COURT FILE NO.: CR-18-1257

DATE: 20191218

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Her Majesty the Queen

Julia DeVuono & Veronica Puls, for the Crown

• and -

C.D. and K.W.

S. White, for the Defendant C.D.

S. Butler, for the Defendant K.W.

Defendants

HEARD: September 30, October 1, 2,3,4,7,8,9,10,11,15, 16,17,18,23,24, 2019

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

TZIMAS J.

INTRODUCTION

[1] C.D. and K.W. were charged with human trafficking and procurement of J.C-W. in the period between July 14 and August 14, 2017. In addition, C.D. was charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, and aggravated assault against the complainant J.C-W. He was also charged with attempted murder, gun-related charges and aggravated assault against M.M., also occuring in the same period between July 14 and August 14, 2017. The various allegations were said to have unfolded in the City of Brampton.

[2] Both accused pleaded not guilty to the respective charges against them. They both testified and they categorically denied the allegations. With respect to the shooting of M.M., they denied any knowledge, much less any involvement with him whatsoever. With respect to J.C-W., they recalled seeing her at the basement where K.W. lived but they both said that somebody else introduced her to those premises and that she came and went as she pleased.

[3] Neither of the accused were credible. C.D. did everything he could to distance himself from the allegations. His evidence did not leave me with any doubt. K.W. contradicted himself several times but his version of what occurred raised reasonable doubt.

[4] The two victims offered very different accounts of what occurred to them. The differences were both as between them and the accused, but also as between each other. Their evidence presented the court with serious and in certain respects insurmountable credibility challenges.

[5] The third-party evidence corroborated aspects of what J.C-W. said occurred, but not nearly enough to remedy the various contradictions in the evidence of the two complainants to eliminate any reasonable doubt over the respective charges against the accused.

[6] I have no difficulty recognizing that bad things occurred to the two complainants. As I considered all the evidence before me it became evident that the complainants’ strategy all along was to distance themselves from the perpetrators. Whether they did that to protect themselves, to protect others, or out of fear of future retributions was not clear. The accused were no less problematic. If the standard to be met were based on probability I would not have had any difficulty finding C.D. guilty, at least of the human trafficking and the procurement charges. But the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt and that standard was not met by the Crown.

[7] Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, C.D. and K.W. are found not guilty and acquitted of all the charges against them.

THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT

A. CROWN EVIDENCE

a. M.M.’s evidence

[8] There was no dispute that M.M. was shot in the early hours of August 5, 2017. Later in the morning he underwent surgery to have a .22 caliber bullet removed from his right arm.

[9] M.M. described how he was J.C-W.’s cousin and that in the hours before he was shot he spoke to her on the phone and made arrangements to meet her at St. Ursula’s schoolyard. He said that she called him on the cell phone at some point after midnight on August 5, 2017 though he could not recall the reason for her call. He could also not remember what they talked about. He then recalled that some guy took his cousin’s phone away from her and started asking him questions about who he was. There too, he could not recall particulars of the conversation. He also said that there were a few phone calls back and forth as there were hang-ups during the exchanges and call backs.

[10] M.M. said that he asked the guy to put J.C-W. back on the phone. They went back and forth on this exchange with M.M. asking for his cousin to come back on the phone and the guy asking M.M. who he was. Eventually, J.C-W. got back on the phone and the two of them arranged a meeting point. M.M. said that he did not speak to anyone else about the meeting time and location, though he conceded he may have texted the address to J.C-W.

[11] M.M. said that he went to St. Ursula and waited for his cousin to arrive. At some point, out of nowhere, he saw in the distance a group of men. Almost immediately his phone rang and then he was shot. The group of guys disappeared. He could not recall how long he was at the school before seeing the guys. He thought there were as many as five guys in the group and he thought they wore hoodies.

[12] M.M. said that although the number calling him belonged to his cousin, he did not answer the phone because as it rang, he saw a light beaming from the group of men in the distance. He explained that they all had phones but one of them was actually on the phone; he found that suspicious.

[13] M.M. was able to verify J.C-W.’s number. He also gave a vivid description of his movements after he was shot and the path he followed to get back to his home. Once he was home, he attended to his wound but eventually he called a cab to take him to the hospital. He did not call 911 or seek the police’s assistance. He said he was confused because he expected to meet his cousin and next thing he knew, he was shot.

[14] M.M. was unable to give any description of the guy who shot him. Nor was he able to give any description of what the guy was wearing. Initially he thought he heard two shots before being hit. M.M. confirmed that he told the nurse at the hospital that he thought he was shot with a bibi gun. He also confirmed that he gave a different location for the shooting. He said he did that because he was confused and was not thinking rationally. The circumstances of what occurred to him came into focus much later.

[15] When M.M. was pressed on why he arranged to meet his cousin in the first place, he said that typically he would be the one to call her and he would not have any difficulties talking to her. On this occasion, she called him and she did not sound okay. He could also hear noise in the background. M.M. thought that the person who came on the phone had a Jamaican accent.

[16] With respect to his own phone and what happened to it after the shooting, he said that it fell on the ground and got wet such that it no longer worked. He could not recall what he did with the SIM card. He confirmed that the name associated with his phone was “Jesus Christ”.

[17] Speaking about the arrangement to meet his cousin and the guy who took the phone from her, M.M. said that the guy was a concern to him but he also said that the guy did not use any derogatory language. He also said that he spoke to his cousin on a regular basis but that it was unusual for him to meet her at a schoolyard in the middle of the night.

[18] Later in his testimony he testified that it was J.C-W. who suggested they meet up. She suggested a different location but he preferred St. Ursula because it was closer to his home. M.M. was firm in his testimony that he made the arrangement to meet at the schoolyard with J.C-W. and that he did not disclose that information to anyone else.

[19] In cross-examination, M.M. confirmed that J.C-W. was the one to call him and not the other way around. He agreed that he had received a message from another person, Kyra, who told him that J.C-W. wanted to talk to him. When they spoke, M.M. said that he had no idea that J.C-W. was missing. He said that he learned that she was missing when he was at the hospital.

[20] M.M. recalled that after some time on the phone J.C-W. told him that she was “fucked up”. He understood that to mean that she was intoxicated. He denied that they had any discussion about him obtaining a gun for her, or that he could get her one for $1300. He also denied telling J.C-W. to refer to the gun as a “bitch”. He said that any allegations related to him and his ability to obtain a gun would be false.

[21] Also in cross-examination, M.M. confirmed that he gave the nurse and the police different stories about what occurred earlier in the night. To the nurse he said that there was a party down the street and that some guy wanted to take his phone. When he refused, the guy shot him. To the police he said something different.

[22] M.M. said that he lied to the nurse because he was scared and confused and he was experiencing an adrenaline rush. He had no idea who shot him and he was concerned about his cousin and her whereabouts. He did not believe his cousin set him up but he said he was confused about everything that occurred. When asked if he normally lies when he is scared, M.M. responded that he does not normally get shot.

[23] On the particulars of the shooting, M.M. he said that he had no idea who shot him. He did not know C.D., he did not see any gun flash, he did not see where the group of guys came from or to where they disappeared. All he could recall was seeing the guys in the park. Although he described the group to consist of five guys, he agreed that he could not tell if the people he saw were men or women. On further reflection he thought that there would have been anywhere from four to seven people who came to the schoolyard but he said he had “no clue” about who they were.

b. J.C-W.’s testimony

[24] J.C-W. was twenty-one years old at the time of her testimony at trial. She was just nineteen when the events that were the subject of this trial were said to have occurred. In 2017 she explained that she was consuming drugs and alcohol almost every day. She had graduated from school, was preparing to go to college and was not working.

[25] In cross-examination she talked about her mild intellectual disability. She explained that she needed to visualize things to understand. She also said that sometimes she can see things but lacks the words to explain what she sees. She agreed that drugs and alcohol will affect one’s memory. She admitted that she first started smoking weed in grade 12 when she was living in Muskoka. She tried alcohol prior to grade 12 as it was available in the foster home.

[26] With respect to her life in foster care, she said she lived in several foster homes. From ages one to three she was placed in 12 different foster homes. From the age of three and for the next fifteen years, she remained in one foster home but then she went away. Her foster mother at the time of the alleged events was “A.G.” and she was connected to Key Assets and the Children’s Aid Society, (C.A.S.). She explained that although she had turned nineteen, certain circumstances occurred that permitted her to remain in foster care beyond the age of eighteen and she followed the recommendations of the social worker connected to her file.

[27] J.C-W.’s alleged experiences unfolded over a concentrated period of time between late June and August 14, 2017. Every couple of days brought new experiences and related to different charges. Chronologically, J.C-W.’s narrative can be broken down into the following parts: i. the initial encounter with C.D.; ii. the abduction and the first few days thereafter; iii. the Shooting of M.M.; iv. Escorting, Part I; v. Escorting, Part II; vi. Circumstances of the Departure; and vii. J.C-W.’s multiple statements.

i. Initial Encounter with C.D.

[28] J.C-W. described how her first encounter with C.D. would have occurred in late June or July of 2017. She said she was at a TD Bank branch waiting in line to cash a cheque. C.D. was in the back of the line. Although they did not have any conversation, she said that she got a weird feeling.

[29] From the bank she went over to the LCBO to purchase alcoholic beverages. There, C.D. approached her and asked her if she was going to a party. She told him that she was getting drinks for herself. He told her that be was heading to a bar-b-que and asked her if she thought that a small bottle of Appleton would be enough. He then also offered to pay for her alcohol and she agreed. He then asked her “Do you have Air Miles Babe”? She said that she felt “weirded out” by that exchange but she brushed it off. J.C-W. also recalled C.D. telling her that she seemed like a smart girl and offered to be her mentor and guide. He said his name was “Elijah” and that he was from the States. J.C-W. told him that her name was Ashley.

[30] From the LCBO, J.C-W. said that she went to Walmart to purchase a tablet. While at the electronics section, she looked up and out of nowhere, there was C.D. This time he just gave her a note and told her that she had forgotten a piece of paper. She opened the note, saw numbers, and then ripped it up and threw the garbage on the floor. C.D. left and J.C-W. said she went to the security guard to complain that she felt she was being followed. The security guard told her that he could not help her. From Walmart, J.C-W. went home. She said that she did not call C.D.

ii. The Abduction and the first days thereafter

[31] A few weeks later, she said that she was walking on the sidewalk. She was going over to see a friend who would be leaving for Muskoka. She got a weird feeling and when she looked up she saw C.D. in a black Nissan Altima. She continued to walk. He pulled up next to her, rolled down his window and asked her if she remembered him. She said no. He then reminded her of the LCBO and J.C-W. said her heart dropped. She said that she did not know what to do. Next thing she knew, C.D. had pulled a gun. He pointed it to her and told her to get into the car, which she did. Once in the car, he told her that if she tried to go to the police he would kill her or have people come after her and teach her a lesson.

[32] J.C-W. said that she got into the car because she was scared for her life and feared that C.D. would shoot her. Once in the car, C.D. took away her debit card and her Presto card. She also said that she had a backpack with her. C.D. put the gun away in the console. C.D. did not take her phone away from her.

[33] From that pick-up point, J.C-W. said that C.D. drove over to his cousin’s condo somewhere in Toronto. Once at the condo, they pulled into an underground parking. C.D. asked her to remain in the car while he left to meet his cousin. At trial J.C-W. said that C.D. brought the gun in his waistband. In preceding accounts of what occurred, J.C-W. said that C.D. left the gun in the car console. J.C-W. could not recall for how long C.D. was gone, though in that period, J.C-W. agreed that she did not call the police, call family, text anyone for help and or leave the car because she said was scared.

[34] After the stop at the condo building, C.D. had a meeting with his probation officer, also in downtown Toronto. J.C-W. confirmed that she went with him. She verified the extensive video footage that showed her in the Probation Office waiting area. She said that she could not recall how she was feeling though she thought she was uncomfortable. C.D. went in to meet the Probation Officer and she remained in the waiting area for 45 minutes. She recalled she had a conversation with the person waiting in the same area. She agreed that the video showed her on her phone either texting or watching her screen. She also confirmed that she met C.D.’s Probation Officer but she could not recall if C.D. introduced her as his girlfriend. She recalled that when C.D. came out of his meeting, the Probation Officer said have a good day with your girlfriend.

[35] Here again, J.C-W. said that she did not seek anyone’s help because she was too scared. She did not call anyone and she did not leave. She explained that she did not have any money, she no longer had her Presto Card, she did not know where she was, and she did not know how to get home. She also said that she left her backpack in the car.

