COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-38

DATE: 2022 10 14

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Karl Lorthy Augustin

– and –

Andrew St. Armand

Ms. A. Stevenson, for the Crown

Ms. D. Lafleur, for Mr. Augustin

Mr. R. Tomovski, for Mr. St. Armand

HEARD: August 4 and August 31, 2022

CORRECTED REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Mr. Tomovski’s name was spelled incorrectly throughout these Reasons – The correction changing Tomovsky to Tomovski has been made – this is the only change to these Reasons

chozik J.

A. Introduction:

[1] The two accused, Karl Lorthy Augustin (“Augustin”) and Andrew St. Armand (“St. Armand”), were tried jointly before a jury over the course of five weeks between May 16 and June 16, 2022. Both accused were charged with human trafficking, procuring, and advertising sexual services of the complainant, R.G.B., contrary to sections 279.01(1), 286.3(1), and 286.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

[2] Augustin was also charged with five additional counts: (i) receiving a material benefit from human trafficking (s. 279.02); (ii) receiving a material benefit from the sale of R.G.B.’s sexual services (s. 286.2(1); (iii) and (iv) assaults on R.G.B. (s. 266); and (v) obstructing justice by giving a false name to the police (s. 129). At the conclusion of the trial, at the request of the Crown, the jury was instructed not to render verdicts in respect of the assault and obstruction of justice counts. The jury was permitted to consider the evidence adduced in relation to those counts in respect of specific aspects of the other counts.

[3] Augustin and St. Armand were tried as principals. Party liability was also left to the jury.

[4] On June 16, 2022, the jury found Augustin and St. Armand guilty on all the counts: Augustin was found guilty of human trafficking, procuring, advertising R.G.B.’s sexual services, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, and receiving a material benefit from procuring. St. Armand was found guilty of human trafficking, procuring, and advertising R.G.B.’s sexual services.

[5] These two men are now before me to be sentenced.

[6] The parties agree that Augustin is to be sentenced for human trafficking, receiving a financial benefit from human trafficking and advertising sexual services. The convictions for procuring and receiving a financial benefit from procuring are stayed pursuant to the principle in R. v. Kienapple 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729.

[7] The parties also agreed that St. Armand is to be sentenced for human trafficking and advertising sexual services. The conviction for procuring is stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

[8] Sentencing starts with the principle that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender. Here, the Crown and the defence take different views of both the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility borne by each accused.

[9] I am, of course, bound by the findings of fact necessarily made by the jury as part of their verdicts. The Crown and the defence disagree, however, as to the findings of fact underlying the jury’s verdicts in respect of the degree of direction, control or influence exercised by each accused over the complainant. Findings in respect of these, as well as the other factors relevant to sentencing, are pivotal to the determination of a fit sentence in this case.

[10] Where the jury’s verdict leaves an ambiguity as to the factual route the jury followed to its final conclusion, it is incumbent upon the sentencing judge to make his or her own factual determinations in order to decide upon a fit sentence: R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, at para. 18. I am not required to give the accused the benefit of the most favourable view of the evidence: R. v. Gauthier (1996), 108 C.C.C. (3d) 231 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Roncaioli, 2011 ONCA 378, 271 C.C.C. (3d) 385.

[11] I must accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty, and may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed by the evidence at the trial to be proven: Criminal Code, s. 724(2). A fit sentence must ultimately reflect the moral blameworthiness of each accused based on the findings of fact reached by the jury, and any other fact I may find proven to the requisite standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

B. Overview of the Offences:

[12] At the time of these offences, R.G.B. was 22 years old. Augustin was 28 years old, and St. Armand was 24 years old. The evidence at trial established that sometime in August 2018, R.G.B. met St. Armand, whom she knew as “Drew”. “Drew” later introduced her to Augustin, whom she came to know by his alias, “Demon”. “Demon” was his “stage” name as a musician.

[13] The Crown alleged that Augustin and St. Armand trafficked R.G.B. for some time between September 1 and November 11, 2018. She is from Quebec. She is Francophone, as are the two accused. As is evident from her interactions with police and her testimony at trial, R.G.B.’s proficiency in English was very limited.

[14] The evidence at trial was that R.G.B. travelled to Ontario with the two accused. The accused rented hotel rooms in the GTA, where they held or sheltered R.G.B. and procured her to engage in prostitution over the course of several weeks or months. They posted online advertisements for her sexual services. The evidence at trial, including text messages and videos independent of R.G.B.’s testimony, showed that, under the control, direction or influence of the accused, she provided sexual services to dozens, if not hundreds, of men.

[15] In exercising control, direction, or influence over R.G.B.’s movements, the Crown alleged that Augustin and St. Armand controlled her access to food, drink, pharmacy and sundry items she needed. They told her when she could and could not sleep or shower. They controlled her access to cigarettes and ‘speed’-drugs to which she had an addiction. They controlled which clients she saw, when she saw them, what sexual services she performed, and for how much. They controlled her access to social media by putting blocks on her phone from time to time.

[16] At sentencing, the defence argued that R.G.B. was a willing participant in the sex trade, and that their degree of control, direction or influence was at the low end.

[17] There appeared to be no shortage of clients. The two accused advertised her sexual services on “Leolist”, a website often used for this purpose. However, according to R.G.B., the ad used to attract clients featured a photo of a black woman. R.G.B. is Caucasian. Photos of her at the time of the offences, found on Augustin’s phone, show that she had long brown hair. R.G.B. testified that a client told her the ad he had responded was for a black woman. He showed her the ad. A few men refused her sexual services because she was not the black woman whose ad they responded too. Text messages between R.G.B. and the accused include reference to her being ‘refused’ or ‘turned down’ by clients occasionally.

