R. v. Beckford, 2016 ONSC 1066

COURT FILE NO.: CR-14-30000786-0000

DATE: 20160210

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

LAWRENCE BECKFORD

Josh Levy, for the Crown

Alison Craig, for Mr. Beckford

HEARD: January 11-15, 2016

By court order made under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the person described in this judgment as the complainant may not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner. This judgment complies with this restriction so that it can be published.

r.f. goldstein j.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

[1] On the evening of June 7 2013 P.L., the complainant, was two months shy of her 16th birthday. The Crown alleges that Mr. Beckford sexually assaulted her that evening. The Crown also alleges that he either knew she was under 16 or failed to take reasonable steps to determine her age. There is no question that Mr. Beckford and P.L. had sexual intercourse that evening. P.L. testified that Mr. Beckford assaulted her on the couch and that she resisted him. Mr. Beckford testified that P.L. was a willing participant. He said that she told him she was 18 and that there was nothing about her looks, demeanour, or behaviour to suggest she wasn’t.

[2] Mr. Beckford is now charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference. For the reasons that follow, I find Mr. Beckford guilty of both counts. As I will explain, although the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that P.L. did not consent, Mr. Beckford did not take all reasonable steps to determine P.L.’s age.

FACTS

(a) Evidence of P.L.

[3] On June 9 2013 P.L. gave a videotaped statement to the police. She described the alleged assault. At trial, P.L. adopted the contents of her statement. She said that in June 2013 Mr. Beckford, who P.L. knew as “Marcus”, had been living in the house and was renting a room. P.L. had spent the better part of a year in Jamaica going to school. She had returned to Canada in April 2013. At the time, the family lived on the bottom level of a townhouse on Pitfield Road in Toronto. She lived with her mother, her older and younger sisters, and her brother.

[4] On the night of June 7 2013 P.L. was babysitting her younger siblings. Her older sister had gone out with her boyfriend. She was lying on the couch in the living room watching a movie at around 11 pm when Mr. Beckford came home. He said words to the effect of “oh hi, I’ve missed you, have you missed me” and then gave her $40. He said it was for her. She said she thought it was weird, but she took the money. He then went to his room and came back in a towel. He said: “come baby”. She thought that was also weird. He had never acted like that before. She refused. He then went to bathe and get dressed. He came out dressed in black jeans and a black top with a white design. He took her dad’s toolkit and explained that he needed it to set up for the event the next day. Mr. Beckford was in the business of promotions with D.W., her mother’s boyfriend. They were doing a fish fry the next day in the back yard of Mr. Beckford’s barbershop. Y.L., P.L.’s mother, was out that night helping D.W. clean fish for the fish fry. It was Mr. Beckford’s job to set up the tent in the back yard, which is why he borrowed the toolkit.

[5] After retrieving the toolkit Mr. Beckford went over to the couch. She was lying on her side with her arm holding up her head and her foot up. He tried to get on top of her and she tried to kick him away. He kept shushing her and then got rough. She said that she was screaming trying to wake her little brother and little sister so that they would come out and he would stop. He grabbed her arms and hair and tried to kiss her. She resisted him. Eventually he pulled down her jogging pants and underwear and laid on top of her while she was on her stomach. He penetrated her while she was screaming. P.L. testified that he said “I’ve waited so long for this”. She testified that she was terrified. She further testified that Mr. Beckford kept looking outside while he was assaulting her. She said that he then left. P.L. told the police that it did not feel like Mr. Beckford was wearing a condom. She said that it smelled like semen when she took a shower. She also told the police that she did not have any injuries, but that she wished she did. It would be evidence.

[6] P.L. said that she was crying for her mother while the assault was happening. She felt dirty so she took a shower. Her sister found her in the shower and tried to get her out. Her mother then got home and she told her what had happened. Her mother then called the police.

[7] In cross-examination P.L. testified that she could not remember discussing her age with Mr. Beckford. She said that she was not home a lot at the time. She had a bad memory in general, and that she forgot a lot of things. She did not know how old she was when she first met Mr. Beckford.

