo when Zaddy(Ty) was present. The backpage.ca ads contained in exhibits 4, 5, and 14 also corroborate M.C. and T.T.'s evidence about the nature of the sexual services that were advertised.

[93] Exhibit 3 contained a series of photographs taken by the YRP at unit 1504, 2 Anndale, following M.C.'s and T.T.'s arrest on March 8, 2017. The photos make clear that the images in exhibits 4, 5, and 14 were taken in the bathroom of unit 1504. The photos show condoms and lubricant in the bedroom along with other personal care items which corroborate M.C.'s and T.T.'s evidence about the sexual services being provided at the condominium.

[94] Exhibit 3 also contains photos of a Louis Vuitton purse and wallet which contained a large number of colored elastics, $100 bills wrapped in yellow elastics, and a separate quantity of $20 bills. M.C. identified the purse as the one purchased for her by Ty. She identified the money and indicated that there was just under $1000. She explained that she would wrap the money in elastics, to be given to Ty when she had one thousand dollars. M.C. testified that Ty gave her the elastics to keep the money she made organized. This evidence, when considered in conjunction with the BBM message Mr. Crosdale sent T.T. stating that he needed to get her "elastics" supports the inference that he intended that she would provide him with the money she earned.

Data Extracted from M.C.'s Samsung Phone – Tag A1308022

[95] The police seized M.C.'s Samsung phone from the Anndale condominium. The phone was subsequently searched, and resulted in the extraction report contained in exhibit 13 which contained numerous images and text messages. Included in the images and text messages was the following:

• A photo of the tattoo M.C. described as the Eye of Horus, containing the name Ty. (Image 1) M.C. indicated that the photo was taken when the tattoo was done. The photo is dated January 10, 2017, a date shortly after New Years.

• A photo of the receipt for a Luis Vuitton purse for $1819.30 dated January 22, 2017, paid for in cash at Yorkdale Mall (Image 4 and 91); and an image of the Vuitton purse filled with a large quantity of cash (Images 94-98).

• A photo of Niagara Falls and the casino hotel captured February 2, 2017. (Image 7) and of Niagara Falls captured February 19, 2017 (Image 13).

• Photo of M.C. and T.T., dated March 7, 2017 (Images 18, 19 and 20-27). T.T. looks very youthful in these photographs.

• A photo of a large quantity of cash wrapped in elastic bands (Image 28).

• Photos of T.T. and M.C., identified by M.C. and T.T. as taken on March 7, 2017 in the presence of "Ty"/Zaddy. The images appear to have been taken at 2 Anndale and include images contained in the backpage ads depicted in exhibit 4 and additional images (Images 37 to 55 and 57, 59-77, 79-80, 85-90).

• Image of a BlackBerry message from Zaddy including the image of the back of a male wearing a red and black jersey (Image 78). M.C. identified the image as the icon she saw when she received BBM messages from Ty. This is the same icon associated to the BBM messages received by T.T.

• Image of a message sent to Zaddy that refers to $1300, with a response from Zaddy with numerous happy faces and "all hail the baddest bitch in the game." M.C. explained that it was a discussion between her and Ty when she made $1300 in five hours at the Crowne Plaza.

• Image of a red bag containing a large quantity of money (Image 99). M.C. testified that "Ty" sent her the picture and told her to send it to T.T. M.C. understood that she was to send T.T. the picture in order to persuade T.T. to work with her. She said that Ty sent her the picture a few days after she began speaking with T.T. over social media.

Data Extracted from Mr. Crosdale's Samsung Galaxy S6 Phone

[96] Mr. Crosdale was arrested at his residence on April 19, 2017 in Waterloo, Ontario after he pulled into his driveway driving a black Chrysler 300. PC Demarte and PC Prentice noticed Canadian currency and two cellular phones clearly visible near the centre console of the vehicle. The car was subsequently towed and searched by PC Prentice. Items located and seized by PC Prentice included:

i.) A Samsung Cell Phone with Otterbox located in the centre console near the gear shift.

ii.) A Samsung Cell phone without a case, located in the centre console below the environment controls.

iii.) $320 in Canadian currency.

iv.) A pencil case with two gold rings and a gold bracelet on the rear passenger seat.

[97] PC Chiu of the YRP Technical Data Recovery Unit conducted a forensic examination of both phones seized from Mr. Crosdale's vehicle at the time of his arrest. I am satisfied that the Samsung Galaxy S6, A1317310 (exhibit 12) seized from Mr. Crosdale's vehicle was Mr. Crosdale's phone. The data on the phone included numerous photos of Mr. Crosdale (see for example Images 44, 48, 56, 109, 112, 113, 156, 162, 165, 167, 202, and 233) an image of an email from Revenue Canada to Christian Crosdale, confirming that he had successfully filed his T1 tax return (Image 208), an Instagram chat between Melissa and Nicole and "Zaddys world" and Zaddy$ Angel and a text message thanking "Chris".

[98] Significantly, the data extracted from Mr. Crosdale's Samsung Galaxy S6 phone (exhibit 12), contained many images of T.T. and M.C. that they identified as having been taken at the Anndale condo on March 7, 2017. Images 43, 92, 93,124, 126, 149, 158, 163, 168, 170, and176 are of T.T. Images 148, 50, 150 160, 177, and 183 are of M.C.; and images 132, 142, 152, 159, 169, 172, 174, 182 are of T.T. and M.C. posing together. The presence of these images corroborates the evidence of M.C. that that she sent the photos to Mr. Crosdale over Instagram to post on backpage.ca. PC Chiu testified that Instagram appears in the path of the images and indicates that the files passed through the Instagram application.

[99] The photos include child pornography, which I have addressed in more detail below. Image 149 is of T.T. It shows an image of her naked including her buttocks and anal area. Different filters have been applied to the image. Image 174 is an image of T.T. and M.C. T.T. is in the background and is naked. Her breasts are exposed. The image shows different filters applied to the photo. Image 187 is an image of M.C. and T.T. posing naked. T.T. is standing in the background and is in profile. The image shows different filters applied to the photo. M.C. explained that images 149, 174 and 187 were screenshots sent to her by Ty. She said that he sent them seeking her input regarding which filter to apply to the photos that were to be posted on backpage.ca to advertise for sexual services. These images constitute evidence of the creation of child pornography. A number of the images of T.T. (see for example 163 170, and 176) include an icon of M.C. in the top left corner. This corroborates M.C.'s evidence that T.T. sent the images to her and she sent them to Ty.

[100] The data on the phone also included photos and images of text messages that corroborate the evidence of M.C. about the nature of her relationship with Mr. Crosdale including:

• Sexually explicit photos of M.C. and photos of M.C. in lingerie (images 50-54, 58, 60, 70 ,71, 74, 75, 97, 99, 101, 104, 106-108, 127,128, and137-139). M.C. identified these as photos used for backpage.ca ads. Many of the photos are the same or are similar to photos posted in the backpage.ca ads contained in exhibit 7 (see for example image 60 and p. 9 of exhibit 7; and image 61 and p.9 of exhibit 7). These images located on Mr. Crosdale's phone corroborate M.C.'s evidence that Mr. Crosdale posted her ads on backpage.ca during the period she worked for him.

• Numerous images of hotels in the greater Toronto area and hotel booking advertisements (see for example images 55, 91, 95, 110, 143,146, 178, 209, 212, 213, and 232). M.C. testified that sometimes Mr. Crosdale would send her screenshots of potential hotels to work out of and the images are capable of supporting the evidence that Mr. Crosdale chose the hotels that M.C. worked out of.

• Image 94 and 100 are images of a large stack of money on the console of a car identified by M.C. as Mr. Crosdale's car. The console is the same as the console depicted in the photos taken by the police of Mr. Crosdale's car. M.C. indicated that Mr. Crosdale would take photos of the money she gave to him. Large stacks of money are also depicted in images 111,114, 214, 217, 218, 224, 226, and 245.

• Images 32, 157, and 236 are images of money in a red bag. The images are the same as image 99 located on M.C.'s phone. M.C. testified the image was sent to her by Ty to send to T.T. The presence of this image in the data associated to the Samsung phone associated to Mr. Crosdale corroborates M.C.s evidence that it was sent to her by Ty. The image also appears in a text message between M.C. and T.T.

• Image 184 is an image of a Luis Vuitton bag that is the same as the purse photographed by the YRP at 2 Anndale, and is the same as the image of the Luis Vuitton bag located on M.C.'s Samsung phone (images 94-98).The image appears to have been posted on social media with the hash tags #zaddysangel and #thankyouzaddy, #loyalty, and #thankful. The presence of this image on Mr. Crosdale's phone corroborates M.C.'s evidence that Mr. Crosdale purchased the bag for her as a reward for her work.

• Image 59 is a photo of M.C.'s driver's licence and image 247 is an image of M.C.'s credit card. These images support M.C.'s evidence that Ty took her identification.

• Image 64 is an electronic message between (monmeyXXXz)(reference to name to M.C.) and another party. I am satisfied it is a conversation between M.C. and Mr. Crosdale. In the message Mr. Crosdale states "you represent me Ima have you in nice things Ima have you a happy ending", and "we a good team I sense that, the potential between us is great, just be %100 real, be loyal stay down be smart u can always talk to me about whats on ur mind if you have an issue we conversation n solve it. Teamwork makes the dreamwork. M.C. responds "teamwork does make the dream work" and "considering I'm rocking with you there's only a lot more loyalty honest to show my 100% trust, I'm so happy already very much happy and this is just small introduction I will always have myself on point making sure I don't make a fool off the person I extend off which is you. I will never show a petty side to me, I will start to be more open with you to keep from any problems occurring with us, I want to make this more than work cause I'm in this for all the right reasons that you have only been able to show me and I push all my respect your way I truly do youll never see disrespect or hate over pettiness I promise you. Unfortunately took me a couple hit to get to my head but I'm wiser bolder and much much more stronger to be able to stand up next to someone like you no more fall down waste bitch." (emphasis added). The content of this message supports M.C.'s evidence that Mr. Crosdale was her pimp and demanded honesty, loyalty and respect. I find that it references the assault that occurred after New Year's. This rebuts the assertion that M.C. fabricated the allegation of assault against Mr. Crosdale following her arrest. The exchange provides insight into M.C.'s state of mind following the assault.