[18] Text messages in evidence at the trial showed that Augustin and St. Armand would text R.G.B. to tell her when a client was coming, what sexual services she was to perform for the client, how much he was to pay for the services. She would confirm when he was there and when he had left. The text messages, however, revealed a lot more.

[19] R.G.B. testified that on an average day working for Augustin and St. Armand, she would service 5 to 8 men. In her statement to the police, which she adopted at trial, she said she serviced 8 -10 men, back-to-back, without breaks. Text messages between R.G.B. and Augustin on one of those days (November 5, 2018) showed that between 10:04:58 am and 11:54:51 pm (approximately 12 hours), R.G.B. provided sexual services to 15 men. Two other men refused her.

[20] The text messages on November 5, 2018 showed that R.G.B. texted Augustin between clients to say that she is tired, or does not feel good, or needs to sleep, or needs to shower. Notwithstanding those messages, Augustin continued to send her more clients. She asked Augustin to bring her speed and tobacco. He told her to do one more client. She texted saying she needs food and drink, and that she needs to go to the pharmacy. Augustin sent her more clients. When she texted: “I am going to kill myself”, Augustin sent more clients.

[21] R.G.B. testified that the fee for her sexual services was $240 per hour and $120 for half an hour. She estimated that she earned $1,000 a day. Based on the text messages, which are indicative of the volume of clients she saw, it seems clear that she woefully underestimated how much she earned.

[22] R.G.B. never saw any of the money: Augustin and St. Armand took all of the thousands of dollars that she earned selling her sexual services.

[23] The Crown alleged that on October 30, 2018 R.G.B. “escaped” from a hotel in Markham and returned to Quebec. The accused found her at a hotel in Montreal, and forced her to return with them to Ontario to continue to work under their control. Earlier in October, R.G.B. had tried to leave the Admiral Inn in Burlington but was stopped and assaulted by the two accused. On November 11, 2018, when R.G.B. was found by the police at the Admiral Inn in Burlington, Augustin had taken her red boots – this is captured in their text messages and the video surveillance of him leaving her room, crossing the hallway at the Admiral Inn to his room, carrying something red under his arm.

[24] There was some conflict in the evidence about the degree of violence or threats used by the accused. At trial, R.G.B. initially denied that the accused were violent towards her. She then adopted her statement to the police, in which she said that Augustin was violent with her and had showed her a gun. Then at trial she testified for the first time that St. Armand had also assaulted her by grabbing her throat

[25] At trial, R.G.B. testified she wanted to “stay with him” and that St. Armand was her friend. She testified at trial that she did not want anything bad to happen to either of the accused. She tried to contact Augustin on social media after his arrest: she was no longer scared of him at that point.

[26] The offences came to light when, on November 11, 2018, the Halton Regional Police received a complaint from a woman in Quebec, alleging that her daughter was being held at the Admiral Inn in Burlington by her “pimps”. Police attended there and eventually located R.G.B. in one of the rooms. They also met with Augustin, who was in the company of another woman, possibly his girlfriend, in the room across the hall from R.G.B.’s room.

[27] Later that day, R.G.B. gave a sworn videotaped statement to the police in which she described her experiences. Augustin was arrested the same day by the Halton Regional Police: he was located near the Admiral Inn. He gave a false name to the arresting officer. There was some evidence at trial from which the jury could have concluded that he had attempted to flee the scene when he realised that the police had located R.G.B.

[28] The police later identified St. Armand as the other perpetrator. He was arrested without incident in Quebec on December 5, 2018.

[29] Shortly after giving her statement, R.G.B. made it known to the police that she did not want to participate in these proceedings. She told the police in Quebec that she wanted to withdraw her complaint. As I set out later in these Reasons, she testified at trial after she was arrested pursuant to a material witness warrant.

[30] When she testified at the trial, R.G.B. gave internally inconsistent evidence. At times she denied or minimized some of the events. At other times, she implicated the accused. The Crown was successful in its application under ss. 9(1) and 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act R.S.C., 1985, c C-5: eventually R.G.B. adopted portions of her sworn videotaped statement to the police as her evidence at the trial.

[31] The jury was instructed that they could accept all, some, or none of R.G.B.’s evidence. They did not to need to agree on how they viewed her evidence to reach their verdicts. The challenge the defence fairly identifies in this case is that it is difficult to know, for the purpose of sentencing, which portions of R.G.B.’s evidence, if any, the jury must have accepted to reach its conclusions. I am, however, not required to take the most favourable view of the evidence. Nor are my findings of fact at sentencing limited to the bare essentials the jury must have found. I must draw my own conclusions.

C. Positions on Sentence:

[32] The Crown submits that a fit sentence for Augustin is 8 to 10 years, less credit for pre-trial custody. For St. Armand, the Crown submits that a fit sentence is 6 years imprisonment.

[33] The Crown also seeks the following ancillary orders:

a. an order under section 109 of the Criminal Code (weapon prohibition)

b. an order under section 487.051 of the Criminal Code (DNA order); and

c. an order pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code, prohibiting his contact with all involved parties and victims while incarcerated.