[36] From the Probation Office, J.C-W. said that they came to Brampton and C.D. brought her to the basement at 40 Mosley. There, C.D. introduced her to K.W. and referred to him as “Red”. J.C-W. described the basement area. She said that there were two other guys but she never came to know their names. She could not recall what they did when they got to the basement.

[37] When asked to describe her first recollection from the basement, she said that C.D. got angry because he discovered that somebody touched the weed that was in a zip lock baggie. K.W responded that he had not touched the baggie. J.C-W. also recalled that she smoked a popper and that she used her bong that was in her backpack. She said that she helped herself to the weed that was on the table. She said that she felt better feeling high than feeling scared. She confirmed that she asked if she could take drugs and C.D. told her to make herself at home and take what she wanted. In addition to weed, J.C-W. said she did some coke.

[38] At some point, after doing the drugs, J.C-W. said that K.W asked her what she wanted to do for the team. She recalled being given the option to sell drugs, cash in cheques or sell herself. J.C-W. said that she was confused by the question and did not know what to say. She then said that she understood that if she wanted to be part of the team she had to participate. In her testimony, J.C-W. said that she did not want to be part of the team but she stayed because she did not know what would happen to her if she left. During this time, J.C-W. said that C.D. had the gun in his waistband. He then brought it to K.W.’s bedroom and put it on the dresser.

[39] J.C-W. said that she remained in the basement for the night. During that first night, she said that C.D. sexually assaulted her in K.W.’s bedroom. She described how C.D. called her into K.W.’s bedroom telling her that he wanted to show her something. He neither hit her nor threatened her. Once in the bedroom he told her to take off her clothes he then took off his pants and told her they would make love. He then put his penis into her vagina. While this activity was occurring in the bedroom K.W. and a number of other guys were out in the living area.

[40] J.C-W. could not recall how long this encounter took. J.C-W. became very distressed as she described this particular incident. She described how she told him to stop but he responded that it was too late. She also recalled her vagina being very dry and not ready. At one point, he put his hand over her mouth. She said that she lay there like a dead fish. She said that she could not show any emotion on her face. When it all ended, C.D. pulled up his pants and walked out. She too got dressed and went back out into the basement living area and sat on the couch. She then smoked up a bong. She described taking drugs as a coping mechanism and she said that she tried to make light of the situation.

[41] After this incident, J.C-W. said she remained there for the night and slept on the couch. In the morning she woke up very early and she saw on her phone that her social worker, Sam had attempted to call her a number of times. She also said that she was supposed to meet a counsellor at H[…] College to discuss certain accommodations she would require because of a mild intellectual disability. When she spoke to Sam she told him that her cousin had died and that was why she had not checked in. J.C-W. said that this is what C.D. told her to tell Sam. At no point did J.C-W. tell Sam where she really was or what was happening to her.

[42] After the call, C.D. took her to her own home so that she could pack some clothes and take a shower. C.D. also asked her to bring back a container of juice. She said that she became very scared because C.D. knew her home address without her having to say anything. She described how C.D. parked close to the house and waited outside while she went in, showered, packed her clothes and returned. While at home, J.C-W. said that she spoke with her foster sister, Megan. She asked J.C-W. if everything was okay and J.C-W. told her she was fine.

[43] Her foster brother asked her the same question as he saw her leaving in the rain. She told him she needed to clear her head. J.C-W. continued to walk away and returned to the car where C.D. was waiting. When asked about why she returned to the car, she responded with the question, “What was I supposed to do?”.

[44] Once in the car, they returned to the basement where there were a number of guys, including a fellow by the name of Riley. J.C-W. said that she knew Riley from a couple of years in the past. She said that the two chatted and Riley asked her how she was doing. During this time, C.D. was in the kitchen. He then asked her if she wanted to go for a drive and J.C-W. agreed. She did not know where they went exactly but they were no longer in Brampton.

[45] J.C-W. recalled that they met a friend of C.D. at a hotel, who was there with “a white girl”. During this encounter, J.C-W. said she remained in the car while C.D. went out to meet his friend. From there, they drove to Yorkdale Mall. The friend and his girl drove in a red car. Once at the mall C.D. told her she had to remain in the car. Specifically, she described how she heard C.D. lock the car behind him. She tried to get out, but it set off the car alarm and C.D. returned. He told her that she was a stupid bitch for trying to get out of the car and told her to stay there. He told her that if she tried to go home, he would come after her.

[46] J.C-W. said that she did not have her phone on this occasion and she complied with C.D.’s direction. She could not say how long she remained in the car but she thought it was hours. She said that it was the afternoon when they arrived at the mall and that they did not leave until it was dark. When C.D. and his friends returned to the car she said that the “white woman” was carrying bags of shopping from Foot Locker.

[47] From Yorkdale, they all went to a bar. She recalled that there was a 7/11 next to the bar and that C.D. asked her to go in to buy rolling papers. J.C-W said that she did that. She also picked up an orange pop. When she returned to the car C.D. slapped her and called her a stupid bitch who was retarded. J.C-W. described a conversation between herself and C.D. about whether she thought the white girl was hitting on him.

[48] From the bar, they went to another after-hours place. She recalled that outside of this location there was Caribbean food. This time, C.D. wanted her to go into the place with him and he pulled out his gun. She recalled that there were other people around who witnessed the incident. She also recalled that he asked her to put the gun in her breasts. She said she complied because she did not want to be slapped around. At the end of the evening they returned to the basement and once again, J.C-W. spent the night there.

[49] On the following morning, J.C-W. said that she had an appointment with her C.A.S. worker Muna, of Key Assets. She said that she begged C.D. to take her there. He told her that he would only do that if she would get on the ground and beg on her hands and knees. He also required her to perform oral sex which she did. She said that she did not feel she had any choice.

[50] J.C-W. confirmed that C.D. took her to her appointment. At the appointment she said that she was not herself and behaved rudely. She said that she lied that everything was fine with her. She also said that on this occasion she had her phone with her. J.C-W. said that she did not tell Muna what was really going on because she believed that she would have gotten herself killed and C.D. would have caused trouble. In this part of her testimony, J.C-W. made a reference to her foster mother “A.G.” and said that A.G. wanted her to take the bus to C.A.S.

[51] At the conclusion of her meeting with Muna, C.D. came and picked her up. He had food with him and she said that he used her debit card to buy the food. J.C-W. said that she had not eaten for two days and that during this time period she consumed drugs, specifically, weed and some pills.

[52] From her appointment, J.C-W. said that they returned to the basement. On the way back, C.D. forced her to perform oral sex while he drove. She described how she was looking out the window in the direction of another guy and that C.D. pinched her until she started to bleed. He also told her that nobody else could have her but him.

[53] At some point, after they got to the basement, she and C.D. were back in K.W.’s bedroom. C.D threw her onto the bed and told her that she looked sexy with the gun at her breasts. A picture was produced with what appeared to be a gun at J.C-W.’sbreasts.

[54] Later in the evening C.D. got upset with the attention that J.C-W. was giving to Riley. He pulled out the gun and took her to another bedroom upstairs where he sexually assaulted her. J.C-W. provided the court with the details of that encounter. She recalled crying very hard. But she also recalled being able to get away and grabbing the gun from C.D. pointing it at him and telling him: “Now, who is the bitch?” This made her feel powerful. There was no evidence on how this exchange ended and whether J.C-W. kept the gun, did something with it, gave it back to C.D., or whether C.D. reacted in any way to her challenge.

iii. The Shooting of M.M.

[55] Following the gun incident, J.C-W. recalled looking at her phone and seeing a message from Kyra, who was telling her to call her cousin M.M. J.C-W. called him and told him that she was okay and at a party with five guys. He told her that he had a gun for her. She confirmed to the court that she had asked her cousin to get her a gun because she had contemplated killing herself. She had posted the request on Snap Chat. M.M. told her to refer to the gun as “bitch”.

[56] As she was speaking to her cousin, C.D. grabbed the phone away and started to talk to M.M. J.C-W. said she could hear her cousin asking C.D. to give the phone back to his cousin. C.D. was very jealous and wanted to know if M.M. was a boyfriend. He did not believe her when she said M.M. was her cousin.

[57] At some point during the call with M.M., C.D. hung up the phone. He changed into shorts, a shirt and red and black shoes and prepared to go meet M.M. Initially he asked J.C-W. to go with him, but K.W. held her back because he said that C.D. would get into trouble. With reference to M.M. he told J.C-W. that C.D. “would wipe him down”. When C.D. left, two other guys in addition to K.W. remained in the basement. K.W. told C.D. not to do anything stupid.

[58] J.C-W. said she became very anxious because C.D. had her phone and all the directions on where to meet M.M. were texted to her phone. She was warned that if anything happened to M.M. she would take the blame because all of the messages and texts were on her phone. She specifically recalled being told that she would be the one to go to jail. While C.D. was gone, J.C-W. said that she just remained on the couch. J.C-W. said that initially she did not understand what K.W. was getting at about everything being on her. However, he told her that C.D. took his gun with him and then asked her what did she think would happen. J.C-W. said that this is when she put two and two together and understood her own jeopardy.

[59] In this time period, K.W. questioned if she was a real person and asked her to demonstrate it by performing oral sex on him. She told him that she had a strong headache and that if he forced her to perform she would throw-up. K.W. did not force anything on her. But he did ask her if she wanted to be part of the gold gang, which meant selling her vagina. She said that she did not agree to that.

[60] When C.D. returned from his alleged encounter with M.M. his first words to J.C-W. were “I love you”. J.C-W. said that she felt “weirded-out” because he had never said that to her before. At the same time K.W. came to C.D. and told him “You know the drill”, and C.D. took off his clothes and shoes and threw them in a garbage bag. C.D. had the gun in his hand and left it on the kitchen counter. J.C-W. thought he cleaned the gun with gun powder. Then he unloaded the bullets. He said that he left with 11 bullets and returned with three. He also said that he left M.M. lying on the ground but he did not know if M.M. was dead.

[61] As all this activity was unfolding, J.C-W. noticed that C.D. was concerned about news reports about a shooting. He took the battery and the SIM card out of her phone. On his own phone he read about a male walking into a hospital. He said to J.C-W. that if M.M. snitched, he would kill him the next time. Both C.D. and K.W. repeated that the police would blame her for the shooting. All of this made J.C-W. scared.

iv. Escorting, Part I

[62] J.C-W. said that she could not recall what happened next. She did not know what happened to the garbage bag or what she did. What she did recall was waking up in a dog cage. She thought there were four other dog cages and that there was another girl named Mollie. She could not recall how she got out of the dog cage but she recalled being back in the basement.

[63] Once back in the basement, she recalled that K.W., Riley, and two other guys, one with light skin and another with dark skin were also there. K.W. asked her to clean up the basement because a girl by the name of “Charlene” would be coming. K.W. told J.C-W. that C.D. went to London to pick her up and that she and J.C-W. would be working together. It was at that point that K.W. told her that she would be escorting. He did not tell her where she would be escorting. J.C-W. said that she did not know what to say.

[64] Later that day, K.W. had a telephone conversation exchange with C.D. and learned that C.D. would not be returning to the basement but heading straight downtown Toronto. This caused an argument between the two guys. Eventually C.D. came to the basement but it was much later than anticipated.

[65] J.C-W. admitted that she did not leave the basement at this time because of her fear of the “what ifs”. What would happen if she left? Would they come after her? As well, she said that she did not have her debit card and her identification cards had gone missing. J. C-W readily agreed that there were a number of times when neither K.W. nor C.D. were at the basement and that she could have left but she was too scared. She expressed the fear of what if they came to her house to shoot her.

[66] When C.D. arrived, he told her to grab a bag and go with him. He rushed her so much that she took somebody else’s shoes. They went to a convenient store where they met Charlene. From there they went to a Home Depot where C.D. searched for somebody in the parking lot. Then they went to an apartment building. C.D. got out of the car and talked to somebody. When he returned he had weed with him. J.C-W. overheard C.D. say that he had two girls with him but he did not know what to do with them. J.C-W. also described their interaction in the car. Charlene sat in the front with C.D. and she sat in the back. At some point C.D. reached back to touch her thigh and she moved away. This caused C.D. to get angry.

