Court File and Parties

DATE: August 5, 2021 Information Nos.: 1211-998-21-2377-00 1211-998-20-3782-01

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. LOIC SIMEU

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE D. A. HARRIS On Thursday, August 5, 2021, for a Burlington, Ontario proceeding

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN CANNOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST OR TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 486.4(1)(a)(i) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA BY ORDER OF JUSTICE D. HARRIS, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, DATED AUGUST 3, 2021

APPEARANCES: L. Bolton Counsel for the Crown M. Forte Counsel for Loic Simeu

Ruling

HARRIS, J. (Orally):

Loic Simeu has been charged with, (1) forcible confinement; (2) obtaining sexual services for consideration; (3) assault police; and, (4) uttering threats.

Mr. Simeu pled guilty to obtaining sexual services for consideration and pled not guilty with respect to the other charges. The trial began.

During cross‑examination of Crown witness M.M., Crown counsel objected to certain questions being asked. Two bases were advanced for this objection:

(1) the questions were not relevant; (2) the questions offended section 276 of the Criminal Code.

Counsel for Mr. Simeu argued that:

(1) the questions were relevant; (2) section 276 was not applicable in this case.

I am satisfied that section 276 is applicable here. In that regard, I adopt the reasoning of Justice Quigley in R. v. Amdurski, 2020 ONSC 6714 at paragraphs 6 through 11. There he states the following:

[6] In 2019 the Supreme Court in R. v. Barton, [2019] SCC 33 poses the question at paragraph 70 whether the section 276 regime can nevertheless apply even in a case where the offence charged, in that case murder, under subsections 231(5)(C) and 235(1) is not one of the offences listed in section 276(1). Importantly, at paragraph 72 to 77, the court expanded the application of section 276(1) to cases in which there is "some connection" between the offence charged and the enumerated offences in section 276. Writing for the majority, Moldaver, J. concluded that procedurally if "some connection" is found, the applicant will be required to provide a written application under section 276 in order to elicit evidence of the complainant's past and continuing work history as a sex trade worker.

[8] Justice Moldaver speaks plainly and forcefully in the first paragraph of his reasons providing context for the issue, context that at least in my view shows that Barton is indeed intended to be a gamechanger decision in its expansive interpretation of the circumstances of "connection" that will engage the section 276(1) regime.

Justice Quigley then goes on to quote in full the contents of paragraph 1 of the Barton decision.

[9] In his analysis, Moldaver, J. observes that the opening words of section 276(1) and (2) signify the intent of Parliament that the provisions and the procedures it mandates will apply. Where the proceedings are "in respect of a listed offence" [he cites an earlier case] that instructs that the words "in respect of" are of the widest possible scope and probably the widest of any expression available that is intended to convey some connection between two related subject matters.

[10] Consequently, it is not surprising that Justice Moldaver found that Parliament would not have chosen such exceptionally broad language if it intended to limit the application of the section 276 regime only to proceedings in which illicit offence was expressly charged. Parliament declined to adopt narrower language. In doing so, it indicated that it wished the provision's applications be considerable broader.

[11] The section 276 regime was enacted with several protective purposes in mind; one, to protect trial integrity by excluding irrelevant and misleading evidence; two, to protect the accused's right to a fair trial by creating a framework under which a complainant's evidence can safely be received and will be admitted; and, three, to protect the security and privacy and complainants and thereby encouraging the reporting of sexual offences. Moldaver, J. concludes that giving section 276 a broad, generous interpretation that does not unduly restrict the regime's scope of application will best achieve these objects.

Justice Quigley then goes on to quote Justice Moldaver from paragraph 76 of Barton.

I recognize that the offences in R. v. Amdurski were different than the offences in the case before me and that the two cases can be distinguished on that basis. I also recognize that the decision of Justice Quigley is not binding on me. I find it to be persuasive, however, in how it summarizes the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Barton and sets out the general principles to be considered by me.

I am also satisfied that certain proposed questions are not relevant. I am, however, satisfied that certain other questions are relevant. I am also satisfied that certain of those questions can be asked in a way that does not lead to evidence that the complainant engaged in sexual activity other than sexual activity with Mr. Simeu on the night in question. Accordingly, counsel will be allowed to ask the following. I keep referring to "he" because for the most part, this is referring to defence counsel, but Crown counsel may want to take some guidance from it.

He may ask both M. and P. whether P. met with Mr. Simeu in the hotel room/suite that night and whether she left with him.

He may ask M. if she knew that P. was going out to deal with a client that night. He may ask M. if she assumed that P. was going out to deal with a client that night. He may not ask these questions about any other time.

He may ask about the layout of their room/suite at the Best Western that night. He may not ask about any other times or any other clients.

He may ask both M. and P. if they were staying in the hotel that night so as to be able to service clients in Burlington and area. He may not ask this about any other date.

He may ask both M. and P. if they considered each other as co‑workers as of that night.

He may ask if there were any safety protocols in place between them that night, including whether there was any other emergency contact person other than M. that P. could contact if any problems arose.

He may not ask her how she felt about P. being in the sex trade or whether she had tried to talk her out of it or whether P. had ever lied to her in order to hide her involvement in the sex trade.

He may not ask either of them anything else about their involvement in the sex trade other than regarding P.'s interaction with S. that night.

I used initials only for simplicity. I assume that counsel can figure out exactly who I am referring to.

FORM 2

Certificate of Transcript (Subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act

I, Julius Sakalauskas, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Loic Simeu in the Ontario Court of Justice held at 2021 Plains Road East, Burlington, Ontario, taken from Recording No. 1213_12_20210805_094121__6_HARRISDAV.dcr, which has been certified in Form 1.

(Date) (Signature of Authorized Person)

ACT ID: 5719957579