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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read 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.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: November 13, 2019

Court File No.: Newmarket 17-06596 & 17-07700

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Rameen Tazike

Before: Justice David S. Rose

Heard: October 25, 2019

Reasons for Sentence Released: November 13, 2019

Counsel:

• Ms. K. Hutchison — counsel for the Crown
• Mr. M. Rombus — counsel for the accused Rameen Tazike

Decision

Rose J.:

Convictions

[1] On June 5, 2019 Mr. Tazike was found guilty of the following charges:

i) Between 1 August 2015 and 14 January 2017 Recruit a person under the age of 18, namely DD for purpose of exploitation contrary to s. 279.011(1) of the Criminal Code;

ii) Between 1 August 2015 and 14 January 2017 receive a material benefit from commission of an offence contrary to s. 279.02 of the Criminal Code;

iii) Between 1 August 2015 and 14 January 2017 receive a financial benefit from the commission of an offence under s. 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code;

iv) Between 1 August 2015 and 14 January 2017 procure a person under the age of 18, namely DD to offer sexual services for consideration contrary to section 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code;

v) Between 1 August 2015 and 14 January 2017 knowingly advertise an offer to provide sexual services for consideration by posting an advertisement contrary to s. 286.4 of the Criminal Code;

vi) Between 1 August 2015 and 31 August 2015 commit a sexual assault on DD contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code;

vii) Between 1 July 2017 and 31 July 2017 commit a sexual assault on DD contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code;

viii) Between 15 July 2017 and 11 August 2017 criminal harassment of DD contrary to s. 264(3) of the Criminal Code;

ix) Mischief to Property of DD under $5000 contrary to s. 430(4) of the Criminal Code.

[2] The findings of guilt were registered after a trial lasting several days.

Summary of the Findings

[3] Mr. Tazike met the complainant DD when she was 16 years old. She was having a difficult upbringing and soon moved into a youth shelter in Sutton. The complainant's entry into the youth shelter was in August 2015, and she met Mr. Tazike within a month of that date. Mr. Tazike entered the picture through his friends. Mr. Tazike's friends initially raised the idea with her about making upwards of $1000 a day. She didn't know what exactly was involved.

[4] When DD was living at the shelter she found such earnings attractive and was initially picked up by Mr. Tazike from the shelter and taken to his parents house. At that time she posed for sexually suggestive pictures which would be used to sell her as a sex trade worker. On that first date Mr. Tazike had sex with her purportedly to find out if she was going to be good enough to be a skilled prostitute. I found him guilty of sexual assault from that incident.

[5] Very quickly after that first encounter DD was advertised on Backpage ads and taken to a local hotel where she provided sexual services to strangers who paid her. She in turn gave the earnings to Mr. Tazike. Mr. Tazike was instrumental in inducing her into the life of a sex trade worker, advertising her on-line as a prostitute, renting the hotel rooms used for the prostitution and then receiving most, if not all, of the earnings. The Backpage ads for DD went to Mr. Tazike's phone number. Mr. Tazike purchased the condoms from the drug store. DD was working for him from that point.

[6] DD performed oral sex and intercourse on the clients during the prostitution.

[7] In time DD moved out of the shelter after a couple of months. Her prostitution was sufficiently lucrative that Mr. Tazike could afford more regular hotel rooms for her to live in. She lived in hotel rooms, as well as Mr. Tazike's bedroom at his family's house. By this time she was still meant to be in high school but her attendance got increasingly sporadic as she became more fully engrained in the life of a teenage sex trade worker.

[8] Mr. Tazike initially split DD's earnings with his friends who made the initial introduction between him and DD, but as things progressed he took all the proceeds himself. It is not clear exactly how much money he earned from DD's sexual services, but it was enough that DD could afford some lavish spending sprees at a local mall, and Mr. Tazike could afford to buy an Audi. DD testified that she charged $120 a half hour and $220 per hour and made between $600 and $1200 a day. With that said, I can make no finding about the total earnings from DD's sexual services.

[9] DD's prostitution under the control of Mr. Tazike lasted for some two years. At some time in the second year she moved into a one room apartment with Mr. Tazike, and the volatility in the relationship evolved into an assault allegation against her. She was charged under the YCJA and released on conditions that she have no contact with Mr. Tazike because he was the complainant. She ignored that bail term and moved back with him in short order but it appears that the sex trade work stopped while she was on bail. The evidence on that lacked precision.