• Image 90 is an image M.C. identified as Ty. She testified that she knew it was Ty from the tattoos on his arms. This image is the icon used by Zaddy on BBM messenger and links Mr. Crosdale to the BBM messages from Zaddy.

• Image 112 is a photo identified by M.C. of Ty. The jacket worn in the image is the same as the jacket worn by Mr. Crosdale in the surveillance video at 2 Anndale on March 9, 2017.

• Images 133,141,144, 147, 153, 191-193, 195-196, 200 and 201 are images of M.C. wearing a mask and giving oral sex to a male. M.C. identified the male as Mr. Crosdale.

• Image 180 was identified by M.C. as an electronic conversation between herself, (babygurl), and Ty. In the message Ty indicates "why u messagining me, I told you a while ago I don't wanna date you no anymore, we weren't good together, it was an unhealthy relationship, I wish you all the best, I am dating someone else". It was suggested to M.C. in cross-examination that Mr. Crosdale sent the message because he did not want further contact with her. M.C. explained that she received the message after she was arrested and sent him a follow request. She believed that he sent the message to make it appear that they were in a dating relationship instead of a pimp and escort relationship. She also testified that following her arrest Mr. Crosdale told her to change her bio from Zaddy's girl to his girl. T.T. testified that she saw the change to M.C.'s bio removing reference to Zaddy. I accept M.C.'s evidence about this message, and his request that she change her social media identifiers so that he would not be associated to her. This is capable of constituting evidence of after the fact conduct demonstrating knowledge that his prior conduct was unlawful and could be subject to police scrutiny.

• Image 241 is an image of two diamond bracelets contained in a box. These bracelets are the same as those worn by T.T. and M.C. in the photos taken on March 7, 2017 posted on backpages.ca. (see exhibits 4, 5, and 14). This image corroborates M.C.'s evidence about the jewelry Mr. Crosdale brought with him for M.C. and T.T. to wear in the pictures taken at the condo.

[101] PC Chiu also conducted a forensic examination of the Samsung Galaxy S4, A1317314. PC Chiu recovered screen shots of a conversation which are found at images 1-20 of the report for this device contained in exhibit 12. The screenshots were taken on April 4, 2017 by the Samsung Galaxy S4 seized from Mr. Crosdale. The screenshots appear to be a conversation between T.T. and a third party about M.C.'s belief that T.T. was over 18 years of age and include the following exchange.

"I was told u 2 had a convo over facebook. U told her u are 19 then u told her your bday was in a couple weeks turning 20 then she asked u how old u are again u said 18 us said u are actually 18 ur bday in august she said cool that's legal. When we go to stripclyb u will have to get a fake. My boy seen the msgs himself if was on facebook or ig so u lying an still lying."

[102] The third party indicates that the Facebook or ig (Instagram) conversation occurred before T.T. met M.C. and accuses T.T. of being paid to set her up. The individual threatens to send someone to harm her. T.T. responds she is not in Barrie because she was sent away. She states that she told the police that she initially lied about her age and that "she" would not have been in trouble if she was not in the photos with me. The other individual indicates "u also took ur own photos." T.T. confirmed that she told the police that she took her own photos and comments that M.C. took some of the photographs because they were advertising duos. The individual responds "Ima tell my boy". T.T. suggests that the person call her, but indicates they should be careful because she is being monitored. The individual states that M.C.'s phone is also being monitored but indicates that they are not worried because they have a second line. The individual indicates they are upset because a good friend is in trouble for something out of character. T.T. questions that "she" (referencing M.C.) is a good friend and the individual responds "I heard u a cool chick, so I figured u would keep it real with me."

[103] The display at the top of each message is foreignbarbs.official and includes an icon depicting female hands. A trier of fact could find that this is a conversation between Mr. Crosdale and T.T. While I believe this is possible, I also believe a third party may have sent the conversation to Mr. Crosdale and that he took a screenshot of the conversation. The conversation was not shown to or identified by T.T. during her evidence. I am not satisfied that it should be treated as an admission by Mr. Crosdale and I have not relied upon the conversation in reaching my conclusions.

[104] The YRP obtained surveillance footage from 2 Anndale for March 6, 7, and 9, 2017 which became exhibit 20. M.C. and T.T. identified themselves and Ty or Zaddy in the surveillance video. It establishes the following:

• T.T. arrived at 2 Anndale by taxi shortly after 6:20 p.m. on March 6, 2017. When she arrived M.C. met her outside, had contact with the taxi driver, and helped her to bring her things into the condominium building. (Video 1 and 2). This is consistent with M.C.'s evidence that T.T. arrived by taxi, and that she met her and paid for the taxi.

• M.C. left the condominium unit at 6:27 p.m. and returned at 6:32 p.m. with Ty carrying luggage into the condominium building. This establishes that Ty was present in the area of the condominium building shortly after T.T. arrived. I find that Mr. Crosdale was there because he knew that T.T. would be attending by taxi and was part of the plan for her to come to the condominium to work with M.C. but chose not to meet her until later that night.

• T.T. and M.C. returned to the condominium building from outside at approximately 9:14 p.m. on March 6, 2017. T.T. is carrying detergent. This is consistent with M.C.'s testimony that after T.T. arrived they left to get food and to buy T.T. some things she needed at the Rexall pharmacy.

• On March 7, 2017, at around 12:11 a.m., M.C. left the condo building, met Mr. Crosdale, and returned to the building. She went up the elevator with Mr. Crosdale. (video 6, video 7, and video 9). This is consistent with M.C.'s and T.T.'s testimony that Mr. Crosdale attended the condominium unit the night that T.T. arrived. Mr. Crosdale is wearing the same hat as is depicted in Image 233 located on his Samsung S6 cellular phone.

• On March 7, 2017 Mr. Crosdale entered the elevator at 3:13 a.m. to leave the building. I find that Mr. Crosdale was at the condominium unit with T.T. and M.C. for 3 hours. This evidence corroborates the evidence of T.T. and M.C. that Mr. Crosdale was present when photographs were taken. Images obtained from the Samsung Galaxy S6 phone associated to Mr. Crosdale were created during this three hour period and the backpage.ca advertisement, exhibit 4, was posted at 2:21 a.m., while Mr. Crosdale was at the condominium.

• On March 9, 2017 at approximately 10:34 a.m. Mr. Crosdale attended 2 Anndale and is on his phone outside of the building. He is wearing the same jacket as the one depicted in images found on his cell phone, see images 112 and 233. He entered the condominium building and spoke to the concierge at the front desk. He remained in the lobby until he left at 10:39 a.m. I find that Mr. Crosdale was not aware that the police had arrested M.C. and T.T. on March 8, 2017 and went to the condominium building on March 9, 2017 to look for them. This is capable of corroborating M.C.'s evidence that in a conversation with Mr. Crosdale following her arrest he told her that he did not know that she had been arrested by the police and thought she ran away.

[105] The evidence of Debra Munny, the concierge for 2 Anndale Drive, was tendered as an agreed statement of fact. Between March 6-8, 2017 she saw the two girls that rented unit 1504 coming and going from the building and spoke with them on a couple of occasions. She described one of the girls as Asian looking, with bright red lipstick and straight black hair. She estimated her to be 22-23 years old at most. She described the other girl as much shorter, maybe 5 feet, Hispanic looking with olivey skin. She indicated that the younger girl looked a lot younger than the Asian girl. Ms. Munny thought the younger girl was maybe 18 years old. She said that the young girl always walked behind the Asian girl who did most of the talking.

[106] On March 9, 2017, Ms. Munny arrived at work just after 7 a.m. and learned the two girls from unit 1504 were arrested. At approximately 10:30 a.m., a man came to the door of the building and gestured to be let in. He told Ms. Munny that he was there to wake up his girlfriend who was staying in unit 1504. Ms. Munny told him that she could not let him upstairs as he was not registered to the unit. He asked if Ms. Munny could go up for him. She told him she could not. Ms. Munny offered to call his girlfriend and he provided her a number from his phone. When she called the call went to voicemail and then cut off. He said the same thing happened to him. He asked if he could sit and wait a few minutes and waited in the lobby for about seven to ten minutes making calls on his phone. He asked if Ms. Munny saw "them" go out that day. She said she was not sure. He thanked her and walked out. The gentleman she dealt with was the same man depicted in the surveillance video.

[107] I am satisfied that the older girl described by Ms. Munny was M.C., and the younger girl was T.T., and that the male that attended the morning of March 9, 2017 was Mr. Crosdale.

[108] I am to able determine from my own observations of the surveillance obtained from 2 Anndale Drive, including the footage in the elevator, that Mr. Crosdale is the male depicted in the surveillance footage of March 6,7 and 9, 2017.

[109] I have no doubt that Ty/Zaddy is Christian Crosdale having regard to the totality the evidence, which includes but is not limited to:

• the photo line-up conducted by Christi Cumming of the Barrie Police Service on April 6, 2017 with T.T. in which T.T. identified Mr. Crosdale as "Zaddy".

• M.C.'s identification of "Ty" in the surveillance footage

• the images on Mr. Crosdale's Samsung phone of the photos of M.C. and T.T. taken on March 7, 2017;

• the BBM messages with the icon "Zaddy", an image of the photo depicted in the Icon was located on Mr. Crosdale's phone.

Although not explicitly admitted, there was no real issue regarding identity. Ty was someone known to M.C. for months.

C. Summary of the Law, Analysis, and Conclusions

i. General Principles

[110] In conducting my reasoning I acknowledge the presumption of innocence, the central principle of the criminal trial process. Mr. Crosdale need not prove anything at his trial. He is presumed innocent and remains cloaked in that presumption unless and until the prosecution has proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

[111] Although no evidence was tendered by the defence, I have nonetheless considered the reasoning in R. v. W.(D.), bearing in mind that exculpatory evidence can arise not only from the evidence of an accused but also from the witnesses called by the Crown. The Crown at all times bears the onus of proving the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. In deciding whether the Crown has proven the accused to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt I have approached the task as follows:

i.) If I accept as accurate evidence that cannot co-exist with a finding that the accused is guilty, I must acquit; and

ii.) If I am left unsure whether evidence that cannot co-exist with a finding that the accused is guilty is accurate, then I have not rejected it entirely and I must acquit.

iii.) Even where evidence inconsistent with the guilt of the accused is rejected in its entirety, the accused cannot be convicted unless the evidence that is given credit proves the accused to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

ii. Proof of Knowledge of Age

Knowledge and Wilful Blindness

[112] Mr. Crosdale's knowledge of T.T.'s age is an essential element of:

• count 1, trafficking of a person under the age of 18 years contrary to s. 279.011 of the Criminal Code;

• count 2, procuring a person under the age of 18 years, contrary to section 286.3 of the Criminal Code;

• Counts 5-8, the child pornography offences contrary to sections 163.1(4), 163.1(4.1), 163.1(2), and 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code.