[8] P.L. also admitted that she frequently lied about her age. In 2013 and 2014 she was interested in getting into the sex industry. She was looking for a person to assist her, or a pimp. She met two men. She told them both she was 18. She kept up the lie about her age for about a year and a half. She is now the complainant in a criminal case against those two men.

[9] P.L. agreed that she tried or pretended to look older than she really was. Later she backtracked and would not admit that she dressed to look older than she really was. Her Facebook profile picture was entered into evidence. I agree with Ms. Craig that it certainly shows a young person trying to seem significantly older than her 14 years.

[10] P.L. also agreed that she had lied to the police on at least two occasions about her name and her age. In February 2015 the police investigated her at a motel on Kingston Road. She gave the police a false name and a false birth date indicating that she was 19. She was charged with obstructing police when she continued to lie about her name. Then in July 2015 the police investigated her at a motel in Scarborough. She again lied to the police about her name and her age. She was charged again with obstruct police and with failing to comply with her recognizance.

(b) Evidence of Y.L.

[11] Y.L., P.L.’s mother, testified that Mr. Beckford rented a room in the family home in July 2012. He was a friend of D.W., her boyfriend. He came and went as he pleased. He had been living with his girlfriend in Ajax, but they were having difficulties so he began living with Y.L. and her children. She said he wasn’t a burden. He was respectful and seemed decent. She knew he was a barber as she took her son to him to have his hair cut. They also socialized at parties and the like. She took her son to his barber shop to have his hair cut and to socialize, and may have taken P.L. as well. There were promotional events, like the fish fry, held in the backyard of his barber shop.

[12] Y.L. said that P.L. was not around most of the time. She was in Jamaica. Y.L. had sent her down to school there in 2012. P.L. returned in late April or May of 2013.

[13] Y.L. remembered small talk with Mr. Beckford on several occasions. She recalled discussion of P.L.’s age with him in the context of a general discussion of teenagers and their problems. She thought that the discussion was probably when he first moved in. She knew that he had three daughters ranging in age from their late teens to their twenties. She recalled that they discussed something about how teenagers hit that age and seem to know it all. She said that they commiserated about how long the stage was going to last.

[14] Y.L. testified that she also recalled discussing P.L.’s age with Mr. Beckford around March, 2013. P.L.’s school year was ending and she needed to come back to Canada from Jamaica. Y.L. testified that they discussed whether P.L. could fly by herself or Y.L. needed to fly down to go and get her.

[15] On the evening of June 7, Y.L. was helping prepare fish for the fish fry the next day. She was outside at D.W.’s house cleaning fish from about 10 pm to 1 am. She checked her phone at around 1 am and panicked when she saw a series of missed calls from her daughter, C.L. She called back and spoke to C.L. and P.L. P.L. told her what had happened. P.L. was distraught. The talked for some time as Y.L. tried to calm her down. Y.L. and D.W. drove back to the house where Y.L. found P.L. in the bathroom. She was crying and emotional and seemed traumatized. Later the police came, although it is unclear whether they came at 4 am as Y.L. initially testified or later, which she agreed might have been the case in cross-examination. Y.L. gave the police P.L.’s clothing. They took P.L. to the hospital. A couple of days later she took P.L. to the police station to give a statement.

[16] In cross-examination Y.L. testified that she thought P.L. and Mr. Beckford might have met in 2012 prior to P.L. going to Jamaica, but she wasn’t sure. His usual pattern at her house was for him to come in, change, and throw stuff in a bag, and leave. She said that prior to P.L. going to Jamaica she would sometimes leave the house and not come back. She was having problems with P.L. and sought help at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. She said that there were times she confided in Mr. Beckford. She said that there were discussions of the sex trade in Jamaica. She said that Mr. Beckford told her that it was crazy, little girls sleeping with big grown men for taxi fare to go to school, or for lunch money. She could not recall if there were discussions of the sex trade in Ontario.