[34] The Crown takes the position that the range of sentence for the offences committed by Augustin and St. Armand far exceeds the mandatory minimum sentence for human trafficking of four years set out in s. 279.01(1)(b). That mandatory minimum has been declared unconstitutional in R. v. Jean, 2020 ONSC 624, but the Crown is not relying on the mandatory minimum.

[35] The Crown submits that despite the fact that the mandatory minimum for human trafficking has been declared unconstitutional, it is still instructive in respect of what an appropriate range of sentence might be. Where human trafficking involves kidnapping, s. 279.01(1)(a) mandates a minimum sentence of 5 years. There was no charge of kidnapping, and the jury was not asked to render a verdict on whether R.G.B. was kidnapped. In this case the Crown argued that the evidence at trial made out beyond a reasonable doubt that R.G.B. was, in fact, kidnapped and that I should make this factual finding.

[36] Ms. Lafleur, counsel for Augustin, takes the position that a fit sentence in all the circumstances is 4 years imprisonment. She submits that this is a fit sentence after taking into account credit for pre-trial release pursuant to R. v. Downey, 1992 CanLII 109 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10, and pre-trial custody pursuant to R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. She also submits that Augustin is prepared to make restitution to R.G.B. in whatever amount I deem fit. He offered to pay her back $10,000 on a monthly basis at a rate of $240, to be imposed as part of a probation order.

[37] Mr. Tomovski, counsel for St. Armand submits that a fit sentence for St. Armand is 3 years, less six months credit for pre-trial release and 9 days of pre-trial custody. It was argued on behalf of St. Armand, who was 24 years old at the relevant time, that he is a youthful first offender, who has strictly adhered to his bail conditions for almost 4 years. The principle of restraint, his prospects for rehabilitation and his diminished role in the offences make this a fit sentence.

[38] Neither accused took issue with the ancillary orders sought.

D. Applicable Principles of Sentencing:

General Principles:

[39] The fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality: a fit sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender (s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code). Disproportionate sentences diminish public confidence in the administration of justice by undermining the rational connection between the crime and the punishment. In R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at para. 37, LeBel J. explained proportionality as follows:

Proportionality is the sine qua non of a just sanction. First, the principle ensures that a sentence reflects the gravity of the offence. This is closely tied to the objective of denunciation. It promotes justice for victims and ensures public confidence in the justice system.… Second, the principle of proportionality ensures that a sentence does not exceed what is appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender. In this sense, the principle serves a limiting or restraining function and ensures justice for the offender. In the Canadian criminal justice system, a just sanction is one that reflects both perspectives on proportionality and does not elevate one at the expense of the other.

[40] Crafting a fair and appropriate punishment is a highly individualized exercise that involves a variety of factors (R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 58). To determine a fit sentence, a sentencing judge must take into account any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances (s. 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code), as well as objective and subjective factors related to the offender’s personal circumstances. The parity principle requires that a sentence imposed be similar to those imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code; R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 739, at paras. 7-8.)

[41] A fit sentence must aim to denounce unlawful conduct and deter others by sending a message that certain conduct will not be tolerated. Where necessary, the sentence must also deter a particular offender from repeating the conduct. A fit sentence must aim to rehabilitate the offender, promote in him a sense of responsibility for the offence, and provide some acknowledgement of and reparations to victims for harm done to them and to the community. Ultimately, the sentence imposed must be consistent with the fundamental purpose of sentencing, which is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

[42] Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code confirms that the Crown is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all aggravating facts on which it relies.

[43] Mitigating factors and personal circumstances of an offender must also be considered. Sentencing is always an individual exercise and each sentence must be tailored to the individual offender and the specific circumstances of the offence.

[44] The impact of the offences on the victim must also be considered.

E. Personal Circumstances of Augustin:

[45] Augustin is 32 years old. He was 28 when he committed these offences. He has been in custody for the past 2 years in respect of unrelated offences.

[46] Augustin has a prior criminal record. His first entry is from Montreal, in April 2010: he received a suspended sentence and probation of two years for one count of assault contrary to section 266(a) of the Criminal Code. Six years later, in March 2016, he was convicted in Montreal of failing to attend court (s.145(3)(b)), possession of a prohibited weapon (s.91(3)(b)), and breach of a recognizance (s.145(3)(b)). For these offences, he received a suspended sentence of 12 months in addition to the equivalent of 3 days pre-trial custody.

[47] On February 18, 2022 he was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment (including enhanced credit for time served) following convictions: (i) possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm without being the holder of a license (s. 95(1)(a)), (ii) careless storage of a firearm (s. 86(1)), and (iii) making, selling or possessing identity documents that relate to another person (s. 56.1(4)(a)).

[48] The parties agree that for the purposes of calculating any credit for pre-trial custody, he has been in custody on these charges for 7 months and 9 days, calculated as follows: November 11 to 16, 2018 and March 11 to October 14, 2022. He is entitled to enhanced credit for this time.

[49] After submissions, in accordance with s.726 of the Criminal Code, Augustin was asked if he wanted to say anything in respect of the present sentencing decision. He addressed the court at some length. He told me about his background. He told me about the introspection he has undertaken during his incarceration. His comments gave me good insight into his circumstances and a view of him I did not otherwise have.

