COURT FILE NO.: CJ-9373
DATE: 2019/12/03
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: R. v. L.R.
BEFORE: Justice D.A. Broad
COUNSEL: Katherine Enns, Counsel for the Crown/Responding Party
Harald Mattson, Counsel for the Accused/Applicant
HEARD: October 8 and 9, 2019
SUBJECT TO ANY FURTHER ORDER BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, AN ORDER HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS PROCEEDING DIRECTING THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE COMPLAINANT AND ANY INFORMATION THAT COULD DISCLOSE SUCH IDENTITY, SHALL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN ANY DOCUMENT OR BROADCAST IN ANY WAY PURSUANT TO S. 486.4 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
ruling on the application of the accused to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity of the complainant pursuant to s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code and on the application of the crown to adduce evidence from the complainant that could engage the principles of s. 276
Background and Nature of the Applications
[1] The applicant, L.R., was arrested on August 14, 2017 charged with uttering threats, assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, and human trafficking in respect of a 15-year-old complainant G.C..
[2] The applicant elected to be tried by judge alone and the trial is scheduled to commence on January 6, 2020.
[3] The applicant has brought an application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence through cross-examination of G.C. respecting her having worked, prior to the charge period of July 30, 2017 to August 6, 2017, as an escort.
[4] The Crown alleges that the complainant was ordered to get into a car with four individuals, including the applicant, and was driven to an apartment occupied by a separately indicted male person named Dailean John who used the nicknames “D-Block” and “D”. The Crown alleges further that the complainant was forcibly confined, assaulted, sexually assaulted by two males and forced to perform escort services for money in order to repay money to Dailean John that she had allegedly stolen from him at the apartment on a previous occasion.
[5] The Crown acknowledges, based upon a statement provided by the complainant G.C., that she had voluntarily worked as an escort prior to the charge period. The Crown also acknowledges, based upon the complainant’s statement, that the applicant and the complainant had known each other for approximately two months at the time of the events giving rise to the charges before the court, that they were acquaintances and were co-workers in the escorting industry. It is common ground between Crown and the defence that the activity of being an escort, by definition, involves engaging in sexual activity.
[6] The applicant wishes to adduce probative evidence of specific instances when the complainant was working as an escort of her own free will for approximately two months, for a number of different people, and at a number of different locations, and continued to do so throughout the charge period set forth in the indictment. The applicant asserts that this evidence will demonstrate that there was no change in circumstances and that the complainant was willingly working as an escort during the charge period.
[7] It will be seen that the applicant does not seek to adduce evidence with respect to the details or particulars of any sexual activity engaged in by the complainant at any time prior to the charge period,