[113] The defence submits that Mr. Crosdale had an honest but mistaken belief that T.T. was 18 years of age or more. The defence submits I should accept that Mr. Crosdale had an honest but mistaken belief, or be left in a state of reasonable doubt as to whether he had an honest but mistaken belief that she was over 18-years-old because Mr. Crosdale was only with T.T. for a short period of time, T.T. appeared 18 or older, she lied about her age, and M.C. told Mr. Crosdale that she was 18. The defence further submits that the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain T.T.'s age.

[114] The Crown submits that I should find that Mr. Crosdale knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that T.T. was under the age of 18, and that he failed to take "all reasonable steps" to ascertain the age of T.T. The Crown submits that I should make this finding because of her youthful appearance and because there is no evidence that Mr. Crosdale took any steps to confirm T.T.'s age such as asking for identification and familiarizing himself with her family. He did not do anything other than rely on the bald assertion that she was 18-years-old. In light of her youthful appearance, the Crown submits that I should conclude that Mr. Crosdale was wilfully blind to T.T.'s actual age, and failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain her age.

[115] In respect of the offence of making child pornography contrary to s.163.1(2) of the Criminal Code, s. 163.1(5) provides:

163.1(5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being 18 years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.

[116] There is also a requirement that "all reasonable step be taken" to ascertain age that applies to the offence of procuring a person under 18 years contrary to s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code. Section 150.1(5) provides that:

150.1(5) It is not a defence to a charge under … subsection 286.3(2) that the accused believed that the complainant was eighteen years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.

[117] Surprisingly, there is no provision in the Criminal Code that creates a requirement that the accused take "all reasonable steps" to ascertain age for s. 279.011, s. 163.1(4), s. 163.1(4.1), or s. 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code.

[118] As explained below, one of the essential elements of trafficking a person under the age of 18 years, contrary to s. 279.011 is that the victim is a member of the prohibited group, meaning the victim is under 18 years of age. This is the only element that distinguishes s. 279.011 from s. 279.01 of the Criminal Code. However, the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 279.011 is 5 years imprisonment, whereas, the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 279.01 is 4 years imprisonment. Since a person convicted under s. 279.011 is subjected to a greater penalty, in my view there must be some element of mens rea or fault required in respect of the additional element of age. Therefore the Crown must not only establish that the victim was a member of the prohibited group but must also establish that the accused knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that the victim was under the age of 18 years beyond a reasonable doubt. It is of note that like s. 279.01 and s. 279.011, the only difference in the essential elements between s. 286.3(1) and s. 286.3(2), the offences of procuring and procuring a person under 18 years, is proof of age. However, unlike s. 279.011, s. 286.3 is a listed offence in s. 150.1(5), which limits the defence of honest but mistaken belief in age to circumstances where the accused has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain age. This supports the view that to prove an offence under s. 279.011 in addition to proving that the victim was a member of the prohibited group, the Crown must prove that the accused had knowledge that the victim was a member of the prohibited group.

[119] As a result, in respect of s. 279.011 because there is no statutory requirement for the accused to take "all reasonable steps" to ascertain the age of the victim, I must assess whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale knew the victim was under the age of 18 years. Subjective knowledge can be established by proving actual knowledge or wilful blindness. Wilful blindness involves the deliberate choice not to know something when given reason to believe further inquiry is necessary. It exists where a person is aware of the need to make an inquiry and deliberately chooses not to make the inquiry in order to avoid knowledge of what they suspect to be possible.

[120] The legal test for wilful blindness is subjective and as a result the focus is on the accused's actual knowledge or suspicions. Determinations about what the accused actually believed must be made in light of all the circumstances. However, the question is what did the accused know and not what ought he to have known. The mere fact of making some inquiry may not take an accused outside of wilful blindness, however taking reasonable steps to comply with the law may support a finding that the accused was not wilfully blind.

[121] M.C. testified that initially, prior to meeting, T.T. told her that she was her age (19) and she (M.C.) told this to Ty. M.C. indicated that after she got to the condominium T.T. told her she was only 18. M.C. could not remember if she relayed this to Ty. M.C. said that T.T. told her she did not have any identification, but would be getting it in four weeks. M.C. said that neither she nor Mr. Crosdale made any other inquiries about T.T.'s age.

[122] T.T. testified that when she initially met Mr. Crosdale she was not wearing makeup, or not very much makeup and that Zaddy asked her how old she was and she told him she was 18. She said that he did not ask her for identification or make any other inquiries about her age.

[123] T.T.'s video statements of March 9 and 16, 2017 and April 7, 2017, show how T.T. appeared and presented at the time of the alleged offences. Although she is not wearing much make-up in the videos, T.T. said that she was not wearing very much make-up at the time she first met Mr. Crosdale. T.T. appears and presents under the age of 18 years in these videos.

[124] The photos of T.T. contained in exhibits 4, 5. and 14 (the backpage.ca ads), the additional images taken at the same time the backpage.ca photos were taken (located on Mr. Crosdale's phone and M.C.'s phone), and other images taken on M.C.'s phone during the day on March 7, 2017 including Images 18, 19, 22-27 and 83 and 84, show how T.T. looked with make-up on. Even with make-up on T.T. appears youthful and under the age of 18 years.

[125] The BBM messages between Mr. Crosdale and T.T. also provide insight into how T.T. presented at the time of the allegations. In her BBM exchanges with Mr. Crosdale she told him that she was new to the sex trade and that she was inexperienced with alcohol. She said that she was uncomfortable meeting clients alone (doing singles) and providing sexual services for money because she had never done it before. She also spoke of the fact that she had not really had alcohol in the past. This was not a situation where T.T.'s obvious comfort with the subject matter suggested that she was over the age of 18. These factors suggested that she may be under 18 years-old. In addition, Mr. Crosdale was involved in the sex trade for some time and I am satisfied that he knew that T.T. would have a motive to misrepresent her age. He did so when he posted T.T.'s backpage.ca advertisements indicating that she was 19 years old, not 18 like she told him. Mr. Crosdale had a significant motive to choose to remain ignorant of T.T.'s age because T.T. was a potential source of significant income to him.

[126] Ms. Munny saw T.T. only briefly coming and going from the building and thought that she looked a lot younger than M.C. She believed she was "maybe 18 years old."

[127] I am satisfied that Mr. Crosdale knew M.C. was only 19, he had her identification and he would have seen that T.T. looked and acted much younger, an additional factor that put him on notice and gave him reason to suspect that she was under the age of 18.

[128] Mr. Crosdale did not simply view a photo on backpages.ca or see T.T. pass by him in the lobby. He was alone with T.T. and M.C. for three hours and interacted with T.T. throughout that time. After leaving the condominium he continued to communicate with T.T. through BBM messages on March 7 and 8, 2017. I accept T.T.'s evidence that when she first met Zaddy she was not wearing much make-up. Because she looked young he asked her how old she was and she told him she was 18. Without make-up on T.T. looks and presents as a teen-age girl, under 18 years of age. In my view, even if Mr. Crosdale only saw her "made up" I am satisfied that her appearance and presentation is so youthful, that in the context of the circumstances known to Mr. Crosdale, he knew she was under 18, or suspected that she was under 18, and chose not to make further inquiries because he did not want to know the truth about her age.

[129] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale did not honestly believe that T.T. was over 18. The evidence as a whole satisfies me that Mr. Crosdale was aware of the need for some inquiry but declined to make the inquiry because he did not wish to know the truth and preferred to remain ignorant. I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale was wilfully blind.

[130] Based on the totality of the evidence I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale knew that there was a need and reason for inquiry to ascertain whether T.T. was under 18 years of age and he deliberately chose not to make further inquiries because he did not want to know the truth. The circumstances establish that Mr. Crosdale wilfully blinded himself to the true fact of T.T.'s age so as to allow himself to preserve an "honest" belief that she was 18 or older.

s. 150.1(5) and s. 163.1(5): The Accused Did Not Honestly Believe and Did Not Take All Reasonable Steps

[131] I have also concluded that Mr. Crosdale did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain T.T.'s age. In enacting legislation that provides that it is not a defence to a charge under s. 286.3(2) or s. 163.1(2) that the accused believed that the complainant was eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain age, Parliament chose to seek to protect young people from such crimes by placing the responsibility for youth victimization with adults. Parliament's allocation of responsibility to adults is crucial for protecting young people from being exploited and victimized in the sex trade. The statutory purpose of s. 150.1(5) and s. 163.1(5) weigh in favour of a construction of reasonable steps that protects children by requiring an accused to take more rather than fewer precautions in ascertaining a complainant's age.

[132] At common law "true crimes" have a purely subjective fault element. However, through statutory intervention, Parliament has imposed an objective element into the fault analysis to enhance the protections for youth. As a result, to convict an accused person who demonstrates an "air of reality" to the mistake of age defence of an offence under s. 286.3(2) or 163.1(2), the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt either that the accused:

1. did not honestly believe the complainant was at least 18 years. (the subjective element); or

2. did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age (the objective element).

[133] The first prong of the defence of honest but mistaken belief of age must rest upon an accused's subjective perception of that factual circumstance. Subjective belief of age is a matter of the state of mind of the accused. Despite the persuasive burden being on the Crown, there is an evidentiary burden on the accused to raise a reasonable doubt that he honestly believed that the complainant was over the applicable age and that he took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant. This can be done by adducing evidence or pointing to evidence in the Crown's case. The reasonable steps requirement was enacted by Parliament to foreclose exculpatory claims of ignorance or mistake that are entirely devoid of an objective evidentiary basis.

[134] In this case there is no direct evidence of Mr. Crosdale's subjective belief as to T.T.'s age. However, honest but mistaken belief in age is clearly in play as a result of T.T.'s evidence that she told Mr. Crosdale that she was 18 years old and M.C.'s evidence that she told Mr. Crosdale that T.T. was 19 years old. For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not honestly believe that T.T. was at least 18 years of age. I am also satisfied that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain T.T.'s age.