[50] Augustin is the 5th of 6 children. He has two older brothers, two older sisters, and a younger sister. When he was 5 years old, his father abandoned the family. Augustin did not see his father until 2017, when he was already an adult. Augustin reported to me that he was very close to his mother. He was “a mama’s boy”. She died when he was 12. She had worked as a teacher, and he was lucky that sometimes she worked in his classroom as a supply teacher. Augustin spoke movingly to the court about his childhood memories of the time shortly before her death: her weight loss, her hair loss, him bringing her a bowl to vomit in. His father’s abandonment and the death of his mother were no doubt very traumatic for him.

[51] After his mother died, Augustin’s 21-year-old brother Mark took on legal guardianship of him and his younger sister. But in 2009, when Augustin was in grade 5, Mark was shot. Augustin witnessed the shooting. Mark had not done anything wrong - he was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[52] Augustin explained that he witnessed his brother being shot, and then went on as if nothing happened: he did not cry and went to school the next day. Mark survived the shooting, but Augustin and his younger sister had to move in with their other brother. Augustin then started working to help pay the bills. He also continued to attend school.

[53] Augustin reported that he also witnessed a person shot to death at his brother’s wedding. Shortly after he reunited with his father, and forgave him for the abandonment, his father died in Haiti. In August 2018, Augustin and his sisters flew to Haiti. They identified their father’s decomposing body, which had been left unrefrigerated for almost two weeks. Augustin explained that after this, he was “lost”.

[54] At around the same time, he was experiencing some success in his musical career. But he could not, and did not, celebrate it. These events were shortly before he met R.G.B.

[55] Augustin emphasized that he had never sought therapy for any of the traumatic events in his life. Instead, he detached from his feelings. He has spent time trying to understand what led him to the crimes he committed in respect of R.G.B. He told me he believes that he has suffered from compounded trauma and his inability to deal with it. He said that he wished that R.G.B. had never met him. He said that his crime should never have happened.

[56] He said that when he committed these crimes, he was not thinking of consequences. He wrongly “pretended” that the consent of the victim would somehow render his actions legitimate. He made it very clear to me that he was not trying to justify his actions, but only trying to explain how he could have come to say and do such “gross” things.

[57] While I approach his statements with an appropriate degree of scepticism, I accept that Augustin was genuine when he expressed these views.

[58] Augustin wrote a letter to R.G.B., which he read aloud in court. In it, he expressed his remorse to her. He told her that he did not wish for her to feel bad about what happens to him. He said that he recognized her good heart and that she is “special” and that one day he hoped that she would know that. I think that if R.G.B. had heard what he had to say, she might appreciate it.

[59] Augustin also wrote a letter to his family, expressing his deep remorse and shame for his actions and gratitude for their presence and support.

[60] Augustin is an artist and musician, as confirmed by the displays of his art before me. He was a tattoo artist who had a successful shop in Montreal. He was also enjoying some success as a rapper and musician: he has a YouTube following, held a concert and released some recorded music. Shortly before his arrest, he started an online business selling custom hand-painted luxury items, such as shoes, purses and clothing, which appeared to have some prospect for some success.

[61] Augustin told me that he recognized the suffering he has caused to others, including R.G.B., his family, and apologized to all the participants in the court process. He also expressed that he viewed his suffering as a blessing because it gave him the opportunity to engage in the sort of personal reflection that he had avoided in the past.

[62] I accept Augustin’s statements as genuine. I was impressed by his self-awareness. I accept that he has reflected on the seriousness of his crimes and their consequences, including the harm to R.G.B. He has reflected on the circumstances and choices that led him down that path. He appears to appreciate the need to reflect on his own character and seems to have some insight into what led him to exploit another human being as he did. This bodes well for his prospects for rehabilitation.

[63] I accept that Augustin regrets the harm he has caused. I accept that these are small, but genuine attempts to make some amends. His crimes and the harm to R.G.B. cannot be undone. Nevertheless, his attempt to make amends, remorse, self-awareness and insight are positives I take into account.

[64] Augustin expressed optimism and faith in his future. I agree that he has good potential for individual growth. He has many years to continue to work on himself, as he has just started. However, the road ahead for him is going to be hard, especially when he is released into the community after serving his sentence. His criminal record will stand in the way of many of his professed intentions. More than likely, he will experience bitterness, anger, and despair when this reality hits him. He will need to stay strong. I heard what he said. I believe he was sincere and spoke from his heart, I accept that there is hope for him. I am grateful that he chose to speak to the court. Sentencing is a difficult exercise, and it helps to know more about the person before me. Although what he has done was very wrong, he is not, in my view, beyond redemption.

F. Personal Circumstances of St. Armand:

[65] St. Armand was 24 years old at the time of these offences. He is now 28. He has no prior criminal record. He has been on pre-trial release since December 5, 2018 without incident.

[66] Although I did not hear directly from St. Armand about his personal circumstances, I am indebted to Mr. Tomovski for his very helpful submissions as counsel which gave me similar insight into his client’s personal circumstances.

[67] St. Armand was raised by his mother. He lives with his mother and sister in Longeuil, near Montreal. He has never had his father in his life, nor any other father figure. He has a young child, who is now 7 years old, whom he parents every other weekend.

[68] St. Armand graduated from high school. He has no other education.

[69] In August, shortly before I heard these submissions, St. Armand’s cousin was killed in a hit-and-run. His cousin’s father had died ten months earlier. St. Armand was close to both of these individuals. He works full time, earning $4,000 to $5,000 a month. He tries to help his mother and sister financially.

[70] When he was arrested for these crimes, he spent 9 days in pre-trial custody before he was released. Since December 5, 2018, he has been bound by a strict curfew which has required him to be in his residence between 11:00 pm and 6:00 am, unless with his mother as surety.