[10] At some point DD developed romantic feelings for Mr. Tazike. They were having sex and she found him to be funny and sweet. As she testified, he "Kinda cared about me. I started being able to see a future with him". One day he told her he loved her as he was leaving the hotel room so that a customer could come in to have sex with her. The two were more or less constantly together, apart from when DD would see clients in the hotel room. The relationship then deteriorated and DD testified to being subjected to physical abuse. He would hit DD, punch her, and rip her clothes off her. She said that the abuse began about 6 months into the relationship. She described one time in Mr. Tazike's bedroom when he put his hands around her neck and choked her until she passed out. When such things happened she became upset but they made up. She testified to feeling sorry for Mr. Tazike and would forgive him. She testified that she loved Mr. Tazike and forgave him each time. She believed his apologies.

[11] DD gave fairly detailed evidence about the non-consensual sex with Mr. Tazike. It would involve grabbing her head and applying pressure during oral sex, and also tying her hands behind her back and forcing oral sex on her so rough that she would gag and vomit. Once during a heated argument he took off her pants and had intercourse with her. She started crying. As she said in her evidence, "Im getting raped right now, so I started crying like that – I felt emotional that one time". One time Mr. Tazike told her that he was going to rape her and did. That was the basis for the second sexual assault conviction.

[12] DD started using cocaine Mr. Tazike bought for her. She started to like that drug more and more and Mr. Tazike would supply it. She wasn't drinking or doing any other kind of drug. In cross-examination she said that Mr. Tazike tried to get her cocaine but it ended up being "Molly" or MDMA or visa versa.

[13] By July of 2017 DD had decided to leave Mr. Tazike.

[14] DD spoke to the police in July of 2017 and had stopped working with Mr. Tazike within a month of that. At that point she didn't see a future with Mr. Tazike. Mr. Tazike responded by repeatedly calling her at her legitimate work and threatening her. Ultimately he would physically smash her phone. He would either call or walk into her work to get her fired. DD also learned that he was harassing her friend S. in an effort to get to DD.

[15] After DD had ended her relationship with Mr. Tazike she still had reason to go to his house. She had clothes there, her belongings and her medication. She went to the police so that he would leave her alone. During that period she had gone to Mr. Tazike and was having a relaxed evening when Mr. Tazike's demeanor changed suddenly. He started throwing punches and pulling her hard in the back of the head. She left the house, and took the bus up to York Region. While she was waiting at the bus stop she saw Mr. Tazike drive his Audi up and down the street past the bus stop, telling her to get into the car. He stopped and gave her her phone back by putting it on lap. He said that she should just call him when she was ready. She responded by throwing the phone on the ground, and then Mr. Tazike grabbed the phone himself and smashed it to pieces. According to DD Mr. Tazike followed her bus up to the Newmarket bus station. That happened two weeks before she went to the police. That conduct was the basis of the mischief conviction.

[16] He explained that he believed that DD in her text messages was "trying to make me keep chasing her". Mr. Tazike testified that, when he said in text message 399 "you want to make $1000 a day" what he meant was that he was willing to just give her a thousand dollars just to come out and hang out with him. As he put it "I was telling her she didn't have to work anymore, that I would just take care of her".

[17] Hotel records filed at the trial showed Mr. Tazike renting many rooms in the period of late August to October 2015, and December to January 2016, as well as March, April and June 2016.

[18] The Backpage ads filed in evidence identified DD as a sex trade worker in August through the fall of 2015 and August of 2016. The Backpage ads do not have DD's face exposed but she identified herself as the person in the pictures.

[19] In July of 2017, over a two week period Mr. Tazike sent dozens of text messages to DD in an attempt to bring her back to the sex trade. At one point Mr. Tazike promises her $1000 a day, and that he would pay her to just be with him. She replied that he was the one that had now been "hooked". I took this to mean that the pimp was now the john. It was clear from the text messages that Mr. Tazike wanted DD back even though she had been crystal clear to him that she wanted nothing to do with him. That was the basis for the criminal harassment conviction.

Sentencing Discussion

[20] There is no victim input from DD, although she was offered the opportunity to provide a statement. She declined. There is no pre-sentence report. Mr. Tazike filed letters of support from two family members and a letter of employment from a landscaping firm.