[135] The Supreme Court in George considered the "all reasonable steps" requirement in s. 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code and held that "reasonable steps" involve a fact-specific inquiry depending on all the circumstances of an individual case. The more reasonable the accused's perception of the complainant's age, the fewer steps to ascertain age reasonably required. In some circumstances the physical appearance of the complainant may be enough. Other factors that may be relevant in determining if an accused has taken all reasonable steps include:

• the victim's behaviour and activities,

• the circumstances in which the accused observed the victim,

• the information the complainant told the accused about herself, including any information about her age,

• the age differential between the accused and the victim,

• and the age and appearance of the victim's social group.

[136] An accused is not required to make every possible inquiry to ascertain a complainant's age in order to successfully mount a mistake of age defence, and need not always expressly question a complainant about his or her age, or otherwise seek and obtain conclusive proof of age in order to avail himself or herself of the s.150.1(5) defence. What is reasonable will vary, depending on the context and all of the circumstances.

[137] As noted above, M.C. told Mr. Crosdale that Ms. T. was 19. T.T. told him she was 18. He did not ask her for identification or make any other inquiries about her age. He did not take further steps to get to know her or learn of her personal circumstances. There is no evidence that he made any inquiries about her family, her parents, her work or educational experience, or why she decided to participate in the sex trade. Despite T.T.'s youthful appearance, Mr. Crosdale never asked her for any identification and never took any steps beyond relying on the bald and inconsistent assertions by M.C. and T.T. that she was over 18 years of age. The physical appearance of T.T., the fact that her assertion of age was in the context of the sex trade, her inexperience, the nature of the relationship between M.C. and T.T., and the differences in their appearance, and how they came to meet, together with the fact that Mr. Crosdale was much older than T.T., all pointed to the need for further inquiries to be made about her age.

[138] There were many "red flags" that T.T. may be younger than 18 years old, as she claimed. Far from taking "all reasonable steps" to ascertain her age, within minutes of meeting T.T., Mr. Crosdale directed her and M.C. to start taking photos for backpages.ca in order to advertise her sexual services. This is the type of conduct that Parliament clearly intended to prevent by requiring that "all reasonable steps" be taken to ascertain age. Viewed in the context of the particular circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain T.T.'s age. The context and circumstances of this case, examined objectively, mandated further inquiry by the accused regarding her age.

iii. Human Trafficking and Related Offences

a) Section 279.011 Trafficking of a Person Under the Age of Eighteen Years

[139] Mr. Crosdale is charged with recruiting T.T., a person under the age of 18 years, for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating her exploitation contrary to s. 279.011 of the Criminal Code, and recruiting M.C. for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person contrary to s. 279.01 of the Criminal Code.

[140] Recruiting is not defined in the Criminal Code. The ordinary dictionary meaning of recruit is to secure the services of, or to seek to enroll. In R. v. Lucas-Johnson, the court relied upon the meaning of recruit as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, as "persuading or helping someone to do something".

[141] Section 279.04 defines "exploitation" for the purpose of s. 279.01 and 279.011 as follows:

279.04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

(2) In determining whether an accused exploits another person under subsection (1), the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused

(a) used or threatened to use force or another form of coercion;

(b) used deception; or

(c) abused a position of trust, power or authority.

Safety includes both physical or psychological harm. Similarly, coercion is not limited to physical acts but includes emotional and psychological coercion. The enumerated factors are non-exhaustive and other relevant factors may establish exploitation.

[142] Section 279.011 requires the Crown to establish:

i.) the conduct – in this case that Mr. Crosdale recruited T.T.;

ii.) prohibited group – that T.T. was a person under the age of 18 years; and

iii.) the purpose – that Mr. Crosdale recruited T.T. for the purpose of exploiting her or facilitating her exploitation.

[143] The fault element of the offence requires both:

i.) the intent to recruit T.T.; and

ii.) the purpose, also described as the object an accused seeks to attain, or the reason for which the conduct is done or result intended, to exploit or to facilitate exploitation.

[144] Both exploitation and facilitation of exploitation in s. 279.011(1) relate to an accused's state of mind. The crown needs to prove – along with conduct and the prohibited group – that the accused acted for the purpose of exploiting the complainant or facilitating his or her exploitation. What matters is the accused's purpose, and not the actual consequences to the victim. Actual exploitation need not be established.

[145] The intention of Parliament in enacting the human trafficking and related provisions was to criminalize a wide range of intentional conduct that has as its purpose the exploitation of vulnerable persons. The provisions accomplish this by "enjoining preliminary or preparatory conduct, such as recruitment, and by prohibiting the destruction or withholding of documents that facilitate control over others and the profiting from exploitive behaviour."

[146] Put simply, in respect of count 1, human trafficking contrary to s. 279.011 committed against T.T., what I must determine is whether Mr. Crosdale intentionally recruited T.T. for the purpose of having her work in the sex trade in circumstances where his conduct could reasonably be expected to cause her to continue to work in the sex trade due to concern for her safety or the safety of another person if she stopped working.

[147] I must look at all of the circumstances in determining whether the accused's conduct was for the purpose of exploitation bearing in mind that section 279.011 criminalizes not only completed exploitation but also preliminary or preparatory conduct, such as recruitment conducted for the purpose of exploitation. I must consider if Mr. Crosdale engaged in or intended to engage in conduct that would reasonably be expected to cause T.T. to fear for her safety, physical or psychological, if she refused to provide sexual services for consideration. It is not necessary that I find that T.T.'s safety was actually threatened. The subjective belief of T.T. is not determinative. It "is not to be entirely cast aside" but it is also not to be considered to the exclusion of an objective assessment based on all the circumstances". Mr. Crosdale's conduct must give rise to a reasonable expectation of fear of harm in T.T.

[148] Mr. Crosdale is also charged with exercising control, direction, or influence over the movements of M.C. and T.T. for the purpose of facilitating the offence of obtaining sexual services for consideration. The Quebec Court of Appeal in Perreault considered the meaning of control, direction, or influence over movement under s. 212 (h) of the Criminal Code (now repealed) and held as follows:

The element of control refers to invasive behaviour, to ascendancy which leaves little choice to the person controlled. This therefore includes acts of direction and influence. There is the exercise of direction over the movements of a person when rules or behaviours are imposed. The exercise of direction does not exclude the person being directed from having certain latitude or margin for initiative. The exercise of influence includes less constricting actions. Any action exercised over a person with a view to aiding, abetting or compelling that person to engage in or carry on prostitution would be considered influence.

[149] The following factors may be relevant to the determination of whether acts described in s. 279.01 and s. 279.011 were for the purpose of exploitation or to facilitate exploitation in the context of the sex trade:

• Physical violence and threats of violence (s. 279.04(2)(a))

• Coercion (s.279.04(2)(a)), including physical, emotional or psychological coercion.

• Deception (s. 279.04(b))

• Abuse of a position of trust, power, or authority (s. 279.04(c))

• Whether the victim is vulnerable due to age, or personal circumstances such as social or economic disadvantage and prior victimization.

• Isolation of a complainant from family or friends, and restrictions on social contacts outside of the sex trade industry

• The presence of an ongoing relationship, versus a time limited relationship

• Imposition of rules or behaviours

• Control over work and rest hours, location of work, and services provided

• Control over advertising of services

• Limitations on freedom of movement, including tracking of movements, and driving to and from work

• Monitoring a victims contact and communications with others, including checking text messages and call logs

• Frequency of contact between an accused and victim including frequency of inquiries or required notification regarding whereabouts, activities and conduct

• Exercise of control over a victims money and finances

• Financial benefit to the accused

• Use of daily or monthly earning quotas and number of clients serviced

• Exercise of control over identification and travel documents

• Branding or tattooing as a mark of ownership and control

• Use of social media identifiers to identify ownership and control over a victim

• Use of sexual intimacy or sexual violence as a means of control or coercion

[150] The above non-exhaustive list of factors must be considered in the context of all of the evidence to determine whether the conduct collectively "could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety (physical or psychological) or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide or offer to provide the service or labour.

[151] There is an abundance of evidence that Mr. Crosdale recruited T.T. to work in the sex trade and that he did so for the purpose of exploiting T.T. I have no doubt that although he had not yet come into physical possession of her money, that on March 7 and 8, 2017 he was acting as her pimp and had every intention of taking the money that she made in the sex trade. I have no doubt that he would have taken her money but for the intervention of the police. Whether or not T.T. actually feared for her safety, or was in fact exploited, (and I find that she did fear for her safety and was exploited), I have no doubt that Mr. Crosdale's conduct could reasonably be expected to cause T.T. to fear for her safety and to cause her to continue providing sexual services for money. I find that it was Mr. Crosdale's intention and purpose to use deception, threats of violence, violence and coercion to cause T.T. to comply with his control and direction over her so that he could make money from her work in the sex trade.

[152] Mr. Crosdale recruited T.T. with the assistance of M.C. in order to generate more money for himself. He spoke with M.C. about finding someone else to work with and utilized M.C.'s need to gain his approval to get her to recruit another girl.

[153] Mr. Crosdale was a party to M.C.'s recruitment efforts. Before M.C. met T.T. in person, she spoke to Mr. Crosdale about her. Mr. Crosdale directed M.C. to see if T.T. was "down for the team" and if so to have her take a cab to the condo and he would pay for the cab. Mr. Crosdale directed M.C. to send T.T. the picture of the red bag filled with money, an image located on both M.C.'s, and Mr. Crosdale's phone, and in T.T.'s BBM messages. It was an act of recruitment intended to deceive T.T. into believing that she could "live lavishly" and keep the money she earned if she worked with M.C. in the sex trade.

[154] Mr. Crosdale facilitated T.T.'s transportation to the condominium by paying for the cab fare as part of his recruitment. The video surveillance shows that he was at the condominium close in time to T.T.'s arrival. In my view, it was no coincidence that M.C. moved into a condominium, after having worked in hotels for months, on the same day that arrangements were made for T.T. to meet M.C. The portrayal of a more positive work environment was part of the deception and recruitment of T.T. into the sex trade.

[155] Mr. Crosdale became directly involved in T.T.'s recruitment once he attended at the condominium in the early morning hours of March 7, 2017 and continued until T.T.'s arrest on March 8, 2017. His direction that they should "get into it" and take photos for backpages.ca, was part of his recruitment of T.T. for the purpose of exploitation.