[67] From the apartment building, the three went to what J.C-W. labelled the “Pink Motel”. Charlene told her that they would work together as a duo because it would be better money. Charlene outlined the rates. She also told J.C-W. that she would be provided with condoms and that there would be no bare back services. C.D. added that his wallet was empty and that all they earned would go into his wallet. When J.C-W. asked him how come, he said that he wanted to build an empire. After the Pink Motel, Charlene told J.C-W. that they would be going to Niagara Falls where she wanted J.C-W. to become a stripper. J.C-W. then said that she and Charlene used phones to post pictures on Backpage. The plans did not materialize because events took a different turn.

[68] Once they checked into the Pink Motel, J.C-W. put her bag on the bed and Charlene set up her computer. She said to J.C-W. that they needed bitcoins before they could load any pictures. She then left with C.D. J.C-W. said she understood that the two were going to the gas station to purchase bitcoins.

[69] Not having had anything to eat in days, J.C-W. said that she decided to leave the room to go get some food. On one side of the Pink Motel was a Tim Hortons and on the other a McDonalds. J.C-W. went to both locations and begged from customers to buy her something to eat. She figured she could do this quickly and be back in the room before C.D. and Charlene returned.

[70] Videos and pictures from the closed-circuit televisions at both locations showed J.C-W. approaching customers for food and the customers then making the purchases for her. J.C-W. explained that the woman who bought her a meal at McDonalds asked her if she was okay and if she needed help but J.C-W. said she declined the help. She recalled telling the woman that if she asked for help she would probably get killed.

[71] On her return to the Pink Motel, J.C-W. saw two police cruisers parked right outside of the motel. The police stopped her and asked if she was J.C-W. She said she was not and gave the police another name. Just as they asked her if she was with anyone else, Charlene arrived and took over the exchange. She told the police that they were together. She said nothing about C.D. and J.C-W. did not correct anything that Charlene said because she was too scared.

[72] The police asked if they could come into the motel room and both Charlene and J.C-W. agreed to the request. When the police asked J.C-W. for identification, she said she had none. The police asked her to empty her bag and she complied. They saw the computer but did not say anything about it. When they left, they told them that they would return.

[73] Charlene also told J.C-W. that the police would likely return or send in an undercover officer. C.D. arrived a bit later. He became very angry over the police encounter and called J. C-W a “stupid bitch”. He blamed her for the interaction. Then, he and Charlene took a shower together and everyone calmed down.

[74] J.C-W. also said that C.D. assaulted her, though she could not recall the number of times that occurred. She said that he threw her to the ground, and locked his knees with her and hit her. J.C-W. said that even in this situation, she tried to give him attitude. She was also warned that if she said anything to the police he would find her and kill her.

[75] At some point after this exchange, C.D. called J.C-W.’s foster mother. She could not explain why that occurred but J. C-W speculated that there must have been a missing person report. He asked her to clarify with her foster mother that she was fine. J.C-W. said that she gave C.D. the number and he dialled it up. He put the phone on speaker and told J.C-W. to tell A.G. that she was at a massage parlour in London. J.C-W. said she complied with C.D.’s directions. When the foster mother questioned the activity and told her that she would have to be licensed to do massages, C.D. hung up the phone. After that exchange, C.D. brought J.C-W. back to the basement and left. No escorting actually took place at the Pink Motel. Charlene stayed behind and did not go to the basement.

v. Escorting, Part II

[76] Once back at the basement, J. C-W said that she was crying. K.W. told her to take a deep breath and to explain what had occurred. Riley was also present, as were the two other guys. J.C-W. described K.W. as being kind and she was not scared of him. K.W. then told her that since Charlene did not come to make money he would bring her to another hotel to work. J.C-W. said she could not remember what she said in response, but she agreed to go with KW.

[77] J.C-W. said that K.W. called somebody to pick them up and they went to Studio 6. She recalled seeing a Tim Hortons and Wendys nearby. K.W told her that he would use his phone to post ads on Backpage to make money. He also told her that he would stay in the bathroom while she serviced clients in the room. Finally, he outlined the rates for her escorting services. J.C-W. said that she just nodded her head as K.W. outlined the plan.

[78] Once at the hotel there were other girls there as well as a guy and another girl. J.C-W. described two beds and a table. K.W. told the people there that J.C-W. was on the run and that she had something to do with her cousin’s shooting. He also told them that J.C-W. was helping him out. Then K.W. asked J C-W. to change into different clothes and to pose for pictures.

[79] K.W. had trouble posting the pictures but eventually they were up. He managed all the exchanges. J.C-W. said she did not take any shower because there was no soap. Eventually a client arrived. One of the girls remained in the room and pretended to be sleeping in the other bed. K.W. hid in the bathroom. J.C-W. said that she told K.W. she did not want to engage in any sexual activity but he asked her if she wanted to go to jail because of her cousin’s shooting.

[80] J.C-W. could not recall how many clients she had that night. But she recalled that a guy brought them back to the basement on the next day. Once there, somebody knocked on the door looking for K.W. That person was an officer. The officer told him that they had a picture of K.W. cashing a cheque at the TD Bank. K.W. told J.C-W. that he was worried that he would have to turn himself in and that he would need $5,000 for bail. Because of that need, J.C-W. said that they went back to Studio 6 to make more money.

[81] Back at Studio 6, J.C-W. met another girl who was high on coke. K.W introduced her to the girl as one of his “bitches”. The girl suggested to J.C-W. that they run away together and work on their own. She suggested that another girl could distract K.W. and that they would have tricks drive them to the Marigold. J .C-W said she agreed to the plan and they took off. To her surprise however, when they got to the Marigold they discovered K.W. there with another girl.

[82] J.C-W. said that they stayed at the Marigold for a couple of nights. She could not recall how much she earned but she turned the money over to K.W. J.C-W. said that she did not eat anything during this period of time. But she did recall doing cocaine.

[83] After a few days at the Marigold, J.C-W. said they went back to Studio 6 and on this occasion, K.W. asked her to make money for both him and the girls. By now this was August 14, 2017. A client came and offered her meth. She declined the offer but told the guy she was hungry. He offered hot chocolate and she went with him to Tim Hortons. K.W. saw her there with the guy.

vi. The Departure

[84] Following this incident, J.C-W. told K.W. that she was exhausted and could not make money for him. K.W. took her back to the basement. Once at the basement there was a knock on the door. The person who answered the door advised K.W. that there was somebody who was looking for her. K.W. advised J.C-W. to hide in the laundry room. When the person at the door was gone, K.W. told her that she could not stay there any longer and had to call her foster mom.

[85] J.C-W. said she left the basement and went to the Starbucks nearby. She called her foster mom who arrived 10-15 minutes later. J.C-W. said that she thought that her foster mother would be bringing her home. Instead, the foster mother brought her to the police station, where she was asked to give a statement.

vii. Statements to Police

[86] J.C-W. confirmed that she gave a first statement to the police on August 14, 2017 but she lied about her various experiences. She worried that C.D. would find her and kill her if she told the truth. J.C-W. also confirmed that she gave multiple other statements and that she reviewed a photo line-up.

[87] In cross-examination she confirmed that her second interview took place on August 16. There again, not everything she said was true. She said that she gave a third statement to the police, most of which was true.

[88] J.C-W. was cross-examined extensively and exhaustively on just about every aspect of her testimony. In some instances, her answers became more confusing. In other instances, she was steadfast in her original narrative, especially in respect of the events leading up to and including her kidnapping. After a certain point of repeated challenges, she said that there were some details that she simply could not remember.

[89] In addition, J. C-W, admitted that she was not entirely truthful in her testimony at the Preliminary Inquiry. She said that the Preliminary Inquiry was the first time that she was talking about her experiences in public and she chose to leave out some details that she thought were unimportant. She also noted that at trial she was able to testify behind a screen and this put her much more at ease; at the Preliminary Inquiry, she had to face the accused and this intimidated her.

[90] J.C-W. was challenged repeatedly on her relationship and acquaintance with Riley. She denied the suggestion that Riley was the one who introduced her to the basement. She said that she was surprised to see Riley there. She also denied that it was Riley who introduced her to C.D. and K.W. She agreed that she had known Riley for a few years and that she came down from Muskoka on a couple of occasions to meet Riley.

[91] J.C-W. was also challenged extensively on the extent of her fear, even when that came to her exchanges with the police. She said consistently and repeatedly that having had the gun pointed at her, having been threatened that if she spoke to the police they would find her, and having seen her cousin’s fate, she was fearful and was reluctant to trust, even the police. When she was confronted with the suggestion that lying to the police put her in greater danger, J.C-W. said that at the times that she lied she did not know what would protect her and she considered her lies to be the only way to protect herself. She added that she had very vivid memories of what happened and those caused her to have very pronounced nightmares.

[92] On the subject of the gun, J.C-W. became especially emotional over any questions that suggested that C.D. may never have had a gun. As she addressed each question she insisted that C.D. brought the gun with him both when he met his cousin and when he met the Probation Officer. She also confirmed that there were inconsistencies on whether C.D. pulled the gun out and pointed it to her right when he pulled up in his car, or after she got into the car. She said the former at trial but the latter at the Preliminary Inquiry.

[93] In cross-examination, with respect to the number of clients she would have had and the money she would have earned, J.C-W. said she could not remember. She did not have an explanation for her answer at the Preliminary Inquiry that she did not have any clients on her first night with K.W. She tried to explain that this and other inconsistencies concerning her escorting activities were embarrassing and therefore caused her to lie at the Preliminary Inquiry. When challenged on her best recollection of whether she discussed escort rates with K.W., she said “a little bit”.

[94] Also in cross, J.C-W. eventually agreed that she attended at Studio 6 independently of the accused and that when she said she went with K.W., that would not have been her first time. She also agreed that some of the texts and activities at the Marigold were connected to another girl and not to K.W.

c) Danielle Fortier

[95] Ms. Fortier is employed by Rogers Communications. She is a Senior Investigator with the Lawful Access Response Unit. She produced for the court the cellphone records associated with the various individuals in this case and she provided a presentation on how cell sites and towers work. The Crown was then able to situate the movement of these various phone numbers on a map of Southwestern Ontario, covering an area from the Greater Toronto Area, West to London, Ontario and South to the Niagara Region. Apart from challenging the association of a specific phone number with C.D., the defendants did not have any concerns with Ms. Fortier’s evidence.

d) Neil Seepersad

[96] Mr. Seepersad is the Probation Officer who met C.D. in August 2017. C.D.’s case was transferred to him from London, Ontario. He confirmed that he met C.D. on August 2, 2017 and he said that he noticed that he was accompanied by a young lady. He asked C.D. about her and C.D. told him her name was “Jen”. He recalled providing her his business card. He also recalled that because of C.D.’s domestic charges he wanted to have a word with J.C-W. He told her it was urgent that he have a word with her and asked her to call him at another time. She never called.

[97] Mr. Seepersad could not recall if C.D. attached a relationship status to J.C-W. He reviewed the videos taken from the cameras in the office and verified the individuals present. When asked about when he might have given J.C-W. the card because it was not immediately obvious in the video, Mr. Seepersad could not recall the details but he said that he had it in his notes that he asked J. C-W to call him when she had a moment.

e) Constable Burne

[98] Cst. Burne was assigned to 11 Division in August 2017 and was involved in the investigation of a missing person on August 9, 2017. He recalled attending a call with Cst. Simmons though they were in separate cruisers. He said that he spotted a female who seemed to fit the description of a missing person walking towards a motel.

[99] They both pulled into the parking lot of the motel and confronted the individual. He asked the woman for her name but did not want to alarm her. The woman told them that she was from Scarborough, she was not missing, that she did not have any identification on her and that she was staying at the motel with a friend. She said her name was “Cynthia Goldvourme”. They ran the name and birthday through the system but did not match any missing person.

[100] Cst. Burne said that they also compared the CP24 description with the individual and noted a number of differences. As they were talking, another person approached them and identified herself as Charlene Mitchell. She said that she was the woman’s friend. The friend did not come out of the room but came from behind them. They asked “Cynthia” if they could check her room and she agreed. The room was orderly, there was no drug paraphernalia, and there was no identification. Cst. Burne said that he found it odd that somebody would not have any identification but he did not explore the issue any further.

f) Clarkson Motel Owner and Manager

[101] The Owner of the Clarkson motel, referred to by J.C.W. as the Pink Motel testified about the procedure they follow when a guest checks in. They typically have the guest fill out a card, they check identification and then the customer is given the room key. He produced a copy of the Guest Registration Card for August 9 that had the name Charlene Mitchell as the guest. Jhon Kiffer was also written on the side. They were given room number 17. He could not actually remember if he was the one to provide the key or any other details.

g) A.G.