[71] Mr. Tomovski explained that this was a hardship for St. Armand, especially during the trial when on Fridays we would end court at 5 or 6 pm, and he would have to drive back to Montreal and arrive there by 11 pm. On June 3, 2022, he was pulled over, arrested, and handcuffed following a physical struggle with the police. As he rushing home to Montreal from Milton, he was stopped on the highway, apparently for no reason. He was late returning home because we sat late in court that day to deal with R.G.B.’s detention in custody. I appreciate that this must have been a very stressful and frightening experience.

G. Other Factors:

[72] I observe that both men are black. Both were in their 20s when they committed these offences. Both were raised by single mothers in poverty. Neither had a father growing up.

[73] Counsel did not make any specific submissions on the impact of race or systemic racism on these two accused. While an offender’s race or social circumstances do not lessen the gravity of the offence, they can be relevant to the moral blameworthiness of an offender where there is evidence of some connection between racial or social factors and the crime: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, at paras. 92-94, 97; R. v. Jackson, 2018 ONSC 2527.

[74] While there is no evidence before me from which I could draw an inference that these offenders bear less responsibility for these crimes because of their race, the reality in which they grew up is not lost on me.

H. Impact of Criminal Conduct on R.G.B.:

[75] The sentence imposed must also acknowledge and address the impact and harm done to the victim. R.G.B. has not provided a victim impact statement. That is not a surprise. R.G.B. was not a willing participant in this proceeding. From her evidence and the circumstances which I observed during the trial, there are two harms done to her: from the crimes and from this trial process which arose from those crimes.

[76] As I indicated, although R.G.B. sought the assistance of the police on November 11, 2018 and gave a sworn videotaped statement to the police, she came to give evidence at this trial against her will. She did not testify at the preliminary inquiry. She did not respond to a subpoena. A material witness warrant was issued to secure her attendance at this trial.

[77] She was arrested in Quebec on May 18, 2022, two days after the trial started. She was transported by police from Quebec to Halton Region. It was a nine-hour drive. She arrived at the Halton Regional Police Service central lock up in Oakville at 4:00 am on the morning of May 19, 2022, where she was placed in the cells. Later that morning, she was brought to court in custody and her evidence commenced shortly after.

[78] R.G.B. remained in custody during most of her testimony, which lasted 12 days. Instead of going home each day, after testifying about these awful events, she returned to the local detention centre or to the holding cells. Each day, at the conclusion of her evidence, I addressed the question of whether she had to remain in custody. Sadly, for most of that time I concluded that she had to remain in custody in order to secure her testimony. Each day after testifying all day, she begged to be released. She spent two weekends, including the long weekend in May, in jail.

[79] It was readily apparent when she testified that she did not want to communicate about these events. She sought to withdraw her complaint and told the police she did not want to participate in these proceedings shortly after she gave her statement to the police.

[80] R.G.B. remained in custody during her testimony not because she had done anything wrong, but because she was disadvantaged: she was poor, she had no connections to anyone in Ontario, and she had no one without a criminal record who could come forward to ensure her attendance at trial. As I observed daily, when I had to detain her, if she was almost anyone else and her only ‘crime’ was not responding to a subpoena, she would have been released.

[81] I am extremely careful not to use the fact that the accused chose to have a trial against them. That would be fundamentally wrong. They were presumed innocent and entitled to a trial. It is their absolute right to have the Crown prove its case. This is not why I mentioned R.G.B.’s circumstances during the trial. I mention it because, in my view, it must acknowledged that the experience of this trial for R.G.B. must have been deeply traumatic for her.

[82] I do not need a victim impact statement to tell me the traumatic effect of being sexually exploited as R.G.B. was. She was forced to perform sexual services on dozens of, maybe a hundred, men within a relatively short time. As I set out below, her movements were controlled. Her work conditions were dictated. Then her money was taken by Augustin and St. Armand. She viewed these men as her friends. She loved St. Armand. These men betrayed her. She was dehumanized, commodified, exploited, and turned into a sex slave. By two men she trusted.

[83] When R.G.B. testified at the trial, she was often not very expressive. For what sometimes seemed like hours she resorted to “oui” and “non” as her staple answers to many questions. But she expressed her trauma. Trauma, especially sexual trauma, is stored in the body: as she testified and was forced to remember these events, R.G.B. said at various times that her heart hurt, her knees hurt, her vagina hurt, that she felt sick and needed to go to the hospital. She asked for frequent breaks. She did not want to talk or remember these events. She asked for us to stop.

[84] There is no doubt that the experiences R.G.B. endured because of Augustin’s and St. Armand’s crimes had a deep, likely permanent, traumatic, and profoundly negative impact on her.

I. Range of Sentence:

[85] It is not disputed by the parties that the range of sentences for human trafficking will normally be in the penitentiary range. These offences are so abhorrent that society’s condemnation has to be expressed: R. v. Downey, 1992 CanLII 109 (SCC), 2 S.C.R. 10, at para. 50, R. v. Lopez, 2018 ONSC 4749, at para. 52. The human trafficker personifies abusive, exploitive, pernicious malevolence: Downey, at para. 50, R. v. Antoine, 2020 ONSC 181, at para. 29.