[156] The BBM messages contain compelling evidence of Mr. Crosdale's recruitment of T.T. for example Mr. Crosdale stated:

With me the grass is always greener on my side of the fence. There's no goal to big to accomplish. You can have anything you want from me. I'll be taken care of you with no worries at all anymore your journey to living lavish an becoming an upscale starts today.

[157] Mr. Crosdale's recruitment was direct and clear. When T.T. expressed concern over being considered a "ho", and reluctance because it was her "first time" Mr. Crosdale stated:

You aren't a ho you a go-getter. You a hustler, in regular life u can't accomplish your goals as fast as u can in this game. No guy wants a relationship. The wanna smash and dash so why not get paid for it an stack up and live lavish and ho is a girl who fucks for free an wastes her pussy for no reason. Us are smart for grinding….

[158] The messages also show his exercise of control, direction, and influence over T.T. and include psychological coercion or implied threats of violence that could reasonably be expected to cause T.T. to fear for her safety. I am satisfied that he communicated in this way for the purpose of exploiting her or to make it easier to exploit her. The meaning and impact of the messages must be considered in the context of the sex trade, and having regard to the fact that they were made by a 31-year-old man to a teen-age girl. Some examples of the implied threats and psychological coercion include the following:

• As long as you grind hard (have sex for money) and you're loyal and respect everything, everything will run smoothly.

• You have a lot to prove. Ima watching you closely, making sure you on point and making smart choices. We are all about positivity and living lavish. You gonna have pimps messagin you talking pure shit. Ignore them you with me now and there's nothing a nig can do for you that I can't.

• This is your week to show me u down. So let's have a good week and after we gonna go celebrate and pop a bottle toast to the journey we gonna take an the good life you gonna live.

• Stay this way and as long as you respectful and loyal an grind hard there' s no issues on my part. (emphasis added)

[159] The implication from the messages is that if T.T. does not remain loyal and show respect to Mr. Crosdale, and if she does not "grind hard" she will have an issue or problem with him. Ms. T. indicated that these messages made her feel uncomfortable. The messages conveyed by a 31 year-old man to a teenager, in the context of all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to instil fear in T.T. and to cause her to continue working in the sex trade against her will.

[160] The BBM messages also make clear that Mr. Crosdale's interest was money. He states that it is "all about the money", discusses her weekly earning goals "What's your goal today, let's see if we on the same page", "stacking", and his intention to obtain elastics for T.T., a reference to wrapping money in elastics to provide to Mr. Crosdale.

[161] The BBM messages also show that in the short period of two days Mr. Crosdale had succeeded in exercising control, direction, and influence over T.T.'s movements. T.T. asks him permission to leave the condominium and to use the money she earned to obtain cigarettes. "Could I go get smokes or no? I'm not just gonna go get them without asking so I thought I'd ask". Mr. Crosdale's response makes clear that he controlled T.T.'s and M.C.'s money. "U have 500 and she has 560 so she taken the 60 and u guys get food an smokes. The key to stacking is stacking the even amount spending the odd". Her understanding that he controlled her money is also apparent from her request for him to purchase her false eyelashes "once I reach my goal."

[162] Mr. Crosdale exercised control over T.T. regarding when she could sleep and when she should be ready to work. On the first morning, Mr. Crosdale messaged T.T. telling her "your first official first day so get ready brush your teeth do ur make up straighten your hair and get dressed an you and (M.C.) gonna grab food and when you guys get back Ima post both yall". That evening when contact from clients slowed, T.T. asked Mr. Crosdale whether she should continue working stating "We stay up right?" Later that night he directed T.T. about when she could stop working: "Tired? Let's shut it down?". T.T. asked Mr. Crosdale when she would start the next day, and asked about setting her alarm for 9 a.m .and getting ready for 10. He responded 'I'll message u in the am…The next morning he contacted her, and said "U ate an u ready I just posted".

[163] Mr. Crosdale also directed T.T. about who she could speak to in person and over Instagram. "When you downstairs keep to urself nigs will try…", and with respect to her Instagram told her "Speaking of cleaning up. Go through your ig (Instagram) and get rid of any Ps (pimps) on your ig. An snapchat". When T.T. told him that she did not know if she had any pimps on her Instagram, he directed her to "Handle it" and, in response T.T. indicated that she would right away. She also advises him that she has identified herself as "zaddy's girl" on her Instagram, an acknowledgement of his relationship as a pimp to her, and his control and influence over her.

[164] In determining Mr. Crosdale's purpose in recruiting T.T., and exercising control, direction, and influence over her, the evidence must be considered having regard to the nature of his exploitive relationship with M.C. It was his intention for T.T. to become part of "the team".

[165] Mr. Caroline submitted that Mr. Crosdale did not "recruit" T.T. because she was already interested in participating in the sex trade, and she told the police that she acted of her own free will, and by choice. T.T.'s pre-existing interest in participating in the sex trade does not foreclose a finding that Mr. Crosdale recruited her in order to exploit her. He utilized T.T.'s interest and her vulnerability as a tool that enabled him to recruit and exploit her. That T.T., a 16-year-old, may not have fully subjectively appreciated or understand her exploitation is not surprising or determinative. It is clear that his conduct was for the purpose of exploitation and could reasonably be expected to cause T.T. to fear for her safety.

[166] To the extent that the defence submission is that T.T. consented to the recruitment and exercise of control, direction, and influence for the purpose of exploitation, s. 279.011(2) provides that consent to the activity that forms the subject matter of a charge under 279.011(1) is not valid. It is not a defence to suggest that T.T. was already interested and chose to participate. The legislative purpose of the provisions must be kept in mind. The human trafficking provisions "were designed to prevent the trafficking of persons, especially children, by punishing those who intend to exploit them, whether for personal benefit or otherwise."

[167] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven the essential elements of s. 279.011 beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Crosdale intentionally recruited T.T. to work for him in the sex trade providing sexual services for money, and did so for the purpose of exploiting her or facilitating her exploitation. While there was no acts of physical violence or explicit threats of violence used against T.T., the evidence clearly establishes that Mr. Crosdale:

• Targeted a young woman who he knew or was wilfully blind was under 18 years of age, and inexperienced in the sex trade

• Utilized implied threats of violence and psychological coercion

• Utilized deception to cause her to believe she would live a lavish lifestyle

• Controlled her work and rest hours, and sought to influence the services she provided

• Controlled the advertising of her services

• Exercised control over her freedom of movement

• Was in frequent contact with T.T. monitoring her activities

• exercised control over her money

• discussed earning goals with her

[168] The purpose of his conduct was to exploit T.T. or facilitate her exploitation. He intended to use psychological coercion and implied threats of violence to cause T.T. to feel threatened and fear for her safety if she failed to provide sexual services for money. The immediacy and focus of the steps he took to bring T.T. into the sex trade and to coerce her to continue in the sex trade make clear his exploitive purpose.

[169] For the reasons set out above, the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that T.T. was under the age of 18 years. There will be a finding of guilt on count 1.

[170] In the event I have erred in concluding that Mr. Crosdale had the requisite knowledge of T.T.'s age, he is guilty of the included offence of human trafficking, contrary to s. 279.01.

b. Count 3: Exercise Control, Direction or Influence over the Movements of T.T. for the purpose of Facilitating an Offence under s. 286.1(1) contrary to s. 286.3 of the Criminal Code.

[171] Mr. Crosdale is also charged in Count 3 with exercising control, direction, or influence over the movements of a person who offers to provide sexual services for money, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s.286.1(2) (obtaining sexual services for consideration), contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code. This count as charged does not include the aggravating feature of commission of the offence in respect of a person under the age of 18 years.

[172] Put simply, the Crown must establish that Mr. Crosdale exercised control, direction, or influence over T.T. so that she would provide sexual services for money to clients.

[173] Despite the fact that T.T. only met Mr. Crosdale on March 7, 2017, I am satisfied that the Crown has established that on March 7 and 8, 2017 Mr. Crosdale exercised control, direction, or influence over T.T. Mr. Crosdale influenced T.T. to take the photographs posted on backpages.ca shortly after he attended at the condominium, he provided direction to T.T. about what she should wear in the photographs, and he placed the advertisement on backpages.ca. The posting led to T.T.'s contact with clients.

[174] After he left the condominium the BBM messages make clear that Mr. Crosdale exercised direction, and influence over the movements of T.T. including when she was required to wake up in the morning, when she would start and stop working for the day, whether she could leave the condominium, and what she could spend money on. He provided direction about the services she should provide to clients, and the amounts that should be charged. The fact that T.T. did not entirely follow his direction in respect of the services she would provide to clients does not preclude conviction. D irection does not exclude the person being directed having certain latitude or margin for initiative. I am satisfied that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale exercised control, direction and influence over the movements of T.T. and did so to facilitate T.T.'s provision of sexual services for money. There will be a finding of guilt on Count 3.

c. Count 9 Recruitment of M.C., contrary to s. 279.01 of the Criminal Code; Count 14 Assault on M.C.; and Count 13 Exercise Control Direction or Influence over the Movements of M.C., contrary to s. 286.3(1); Count 15 withhold identification for purpose of committing and offence under 279.01(1)

[175] I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale recruited M.C. for the purpose of exploiting M.C. or facilitating her exploitation.

[176] Mr. Crosdale sought out M.C. to work for him. He recruited her twice during the period between July 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. The first time was around August 2016 while M.C. was working for JP. He obtained her contact information from her backpage.ca ad. He spoke with her by text for a week or two, and then arranged to meet with her at a motel to talk about whether she wanted to work with him. He utilized her vulnerable circumstances with JP to recruit her, telling her that her life would better with him than it was with JP. M.C. chose to work with him after she was seriously assaulted by JP as a result of his recruitment efforts.

[177] M.C. only worked for Mr. Crosdale for about a month until he "cut her off" on the basis that she was not truthful with him about her activities after she went out with a friend. He recruited her again in December 2016. It was Mr. Crosdale that re-initiated contact. He obtained her new phone number from backpages.ca and initiated a meeting with her. He asked her if she wanted to talk business and they arranged to meet at the Holiday Inn in Oakville. He spoke to her about working with him again and she agreed to work with him.