[102] Ms. A.G. was J.C-W.’s foster mother for the period February 2017 until August 2017. She gave a statement to the police on August 6. She recalled that she received a call from J.C-W. on August 9, at which time J.C-W. told her that she was working in London. There was another call on August 10 but she was unable to answer the call.

[103] Ms. A.G. thought she had communications with the C.A.S. worker but she was not certain. She also recalled that she had been away from July 28 to August 4. J.C-W. stayed with respite care. She explained that she also had an adult daughter who was a support worker. She did not believe that J.C-W. had a phone prior to her going on vacation. However, J.C-W. was planning to get a phone with her allowance money.

[104] She explained that when J.C-W. called, she noted down the number and recalled that she e-mailed the number to the social worker. She did not however have that e-mail. She said that she also called the police and provided them with that number.

[105] With respect to the foster protocol that is followed with teenagers, she explained that since J.C-W. was nineteen she was considered an adult-teenager, with the expectation that she was going to be going to college. She could not recall if J.C-W. had a curfew but in any event it would have been midnight.

[106] Ms. A.G. said that she submitted the missing person report on August 4th when she returned from her vacation. She believed that the police showed up on the 5th of August and took the report. She understood that JC-W. came to the house earlier on August 4, just before her own return from her holiday.

h. Officer Ryan Hails

[107] Officer Hails has been a police officer for 12 years. He was at 22 Criminal Investigation Bureau in August 2017. He recalled that he received a call on August 10, 2017 from A.G.. She told him that she spoke with the missing person on that date and that the person told her she was in London, working and giving massages. She also provided the officer the phone number 437-992-2795 and said that the call came from that number.

B. C.D. Defense Evidence

a. Muna Berroa

[108] Ms. Berroa is a worker with the C.A.S. She recalled an appointment that J.C-W. had in August 2017. She initially thought that the specific date was August 7 but then corrected it and said it took place on August 3. The reason for the appointment was to have a meeting with a doctor with C.A.S. to obtain an accommodation for school. At that appointment, J.C-W. was quite anxious to leave with the person she was with. J.C-W. said that person was a cousin and she was concerned that she was keeping him waiting.

[109] Ms. Berroa confirmed that Key Access managed J.C-W.’s foster care. Ms. Berroa became aware of the missing report for J.C-W. after she reviewed the logs. She reached out to the foster parent to find out what was going on. She also talked to Officer Moore who was the Constable on the file. She described J.C-W. as somebody who was very vulnerable.

[110] Ms. Berroa recalled that she sent an e-mail to Constable Moore on August 8 and got a reply on August 9. In that exchange she reported on her call with a person with the name Junior who told her that “Jen.” was spending time with his girlfriend and that he would see to it that she returned home. He also told her that Jen. was working in London to pay off a debt. Finally, referring to his own girlfriend, he told Ms. Berroa that “may girl” would bring J.C-W. back to Toronto. Ms. Berroa also learned that J.C-W. had communicated with her foster mother and told her that she was working at a massage parlour in London.

[111] Ms. Berroa said that she initiated the call to Junior and was surprised that somebody even answered the phone. She said that she did not necessarily believe the person on the phone but she wanted to convey the message that somebody was out looking for J.C-W. and that she had to be returned home. She thought that the person on the phone had an African accent and she distinguished it from a Jamaican accent. She said that she only came to that conclusion in retrospect.

[112] Ms. Berroa also gave evidence about a second call with Junior. This time, he expressed surprise that J.C-W. had not surfaced because he had dropped her off.

b. C.D.

[113] C.D. was born Jamaica. He is 23 years old and has been in Canada for 6 years. He became a permanent resident on August 2, 2019. In August 2017 he was living in London with his girlfriend Gelissa. He clarified that he actually had two girlfriends. He said that his mother lived in Guelph. He worked at a turkey farm and was responsible for getting turkey onto a ramp to load them into a truck. He would get a call to come into work “whenever”; they would call him in the morning for a night shift in the evening.

[114] C.D. said he had an internet phone which meant that he could make a call or receive a call as long as he could access the internet.

[115] C.D. said that he had known K.W. for about three years. He said that they met in prison. He admitted to having a criminal record consisting of a domestic violence conviction and a number of breaches though he could not recall what they were about. In cross-examination he said he could not remember the particulars of two convictions for public mischief or for robbery with violence and drug offences. He also could not remember the four assault convictions. He could not recall when the domestic violence occurred. He blamed his memory failure to smoking weed.

[116] C.D. said that he knew that K.W. lived at 40 Mosley in Brampton and he had been there over ten times. He said that somebody with the name Hamid and his father lived at this address; K.W. lived in the basement.

[117] In the summer of 2017, C.D. said he was driving a Nissan Sentra with License Plate No. BNHY 961. He did not own the vehicle. His girlfriend rented it from Enterprise in London. He thought that he had the car for two weeks in August. In cross-examination he confirmed that the person who rented the car for him was Kylie Tapp. He said that he knew her for three years and that a friend introduced him to her. She agreed to rent the car for him because she wanted to do him a favour. He said that she was a personal support worker.

[118] In cross-examination he recalled that eventually, he was driving to Niagara and the police impounded the car because he was driving without a license. He then had to take a cab to Niagara. He confirmed that the car was impounded on August 14.

[119] C.D. could not confirm if the person with him at the time the car was impounded was Charlene. He said that he knew the girl with him as “Nikita”, or “Niki”. He denied knowing anyone by the name of Charlene. He described “Niki” as blond who sometimes dyed her hair. He did not know if Nikita was a stripper. He said that this was her personal life and that she and he would just chill and smoke weed. He knew that she had a job and he knew where her mom lived in London.

[120] When C.D. went to K.W.’s basement, which he said was not very often, he said that they chilled, played video games and smoked weed. He denied that they did any other types of drugs. He said that besides K.W., there were other people there and named, T.K., Riley, and Hamed. In cross-examination he added a girl by the name of “Sally”, though he said he did not know who she was.

[121] He said that he had known Riley for six or seven months, he knew T.K. before he saw him at the basement, through his girlfriend, and he also knew Hamed. He described Riley as dark skinned, chubby, and about 5’9”. He was Canadian and spoke perfect English. T.K. was 5’11, slim and was from Africa, Nigeria specifically. Hamed was light skinned. C.D. said he did not know if these people had phones. He clarified that Riley and T.K. had phones as did K.W.

[122] Speaking more specifically about T.K. he said that his friendship was different from his relationship with the other guys. He knew T.K. from London because they both had families there. They would meet at White Oaks Mall and then they would to off to places to smoke weed and to chill. He said that T.K.’s aunt lived near the mall. He said that he introduced him to the basement at 40 Mosley and he would see him either at the basement or in London. In cross-examination he thought that he had met T.K. 18 months prior to August 2017 and that he met T.K. in Brampton, as opposed to London, but not at the basement. He said that he met T.K. through a different friend, S.P., who sold weed in Brampton. He thought that T.K. was the same age as he was.

[123] When asked about where T.K. went with the car and why he would return to London, C.D. said that T.K. knew many people in London and he also had an aunt. Beyond that, C.D. said that he did not ask T.K. about his personal life. He also said that he would not ask where T.K. went with the car. He explained that they would go their separate ways, do what they had to do and then meet up again when they were ready to go.

[124] With respect to his acquaintance with K.W. he said that K.W. did construction work, though he also added that he did not get involved with K.W.’s personal life. He said that K.W. was very clean and tidy, that he liked to cook and that he did not know him to be messy.

[125] Turning to the subject of J.C-W., he said that he met her for the first time at the basement. He said that Riley brought her there. He recalled that she smoked weed when she was there. During his cross, C.D. said that J.C-W. came to the basement a couple of days before he went to his appointment with the probation officer. He recalled leaving the basement to go visit a friend by the name of “Nicole”. He was away from the basement for about an hour. When he returned he thought that J.C-W. was still there but he was not certain. As for himself, he slept over in one of the bedrooms upstairs.

[126] C.D. added that once J.C-W. arrived at the basement she never left. He recalled returning to London and then coming back, only to see J.C-W. still there. He could not recall the last time he saw J.C-W. The only thing he could recall about her was that she had a little bong and she was in the basement smoking. All in all he thought she was at the basement for a week and a half.

[127] On the subject of a gun, he said that he never owned one, he never borrowed one, and he never shot a gun. He also denied having a replica or a toy gun and he was not present when the photo of J.C-W. with a gun at her chest was taken. He also denied ever placing a firearm to J.C-W.’s head.

[128] He also said that he did not know St. Ursula School, he did not go over to the school to shoot M.M., and he did not overhear J.C-W., on the phone with her cousin. He also denied having sex with J.C-W., or having sex at all in the basement. He also said that he never saw J.C-W. making out with anybody in the basement. Finally, he could not remember the last time that he saw J.C-W. in the basement. He categorically denied that J.C-W. was ever his girl or that she was working for him in the sex trade.

[129] With respect to meeting J.C-W. anywhere other than the basement, he confirmed that he went to Toronto with her and with T.K. to meet his cousin, who would be giving him $200 to tie him over until his next pay. In the car, T.K. sat in the front and J.C-W. sat in the back. Once at the condo, he parked underground and made his way to the lobby where he met his cousin and got the money. The passengers remained in the car. He denied having a firearm in the car.

[130] From the condo he went to his probation appointment. He said that J.C-W. wanted to come with him. T.K. went to get food. He drove away and returned to pick them up after the appointment. He said that J.C-W. came with him to the Probation Office because she wanted to come to Toronto.

[131] C.D. categorically denied ever seeing J.C-W. at the TD Bank, at the LCBO, or at Walmart. He denied giving her any personal information or picking her up by the side of the road. He also denied receiving J.C-W.’s personal information. He also denied bringing J.C-W. to London, to the Clarkson motel, the Marigold Hotel or any hotels at all. He also denied ever seeing the manager of the Clarkson motel. He remembered his probation officer.

[132] With respect to other girls coming to the basement he recalled some girls, one of them with the name Nikita. He was not asked if this Nikita was the same person as the person with whom he was with when the police impounded the car. At a later point in his testimony, he said that he never brought “Niki” to the basement. He also recalled seeing Hamed’s mother.

[133] C.D. was asked about a fender bender he had with a person by the name of Christine Doucette. He remembered the fender bender but denied telling her that his name was “John” and that his phone number was 437-992-2795. He insisted that he took her number but never gave her his number. When pressed on this point and specifically the coincidence that somebody unrelated to him or to this case would produce this particular information, C.D. said that he did not have a phone, that he used T.K.’s phone and that he did not recall giving out the number. Eventually he conceded that if he gave the number, then it was the number that his friend had for his phone. He went on to elaborate that T.K. was with him and he used T.K.’s phone for his purposes.

[134] In cross-examination, C.D. was asked to comment on the series of maps that the Crown produced correlating the location of the cell phone with the number 437-992-2795. To begin with, he was asked about August 3 and the red dot showing his phone in Toronto, in the vicinity of the C.A.S. He said categorically that he never went to C.A.S. He suggested that maybe she went to the C.A.S. with T.K. because she was friends with everyone and could have gone anywhere. When pressed on the contradiction between his evidence that J.C-W. never left the basement and with the evidence that J.C-W. could go anywhere she wished, with the further layer that when she left the basement she left with him, C.D. responded that she could have gone out with T.K. He added that he gave T.K. the car and that T.K. drove all the time.

[135] When T.K. had the car, C.D. said he relied on Nicole to come pick him up from the basement. This response was different from his original evidence that he went to Nicole’s place. In the face of this contradiction, C.D. said that he could not remember when Nicole came to pick him up. He thought that after probation, Nicole came to get him but he could not provide any other particulars.

[136] C.D. was also shown the red dot at 40 Mosley and then at Bramalea Centre where the fender bender occurred and C.D. responded that he did not have a phone and that the phone belonged to his friend. He agreed that the accident occurred on August 7 but he reiterated that he was there with T.K., that he used T.K.’s phone and that he was not alone when the incident occurred. He denied that he was in exclusive possession of the phone.

[137] C.D. was asked about August 9 and the attendance at the Clarkson Motel. C.D. categorically denied that he took J.C-W. and “Niki” there. He agreed that the court heard and saw evidence related to J.C-W.’s attendance at Tim Hortons and at McDonalds, and he also agreed that the court heard evidence about the police talking to J.C-W. and “Niki” but he denied his involvement. He had nothing to say when he was shown the data with the phone transmissions for the number 437-992-2795 beaming in the area of the Clarkson Motel at the time in question.