[86] In Lopez, at para. 53, the Court observed that in cases where an accused has coerced a woman into becoming or remaining a “prostitute” and exercised a significant degree of control over her activities, sentences of 4 or 5 years were typically imposed. General deterrence, denunciation and specific deterrence are the paramount sentencing considerations: Antoine, at para. 29.

[87] Human trafficking is the exploitation by one person of another. The harm from human trafficking was described by Justice Campbell in Lopez, at para. 52, as follows:

For many years Canadian courts have decried the inherently exploitive, coercive and controlling actions of “pimps” in relation to prostitutes. The unfortunate contemporary reality of the sex trade is that male pimps typically are involved in the exploitation, degradation and subordination of women. At its most basic level, it is a form of slavery, with pimps living parasitically off the earnings of prostitutes. Pimps exercise their control over prostitutes by means of a variety of tactics including emotional blackmail, verbal abuse, threats of violence and/or pure physical violence and brutality. The prostitutes that are the subject of this coercive exploitation are typically vulnerable and disadvantaged women, who have been manipulated and taken advantage of by the pimp. Even in cases where their initial participation in the sex trade is voluntary, including perhaps their business association with the pimp, and adopted for reasons of perceived increased security and safety in an inherently dangerous line of work, the relationship invariably becomes one-sided and exploitive. Prostitutes are ultimately forced, in one way or another, to provide sexual services for money in circumstances where they would not otherwise have agreed to such services, and the money earned from those sexual services is collected by the pimp. Accordingly, in a very real and practical sense, pimps traffick in the human resources of prostitutes, callously using their sexual services as an endlessly available commodity to be simply bought and sold in the market place. Accordingly, pimps have been aptly described as a “cruel, pernicious and exploitive evil” in contemporary society.

[88] The callous, cruel and repulsive nature of human trafficking was also described in Antoine, at para. 29, as follows:

Pimps are not harmless. They should never be perceived by the naive as being harmless. They provide no beneficial service whatsoever. For money pimps can enslave prostitutes. They control and dominate prostitutes both in their professional and in their personal lives. They enslave the females upon whose earnings they prey. They do that by exploiting the survival needs of the homeless and the unloved.

[…] Those who live on the avails of prostitution are the lepers of both the underworld and the decent world. The money they leach from others attracts no tax, hence directly contributes to human degradation. That is why they are perceived by those who know them, both in the criminal society as well as in the decent world, as being on a level with child molesters.

[89] The Crown argues, and I accept, that the range of sentences for these crimes since Lopez was decided four years ago has consistently increased. Sentences for human trafficking, even for a first-time offender, now fall in the range of 4 to 8 years.

[90] In R. v. Jordan, 2019 ONCA 607 (affirming oral reasons for sentence [2018] O.J. No. 7341), the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 9 years (including 1 year consecutive for witness intimidation). In that case, the offender knew the victim from childhood. She was vulnerable and he offered her stability, then exploited her. He introduced her to sex trade and took the money that she earned; he exhibited control and direction over her work. They had a relationship and lived together for years, during which he exploited her to compel and then profit off her sex work. He often assaulted and threatened her, took control of her ID and possessions, convinced her to tattoo his name on her body, and forced her to continue working while pregnant.

[91] In R. v. T.T., 2022 ONSC 722, this court imposed 8 years incarceration (including 3 years consecutive for sexual assault). In that case, the victim, 17 years old, was living in a group home when she met the offender and his associate. She went with them to a basement apartment, where the offender sexually assaulted her. The two took photos of her and posted them online advertising sexual services. Over three days she provided such services. The offender and his associate kept all the money, and gave the victim drugs and alcohol. They also repeatedly raped her.

[92] In R. v. Gardner, 2020 ONSC 5954, this court imposed a 7-year sentence (reduced from 9 years in contemplation of totality principle). The victim, 21 years old, worked in the sex trade of her own volition. She met the offender and his girlfriend (also a sex worker) and they began a polyamorous relationship. However, the offender soon began exercising control over the victim’s work and took her earnings. He gave her drugs and forced her to work when she didn’t want to. He would rape her as “punishment” for supposed misbehavior.

[93] There are aggravating factors in those cases that are not present in this case. There are also cases where lesser sentences were imposed. Each case is different on the facts, and each offender wears unique circumstances. What these cases show is that the range of sentencing for human trafficking has increased. Sentencing for human trafficking reflects, and must continue to reflect, a societal shift. We now recognize that these offences are not merely nuisance “prostitution” offences but involve the sexual degradation and exploitation of another person. The facts, and the aggravating and mitigating factors, will determine where on this increased range each case falls.

[94] I also accept Mr. Tomovski’s arguments that an appellate court has not set a sentencing range for these offences and that sentencing ranges are not binding: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 12; Antoine, at paras. 42 and 50. Sentencing ranges generally represent a summary of the case law, provide structure and guidance and can prevent disparity: Parranto, at para. 17.

[95] While there are mandatory minimum sentences that may apply in this case, I am not relying on those provisions. There was no charge of “kidnapping” before the court to engage s.279.01(1)(a). Nor am I relying on a “starting point” approach: Parranto.

[96] However, the fact that Parliament saw fit to set out a mandatory minimum sentence of 4 to 5 years imprisonment for the offence of human trafficking is instructive on where the range of sentences ought to sit. I do not disagree with Justice Boswell’s observation in R. v. A.E., 2018 ONSC 471, at para. 64, that 4 years seems to be the very bottom of the range. A sentence at the bottom of the range might fit where there are significant mitigating factors, such as a guilty plea for example.