[178] Although Mr. Crosdale was much less abusive and violent than JP, I have no hesitation in finding that he recruited M.C. for the purpose of exploiting her. The evidence of his purpose is clear from his conduct over the months that followed her recruitment. The exploitation, was manifested primarily by coercion, deception, and implied threats of violence, but also included actual acts of violence. The exploitation was carried out progressively and incrementally over months. Although the exploitation fully manifested over time, I am satisfied that his purpose at the time he recruited M.C. was to exploit her and that he intended to control M.C. through coercion, implied threats, and violence from the moment she began to work with him.

[179] Mr. Crosdale created circumstances that isolated M.C., and preyed upon that isolation. He moved her from hotel to hotel weekly, on the premise that she was new to escorting and he knew where to put her. She worked constantly and from the beginning she turned over all her money to him. He would only come to see her if she made enough money to make it worth his while. His physical possession of her money was a means of controlling and coercing her.

[180] When Mr. Crosdale recruited M.C. the second time following her accident, he spoke to her about the need to "act better" than previously, and the need for "honesty, loyalty, and respect". The impact of his message was coercive. M.C. decided to work for him again in part because she knew he had the money she had previously earned. His conduct caused her to believe that she had "disrespected him" on the night of her accident by not telling him where she was going.

[181] M.C. continued to work lengthy hours, and to move from hotel to hotel. Between November 2016 and March 2017 she estimated that she made $60,000, all of which was given to Mr. Crosdale. His possession and use of her money continued to enable Mr. Crosdale to control M.C. She became increasingly dependent on him for the basic necessities of life, including food, shelter, and clothing because he took not only her money but also took her identification, bank, and credit cards. She sometimes had to obtain money, or information from her identification and credit cards from him in order to book hotels. Over time he took control of posting her advertisements on backpages.com.

[182] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that in the time frame between December 2016 and March 8, 2017, Mr. Crosdale was in possession M.C.'s identification for the purpose of exercising of control, direction, and influence over the movements of M.C. and for the purpose of exploiting her.

[183] Mr. Crosdale's possession of M.C.'s identification was established not only by M.C.'s viva voce evidence, but also by the evidence of her mother, and the images of her identification located on Mr. Crosdale's phone. Mr. Caroline submitted that I should have a reasonable doubt regarding whether Mr. Crosdale was in possession of M.C.'s identification for the purpose of committing an offence under s. 279.01. He submits that M.C. adopted her statement to the police that she gave her identification to him to hold for her because someone tried to steal from her. He further submits that Mr. Crosdale did not withhold her identification from her because when she asked for it back he returned it.

[184] In examination-in-chief, M.C. indicated that Mr. Crosdale took her identification because he did not trust her following the incident in December when she went to a bar around New Year's without his permission. In cross-examination, a prior inconsistent statement was put to her in which she was asked by DC Owen why Mr. Crosdale had her identification and she responded that she asked him to hold it for her so it would not be stolen because someone had gone into her purse to try to steal money from her. When first asked about this answer in cross-examination, M.C. said that if she said that in another statement it was not true. When the passage was put to her a second time, and she was asked if she made the statement and if it was true she responded yes but appeared to qualify her answer. M.C.'s full response was inaudible. In a follow-up question she indicated that the next answer given about which pieces of identification he was in possession of was incorrect. In re-examination, the Crown elicited her discussion with DC Owen in her third statement about her identification wherein she advised that Mr. Crosdale had her identification because he did not trust her. This prior consistent statement is relevant to the assessment of the significance of the alleged inconsistency at trial.

[185] M.C. made clear that when she gave her initial statement of March 9, 2017 and her second statement of April 12, 2017 she was uncertain about whether she wanted to return to escorting and did not want to implicate Mr. Crosdale. When considered in the context of all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that M.C. intended to adopt the prior statement suggesting she gave her identification to Ty for safekeeping. I accept her evidence given in examination-in-chief that Mr. Crosdale had her identification because he did not trust her. Given the importance of identification, bank cards, health cards and credit cards to every-day life it is simply not plausible that M.C. would give all of her identification, bank, and credit cards to Mr. Crosdale to "hold" to prevent theft. He was not her spouse, or roommate. She saw him only a few times a week, not every day. Mr. Crosdale was her pimp and when considered in the context of all of the evidence, I have no doubt that Mr. Crosdale took possession of M.C.'s identification as a means to control her and to facilitate her exploitation contrary to s. 279.01 and that he withheld it from her until after her arrest. He did this because his possession of her identification made her dependent upon him. It served as a means of coercion. It is not surprising that he returned the identification after she was arrested when she requested it with her mother. He had a significant motive at that point to act in a manner that would reduce the likelihood of M.C. identifying him to the police.

[186] M.C. testified that Ty arranged for her to obtain a tattoo. While the tattoo was being completed he texted her and told her to add his name, "Ty", to the tattoo. Irrespective of M.C.'s indication that at the time she wanted the tattoo, I find that this was an act of control intended to show his ownership of M.C., and intended to serve as a means of psychological coercion should she seek to leave him or the sex trade industry.

[187] The BBM messages between T.T. and Mr. Crosdale show that Mr. Crosdale exercised control direction and influence over when both T.T. and M.C. worked. Although he never set quotas, I accept that Mr. Crosdale influenced her by setting earnings "goals".

[188] Significantly, Mr. Crosdale used physical violence against M.C. Around New Year's she went to a bar with a friend without his permission. A few days later he came to her room, hit her twice in the face, and threatened to break her jaw or her nose if she disrespected him or did something wrong in the future. He wrote honesty, loyalty, respect, and teamwork on a piece of paper.

[189] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this event happened as described by M.C. Her description was detailed and compelling, as to time, place and circumstances. She gave a detailed explanation of the events that led up to the assault occurring and of the assault itself. M.C.'s account was factual and not vindictive or overstated. In respect of Mr. Crosdale's use of violence and threats, M.C.'s evidence was balanced and restrained. She did not overstate his use of violence against her, and contrasted his behaviour with that of her prior pimp JP, describing Mr. Crosdale as kind, and indicating that his use of physical violence was isolated.

[190] M.C. described Mr. Crosdale removing two rings and jewelry prior to hitting her and placing them on a cloth. Notably, a ring of the type described by M.C. was seized from Mr. Crosdale's vehicle located in a small accessory bag with a blue cloth and a gold bracelet.

[191] I reject the assertion that M.C. fabricated the assault allegation after her arrest to in some way assist her, or out of malice for Mr. Crosdale. The allegation of fabrication is rebutted by the image of the text message between Mr. Crosdale and M.C. in which he references loyalty and teamwork, and M.C. in response references being hit by Mr. Crosdale.

[192] I have no doubt that the assault was intended to cause M.C. to fear for her safety, to ensure her compliance in the future, and for the purpose of exploitation as defined in s. 279.04. The assault did not occur spontaneously in the heat of an argument but rather was planned and deliberate. Mr. Crosdale came to M.C.'s hotel room to discipline her. Before hitting her he removed his rings. After he struck her, he told her that the next time she did something wrong it would not only be a slap, that he would break her jaw or her nose. After hitting her twice in the face, something M.C. described as a "pimp slap", he wrote "honestly, loyalty, respect, and teamwork" on a piece of paper, intentionally linking his assault to his relationship to M.C. as her pimp and to her work providing sexual services. The assault powerfully illustrates how Mr. Crosdale viewed the relationship between a pimp and a sex trade worker, and was consistent with his actions of coercion throughout his relationship with M.C. This conduct, together with the many other acts of coercion, made clear that Mr. Crosdale used coercion and violence to cause M.C. to continue to work in the sex trade to make money for his benefit.

[193] M.C.'s indication that his use of physical violence against her was isolated was given despite the fact that there was also an incident of sexual violence. This was something she did not volunteer but acknowledged when shown an image of the incident. M.C. was reluctant to discuss the incident which was clearly upsetting to her.

[194] The incident is recorded in a video and in still images that were located on Mr. Crosdale's phone. M.C. acknowledged that the video depicts her in a mask that covers most of her face performing oral sex on Mr. Crosdale. She testified that she did not willingly participate in the sexual activity. She did not want to engage in the sexual activity while wearing the mask but complied because it was something he wanted her to do and she did everything he told her to do. In my view, Mr. Crosdale engaged in this activity and video recorded the incident as a means of demonstrating his domination and control over M.C. Although relevant, this evidence is not necessary to my findings on any of the counts, and I would have reached the same conclusion on each count without reliance on this evidence.

[195] The evidence collectively establishes that Mr. Crosdale:

• Used physical violence, threats of violence, and psychological coercion against M.C.

• Utilized deception, such as promising to buy her gifts when she attained certain earning goals.

• Took advantage of her vulnerability. At the time M.C. was recruited she was a 19-year-old victim of violence occasioned by her previous pimp, was estranged from her parents, and had nowhere to live.

• He isolated M.C. from friends and relatives, and punished her for seeing others outside of the sex trade or without his consent.

• He imposed rules and behaviours, demanding "honestly, loyalty, respect and teamwork" which in the context of their relationship extended to controlling who she could see and where she could go.

• Exercised control, direction, and influence over where M.C. worked, moving her weekly from hotel to hotel and driving her to those locations.

• Controlled the posting of M.C.'s advertisements

• Took almost all of the money she earned, which he used for his benefit. He created her financial dependency on him.

• Was in possession of M.C.'s identification, credit cards and bank cards

• Had his name tattooed on M.C., as a sign of ownership and control

[196] I am satisfied that these acts were done for the purpose of ensuring that M.C. provided sexual services for money for his benefit and that she continued to do so. Although M.C. indicated she did not feel unsafe at the point the police attended the 2 Anndale condominium on March 8, 2017, I am satisfied that Mr. Crosdale in fact exploited M.C. I have no doubt that he engaged in conduct that caused M.C. to fear for her safety should she leave the sex trade and stop working for him. I believe that he caused her to fear for her safety, however if she did not subjectively fear for her safety, his conduct was clearly of a nature that in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause M.C. to believe that her safety would be threatened if she failed to work in the sex trade for Mr. Crosdale's benefit. As with s. 279.011, under s. 279.01(2), consent to activity that constitutes human trafficking under s. 279.01 is not valid.

[197] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale intentionally recruited T.T. for the purpose of exploiting her or facilitating her exploitation, and that he intentionally exercised control, direction and influence over the movements of M.C. for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1), obtaining sexual services for consideration. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable about that Mr. Crosdale assaulted M.C. by intentionally striking her twice in the face.