[17] It was put to Y.L. that she and Mr. Beckford never discussed P.L.’s age. Y.L. disagreed. She agreed that she could not remember details because she was flustered and overwhelmed on cross-examination, but she recalled speaking to him about it when he mentioned girls having sex with men in Jamaica and when having a discussion about his own daughters. She said that she recalled that she mentioned that P.L. was 15 years old but acted like she was grown.

(c) Evidence of Mr. Beckford

[18] Mr. Beckford testified that he is a barber by trade. In 1999 he pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine in the United States but decided to leave before he was sentenced. He said that it was better for his family. He testified that he had three young children to take care of and he couldn’t do it from prison. In cross-examination, however, he said that he left them in Florida where they were living and came to Canada in 2000 although he always supported them. He did not use his full name and real date of birth when he entered this country. He knew he was wanted in the United States. In 2002 he opened a hair salon in Ajax with partners. He then returned to Jamaica in 2008 and worked as a soccer coach. He visited Canada in 2011 and 2012 for soccer tournaments. He decided not to go back to Jamaica after the 2012 tournament. He went back to running his hair salon. He is currently in custody on an extradition warrant from the United States. He is without immigration status in Canada.

[19] Mr. Beckford became friends and a business partner with D.W., P.L.’s stepfather, in 2005. D.W. was a client at the hair salon. They did promotions and events, such as the fish fry scheduled for June 8 2013. He knew of Y.L. around 2008 but could not recall if they met at that time. He testified that he did meet her in 2011 and knew her as D.W.’s girlfriend.

[20] After failing to go back to Jamaica in 2012 Mr. Beckford stayed with D.W. for a while. D.W., who is the father of Y.L.’s younger children, suggested that he move in with Y.L. and her family. They were renting a 4-bedroom townhouse and would have room. He began renting a room in July 2012 and helped Y.L. move in. He needed a place to live. He had been in a relationship with someone for some years but it seems that the relationship was at a difficult stage in 2012.

[21] P.L. was there temporarily in 2012. He recalled no significant conversations with P.L. at the time. She did say that she liked the way he dressed. After a few weeks she was off to Jamaica.

[22] Mr. Beckford testified that he did not have a friendship with Y.L. She was simply his friend’s baby-mother. He would see her when he was in the house but otherwise it was a neutral relationship. He testified that he never had a conversation with Y.L. about P.L.’s age, or about girls in Jamaica having sex with older men.

[23] Mr. Beckford testified that P.L. went to Jamaica in August 2012 and returned at the end of April or early May 2013. He said that P.L. was very flirtatious with him when she returned. I pause to note that in cross-examination, P.L. agreed that she complimented Mr. Beckford on his jewellery, clothing, and hair. She agreed that she probably also complimented Mr. Beckford on his shoes and his cologne.

[24] Mr. Beckford testified that on the Victoria Day weekend in 2013 he and P.L. discussed her age. There was a BBQ at the Pitfield house where they lived. He was downstairs with some friends cooking fish on the grill when P.L. came down. She was wearing clothes that caused his friends to take notice of her. One asked how old she was and Mr. Beckford said he did not know but would find out. When he was alone with her he asked her age. She told him she was 18.

[25] On the night of June 7 2013 Mr. Beckford arrived home. He was driving his girlfriend’s car. He saw P.L.’s older sister, C.L., coming from the living room. A guy he did not know, presumably C.L.’s boyfriend, was at the front door. He went to his room to take a shower and sort out his clothes for the next day, as he was going back to his girlfriend’s house. He remembered telling P.L. “I miss you guys” even though he meant D.W.’s kids, who were younger. He did not ask P.L. to come bath him.