[21] Mr. Tazike is now 25 years old. He was in his early 20s at the time of these offences. He has no criminal record, but has a high school degree. He has been employed in a number of menial jobs, including hospitality, gardening and plumbing. He served 18 days of pre-trial custody before he was released on a strict bail involving house arrest. That strict bail was relaxed to permit work.

Sentencing Framework

[22] The sentencing framework for criminal cases is set out in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code. I would identify denunciation and deterrence as requiring particular emphasis in this case, see s. 718.01. Furthermore, sentences must be increased or decreased based on relevant aggravating or mitigating factors. The totality of the sentence must be assessed so that a combined sentence of consecutive jail terms is not unduly long or harsh. Lastly, sentences should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences, see s 718.2 of the Code. Aside from statutory considerations, there are several factors which other Courts have considered when considering a sentence for a pimp living off the avails of prostitution. These were discussed first by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Tang 1997 ABCA 174. Justice Boswell referred to them in R. v. A.E. 2018 ONSC 471 at par. 56:

1. The degree of coercion or control imposed by the pimp on the prostitute's activities;

2. The amount of money received by the pimp and the extent to which the pimp allowed the prostitutes to retain their earnings;

3. The age of the prostitutes and their numbers;

4. Any special vulnerability on the part of the prostitutes;

5. The working conditions in which the prostitutes were expected or encouraged to operate, including their physical surroundings in terms of soliciting customers and servicing customers, and safety concerns, in addition to whether appropriate health safeguards were taken;

6. The degree of planning and sophistication, including whether the pimp was working in concert with others;

7. The size of the pimp's operations, including the numbers of customers the prostitutes were expected to service;

8. The duration of the pimp's exploitative conduct;

9. The degree of violence, if any, apart from that inherent in the pimp's parasitic activities;

10. The extent to which inducements such as drugs or alcohol were employed by the pimp;

11. The effect on the prostitutes of the pimp's exploitation; and

12. The extent to which the pimp demanded or compelled sexual favours for himself from the prostitutes.

[23] I would also add to those considerations that the emphasis on deterrence and denunciation in pimping cases is driven by the exploitive coercive and controlling nature of the pimp and prostitute relationship. Justice Campbell referred to that in R. v. Lopez 2018 ONSC 4749 at par. 52. Pimping involves, as he said, a "callous" exploitation of the prostitutes sexual services as an endlessly available commodity to be bought and sold in the market place.

[24] I would add that when the prostitute is a teenager, like DD, there is an additional aspect of misery. When the prostitute is only 16, a vulnerable young person is reduced to a sexual commodity over a period of time. The prostitute ultimately moves on with nothing other than the emotional and physical scars obtained from her more or less complete relinquishment of her personal autonomy. All of this occurs at a time of life when the victim would otherwise be forming dreams and hopes of life ahead. DD did not file a victim impact statement but it is inconceivable to me that she will not have deep emotional scars from her days as a teenage prostitute working for Mr. Tazike.

[25] The range of custodial sentences imposed under s. 279.011, and 286.3 is mid-single digit penitentiary terms, see R. v. Crosdale 2019 ONCJ 3, [2019] O.J. No. 77 (OCJ). In this case there is no constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment of 5 years under s. 279.011(b) or 286.3. Jail terms climb quickly depending on the number of victims, use of threats and violence to maintain compliance with the pimp. At one extremity are cases like R. v. Moazami 2015 BCSC 2055 (23 years) and R. v. Rose 2019 MBCA 40 (21 years) involving several victims. At the other end of the scale is R. v. Finestone 2017 ONCJ 22 (4 years) and R. v. D.A. 2017 ONSC 3733 (3.5 years) where the offender exploited a single prostitute for relatively short period of time. I agree with Boswell J.'s observation in AE (supra) at par. 53 that,