[198] There is a finding of guilt on count 11 recruiting for the purpose of exploitation contrary to s. 279.01; count 13 exercise control, direction and influence over movements to facilitate an offence under s. 286.1(1) contrary to s. 286.3; count 13, assault and count 15, withholding identification for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of an offence under s. 279.01(1).

d. Count 2: Procure T.T. a person under 18 to offer sexual services for consideration; and Count 10 Procure M.C. to provide sexual services.

[199] Mr. Crosdale is also charged with procuring T.T., a person under the age of 18 years to offer or provide sexual services for consideration contrary to s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code. Section 286.3 was enacted in 2014 and replaced s. 212 (d) which made it an offence to procure or attempt to procure a person to become a prostitute. Section 212 (d) was repealed in 2014. "Procure" for the purpose of s. 212 meant "to cause, or to induce, or to have a persuasive effect upon the conduct that is alleged."

[200] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale persuaded T.T. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration. As to the defence submission that Mr. Crosdale did not procure T.T. because she had a prior interest in becoming involved in the sex trade, and made a choice to become involved in the sex trade, I accept that T.T. was interested in becoming involved in the sex trade due to difficulties she was experiencing at home, the attraction of making large sums of money, and her inability to secure other work because she did not have a social insurance card. I also accept that she initially contacted M.C. The fact that T.T. was interested in becoming involved in the sex trade does not foreclose a finding that Mr. Crosdale procured T.T. The term procure, does not require that the accused overpower the will of the victim. An accused need only induce or persuade the victim. Acts of procurement are criminalized to protect vulnerable persons, such as T.T., from being preyed upon and persuaded to participate in the sex trade and exploited. I accept T.T.'s evidence that March 7 and 8, 2017 was the first time that she worked in the sex trade. Her interest and lack of experience made her more susceptible to deception about the sex trade and to being procured. Her prior interest does not bar a finding that she was recruited or procured.

[201] The evidence of T.T. and M.C. together with the BBM messages satisfy me that Mr. Crosdale acting with M.C. and on his own caused, induced or persuaded T.T. to provide sexual services for consideration. The factors that establish recruitment, also are relevant to a finding of procurement. As noted above, Mr. Crosdale told M.C. to send T.T. the photograph of the red bag containing a large amount of cash as a tool of persuasion. His persuasion is obvious in the BBM text messages. One of the most direct exchanges occurred when T.T. expressed reluctance to provide sexual services for money because of what people would think of her, and because it was her "first time". Mr. Crosdale responded by encouraging her to participate in the sex trade saying "You aren't a ho, you a go-getter. You a hustler. In regular life u can't accomplish your goals as fast as u can in this game. No guy wants a relationship. The wanna smash and dash so why not get paid for it an stack up and live lavish, an ho is girl who fucks for free an wastes her pussy for no reason u are smart for grinding we do it the classy way…." The persuasive impact is evident in T.T.'s response "that made me feel so much better." Mr. Crosdale replied "I respect you for taken a step to change ur life. As long as ur on this game an u living lavish, and u ain't a druggie or a drunkie an u have goals no one can talk down on you. U wanna be a baddie u on the right path". The BBM messages are replete with encouragement and persuasion for T.T. to engage in the sale of sexual service for money.

[202] For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale did not honestly believe that that T.T. was 18 years of age or over, and that he did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain T.T.'s age. There is a finding of guilt on count 2.

[203] In the event I have erred in concluding that Mr. Crosdale had the requisite knowledge of T.T.'s age, he is guilty of the included offence of procurement to provide sexual services, contrary to s. 286(1).

[204] In respect of count 10, on the joint submission of both parties there will be a finding of not guilty in respect of the charge of procuring M.C. contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

e. Count 4 and Count 12: Knowingly Advertise an offer to provide Sexual Services for Consideration contrary to s. 286.4 of the Criminal Code

[205] Mr. Crosdale is charged with two counts of knowingly advertising the sale of sexual services contrary to s. 286.4 of the Criminal Code. Count 4 relates to the period between March 6-8, 2017; and count 12 relates to the period between July 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. Count 4 captures the advertisements posted by Mr. Crosdale for T.T. and M.C. on backpages.com on March 7 and 8, 2017, while count 12 addresses the broader time frame during which Mr. Crosdale is alleged to have been posting advertisements for M.C.

[206] Section 286.4 of the Criminal Code was enacted in 2014 and criminalizes advertising the sale of sexual services. The section does not limit the type or means of advertisement caught by the section. Parliament intended for the offence to a pply to individuals who knowingly advertise the sale of another person's sexual services through means such as print media, on websites, or in locations that offer sexual services for sale, such as erotic massage parlours or strip clubs.

[207] Mr. Caroline candidly conceded that the evidence would likely lead to a conviction on count 4, but submitted that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Crosdale posted additional backpage.ca ads during the broader time frame between July 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017.

[208] I am satisfied that the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale knowingly posted backpage.ca ads for the sale of sexual services of M.C. and T.T. on March 7 and 8, 2017 on the basis of the evidence of T.T. and M.C. They testified that he posted the March 7 and 8, 2017 advertisements on backpage.ca after photos were taken at the condominium and sent to Mr. Crosdale by M.C. M.C. and T.T.'s evidence that Mr. Crosdale posted the ads is corroborated by Mr. Crosdale's BBM messages to T.T., including a message in which Mr. Crosdale sent T.T. a link to the backpages.ca advertisement, the numerous messages in which Mr. Crosdale indicates that he has "posted", the images located on his cell phone that match the images located in the ads, the images on his cell phone that show the use of an application to edit the photos, and the copies of the backpage.ca ads obtained by the York Regional Police and marked as exhibits 4, 5 and 14. He posted the photos intentionally for the purpose of advertising M.C.'s and T.T.'s sexual services for his monetary benefit. This was clearly done "knowingly".

[209] I am also satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale knowingly posted many other advertisements for M.C. between August 2016 and March 6, 2017. I accept M.C.'s evidence that after she began working with Mr. Crosdale initially she posted the advertisements on backpages.ca but over time he took over posting because he said he knew best when to post. Exhibit 7 contained the backpage.ca advertisements for sexual services of M.C. posted on backpage.ca on December 20, 2016, February 17, 20, 25, March 5, and April 4, 2017. Many of the images utilized in these backpage.ca advertisements were also located on Mr. Crosdale's Samsung S6 phone A1317310. (see for example Images 70, 74, 87, 61, 71; 75, 89, 108, 53, 54, 58, and 77). M.C.'s evidence that Mr. Crosdale controlled posting is corroborated by the events of March 7 and 8, 2017. I am satisfied that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale posted numerous backpage.ca advertisements advertising the sexual services of M.C. between August 2016 and March 31, 2017. There will be findings of guilt on counts 4 and 12.

f. Count 11: Receive a Financial Benefit Contrary to s. 286.2(2) of the Criminal Code

[210] Mr. Crosdale is also charged with receiving money knowing that it was obtained by the commission of the offence of obtaining sexual services for consideration contrary to s. 286.2(2) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Caroline submitted that Mr. Crosdale took money from M.C. but not from T.T. and that with respect to M.C. I should find that he did not benefit from M.C.'s money, he was only holding it for safekeeping for her. The defence submits that M.C. never asked for her money back, and when she did, following her arrest, he gave her money back to her.

[211] I agree that Mr. Crosdale did not receive money from T.T. However, I accept the evidence of M.C. that she gave almost all of the money that she earned to Mr. Crosdale. I find that Mr. Crosdale kept most of this money for himself. Mr. Crosdale sometimes gave M.C. money to pay for hotel rooms, for food, and personal expenses, such as hair maintenance and toiletries. From the money she earned he purchased the Louis Vuitton purse for M.C.

[212] I have no doubt that the money M.C. earned far exceeded these expenses, having regard to her description of the rates she charged for sexual services and the number hours and days she worked every week. She estimated that she made around $60,000. Initially Mr. Crosdale told M.C. that he was putting her money in a safe to help her save for a condominium.

[213] When, following her arrest, she asked for her money and identification he returned only $500. This was corroborated by M.C.'s mother. She told him that she would need money for a lawyer. He told her that they would see and once she got back on her feet they would get things going again. He told her not to dip too much into her funds. After returning the $500, he returned nothing further to M.C.

[214] I have no doubt that Mr. Crosdale used the money he took from M.C. for his own benefit and deceived her by indicating that he was saving the money for her.

[215] When considered in the context of the evidence as a whole, it is completely implausible that Mr. Crosdale was a benevolent caretaker of M.C.'s money and that his ongoing association with her occurred without any material benefit to him. The only reasonable conclusion is that his ongoing association with M.C. was for the purpose of his material benefit.

[216] I accept M.C.'s evidence that Mr. Crosdale would only come to pick up money from her when she made enough to make it "worth his while", evidence that speaks clearly to his material interest. The BBM message (Image 64) between Mr. Crosdale and M.C. located on her phone confirms their relationship was a commercial relationship. He states "you represent me Ima have you in nice things Ima have you a happy ending", "we a good team I sense the potential between us is great". Clearly, he saw the relationship as mutually financially beneficial.

[217] The BBM messages between Mr. Crosdale and T.T. are replete with discussions about how T.T. must "grind hard" to make money. He indicates that it is "all about the $$$$". He intended T.T. to be a part of a team with M.C., and I find that these messages also speak to the nature of his relationship with M.C. The only reasonable inference from the BBM messages between Mr. Crosdale and T.T., is that Mr. Crosdale is involved with T.T. and M.C. for his monetary benefit.

[218] I accept M.C.'s evidence that he made her promises that he did not follow through on. She explained that she learned not to ask for things because he would call her a baby and say that she was a spoiled brat, and tell her not to act like the others. He promised her that he would buy her something each time she earned $5,000 but he only followed through with the Luis Vuitton purse. M.C. indicated that when she reached $10,000 she asked for a pair of shoes, but did not receive them.

[219] Mr. Crosdale's involvement for material benefit is corroborated by the many photographs of large stacks of money located on his phone, including images of large stacks of money in his vehicle. His social media icon, Zaddy'$ Angel$, made overt references to material gain. (see images 32, 33, 45, 66, 68, 94, 100, 214, 217, 224, and 245).