[138] C.D. also had nothing to say about the Hotel Registration Card showing the license plate to the Nissan Sentra and the reference to the name Jhon on that card, much like the driver connected to the fender bender also had the name John.

[139] C.D. denied that he and Niki went to buy bitcoins. He denied that “Niki” and “Nicole” were the same person. He denied that the plan was for Ms. Mitchell to work out of the motel. He was surprised when Crown counsel put to him that Ms. Mitchell’s explanation to the police was that he was assisting her.

[140] C.D. also denied that he panicked when he saw the police and became concerned that he would get in trouble for the escorting. He further denied that it was at that time that he asked J.C-W. to call her foster mom, that he coached her on what to say, he gave her his phone so that she could make the call, and that he then brought her back to the basement.

[141] C.D. was taken to the phone records for August 9 and for the number 437-992-2795 and shown that the movements of the phone correlated with J.C-W.’s version of events, putting C.D. at the Clarkson Motel. He denied that this was correct and said he did not know what he was doing at the specific times. He also reiterated that the phone belonged to his friend, and it could have been his friend who was at the Clarkson Motel.

[142] Crown counsel suggested that after August 9 he remained at the hotel with Ms. Mitchell and from there headed to Niagara Falls. C.D. said that counsel was confusing him. He agreed that he was with Ms. Mitchel on August 14 and came into contact with her a day or two prior to the 14th. He explained that Ms. Mitchell was in London at her Mom’s place and that they were just chillin’ and smoking. He agreed to give her a ride to Niagara Falls to meet her friend Brittany. He then said that he met Ms. Mitchell on August 12 but then went to “my girl” Nicole Williams at Sandringham and Wellington. The girl with the name Nicole in Brampton was a different person and her name was Nicole.

[143] It was during this part of his evidence that C.D. said that he would go along with the name Charlene, referring to Ms. Mitchell. He said that he spoke to her on August 13 and she told him that she needed a ride to Niagara Falls. His plan was to drop her off and leave. At this time he said that he was using his girl’s phone to make the arrangements, but he could not remember the number.

[144] On the subject of the shooting, C.D. denied any involvement and denied knowing M.M. or speaking to him over the phone. He agreed that he was arrested in December 2017, months after the shooting. He said that he never heard or spoke to about any shooting in August. He insisted that he never heard about any shooting until his arrest in December. Later in cross-examination, when it was put to him that the movement of J.C-W.’s phone in the phone data tracked her narrative of how the communications leading up to the shooting occurred, putting the phone in his hands and corroborating that he shot M.M. C.D. denied the suggestion and reiterated that he had no knowledge of any shooting.

[145] With respect to the other phone numbers that were connected to 437-992-2795, he could not recall Kylie’s number but he agreed that he would have used the phone connected to 437-992-2795 to call her. He did not dispute that the number attributed to Kylie, 226-973-4319 appeared in the records for 437-992-2795 367 times. But then C.D. also added that T.K. also knew Kylie.

[146] Ultimately, Crown counsel put to C.D. that J.C-W. was his girl for the purposes of escorting, that the plan was always for J.C-W. to do escorting but it was delayed because of the shooting, that he went back to London for a couple of days, that he left J.C-W. behind at the basement to clean up, and on August 9 he took her with Charlene to the Clarkson Motel. The plan soured again when the police came looking for J.C-W. and he decided to bring J.C-W. back to the basement and return to London. Then a few days later, he agreed to go with Niki to Niagara Falls so that Niki could work in the sex trade there.

[147] C.D. denied this theory and said that it was not him. As for the suggestion that it was Charlene who told J.C-W. about going to work in Niagara Falls, C.D. said that he had no knowledge of such a conversation because he was not there. He also denied that he used the name Junior or that he was the one to speak to Ms. Berroa or that he had any communications at all with her. Finally, he denied any collaboration with K.W. in relation to the sex trade or anything at all in this case.

C. EVIDENCE OF K.W.

a. K.W.

[148] K.W. testified that in the summer of 2017 he was renting the basement at 40 Mosley Street. He had already been there for a year and a half. His landlord was living in the main house upstairs with his son and his wife. He confirmed that he came into contact with J.C-W. that summer. He explained that Riley brought J.C-W. to the basement and introduced her to him and to C.D.

[149] K.W. recalled that the first thing that he asked her when he met was her age and she told them that she was nineteen. He said he was concerned because he saw her backpack and her bong and it was usually people in high school who appeared that way. Having been satisfied that she was nineteen, he invited her to come down to the basement.

[150] K.W. also recalled that on that first meeting, he invited everyone who was upstairs, including Hamed to come down to the basement. He referred to a person by the name of “S” and said it was her birthday. He told S that he would cook for her. He also said that because of her birthday he would be providing weed for everyone.

[151] That first night that J.C-W. was at the basement, K.W. thought that Hamed and his friends went back upstairs to sleep and that J.C-W. left with C.D. K.W. explained that the weed belonged to C.D. and because of that J.C-W. took an interest in him and asked him if he would give her a lift. She returned the next day on her own. He recalled that Hamed, S. and Riley were also there. K.W. said that J.C-W. slept on the couch. He could not recall how long she stayed.

[152] In the course of his testimony, K.W. said repeatedly that he would not have let J. C-W. stay if he knew that she was in foster care. He said that he knew how the foster system worked and he did not want to take the risk that the police would come to his place. When he found out J.C-W.’s actual foster status, he gave her money and told her to go home.

[153] He related his concern about the police coming after J.C-W. to his own concern to avoid any trouble. He explained that he was on probation, he was working, and he did not want to get into any trouble. He worked in construction with his cousin and with Kumar, who was his boss and his surety.

[154] K.W. categorically denied any discussion whatsoever with J.C-W. about giving him a blowjob, asking her to sell drugs, or inviting her to enter the sex trade. He said that he was never around long enough to have any kind of conversation. He further denied discussing any escorting rates, taking her to Studio 6, using his phone to post pictures and solicit ads for her, or hiding in the bathroom while she met clients.

[155] K.W. admitted that he went to Studio 6 from time to time after he got out of jail and that he had friends who lived there. He also admitted that he was arrested at the Marigold.

[156] With respect to J.C-W.’s evidence that when the police came looking for her he told her to hide in the laundry room, he was categorical in his denial. Instead, he explained that J.C-W. panicked when she heard a knock on the door and went hiding on her own. It was after he saw her hiding that K.W. asked her what was the matter and she told him about being in foster care. His response was to take out money from his pocket and ask her to leave. He said that he told her to go to the plaza and call a cab from there. He also recalled that she did not want to leave. He insisted that she leave because he had been on probation for two years and he did not want to jeopardize his record.

[157] K.W. described J.C-W. as somebody who was just there; she was not anybody’s girlfriend. He said that he was always kind to her and everyone shared everything. He denied that she ever cleaned his place.

[158] On the subject of M.M. and the shooting, K.W. denied ever saying anything about somebody being wiped out. He also denied telling J.C-W. not to leave with C.D., telling C.D., “you know the drill”, cleaning any gun with gun powder, or soliciting clients for J.C-W. He further denied preventing J.C-W. from leaving the basement. He said that she was often there all on her own and she came and went as she pleased. He said that the whole house was open to her.

[159] In cross-examination K.W. first said that he heard about the shooting after he was arrested in December. But he said that he also heard about he shooting on the news, though he did not connect it to J.C-W.’s cousin. He could not explain why that particular August shooting would stand out in his mind, except to say that living in Brampton, if he heard about a shooting he would remember it. He denied that he was present when C.D. was looking for news stories on the shooting on his phone and told him about it. Once again he categorically denied being at the shooting, talking to J.C-W. about the shooting, or seeing C.D. take the phone away from J.C-W. He also denied that part of the reason he wanted J.C-W. to leave was related to the shooting. He explained that the shooting could not have been the reason because he had no knowledge of it.

[160] Once J.C-W. returned from the Clarkson Motel, K.W. denied ever telling her that she had to make money and to pay for her expenses. Instead, he explained that when she returned, she went upstairs and made a call. She returned to the basement and told him that she spoke to her mother who gave her permission to stay overnight.

[161] In response to the suggestion that J.C-W. saw him at the Marigold, K.W. said “never” and explained that “me and her have never been in public.”. He categorically denied taking her to either Studio 6 or to the Marigold.

[162] With respect to his arrest, K.W. said that he was arrested on December 18, 2017 at the Marigold. He said that he went there because Riley tipped him off that there was a warrant for his arrest. Riley learned about the warrant from J.C-W.

[163] Like C.D., K.W. said that the two met in 2015 when they were both in jail. A mutual friend from London introduced them. After that, C.D. would come from London and crash at his place every time he had to go to his appointment with the probation officer. He added that C.D. would come to the basement, go to see whatever girl and then return to the basement. When it was time to sleep he would crash on the basement couch.

[164] With respect to C.D.’s access to a phone, he said that C.D. had various numbers. He had just started to work in the summer of 2017 and he did not have any money. He therefore used the phones from people who were with him.

[165] K.W. was asked specifically about whether the phone number 437-992-2795, which appeared numerous times in his own phone records, belonged to C.D. He said that C.D. did not have a phone. He also said that he was the only guy friend that C.D. had in Brampton. He did however admit that in that period of time, “the 992 number – that is the phone that he had at that time.”. He also agreed that on August 9 he received 51 calls from that number. He said that “we had things to discuss.”. He went on to say that he was looking for C.D. because he wanted to find out what was going on between the two of them. He said he had “random concerns” about C.D. He brought him on jobs and he wanted to get him back on his feet. K.W. denied that the work he was planning to do with C.D. was to work in the sex trade and pimp out girls.

[166] With respect to the existence of a gun in his basement, he agreed that the picture with J. C-W with a gun to her chest was taken in his bedroom. However he denied any knowledge whatsoever of the existence of any type of firearm. He also did not know to whom it belonged. He said that there were many people coming in and out of the basement and that J.C-W. was there by herself with people who he did not know.

[167] On the issue of whether or not J.C-W. was C.D.’s girlfriend, K.W. said that he would not describe her as C.D.’s girlfriend but he would say that she was “his girl’. He said that this made Riley very jealous because he was the one who brought her there in the first place. Confronted with his statement to the police that C.D. was the one who was jealous, K.W. tried to explain the discrepancy with reference to what he heard from Riley.

[168] The Crown explored with K.W. how it was that J.C-W.’s came to know about 40 Mosley, which eventually resulted in the police coming to that address to search for J.C-W. K.W. said that C.D. told Riley about his conversation with J.C-W.’s foster mom and specifically that J.C-W. was at 40 Mosley. Riley in turn shared that information with K.W. who became very upset when he learned this information because he did not want any trouble.

[169] In the course of his testimony, K.W. resisted the suggestion that the police came to his place twice, once on August 10 to speak to him and then on August 14 when they came looking for him. K.W. also rejected the suggestion that he learned of her real status on the night of August 9 when C.D. brought her back and that on the following day they went together to Studio 6 and then to Marigold, before returning to the basement. He said that Studio 6 was a very hot hotel, with a lot of gangs and shootings. Knowing that she was a missing person and police was looking for her, he would not have been stupid to bring her to that location. As far as he was concerned, he asked her to leave immediately upon on learning of her status.

[170] On further reflection, K.W. said that on August 9, as soon as he learned of J.C-W.’s status, he asked her to leave. Then on August 10 or 11, J. C-W. told Riley that the police was in the process of obtaining a search warrant for 40 Mosley. Riley conveyed the information to K.W. and K.W. decided to leave the basement and go to Studio 6 or the Marigold so that he would not be caught in any raid. He said that he did not see J.C-W. until the Preliminary Inquiry. In his own mind by giving him the heads’ up, J.C-W. was trying to protect him. K.W. had no explanation for the August 14 visit, or the discrepancy between the police’s August 10 visit and the one on August 14.

D. REPLY EVIDENCE BY THE CROWN

a) Markus Cissuk

[171] Officer Cissuk confirmed that he attended at 40 Mosley on August 10, 2017 with his colleague Officer Donnelly. He said that when they knocked on the door it took a while before there was a response. Then a slender young man appeared. He asked him if K.W. was there. The person said he was not sure and said he would go check. He closed the door. A short while later K.W. came to the door and they had a discussion. The officer recalled that K.W. came out of the residence and said on some kind of chair, box or bench and they had a conversation about K.W. going to the division to talk about an investigation. The officer explained that he wanted K.W. to come to the division to turn himself in for the fraudulent use of a bank card.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

a) C.D. and K.W.