[97] The imposition of any specific sentence ultimately depends upon the individual circumstances of each case. The following factors, established in the decisions of R. v. Tang, 1997 ABCA 174, and R. v. Miller [1997] O.J. No. 3911 (Gen.Div.); and applied in many cases since then, assist in assessing the circumstances of each case:

1. the degree of coercion or control imposed by the accused on the complainant’s activities;

2. the amount of money received by the accused and the extent to which he allowed the complainant to retain her earnings;

3. the age of the complainant;

4. any special vulnerability of the complainant;

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

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

7. the size of the human trafficking operations, including the numbers of customers the complainant was expected to service;

8. the duration of the exploitative conduct;

9. the degree of violence, if any, apart from that inherent in the accused’s parasitic activities;

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

11. the effect on the complainant of the accused’s exploitation;

12. the extent to which the accused demanded or compelled sexual favours for himself from the complainant;

13. the age of the customers attracted to the services of the complainant;

14. any steps taken by the accused to avoid detection by the authorities; and

15)any attempts by the accused to prevent the complainant from leaving his employ.

[98] I agree with Mr. Tomovski that the determination of a fit sentence for both accused in this case turns on the factual matrix in respect of the jury’s route to liability and the factual findings in respect of these factors that I make.

J. Application of the Tang / Miller factors:

[99] Having regard to all of the evidence at trial, I make the following findings in respect of these factors:

Degree of Control and Coercion:

[100] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Augustin and St. Armand exercised significant control over R.G.B. I do not accept the defence position that the facts in this case put their conduct at the lower end of a spectrum of exploitation.

[101] There is no doubt that the accused “transported”, “transferred”, “harboured”, “concealed” and “held” R.G.B. within the meaning of s. 279.01. Her evidence was that she travelled between Montreal and the GTA, and between various hotels within the GTA, in the company of the accused. She did not drive and there was no other explanation for how she could get to this jurisdiction. She had no identification or credit card with which she could book hotel rooms. She did not book or pay for the rooms; they did. It was evident from booking confirmations that St. Armand did most of the hotel bookings, but Augustin made some as well. Hotel booking confirmations in evidence at trial confirmed this.

[102] There was also video surveillance and other evidence, such as the metadata from various photographs recovered from Augustin’s phone, which satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that R.G.B. was working at one GTA hotel or another at the same time as the accused, who are also from Montreal, were there or nearby. I am also satisfied that she arrived in this jurisdiction with one or both of them. Photos of St. Armand on Augustin’s phone place them in the Burlington area together, at the same time that R.G.B. was working there. All three are from Montreal. They were not all in Burlington by coincidence. The Crown put together a compelling case in this regard, and I have no hesitation in finding that the jury would have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence of human trafficking was made out on those elements.

[103] There were conflicts in R.G.B.’s testimony about the degree of control exercised by the accused. But the degree of control and coercion exercised by the accused in this case is made out by objective evidence: the text messages.

[104] The text messages established beyond any doubt that the accused controlled every aspect of R.G.B.’s life while she worked for them. These text messages showed that the accused controlled when she ate, drank, smoked, slept, showered, had access to speed, who she saw, when, what rate she charged and what services she performed. She was constantly directed by both accused to report the arrival and departure of clients. She had no choice but to accept clients, even when she protested that one of them was covered in sores or that she was too tired or that she ran out of condoms. She had no ability to say “no”.

[105] For example, in one exchange she texted St. Armand: “he is so disgusting”. He replied: “stop winning (sic) and do your job”. She texted: “his skin is full of blemishes”. He responded: “Do him quick and grab his money.”

[106] In another exchange, she texted Augustin: “I am through, I hurt, I will rest a bit now.” He responded: “the faster you do them, the faster you are through.” She texted: “alright good night”. He responded: “shut the fuck up I will send you another one soon.”

[107] In another exchange, on November 2, 2018, she repeatedly texted St. Armand that she was out of condoms, but he sent clients to her anyway. In at least two text exchanges, she complained that the client who showed up was a “Negro”. She ‘did’ them anyway.

[108] Ms. Lafleur, for Augustin, argued that the requirement to confirm the arrival and departure of clients was part of the security system for R.G.B.’s benefit. I reject this submission. There was no evidence of this. If the physical presence of Augustin and St. Armand was, to a small degree, a measure of assurance for R.G.B., her safety was not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose was to control the flow of clients to R.G.B., to ensure that she did not leave or stop providing sexual services, and to retain her earnings.

[109] I find that there is a contrast in tone in some of the messages between the messages the accused send to her – demanding and directing her – and her messages to them asking, requesting or pleading. There is also constant flow of messages from Augustin telling her to hurry up and to service clients faster. At one point he tells her he does not want her to take longer than 7 minutes to service a client. St. Armand also tells her at various points to “hurry up” or “be quick.”

[110] There was conflicting evidence at trial about whether the accused had blocked R.G.B.’s ability to use her phone. R.G.B. told the police that there were “blocks” on her phone. She testified that St. Armand told her that he had put parental blocks on her phone. She said there were times when she could not access some social media apps. She asked the police to check her phone. It was not clear whether or not the police checked for parental blocks: the police extracted text messages from her phone but did not conduct a forensic examination of it.