[220] There is overwhelming evidence that Mr. Crosdale received money from M.C. knowing it was obtained from her provision of sexual services for consideration. Although the information was drafted to reflect the time frame during which Mr. Crosdale was involved with M.C., between July 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017 it specified that Mr. Crosdale obtained a material benefit from the sexual services provided by a person under 18. In submissions the parties agreed that Mr. Crosdale had not received a material benefit from T.T.'s work in the sex trade and the focus was on whether the Crown had proven that Mr. Crosdale received a material benefit from M.C.'s work in the sex trade. I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale received a material benefit from sexual services contrary to s. 286.2(1), which is an included offence.

g. Child Pornography Offences

[221] Mr. Crosdale is charged with possessing child pornography, contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code (Count 5); accessing child pornography, contrary to s. 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code (Count 6); making child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code (Count 7); and distributing child pornography, contrary to s. 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code (Count 8). The Crown must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the material alleged to have been possessed, accessed, made, and distributed meets the definition of "child pornography" within s. 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

[222] Child pornography is defined in s. 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code in four ways:

(a) A photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity; or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;

(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;

(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or

(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

[223] The images of T.T. including images 92, 93, 124, 126, 142, 149, 152, 158, 163, 168, 169, 170, 172, 172, 174, 176, 182, and 187 located in the data extracted from Mr. Crosdale's Samsung Galaxy S6 phone, A1317310, Exhibit 12, and the images of T.T. contained in exhibits 4, 5, and 14, meet the definition of child pornography in section 163.1(1) (a)(ii). The backpage ads in exhibits 4, 5, and 14 meet the definition of child pornography contained in s. 163.1(1) (b).

[224] T.T. is under 18 years old. As noted above, in respect of Mr. Crosdale's knowledge that T.T. was under 18 years of age, in respect of the charge of making child pornography, contrary to s. 163.1(2), s. 163.1(5) provides that i t is not a defence to a charge that a person shown in the representation was or was depicted as being 18 years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person. For the reasons set out above I have concluded that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale did not honestly believe that T.T. was 18 years of age or older, and did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain her age. In respect of the charges of possession of child pornography, accessing child pornography, and distribution of child pornography, I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale knew or was wilfully blind that T.T. was not 18 years of age or older.

[225] In the images T.T. is naked. The focus of the images is her breasts and/or anal area. She is posing with stockings and jewelry in a bathroom. In some of the photos she is posing with M.C., who is also naked. A reasonable viewer, looking at the images objectively and in context, would conclude that the dominant characteristic is the depiction of the child's sexual organ or anal region and would reasonably perceive the images as intended to cause sexual stimulation to some viewers. The dominant purpose, to an individual seeing the photographs given the manner in which T.T. is presented, is clearly a sexual purpose. The context of the photos must be considered. Factually, the photos were taken for a sexual purpose, to advertise T.T.'s sexual services.

[226] With respect to the images contained in the backpages.ca ads contained in exhibits 4, 5 and 14, which includes the text and the photos, when coupled with the sexualized text of the ad, there can be no doubt that a reasonable viewer, looking at the images objectively and in context, would see the dominant characteristic as the depiction of the child's sexual organ or anal region for a sexual purpose. The ads state:

Bella-Marie – Petite Mixed Spanish & Filipino GIRL Amazing Mouth Skills. 19. Hi guys, my name is Bella Marie. I'm a exotic mixed naughty girl. Com see me, I bet you won't be disappointed in my skills. AMAZING MOUTH SKILLS IN CALLS Sexy all natural curves, perky tits and big juicy booty. Soft sunkissed skin with a beautiful exotic face. REAL & RECENT PICTURES SAFE & DISCREET. ALL FETISHES AVAILABLE. NO BLOCKED CALLS. No BLACK GUYS NO PIMPS NO THUGS DUO's AVAILABLE WITH MY FRIEND ALEXIS LOVE. Poster age: 19….

[227] In respect of s. 163.1(1) (b) the written material contained in the backpages.com ads contained in exhibits 4, 5 and 14 is explicitly sexual. When combined with the images of T.T., the advertisements advocate or counsel sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years that would be an offence under the Criminal Code. The ads advocate and counsel the obtaining for consideration sexual services from T.T., a criminal offence contrary to s. 286.(1) of the Criminal Code.

[228] The photos located in cache files on the phone, and those contained in the back pages ads were not taken innocently, rather they were the result of the accused's efforts to create photographs that could sell T.T.'s sexual services. A sexual purpose was the central reason behind their creation. These were not family photos at the beach or of a naked child in the bath tub. They were photos created and posted to sell sex.

[229] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale was present and participated in the creation of the images listed above, that M.C. sent Mr. Crosdale the images by Instagram to Mr. Crosdale's Samsung Galaxy S6 phone, that Mr. Crosdale knew and intended that M.C. would send him the images, that thereafter he accessed the images using his phone, and came into possession of them, that he edited the photos, and was in physical possession of the data files which enabled him to post a subset of the images sent to him by M.C. in the ads located in exhibits 4, 5, and 14 on backpage.ca on March 7, 2017 and 8, 2017.

[230] I find this based on:

• The evidence of T.T. and M.C. Both indicated that Mr. Crosdale was present when the photos were taken, and that M.C. sent the photos by Instagram to him to post on backpage.ca.

• The evidence of T.T. and M.C. that on March 7, 2017 he instructed M.C. and T.T. to take pictures to be posted on backpage.ca. I am satisfied that he had the intention to take the images when he arrived at the condominium. Notably, he brought jewelry to be used in taking pictures. Although he did not physically take the pictures, I find that he was an active participant in the photo taking. He was present throughout the taking of the pictures and provided direction regarding what M.C. and T.T. should wear, where the photos should be taken for best lighting, and selected the images to be kept, and decided that other images should be deleted. Image 68 located on Mr. Crosdale's phone includes a BBM message between M.C. and Mr. Crosdale asking for input on whether a photo of M.C. should be taken with or without her nipple showing.

• The images were located on both M.C.'s and Mr. Crosdale's phones. The path for the images on Mr. Crosdale's phone indicates it was sent to him by Instagram and that the Instagram cache files were created on March 7, 2017. This corroborates M.C.'s evidence that she sent him the images to post.

• The BBM messages between Zaddy (Christian Crosdale) and T.T. (see "no tag" phone, Exhibit 13) in which he sent T.T. a link to the backpage.ca ad, confirmed that he posted the advertisement on backpages.ca; along with the messages in which Mr. Crosdale discussed the best time for posting the backpage.ca ads, the busiest times of the day and week, and the flow of contact/messaging between T.T. and potential clients.

• The backpage.ca ads contained in Exhibit 4, 5, and 14 confirm that the photos were posted more than once.

• The presence on Mr. Crosdale's phone of images 149, 174, and 187 in an editing format. M.C. testified that Mr. Crosdale sent these images to her for input regarding which version to post. Each of these images was ultimately posted on backpages.com.

[231] Although the images identified on Mr. Crosdale's phone through the forensic examination were "cache" files, I am satisfied that Mr. Crosdale was knowingly in possession and control of the child pornographic images. Mr. Crosdale was in joint possession of the images with M.C. and T.T. at the time they were taken. Although the images were initially in the actual possession of M.C., she possessed them for his benefit. I am satisfied that he was subsequently in actual physical possession when M.C. sent the images to him.

[232] If the only evidence was that the police located Instagram cache files containing child pornography on the Samsung galaxy S6, this likely would not suffice to establish the required knowledge and control to make out the offence of possession because the automatic saving (or caching) of a file to a user's computer or cell phone will not ordinarily qualify as possession because it may occur without a user's awareness. In this case, the presence of the cache files on Mr. Crosdale's phone at the time of the technical examination is a piece of circumstantial evidence that, when taken with all of the evidence, supports the conclusion that he was in possession of the photos on March 7 and 8, 2017.

[233] I am satisfied that Mr. Crosdale knew the nature of the material, had the intention to possess it, and had the necessary control over it. His act of posting the photos on backpages.ca demonstrates his knowledge, and control of the underlying data files. I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale knowingly had physical custody of the child pornography and the he was aware of what it was.

[234] Section 163(4.2) provides that a person accesses child pornography who knowingly causes child pornography to be viewed by or transmitted to himself or herself. In light of my findings above, I am satisfied that the crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale knowingly caused child pornography to be viewed by and transmitted to him when he arranged for M.C. to send him the images taken on March 7, 2017 and when he viewed the photos for the purpose of posting them on backpage.ca.

[235] As a result of my findings above I am also satisfied that the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale knowingly made child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(2) when he participated in the taking of the photos, and the editing of the photos.

[236] Mr. Crosdale participated in the creation of new child pornographic images. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Crosdale knowingly distributed child pornography when he posted the images on backpage.ca.

Summary of Findings:

[237] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven the guilt of Mr. Crosdale beyond a reasonable doubt on the following offences:

Count 1: Recruiting T.T. a person under the age of 18 years for the purpose of exploitation, contrary to s. 279.011 of the Criminal Code.

Count 2: Procuring T.T., a person under the age of 18 years to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, contrary to s. 286.3 of the Criminal Code.

Count 3: Exercise control, direction, or influence over the movements of T.T., for the purpose of facilitating an offence under ss. 286.1(1), contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 4: Knowingly advertise an offer to provide sexual services for consideration, contrary to s. 286.4 of the Criminal Code.

Count 5: Possession child pornography, contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

Count 6: Access child pornography, contrary to s. 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 7: Make child pornography, contrary to s. 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

Count 8: Distribute child pornography, contrary to s. 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code.

Count 9: Recruit M.C. for the purpose of exploitation, contrary to s. 279.01 of the Criminal Code.

Count 11: Receive a financial or other material benefit knowing it was obtained by the commission of an offence contrary to s. 286.1(1), contrary to s. 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 12: Knowing advertise an offer to provide sexual services for consideration contrary to s. 286.4 of the Criminal Code.

Count 13: Exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of M.C. for the purpose of facilitating an offence under ss. 286.1(1) contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 14: Assault M.C. contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code.

Count 15: Withhold travel or identity documents of M.C. contrary to section 279.03(1) of the Criminal Code.

There is a finding of guilt registered on these offences.

[238] There was a joint recommendation that I dismiss count 10, the charge of procuring M.C. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration contrary to s. 286.3 (1) of the Criminal Code and as a result count 10 is dismissed.

Released: November 2, 2018

Signed: "Justice Marcella Henschel"