[172] Both accused challenged the Crown’s position and argued that the Crown had failed to prove the allegations against them beyond a reasonable doubt. The essence in the respective defenses rested with J.C-W.’s credibility, the impossibility of aspects of her narrative and the multiple versions of that narrative. They submitted that both complainants presented with serious credibility issues and could not be believed. They cautioned that the witnesses clearly lied on various occasions, their evidence differed on a number of very material matters, and that some of J.C-W.’s evidence was simply absurd or incoherent.

[173] Given that both accused testified, counsel anchored their submissions on W.(D.) v. The Queen (1991) 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397 (S.C.C.) but suggested to the court that even if the defendants could not be believed, J.C-W. and to a lesser extent, even M.M. could not be believed, thereby leaving the Court with reasonable doubt over what really occurred. They asked that the court find each of the defendants not guilty on all counts against them.

[174] With respect to J.C-W., the defendants submitted that this was a girl who was in trouble. She had disappeared for a number of days and she had to explain what happened. To get out of trouble she wove a tale. She admitted that she lied repeatedly and intentionally. While she tried to explain that her fear for her life caused her to lie, both defendants cautioned the court that there was no way of knowing how much of what she said at trial was true, how much continued to be a lie and how much of the story was still a work in progress. Her numerous recantations could not make her truthful to the court. Counsel worked through J.C-W.’s narrative and identified numerous contradictions.

[175] With respect to M.M., the defendants remarked on the contradictions in his own narrative, the differences in the versions evidence he gave to the nurse at the hospital, then what he said to the police and finally what he said in court. They also drew the court’s attention to the fact that some of M.M.’s evidence contradicted J.C-W. To believe him would put his evidence at serious odds with J.C-W.’s evidence, and vice versa, thus resulting in more than just reasonable doubt.

[176] To illustrate the point they drew the following contrasts. M.M. thought his cousin was high when he spoke to her. But if she was high, how could she remember what occurred? He insisted that he discussed the location to meet only with J.C-W. But J.C-W said something different. She said that the meeting place was decided between C.D. and M.M. and that she was not involved. M.M. said that there was no strong language between him and C.D. J.C-W. said that there was. J.C-W. said that once C.D. took her phone from her she never got it back. M.M. said that he spoke to a guy but that he then went back to speaking to J.C-W.

[177] On the subject of the shooting, the defendants described that part of J.C-W.’s narrative as the linchpin to her whole story. They suggested that without the shooting, there would not have been anything that the accused could hold over J.C-W. and there would be nothing for J.C-W. to fear.

[178] Counsel for the defendants also remarked on the absence of any corroborative evidence regarding J.C-W.’s attendance at the TD Bank, the LCBO, Walmart, or from people at Tim Hortons, McDonalds, Studio 6, the Marigold, bullet fragments or any other evidence related to the gun, any forensic evidence from the basement, from any of the residents at 40 Mosley, and from any of the individuals whose names came up during the course of the trial. Counsel did not ask the court to draw any negative inferences from the absence of evidence from these sources. Rather, they sought to underscore the numerous gaps in the evidence. They did remark that they could have searched out and obtained some of the noted evidence but did not do so.

[179] With respect to the third party evidence, the registration card, the car lease, the phone records, the video clips and certain photographs, the defendants agreed that the evidence could not be disputed but they did nothing to either fill in the very material gaps in the evidence or support the kinds of inferences the Crown would like the court to draw. For example, C.D. did not contest that he accessed a phone with the number 437-992-2795, but he said that the phone belonged to somebody else. C.D.’s counsel cautioned that there was no evidence that the phone belonged to C.D. and that the court could therefore not conclude that every time that number was being used it was C.D. who was either making or receiving the call.

[180] Counsel for K.W. pointed to a number of material contradictions in J.C-W.’s evidence at the Preliminary Inquiry and trial to stress the degree to which J.C-W. could not be believed. He highlighted the following examples. At the Preliminary Inquiry, J.C-W. said that K.W. did not discuss escorting rates with her, she did not work on the first night at Studio 6 and K.W. would leave the room when a client came. At trial, J-C-W said that K.W. discussed rates, she worked on the first night at Studio 6, and K.W. would hide in the bathroom when J.C-W met with a client. Counsel submitted that J.C-W.’s explanation that she was embarrassed and uncomfortable when she testified at the Preliminary Inquiry, as compared to her testimony at trial simply did not make any sense.

[181] Finally, both defendants addressed the W.(D.) test. While they hoped that the court would believe them, counsel tacitly agreed that their clients’ respective narratives contained contradictions and may not be believed. However, they urged the court to recognize that when it came to the third branch of the W.(D.) test, there was no possible way to overcome the credibility challenges posed by the evidentiary contradictions and gaps to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

b) The Crown

[182] The Crown invited the court to consider the evidence in its totality and to recognize that J.C-W. was generally a credible witness. Counsel also argued that the court could rely on the corroborative evidence to accept J. C-W.’s evidence as true. Counsel also asked the court to consider and find beyond a reasonable doubt that C.D. brought J.C-W. to the basement at 40 Mosley and together with K.W. they began to groom her for the sex trade. The shooting of M.M. intervened and delayed their plans. Eventually, they got J.C-W. to work for them but only briefly because the police investigations around J.C-W.’s missing status disrupted their plans.

[183] In response to various questions by me, the Crown seemed to distance herself from the charges relating to the alleged kidnapping, the shooting and the sexual assault. She suggested that even if J.C-W. made her way to the basement voluntarily, the court could find beyond a reasonable doubt, and at the very minimum that the defendants exercised control over J.C-W. She highlighted the following evidence in support of that theory. According to J.C-W., C.D. invited her to think of him as a mentor. This was a form of grooming. Then K.W. asked her to contribute by one of three ways: selling drugs, escorting, or cashing fraudulent cheques. Finally, she was seen at the Clarkson Motel. Combined with the phone data and the parallels between J.C-W.’s version of events and the movements of the phones associated with the defendants, the Crown concluded that in addition to the grooming, the court could find that the defendants exercised control over J.C-W. and required her to work in the sex trade.

ANALYSIS

a) Legal Principles

[184] I begin with the recognition that C.D. and K.W. are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They started this trial with the presumption of innocence. The Crown has the burden to displace the presumption of innocence with proof beyond a reasonable doubt that C.D. and K.W. committed the offences with which they are charged: R v. Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 at para. 27.

[185] A reasonable doubt is not something that is imaginary, far-fetched, frivolous or one that is based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone. Although proof to a mathematical certainty is not required as that would be virtually impossible to achieve, reasonable doubt is one that is based on reason, common sense, and that logically arises from the evidence or absence of evidence. To be clear, probable guilt is not enough.

[186] If after considering all of the evidence, I am sure that each of C.D. and K.W. committed the respective offences, then I will be satisfied of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If for each accused, and in respect of each charge separately, after considering all of the evidence or the absence of evidence, I am not sure that the accused committed any one or more of the offences with which they are charged, then I will not be satisfied of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (See D. Watt, Watt’s Manual of Jury Instructions, 2nd Ed. Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd., 2015, Final 13, “Reasonable Doubt”; and Lifchus, at paras. 36-40).

[187] For each offence, it is open to a court to believe all, none, or some a witness’ evidence: R. v. Francois, 1994 CanLII 52 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827, at para. 14; D.R. et al. v. The Queen (1996), 1996 CanLII 207 (SCC), 107 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (S.C.C.) per L’Heureux-Dube J. (dissenting in the result), at p. 318; R v. M.R., ONCA 285, at para.6; R. v Hunter, [2000] O.J. No. 4089 (C.A.)(QL), at para. 5; and R. v. Abdullah, 1997 CanLII 1814 (ON CA), [1997] O.J. No.2055 (C.A.) (QL), at paras. 4-5. The trier of fact may also accord different weight to different parts of the evidence that the trier of fact accepts: R. v. Howe, 2005 CanLII 253 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 39 (C.A.) (QL), at para.44.

[188] As much as this case turns on the credibility of the witnesses who testified, it is essential to remember that the determination of guilt or innocence must not devolve into a credibility contest as that would erode the operation of the presumption of innocence and the assigned standard of persuasion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt: W.(D.), supra, at p.409; Avetsyan v. The Queen (2000), 2000 SCC 56, 149 C.C.C. (3d) 77S.C.C., at pp. 85-87; and R v. S.M., [2012] O.J. No. 3868.

[189] The approach to be followed consists of a consideration of the following three questions, first laid out in W. (D.). If the court believes the accused, then the court must acquit the accused. If the accused’s testimony is not believed but it leaves the court with reasonable doubt, the court must acquit the accused. Finally, even if the court is not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, the court must ask itself whether, on the basis of the evidence, which the court accepts, the court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.

[190] It is also crucial to recall that in the assessment of credibility, the mere disbelief of the accused’s evidence will not satisfy the burden of proof upon the Crown: see W. (D.), supra., at p.409. To use the disbelief of the accused’s evidence of guilt is wrong: R v. Dore 2004 CanLII 32078 (ON CA), [2004], 189 C.C.C. (3d) 526 (C.A.) at p. 527 (leave to appeal refused, [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 517); and R. v. H.(S.), [2001] O.J. No. 118 (C.A.) (Q.L.), at paras.4-6. Ultimately, the court must be satisfied on the totality of the evidence that there is no reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt.

b) Findings

i. Credibility

[191] Beginning C.D.’s testimony, I found him incredible for a number of reasons. It became very evident that he did everything he could to distance himself from J.C-W.’s evidence and to create a competing narrative. Where the objective evidence seemed to connect him too closely to J.C-W., he implicated other individuals to support his story that J.C-W. was merely one of a number of girls that he knew who came and went from the basement at 40 Mosley. While there were aspects of what C.D. said that might be true, such as his connection that he travelled back and forth from London to Toronto, his vagueness on many key aspects of the story were problematic.

[192] Broadly speaking C.D.’s testimony followed a pattern of absolute denial, then some hesitation and variations to what he said, and then finally, in the face of incontrovertible evidence, capitulation. This was evident in relation to Charlene’s name, and the phone number that he used. With Charlene’s name, he initially said that he did not know that name. He said he was hanging out with somebody named “Nikita” or “Niki”. Only after he was shown the Clarkson Registration Card did he agree to call the girl he was with Charlene. Similarly, with respect to the phone, initially he had no phone. He said that he used the internet to call and receive calls. Then he said he used the phones that his friends had. Gradually, as he was confronted with the frequency of use for the phone number 437 992-2795, he agreed that he used that phone a number of times during the period in question, but he insisted that the phone number belonged to T.K. The problem with that assertion was that the phone was registered to somebody with the name Jhon Kiffer and not “T.K.” Could C.D. have meant to say J.K. instead of T.K.? Nobody suggested that to him. Finally, C.D. said initially that J.C-W. never left the basement. Then as he was confronted with the evidence, he eventually said that she could come and go as she pleased and whenever she wanted, including T.K.

[193] Speaking of T.K., nobody other than C.D. made any reference to such an individual. The court heard a number of names very frequently from the various witnesses but nobody, including K.W., who testified after C.D. said anything about seeing or knowing anyone with the initials “T.K.” As the Crown connected the phone data for 437 992-2795 to C.D.’s movements and put that evidence to C.D., C.D. added T.K. into his story suggesting that T.K. shadowed him on virtually all of his movements. Indeed, T.K. took on a life of his own, and C.D. used him to create an alibi. Thus, according to C.D., T.K. came to the basement. But neither J.C-W. nor K.W. said anything about a person with the name T.K. being in the basement. They both mentioned a number of other people. Similarly, to explain why the subject phone number popped up at the same locations as his own travels, C.D. said that T.K. was with him. Except that when C.D. was pulled over on the way to Niagara, the phone data tracked that part of the evidence but even C.D. did not say that T.K. was with him and Charlene. This leads me to conclude that C.D. fabricated T.K. to serve the purpose of an alibi.

[194] Finally, on the totality of C.D.’s testimony, C.D.’s repeated resort to not knowing or not remember was also suspect. As I listened to C.D.’s answers it became evident to me that he was far more forthcoming and had a clear memory with respect to questions that seemed to him to be unrelated to the allegations. By contrast, for questions that were directly connected to J.C-W., many of the answers were categorical denials. As those denials were deconstructed, C.D.’s memory became vague or there were others, such as T.K. who were with him.