Identifying a sentencing range for human trafficking offences is not easy. The offence may be committed in a wide variety of circumstances. Sentences naturally tend to reflect the individualized, context-driven nature of the exercise.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[26] I find the aggravating factors of this case to be:

i) Mr. Tazike demanded sexual favours as part of the relationship. Sometimes that was non-consensual;

ii) He took efforts to evade the authorities when the police arrived at the hotel where DD was set up;

iii) The attempts to keep her in the relationship are rolled up with the criminal harassment. So harassment is not an aggravating factor, it is a discrete sentence;

iv) It is aggravating that she had sexually suggestive images of her posted on the internet as a 16 year old;

v) DD was a particularly vulnerable 16 year old. She was living in a youth shelter when Mr. Tazike began exploiting her. For her, the opportunity to spend time in a hotel, and have cash was sufficiently attractive to give up her autonomy. This would have been obvious to Mr. Tazike. In other words, she was an easy target;

vi) There was violence involved by Mr. Tazike in exercising his control over DD;

vii) The pimp prostitute relationship went on for two years;

viii) Mr. Tazike mixed his commercial exploitation of DD with a personal relationship. Mixing a coercive relationship with emotional attachment is pernicious in the context of a vulnerable victim who developed a psychological co-dependency which is not uncommon with prostitutes and their pimps.

ix) The sexual assaults involved full vaginal penetration.

x) The criminal harassment involved dozens of text messages all aimed at getting DD back into a sexually exploitive relationship.

[27] The mitigating factors are not plentiful. Mr. Tazike is a young man with a supportive family. He has a high school education and a demonstrated ability to work.

Sentence

[28] The Crown asks for a global sentence of 10 years. The Defence submits that 6-7 years is appropriate. Absent totality, and reflecting the goals of deterrence and denunciation, a global sentence of 9 years would be appropriate. Mr. Tazike is a young man, and this is his first criminal conviction. A 9 year sentence would be crushing, and tend to nullify his prospects for rehabilitation. I would therefore reduce the global sentence to 7.5 years to reflect totality.

[29] Based on the forgoing, I would impose the following sentences:

Count i) – Exploitation of person under age of 18 per s. 279.011(1): 6 years gross reduced to 5 years;

Count ii) – Receive material benefit per s. 279.02: 5 years concurrent to i);

Count iii) – Receive financial benefit per s. 286.1(2): 3 years concurrent to i);

Count iv) – Procure a person under the age of 18: 6 years concurrent to i) reduced to 5 years;

Count v) – Knowingly advertise an offer to provide sexual services per s. 286.4: 3 years concurrent to i);

Count vi) – Sexual Assault per s. 271 between August 1 and August 31, 2015: 2 years consecutive to i);

Count vii) – Sexual Assault per s. 271 between July 1 and July 31, 2017: 2 years concurrent to vi) and vi) gross reduced to 2 years concurrent to vi);

Count viii) – Criminal Harassment per s. 264(3): 6 months consecutive to vii);

Count ix) – Mischief to Property per s. 430(4): 6 months concurrent to viii).

[30] From the 7.5 year sentence I would credit Mr. Tazike for his 18 days pre-trial custody at the rate of 1.5:1 for a credited pre-sentence custody of 1 month, which will be deducted from his global sentence.

[31] Mr. Tazike asks for credit for being under house arrest upon release from custody. That release was varied about 4 months later to permit him to be out of his house and then again later to impose simply a curfew. There is no information about how the bail terms adversely affected him. In R. v. Downes (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal mandated that stringent bail conditions be taken into account as a relevant mitigating circumstance. Having considered the lack of information about how Mr. Tazike's bail terms adversely affected him, and the fact that I have reduced his sentence from 9 years to 7.5 years because of totality, I give no credit for his stringent bail terms. In this finding I find Justice Henschel's approach to the Downes credit issue in R. v. Crosdale 2019 ONCJ 3 (at par. 57) appealing. Having reduced Mr. Tazike's sentence by 2 years because of totality I would not give him further credit for strict bail terms.

[32] The global sentence is therefore 7 years, 5 months.

Ancillary Orders

[33] The convictions for sexual assault and human trafficking are presumptive offences for DNA databanking and there will an order under s. 487.051 for Mr. Tazike to supply his DNA for transmission to the national DNA databank. The conviction under s. 279.011 attracts a 20 year SOIRA order under s. 490.013(2)(b), and a SOIRA order is hereby imposed for that term. There will be a 10 year Weapons Prohibition Order under s. 109. Lastly Mr. Tazike is prohibited from communicating with DD directly or indirectly while he is in custody pursuant to s. 743.21.

Released: November 13, 2019

Signed: Justice David Rose