[26] After he changed, Mr. Beckford saw P.L. on the couch in the living room. She was watching television. He came out and was dressed nicely and his hair was done. P.L. complimented him on his hair and asked him what cologne brand he was wearing. He then went to leave and they embraced. He felt himself get an erection and P.L. asked him if he had a condom. He was shocked when she said that. He said “is that what you’re feeling” and she said “yeah”. He went to look for a condom in his room but didn’t have one. He went back to the living room and he told her he did not have a condom. They proceeded to have sex on the couch. He attempted to engage in foreplay but she told him to hurry up as her mom might come home soon. They moved to a different part of the couch so that she could watch the window in case her mother came home. They both looked out the window.

[27] After they had sex P.L. asked for money. Mr. Beckford testified that he had $60 on him at the time. He needed gas for his girlfriend’s car so he gave her $40. She asked if that was the only thing he was giving her. She was upset that he only gave her $40. He told her he would give her money at the fish fry. She then calmed down. He was about to leave but had to come back for the toolkit. When he did she asked “what if I get pregnant” and he told her that he would get her morning-after pills.

ISSUES

[28] There is no doubt that P.L. and Mr. Beckford had sexual intercourse. The forensic report makes that clear, as does the testimony of both P.L. and Mr. Beckford. Ordinarily, consent is not a defence where the complainant is under 16 years of age. There is, however, a defence of honest but mistaken belief as to age where the accused believed that the complainant was 16 or older and took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age.

[29] If P.L. was not a willing participant in the sexual activity, then it matters not whether Mr. Beckford took any steps to ascertain her age, reasonable or otherwise. I must therefore determine the following issues:

(a) Did P.L. consent to sexual activity?

(b) Did Mr. Beckford take all reasonable steps to ascertain P.L.’s age?

ANALYSIS

(a) Did P.L. consent to sexual activity?

[30] The Crown is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that P.L. did not consent to sexual activity. I apply the standard analysis set out in R. v. W.(D), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 in this way:

• First, do I believe Mr. Beckford that P.L. was a willing participant in sexual activity?

• Second, even if do not believe Mr. Beckford, does his evidence leave me with a reasonable doubt about whether P.L. was a willing participant in sexual activity?

• Third, if I do not believe Mr. Beckford and I am not left with a reasonable doubt about whether P.L. was a willing participant in sexual activity, I must ask whether, on the basis of the evidence I do accept, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that P.L. was not a willing participant in sexual activity.

[31] A trial judge may believe some, none, or all of the evidence of a witness. As will become clear, I found some of Mr. Beckford’s evidence to be plausible, and some of his evidence to be credible – but not all. In this case, I do not entirely believe Mr. Beckford that P.L. was a willing participant in sexual activity, but I find that it might reasonably true. I am therefore left in a state of reasonable doubt about it. Even if I were not, I did not find P.L. to be a credible or reliable witness. I did not find her allegations against Mr. Beckford to be credible or reliable.

[32] Turning to the first question, in the analysis, I certainly had problems with Mr. Beckford’s credibility. I do not find it to be credible that he never discussed P.L. with Y.L. They clearly had a social relationship that was close enough for him to invite his friends to her house for a BBQ on the Victoria Day weekend. His good friend and business partner D.W. was the father of two of Y.L.’s children. He also told P.L. on the night of June 7 2013 that he missed the younger children in the house. That is indicative of a reasonably close relationship with at least a part of the family. It is certainly not insignificant that Mr. Beckford is a wanted fugitive from justice. He pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine in the United States and then fled while, presumably, he was on bail. It is also not insignificant that he provided a false date of birth and altered his name in order to gain entry into this country. I therefore do not believe him on this issue.

[33] Turning to the second question, however, I do find it plausible that P.L. told Mr. Beckford that she was 18. I also find it plausible that P.L. was a willing participant in sexual activity with Mr. Beckford. I accept that Mr. Beckford’s evidence on this point might reasonably be true. I am therefore left with a reasonable doubt about whether P.L. was a willing participant in sexual activity.

[34] It is sometimes difficult to separate the three questions in the W.D. analysis. This is one of those cases. Mr. Beckford’s evidence on this point is plausible in light of P.L.’s admissions that she frequently lied about her age and in light of the fact that I did not P.L. was not a credible or reliable witness. I therefore must still answer the third question.