[195] Thus, when it came to the fender bender, an incident that did not appear to be connected to anything J.C-W. said, C.D. was far more forthcoming and had a very clear memory on exactly how the accident occurred and the driver of the other car. Once the Crown confronted him with the information that he provided that driver with the name John and the 437 992-2765 number as his contact information, C.D. became guarded and inserted T.K. into the equation.

[196] Turning to K.W., although on balance, he was more credible than C.D., his testimony presented me with a number of credibility concerns. To begin with, there were contradictions between C.D. and K.W. about J.C-W.’s presence at the basement such that if I were to believe one, I could not believe the other. K.W. portrayed J. C-W. as one of C.D.’s girls. He said C.D. was taken by her and came to really like her. J.C-W. also took a liking to C.D. causing Riley to become jealous. C.D. denied any such dynamic in his relationship with J.C-W.

[197] K.W.’s explanations about some differences between what he said to the court and what he told the police when he gave a statement were troubling and suggested to me that K.W. was trying to protect C.D. In his statement to the police, K.W. appeared at various points to be talking about C.D. At trial he suggested that he was really talking about Riley. He denied trying to keep C.D.’s name from the police. His knowledge of the shooting was also curious. His explanation for how he could remember a news report in December about a shooting in August merely because the shooting took place in Brampton was unconvincing. There had to have been some other reason for that memory but K.W. did not go anywhere near a credible explanation.

[198] Finally, K.W.’s initial denial that he went to Studio 6 and Marigold after August 10 and his confusion over the date when he asked J.C-W. to leave from the basement left me with a very real concern that he was trying to distance himself from any connection to J.C-W. and that somewhere in that confusion he was not being truthful with the court. K.W. only agreed that he went to Studio 6 and Marigold when he was confronted with the phone data showing his phone in the vicinity of those two locations.

[199] Turning to the two complainants, I begin with my assessment of M.M.’s credibility. I got the clear sense that M.M. did not want to be in court to testify. Evidently the experience of being shot was traumatic and I am prepared to accept that he was stunned and shocked by what occurred. But there were many aspects of his version of events that either did not make sense or did not square with what J.C-W. said occurred.

[200] The most glaring difficulty rested with his evidence that when he got to the school and received a call from J.C-W.’sphone but that, he did not answer it because he saw a group of five guys in the distance and a light beaming that caused him to think that something suspicious was unfolding. But knowing that he set up the meeting point with J.C-W. it would have made sense for J.C-W. to be calling to tell him she was there. M.M. declined to give any additional evidence that might elucidate the reason for why he found the call to be suspicious and contrary to common sense.

[201] His explanation that immediately after the shooting he was shocked and confused and that this was why his version to the nurse was different from what he said to the police would have made sense if the initial version was incoherent and if the subsequent statement offered a fluid accounting of events. Instead, the differences suggested a very deliberate attempt by M.M. to provide misinformation and to create delay and a diversion for police for reasons that only M.M. really knows. That observation put me on guard for anything that M.M. said. Combined with the contradictions in the evidence related to phone interaction between the two cousins, I found M.M. to be an unreliable story-teller.

[202] J.C-W.’s credibility proved to be very problematic, posing for the court some insurmountable difficulties. I am prepared to find that J.C-W. has been deeply traumatized by her life experiences. I am also prepared to find that over the years, she had some very embarrassing and troubling experiences. Through her testimony, it became evident to me that J.C-W. has been doing everything she could to change her ways and heal from her various traumatic experiences. She is to be commended for those efforts and she is to be encouraged to stay the course. She demonstrated a very strong personality and with the appropriate support and counselling she will heal and have a fulfilling life.

[203] But with those preliminary observations, my overriding difficulty with J.C-W.’s testimony rests with the realization that unless I could corroborate J.C-W.’s evidence with third party objective evidence, I could not accept what she said as either true or reliable. I take no pleasure at arriving at this conclusion, especially since the allegations are horrible and speak to very traumatic activities by very nasty and dangerous individuals. At the same time, those actions cannot be pinned on individuals simply because they came into J.C-W.’s orbit.

[204] J.C-W.’s evidence presents the court with a number of difficulties. To begin with, the existence of four or five different versions of what occurred with the most recent contradictions on material facts occurring between J.C-W.’s testimony at the Preliminary Inquiry and her evidence at trial was very disconcerting. I was prepared to give J.C-W. the benefit of the doubt that she was very scared when she first gave her statement to the police and deliberately avoided giving any evidence that would disclose the identity of the alleged perpetrators. But I have no way of knowing if J.C-W.’s fibs ended with the Preliminary Inquiry or if they remain a work in progress at the trial.

[205] Secondly, when it comes to understanding or making sense of J.C-W.’s expressed fear, there are some fundamental contradictions in what J.C-W. described that put her stated fear into question. J.C-W. described that she was terrified by the pointed gun, the shooting, the sexual assaults, and the events that followed. But simultaneously with those experiences, J.C-W. was offered repeated opportunities to ask for help and she declined to take any of them up.

[206] To begin with, J.C-W. never had to get into the car on that allegedly fateful day of August 2, 2017. The evidence on when it was that C.D. allegedly pointed the gun at J.C-W. was inconclusive and it sounded highly doubtful that C.D. would pull out a gun in broad daylight and risk being seen by others.

[207] But having allegedly gotten into the car, just a few hours later, J.C-W. could have left the car when she was left alone in the parking garage. At that time, J.C-W. still had her phone and could have called for help. If J.C-W. was still in a state of shock, shortly after the condo, a second chance presented itself within a short period of time at the Probation Office where she waited in the waiting area for almost 45 minutes. This location was the next best thing to being at a police station. She could have left, or she could have talked to the receptionist or even the Probation Officer to ask for help. Not only did she not do any of that, there was nothing in her demeanour, as captured on the video cameras at the Probation Office to suggest that she was fearful or otherwise anxious. To the contrary, she appeared quite relaxed as she waited casually for C.D. to come out.

[208] The opportunities to get away did not end there. That same day, once at the basement, she said that she saw her friend Riley. She could have asked him to help her but she did not.

[209] The next opportunity to get help came the very next day, August 3, 2017 when J.C-W. actually went home. Here too, she went into her home on her own. C.D. allegedly waited down the street. Both her foster sister and foster brother asked her if she was okay. Her response to her foster brother that she needed to be alone to collect her thoughts was not consistent with somebody wanting to run away, or perhaps having second thoughts about running away. It did not make sense that having left from the clutches of her captor, she would go back because she was scared. This would have been a perfect place to seek refuge and call the police.

[210] Later that same afternoon, J.C-W. said that she waited in the car at Yorkdale Mall for hours while C.D. and two other people went shopping. Her evidence that she was locked in once again defied logic. Yorkdale Mall has security everywhere. She would not have had to go very far to get help, even if she had no money and no identification. Her indication that she did not bring her phone and therefore could not call for help also made no sense. There would have been no reason to leave the phone behind in the basement. Speaking of the phone, if she was abducted, the first thing that one would have expected to occur would have been for the abductor to take away J.C-W.’s phone and not her debit card, which would have required her to give up the password.

[211] On August 4, C.D. allegedly took J.C-W. to her C.A.S. meeting. Here was yet another opportunity to get help. Ms. Berroa noticed that J. C-W was unusually anxious but she did not ask for any help. Her evidence that she lied deliberately only made sense if J.C-W. wanted to get away from her foster family. It made no sense that she was too scared to ask for help from the very people who are there to protect and support a vulnerable youth.

[212] It is also important to note that up until August 4, 2017, J.C-W. had at least seven opportunities to ask for help to get away from her abductor. But she did not. These were also seven times before the alleged events surrounding the shooting. Until this point, apart from the alleged abduction at gunpoint, C.D. had nothing to hold over her to account for her allegedly pronounced sense of terror. J.C-W. also would have had a variety of avenues to obtain help. If she were honestly fearful of speaking directly to the police, she could have sought the assistance of her C.A.S. worker, Sam at Key Access, or her family.

[213] After the shooting, in the period between August 9 and 14, J.C-W. had three direct encounters with the police, the most pronounced one being on August 9, at the Clarkson Hotel. By now, on J. C-W’s version of events, she would have been abducted, sexually assaulted twice, and been prepared to be introduced to the sex trade. In other words, there we would have been a compounding of the reasons to seek help, but J.C-W. availed herself of none of these opportunities.

[214] These specific opportunities to ask for help and to get away from C.D. and K.W. do not include J.C-W.’s own evidence, corroborated by the testimonies of both C.D. and K.W., that she was left alone in the basement on several occasions, which would have meant that she could have left on many other occasions but instead she remained at the basement.

[215] Against the totality of this evidence, J.C-W.’s explanation that she was too scared, that she did not have any money, or that she no longer had her phone were simply incredible. On any one of these opportunities, J.C-W. could have asked for help from multiple sources. She would not have had to have any money to knock on a neighbour’s door and ask for help, or to call one of her support workers to ask for help, or to ask somebody at Tim Hortons or McDonalds to use a phone to call home. If she did not trust the police, there were others she could trust but chose not to do so. Only J. C-W. really knows why she did not seek help.

[216] Leaving aside the issue of being abducted, being controlled, and being unable to get help, J.C-W. proved to be very resourceful when she wanted to do so. This was most evident in her interaction with the two strangers she approached to buy her food at Tim Hortons and at McDonalds. Watching the exchanges on the videos reveals somebody who actually could very well muster all the courage she needed to get what she wanted.

[217] J. C-W.’s boasting about the time when she took away the gun from C.D. and pointed it back to him also bore no relationship to the individual whom J.C-W. portrayed as a fearful and vulnerable young person. J.C-W.’s express rebuffing of offers for help or inquiries about whether she was okay also suggested J. C-W’s determination to do things her way, even if that meant that she got herself into trouble with drugs and sex.

[218] Finally, the court got a glimpse of J. C-W.’s real personality when she started to resist and try to take control of the repeated questions that were being put to her during the cross. She also commented on a few occasions about her ability to be in control and to not being nearly as vulnerable as she may have appeared. The exchange suggested to me that J.C-W. was a far more complicated person than she let on and this furthered my concerns with her credibility or her explanation that she did not ask for help because she was scared.

[219] Separate and apart from the opportunities to get help and J.C-W.’s personal qualities, some of the aspects of J.C-W.’s version of events just did not make sense. Beginning with the attendance at the Probation Office, it made no sense that the first places that the abductor would go to after the abduction would be the parking garage at the condo, followed by the Probation Office. At the garage, the victim could run away. At the Probation Office, the victim could get help. Similarly with the other outings and interactions with others, an abductor who allegedly abducted his victim at gunpoint, would not be giving her multiple opportunities to leave, never mind getting help.

[220] Similarly, J.C-W.’s descriptions of being sexually assaulted were dubious. One minute J.C-W. was smoking up on the couch, the next minute she was in K.W.’s bedroom being violently assaulted by C.D., and then she was back out in the basement living area resuming the chilling and smoking with a number of guys who were also there. In her statement to the police J.C-W. did not say anything about being sexually assaulted until one of her later statements. While I cannot preclude the possibility that J. C.W. may have been sexually assaulted and that the delay in the reporting of that particular experience may have been cause by the trauma she allegedly endured, the otherwise easy-going comings, and the number of people who were always present put J. C-W.’s version of events into further doubt.

[221] The totality of these difficulties put into question all of J.C-W.’s evidence. The Crown urged the court to rely on the third party evidence and records for corroboration to conclude that even with the specific credibility challenges, J. C-W’s overall narrative could be accepted as true. While there can be no question that the third party records and evidence help corroborate the outer contours of the peoples’ movements, they do very little to support findings on the 16 charges beyond a reasonable doubt. If anything, they capture demeanours and behaviours that appear to be normal. While they may be material evidentiary pieces of the puzzle, on their own they cannot compensate for the difficulties with the M.M.’s and J.C-W.’s credibility and reliability.

c. Review of the Charges

[222] Given my credibility findings, I turn to the elements of the W.(D.) inquiry to address each of those questions in relation to each of the charges and for each of the accused separately. This entails the following inquiry: a) Do I believe the accused? b) Am I left with a reasonable doubt even if I do not believe the accused? and c) On the basis of the evidence that I do accept, am I convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the charge in question?

1. Sections 279.01(1), 286.1(1) & 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada

[223] In my consideration of the evidence and on the basis of my credibility findings, the Crown has failed to satisfy me beyond a reasonable doubt that C.D. and K.W. engaged in human trafficking of J.C-W. or that they sought to procure her sexual services. Specifically, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that either or both of C.D. and K.W. recruited, transported, transferred, received, held, concealed, or harboured or exercised control, direction or influence over J.C-W.’s movements for the purpose of exploiting her or facilitating her exploitation. Nor am I satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that either or both of C.D. and K.W. procured J.C-W. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or that they recruited, held, concealed, harboured or exercised control, direct or influenced J.C-W.’s movements for the purpose of procuring sexual services.

[224] I recognize the elements of these offences as laid out in R v. Gallone, 2019 ONCA 663 and I specifically make note of the Crown’s insistence that the disjunctive element in the range of one’s behaviour provided the court with a wide “strike zone” to satisfy the actus reus of these offences.

[225] However, even if I were to find that there was some questionable conduct by the two accused, there was virtually no evidence to support a finding in connection to section 279.01(1) that either or both of the accused intentionally engaged in one of the conducts defined by that section with the purpose of exploiting J.C-W or facilitating her exploitation. Similarly, there was virtually no evidence that either or both of the accused intended to procure J.C-W. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or that they acted in one of the manners anticipated by section 286.1(1) to facilitate the procurement of sexual services.

[226] I do find that between August 2 and 14, 2017, J.C-W. was in the company of one or both of the accused, either at the basement at 40 Mosley, in the car going to various places with C.D. and at the Clarkson Motel. At the very minimum, C.D. transferred or transported J.C-W. to various locations. I could also find that providing J.C-W. with the free weed was a way of grooming J.C-W. and therefore exercised indirect control over her free will. I could go as far as to find that C.D.’s conduct was highly suspect.

[227] But I am left with reasonable doubt in relation to the mens rea for the two offences. For both accused, the Crown tried to leverage the cellphone data to corroborate J.C-W.’s evidence on what the two accused were doing. She suggested that there were instances that J.C-W. could not have known where the accused were unless she was also there. Verification of the accuseds’ respective movements through the cellphone data was therefore sufficient enough to infer that the accused intended to procure J.C-W.’s services or to engage in human trafficking for the purposes of exploitation.

[228] With respect, particularly given the tremendous difficulties with J.C-W.’s credibility, confirmation of the accuseds’ location did little to inform their intentions and eliminate any reasonable doubt. Apart from the cellphone data and digital travel logs, there was no third party evidence to support a finding that the two accused had any connection to human trafficking activities or to procuring. C.D. bringing J.C-W. to places like the Probation Office, J.C-W.’s home, and J.C-W.’s appointments might have been for grooming purposes but they could easily reflect one friend taking the other friend around. Moreover, it defies logic that C.D. would bring her to places where he would run the risk that J.C-W. might say something to the Probation Officer, to the C.A.S. social worker, or to her foster siblings. With such discrepancies I am unable conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that C.D. intended to groom J.C-W. for the purposes of human trafficking or procurement.

[229] Similarly, K.W. being described as kind and understanding towards J.C-W. could be an indicator of efforts to groom J.C-W. But they could also be suggestive of a guy being friendly and allowing her and the others who came to the basement to chill and play video games. I am left with reasonable doubt by J.C-W.’s contradictory evidence of K.W.

[230] The presence of C.D. at Clarkson and K.W. at Studio 6 and Marigold, could be suggestive of their involvement in the sex trade, but without more evidence, I have reasonable doubt over what C.D.’s intentions were.

[231] In K.W.’s case, his explanation that he went away to Studio 6 and the Marigold immediately following the police’s attendance at his place on August 10 to lay low, particularly given his concern that he keep his probation record clear of any problems made some sense. The suggestion that he would have brought J. C-W. with him, having just learned that the police was looking for J.C-W. made no sense. C.D. allegedly brought J. C-W. back from the Pink Motel because he feared the police’s return. It cannot possibly be the case that K.W. would ignore what occurred and take her back out. It would make more sense that J. C-W. would be held in the basement.

[232] K.W.’s explanation for asking J.C-W. to leave once he learned of her foster status was also dubious. If there was nothing wrong going on, and if K.W. was not engaging in any conduct enumerated in sections 279.01(1) and 286.01(1) and 286.3(1), with the intentions of trafficking or procuring, he ought not to have been nearly as worried about the police searching for J.C-W. as he suggested. However, given the way K.W. reacted when he did learn about J.C-W.’s status, his explanation that he was concerned about the police searching for J.C-W. raises at least a reasonable doubt over his real intentions.

[233] In C.D.’s case, there was virtually no evidence concerning his intentions apart from the cellphone data and the digital travel logs. If he were intending to engage in human trafficking and procuring, why would he leave J.C-W. behind between August 5 and 9 and not bring her along to London, where the phone he used was seen to be located?

[234] As well, there was no evidence to connect C.D. to any sex trade activities. While I appreciate that the case law is clear that J. C-W would not have had to actually engage in the sex trade and that C.D. would not have had to be an active participant, I would have expected to be presented with some basic evidence of C.D.’s connection to such activities but there was nothing. Charlene may have been somebody to provide corroborative evidence on this point but she was not called.

[235] The hotel registration card at Clarkson was just that. Even if I find that C.D. was at the Clarkson Motel with J.C-W., which I am inclined to do, there is no evidence that he was engaged in or preparing to engage in any sex trade activities. There was no video, there was no evidence of any ads, and the police saw nothing when they inspected the room.

[236] Beyond these immediate sources of evidence, there was no other evidence concerning C.D. to link him or his involvement in any sex trade activities such as lucrative spending habits, expensive cars, multiple phones, and other behaviour suggestive of substantial financial benefits from the sex trade. In the absence of such evidence, I am left with reasonable doubt over C.D.’s intentions in his interaction with J.C-W.

2. Abduction Charge

[237] Nothing in the evidence can support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that C.D. kidnapped J.C-W. J.C-W.’s allegations were incredible and fantastic. On this charge, given J.C-W.’s admitted connection to Riley, I am inclined to believe both K.W. and C.D. in their evidence that it was Riley who introduced J.C-W. to the basement and not any abduction. On the evidence before me, J.C-W. remained at the basement because she enjoyed chillin’ out, having access to weed and playing video games.

3. Sexual Assault Charges

[238] On the evidence before me, I am left with reasonable doubt over J.C-W.’s sexual assault allegations against C.D. As I already noted in my general credibility findings, while I am very mindful of the trauma that J.C-W. displayed as she testified, there were aspects of her description of the alleged sexual assaults that caused me to question the veracity of what she said. C.D.’s denial was not persuasive. Nor did his evidence leave me with any doubt. He did everything he could to distance himself from J.C-W. as a way of defending himself. But J.C-W.’s evidence on this point raised more questions than it answered.

[239] To begin with, it was not clear to me when in the evolution of her narrative she surfaced this particular allegation. She did not raise it in her first statement to the police. Nor did she seek any medical attention. The circumstances leading up to the assault and the aftermath were also nebulous. J. C-W. said that she was smoking dope before and after and did not have a good memory of the before and after activities. She attributed her memory failure to the drugs. She thought at one point that she may have had some cocaine though she was tentative on that point. Then, the particular incident came into sharp focus and she described what happened in very vivid detail. The contradictions in her own description of her memory are the source for my reasonable doubt.

[240] Moreover, the alleged second incident raised additional questions, particularly since this time J.C-W. situated the incident in the area of the house that would have been occupied by the owner of the house and Hamed and not by K.W. I find it highly doubtful that C.D. would have brought J.C-W. to a part of the house where strangers could walk in at any moment.

[241] When I add these specific concerns to my overall apprehension over J.C-W.’s credibility, I am left with reasonable doubt and must therefore find C.D. not guilty of this charge.

4. Aggravated Assault and Assault Charges

[242] Similar concerns exist with respect to the allegations of assault. J.C-W.’s alleged fear and her alleged sense of paralysis were incongruent with J.C-W. admitted ability to leave if she wished and her clear denial to seek help from any number of individuals, including most dramatically from the police at the time when they intercepted her outside of the Clarkson Motel. They were also incongruent with the personality that J.C-W. tried to project when she talked about taking control of the situation and taunting C.D. with the gun that she grabbed from him. For all her display of distress and fear, J.C-W. did not strike me as somebody who would sit there and take the abuse from C.D. or from anyone else. To be clear, while I was very sympathetic over the negative effects that J.C-W. experienced in her life and as I have already alluded, this young person has been deeply scarred, the evidence was insufficient to conclude that C.D. caused that trauma.

5. All charges related to the shooting of M.M.

[243] There are two certainties in relation to these charges. First, M.M. was shot with the result that a bullet was lodged in his right arm. Second, J.C-W.’s phone was in the vicinity of where the shooting took place at the time of the shooting. Apart from those two facts, the evidence is insufficient to find that C.D. was the one who shot M.M.

[244] To begin with, there was very little I could believe from either C.D.’s evidence or even K.W.’s on this set of allegations. I find that both of the accused deliberately concealed their actual knowledge of what occurred. The quality of their answers in their police statements, and then their alleged memory gaps at trial were simply not credible.

[245] But the totality of the evidence was not any better, and certainly did not eliminate any reasonable doubts that I had. For all the reasons already discussed, significant aspects of J.C-W.’s and M.M.’s narratives did not make sense, and here is why.

[246] First, the material contradictions between M.M.’s and J.C-W.’s on the content of their conversation was highly problematic. If M.M. said nothing to C.D. about a meeting place, and gave that information only to J.C-W. as he insisted repeatedly, then with the exception of a text to J.C-W., that he may have sent, C.D. would not have known about a rendez-vous at all, much less about any meeting place.

[247] Secondly, M.M. said repeatedly that he saw a group of five guys in the distance though he could not identify anyone and he could not distinguish if they were only guys or if there were women with them as well. That evidence alone raises reasonable doubt over the identity of the shooter. Related to that was the dubious explanation for not answering the phone when the call was coming in from the very person who M.M. was supposedly going to meet. As I already noted as I consider M.M.’s evidence at trial, I find that M.M. was deliberately untruthful to the court and did what he could to distance himself from either these accused, or anybody else who might have been implicated in the shooting. M.M. had a reason not to answer the phone when he saw the group of guys but he chose not to disclose it to anyone.

[248] Thirdly, J. C-W’s evidence on what K.W. said to her before the shooting, and how C.D. behaved before and after the shooting was not plausible. Why would K.W. tell her that there would be a wipe out and therefore hold J.C-W. back to allegedly protect her but not try to stop C.D. from going out at all? Could it really be the case that C.D. became so jealous of somebody whom he never met that he would just go out, shoot him, and then come back and behave as if nothing was wrong? Likely not. In the same vein, why would C.D. discard his clothes but keep the gun and run the risk that at some point the bullets used for the shooting would be matched to the gun?

[249] Fourthly, although the Crown placed much emphasis on the digital tracking of the cellphone data allegedly connected to J.C-W.,’s phone, it was not clear to me that J.C-W.’s phone went dead immediately following the shooting. The records suggested some activity though admittedly it did not appear that there were any outgoing calls from that phone. My point for highlighting this dimension of the Crown’s evidence is to make the observation that even if J.C-W.’s phone was tracked to and from the site of the shooting in and around the time of the shooting, given the number of people in the basement both before and after the shooting and M.M.’s evidence that J.C-W. told him that she was hanging out with five guys and he then saw a group of five in the distance, I am left with reasonable doubt over the shooter’s identity and all of the charges related to that occurrence.

[250] As I reflect on the totality of the evidence and try to make sense of M.M.’s deliberate evasiveness and J.C-W.’s various exaggerations and outlandish descriptions, combined with a pronounced sense of perhaps a continuing fear, I could not help but wonder whether even the version of events that was put into evidence at trial represented a continued attempt to maintain a distance from the actual perpetrators of the alleged events.

[251] Against the sum of these difficulties, I am left with reasonable doubt as to what really occurred, how it occurred and who the actual perpetrator or perpetrators were. Accordingly I must acquit C.D. of all the charges related to the shooting and the gun possession and discharge.

CONCLUSION

[252] Bad things happened to these complainants. That is a certainty. The accused did not present well. They lied about what they really knew and about their true actions. However, the evidentiary gaps and the serious shortcomings in the credibility of both complaints, but especially in that of J.C-W., leave me with reasonable doubt over all of the charges against the accused.

[253] Accordingly, for all of these reasons, C.D. and K.W. are acquitted of all the charges against them.

Tzimas J.

Released: December 18, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: CR-18-1257

DATE: 20191218

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Her Majesty the Queen

– and –

C.D. and K.W.

Defendants

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Tzimas J.

Released: December 18, 2019