[35] There were several factual errors made by P.L.:

• She thought that she had met Mr. Beckford at a bar-b-que or other event before he moved into the house. That appears to be incorrect, based on the testimony of P.L.’s mother.

• P.L. testified initially that the family lived on Brenyon Way; when shown photographs of the home she corrected herself and indicated that the family lived on Pitfield Way.

• P.L. testified that on the night of the assault, she threw away the clothing she was wearing. That was not correct, as the clothing was seized by the police as evidence after it was collected by her mother.

• P.L.’s recollection of the details of the alleged assault changed between her initial comments to the police, her formal interview, the preliminary inquiry, and the trial before me. For example she gave different accounts of her position on the couch and the circumstances under which Mr. Beckford handed her money.

[36] It is not uncommon for a complainant’s recollection of details to be incorrect. Often nothing turns on that. For example, the position of furniture or the exact time of day of a sexual assault may not impact on the complainant’s credibility or reliability in a significant way, although it obviously depends on the facts of the case. Mixing up whether the incident occurred in an earlier family home may not matter when the complainant is young. Furthermore, P.L. testified that she has epilepsy and suffers from grand mal seizures. She is on medication and agreed that it affected her memory.

[37] It is the same with the evidence that P.L. lied to her parents to get out of trouble. That would not ordinarily affect her credibility in a significant way. It would be extremely unusual to find a teenager who didn’t lie to his or her parents to get out of trouble on occasion.

[38] In this matter, however, there are simply too many problems with P.L.’s evidence for them to be minor. They have a real impact on her credibility and reliability. I say this even taking into account the fact that she was 15 at the time of the incident and 18 now. Furthermore, I found that P.L. answered questions when it suited her, but when it did not suit her she said that she could not remember. It is not uncommon for a witness to be hostile to a defence lawyer who is questioning her. P.L., however, sometimes appeared to be deliberate about it.

[39] There were other problems with P.L.’s evidence. She testified that Mr. Beckford asked her to bathe him. She did not tell that to Sgt MacDonald, the officer who arrived on scene to take charge. Sgt MacDonald said she would have noted something like that.

[40] Another issue did not help with her credibility. P.L. testified that Mr. Beckford used to look at her strangely, as if he were attracted to her. She said that she may have told one of the police officers about it. She did not mention that at her preliminary inquiry or on her video-taped statement. Ms. Craig noted that she had specifically asked P.L. about this issue at the preliminary inquiry and P.L. did not mention it. P.L. did not remember that and testified that she thought she had. Ms. Craig asked her if she had had an opportunity to read her preliminary inquiry transcript. P.L. testified that she had looked at it but not read it word for word. Ms. Craig asked if it would assist her to take a break and let her review the preliminary inquiry transcript so that she could find the relevant passage. P.L. indicated that it probably would help, but she didn’t want to read it. Later, the court did take a break to allow P.L. time to read her preliminary inquiry transcript. She said that she had read it “a little”. Regrettably, P.L.’s attitude demonstrated that she was indifferent to the accuracy of her evidence. That indifference seriously undermines her credibility.

[41] P.L. indicated that she was kicking and screaming and trying to get Mr. Beckford off her. In her statement she said that he was very rough with her. Mr. Beckford testified that he kept his nails long as a barber since it was easier to keep them clean. He showed them in court. They were indeed very long. I cannot say whether Mr. Beckford’s nails were that long in June 2013 but it is plausible. The medical records do not show any physical marks or scratches consistent with the rough treatment P.L. described and certainly no major scratches as one would expect from someone who had long nails.

[42] I found P.L.’s testimony that Mr. Beckford simply gave her $40 when he arrived at the the house neither credible nor plausible. There was no reason, on her testimony, for him to simply give her $40. In the context of the evening’s events, and the evidence in general, Mr. Beckford’s account of the money makes far more sense.

[43] P.L. also broke down on the stand and could not proceed at least twice. She apparently vomited and said she could not go on. That could be interpreted in any number of ways. Ms. Craig’s questioning was not bullying or hostile. Her cross-examination was well within the bounds of professionalism and the law, but P.L. still had much difficulty with it. Her demeanour seemed similar to that described by her mother on the day of the alleged assault.

[44] I cannot be certain what caused her breakdown, either in court or on June 7 2013. I acknowledge that the kind of breakdown that I saw in court and that Y.L. described is certainly consistent with something one might expect to see in a traumatized sexual assault victim. I am not, however, exactly sure what to make of P.L.’s demeanour. At the end of the day, I do know that P.L. is a troubled young woman with mental and physical health issues. In addition to the credibility issues it raises, it also raises some reliability issues.

[45] All of these problems might well have less weight but for the fact that P.L. has lied consistently and repeatedly about her true age. She lied to her two would-be pimps and told them she was 18. She also lied to the police about her age. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that P.L. was more likely to willingly participate in sexual activity because she was interested in working in the sex trade and willing to lie about it. Rather, I find that her willingness to lie about an important fact about herself to several people, including the police, for her own purposes has a critical impact on her credibility.

[46] Ultimately I think it would be dangerous to convict on the basis only of P.L.’s evidence, and if that were all that there was to this case I would not. Which brings me to the question of the defence of honest but mistaken belief in the age of the complainant.

(b) Did Mr. Beckford take all reasonable steps to determine P.L.’s age?

[47] Because the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that P.L. did not consent (notwithstanding that P.L. was not capable of legally consenting), it is necessary to determine whether Mr. Beckford took all reasonable steps to determine P.L.’s age. In my view, he did not.

[48] Sections 150.1, 151(a), and 271(a) of the Criminal Code state:

150.1 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (2.2), when an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152 or subsection 153(1), 160(3) or 173(2) or is charged with an offence under section 271, 272 or 273 in respect of a complainant under the age of 16 years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge.

(4) It is not a defence to a charge under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2), or section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant was 16 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.

151. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of 16 years

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year…

271. Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year…

[49] The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant: R. v. Dragos, 2012 ONCA 538, 111 C.C.C. (3d) 481 at para. 44; R. v. Saliba, 2013 ONCA 661, 304 C.C.C. (3d) 133 at para. 19. The test is this: did the accused take the steps in the circumstances that a reasonable person would take to determine the complainant’s age? See: Dragos at paras. 29-32. Although the context matters, the steps taken cannot be referenced solely to the subjective perception of the accused: Saliba at para. 19. The test has both a subjective and an objective element.

[50] In Dragos the key issue was whether the accused had taken reasonable steps (for the luring charge) and all reasonable steps (for the sexual interference charge) to determine the complainant’s age. The accused and the complainant had met on an internet chat room. The complainant was 14 but told him that she was 18. The complainant’s mother discovered the relationship and warned the accused. He persisted in the relationship. The Court of Appeal held that in the circumstances the trial judge was right to conclude that the accused failed to take reasonable steps in relation to luring, and all reasonable steps in relation to sexual interference. That case has some similarities to this case.

[51] Y.L. testified that she and Mr. Beckford had become friendly. They discussed their children. P.L. was a particular worry to her and she had mentioned her troubles to Mr. Beckford. She testified that she and Mr. Beckford had discussed her age. Mr. Beckford denied it.

[52] I found Y.L. to be a credible witness. It is true that she clearly has an animus towards Mr. Beckford. How could she not? She strongly believes that he raped her daughter. That said, Y.L. was careful in her testimony. She did not exaggerate and admitted when she did not know the answer to a question. She forthrightly admitted that she may have made mistakes in her testimony and admitted to being nervous and overwhelmed. Her description of conversations between Mr. Beckford and her about their daughters has a very strong ring of truth, mostly because it makes sense. Mr. Beckford was living in her house. It is inconceivable that they never made small talk from time to time. Parenthood is a common shared experience. Commiseration about one’s children is also a common shared experience. If anything has the ring of truth, it is evidence about parents complaining and worrying together about their children, especially when they are teenagers. P.L. was not an easy child and Y.L. clearly worried about her. There was discussion of the sex trade in Jamaica and Y.L. was obviously extremely concerned about P.L. in this regard. Furthermore, Y.L. was aware that Mr. Beckford had three daughters. That was an important detail that Y.L. likely would have learned directly from Mr. Beckford. It is problematic that Y.L. did not mention the conversations with Mr. Beckford about P.L.’s age to the police, but I still find it credible. I also find it credible that Y.L. discussed with Mr. Beckford whether she had to go and get P.L. from Jamaica. Mr. Beckford was experienced in flying back and forth from Canada to Jamaica.

[53] For the converse of the reasons that I found Y.L. credible on the matter of P.L.’s age, I reject Mr. Beckford’s evidence that he never discussed P.L.’s age with Y.L. I am not saying that this is a credibility contest. What I am saying is that it would have been natural for two adults in circumstances where Mr. Beckford was living with Y.L. for there to have been discussions about their children. Furthermore, Mr. Beckford was part of the wider family circle. He rented a room in Y.L.’s house, not a separate basement apartment. He was a friend and business partner of D.W. D.W. was the father of two of Y.L.’s children and they had obviously been together long enough for P.L. to have referred to him has her dad or step-dad. Mr. Beckford’s evidence that he missed the kids is telling. He was talking about the children of D.W. and Y.L.

[54] I conclude that there were strong indications that Mr. Beckford knew P.L.’s age, even if only roughly. Of course, the Crown does not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Beckford knew P.L.’s age. The Crown needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Beckford did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain her age.

[55] Leaving aside the subjective question of whether Mr. Beckford actually knew that P.L. was under 16, I am satisfied that Mr. Beckford did not take such steps. I believe that P.L. told Mr. Beckford that she was 18. That, however, was not enough under the circumstances. Simply asking P.L. her age was certainly not taking “reasonable steps”, let alone “all reasonable steps”. Ms. Craig very forthrightly argued that I cannot convict Mr. Beckford simply because it is grotesque that this 40 year-old man had sex with a girl he thought was just 18. I agree with Ms. Craig on that point. That said, Mr. Beckford knew that P.L. was a schoolgirl. He knew that she had just spent a year at a boarding school in Jamaica. Although he was aware that P.L. had an older sister who was 19 and had a boyfriend, he was also aware that P.L. had younger siblings with ages in the single digits. Furthermore, he lived with P.L. He had seen her around the house. It is an obvious inference that he would have seen her in a most casual way – not only as the young woman trying to look older in the Facebook profile picture, but also as the child in the police video.

[56] In my view, these circumstances should have triggered in Mr. Beckford the necessity of making more inquiries into P.L.’s age. He testified that P.L. is manipulative. I agree that she may well be. All the more reason why he should have made more inquiries into P.L.’s age, especially when armed with information from P.L.’s mother about some of the things she had been doing.

[57] Mr. Beckford said that P.L. appeared to be 18 and that he had no reason to doubt her when she told him she was 18. On the contrary, there was every reason to doubt her. Even if Y.L.’s mother did not specifically tell Mr. Beckford P.L.’s age, there were many warning signs. A reasonable person would have at least had concerns, and done something more than rely on the say-so of this clearly troubled young woman. That is what the law requires and that is what Mr. Beckford should have done.

DISPOSITION

[58] Mr. Beckford is found guilty of both charges. I leave to another day the question of whether the rule against multiple convictions applies.

[59] I thank both counsel for their very professional approach to this difficult case.

R.F. Goldstein J.

Released: February 10, 2016

CITATION: R. v. Beckford, 2016 ONSC 1066

COURT FILE NO.: CR-14-30000786-0000

DATE: 20160210

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

LAWRENCE BECKFORD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

R.F. Goldstein J.