[111] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused put parental blocks, or some other means, on R.G.B.’s phone in order to control her access to social media accounts. Throughout the time frame reflected by the text messages, R.G.B. repeatedly texted St. Armand, asking him to put her “apps” back. In response to one of these texts, St. Armand texted: “Start by learning to write when there’s someone there and when he leaves”. The text messages between the two accused establish that they viewed the social networks as “a problem”. In that context, St. Armand texted Augustin at one point: “I just blocked the cell [phone] again.”

[112] In summary, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that Augustin and St. Armand exercised a significant degree of control over R.G.B. She was not free to leave or to say no to a client. She was not free to choose whether or not she would perform certain sexual services. She was not free to retain any earnings.

[113] Mr. Tomovski argued that St. Armand was less blameworthy because he did not exercise as much control over R.G.B. as Augustin did. She regarded him as a friend. As I set out below, her view of him as her friend does not diminish his moral blameworthiness.

Amount of Money Received by the Accused:

[114] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that R.G.B. was not permitted by the accused to retain any of her earnings. R.G.B. worked around the clock. Her text messages with St. Armand and her evidence that she came to the GTA to make more money show that she was in this line of work to earn money. Augustin and St. Armand took all of the money she earned. They took thousands of dollars.

[115] Despite all the money she was earning, R.G.B. had to ask the accused for basic items like food, coffee, cigarettes, and sundry items. In one text message St. Armand complains to Augustin that R.G.B. spent $30 on food without his permission.

[116] Mr. Tomovski argued that there was no evidence that R.G.B. she gave any of the money to St. Armand. It is true that R.G.B. agreed with many suggestions put to her that St. Armand did nothing wrong, including the suggestion that she never gave him any cash. I do not think the jury could have accepted her evidence in this regard, and neither do I.

[117] Her evidence that St. Armand did not take any cash is contradicted by the text messages. Those text messages are clear that both accused controlled the flow of clients, and the corresponding cash. R.G.B.’s evidence was unequivocal: despite seeing “back to back” clients who paid her in cash, she never had any cash. She testified that she could not leave or go home, although she wanted to, because she had no cash. She testified that she could not go to the store to buy items for herself because she had no cash. (Although she also said that she had no need to go).

[118] In one of the text exchanges, R.G.B. texted St. Armand that a client “stole” cash back from her because he refused to shower. St. Armand responded: “You gave the fucking cash back what did we say” and “You’re fucking stupid”. There is also a text in which St. Armand tells her to open the door for him after she serviced a client.

[119] After she serviced the client with the sores, she texted St. Armand: “He’s gone” “He’s gross” “Yo don’t even touch the handle”. This was at the Admiral Inn, where video footage would show Augustin coming out of his room, walking across the hall, and entering R.B.G.’s room after almost every client she serviced. Together with the video surveillance at the Admiral Inn, it is clear that the practice was for the accused to come to her room to take the cash after each client. Looking at the evidence as a whole, including the text messages between them, it is clear that Augustin and St. Armand took turns supervising R.G.B., which included taking the cash.

[120] I find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that St. Armand took the cash from her just as Augustin did. That was the reason for his presence in the hotel.

[121] R.G.B. also testified that she gave her money to St. Armand because she wanted “to stay with him”. She testified that she “loved” him.

[122] R.G.B. estimated that she serviced 8 to 10 men a day. As I have already set out, the text messages establish that this is not necessarily accurate. She underestimated how many men she serviced and how much money she earned. She earned a lot of money. The accused took all of it.

Age and Vulnerability of the Complainant:

[123] R.G.B. was 22 years old at the time of these offences. She was a young woman. I cannot conclude that she was a particularly vulnerable young woman. I do find that she was put in a vulnerable position by the two accused. As I have set out, she was Francophone and her lack of proficiency in English made her vulnerable when she worked behind closed doors in Ontario, far away from any supports she might have had closer to home. She had difficulty communicating with the police. She would have had some difficulty communicating with clients.

[124] In addition, as set out below, the accused exploited her addictions to nicotine and speed to control her.

Complainant’s Working Conditions:

[125] I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused imposed inhumane working conditions on R.G.B.

[126] Particularly aggravating was the volume of clients the accused directed to her and the speed at which they expected her to service them. This was driven entirely by their greed: their text message exchanges establish speed and the ability to rapidly “move” clients was essential to them.

[127] There are many text messages in which both accused tell R.G.B. to hurry up, to do the client quickly and move on to the next one. Augustin texted her to do the clients within five to seven minutes. Not only does this dehumanize R.G.B., but it puts her safety in great jeopardy: a client who is paying for half an hour or an hour would not be happy being rushed out the door after five or seven minutes. It put R.G.B., who also did not speak English well, at risk of the client’s wrath.

[128] The text messages establish that she could not refuse clients. She also confirmed this at one point in her testimony (although she also testified to the contrary). In the end, she confirmed at trial that she could not refuse to perform fellatio without a condom although this was not a service she would ordinarily perform.

[129] The advertisements for her sexual services included references to fellatio and anal sex without condoms. Regardless of whether she performed these services without condoms, if clients were being told these are services she will provide, her safety would be jeopardized if she were to refuse to do so.

[130] I find that an additional aggravating feature of this case is that the advertisement used by the accused for R.G.B.’s sexual services featured a photo of a black woman, not R.G.B. Again, this put R.G.B. at risk of violence from prospective disappointed clients.

[131] Text messages show that R.G.B.’s health needs were often ignored by the accused. In some text messages, R.G.B. asks for soap in order to shower, condoms, douche and toilet paper. It is clear from the messages, those with St. Armand in particular, that she was expected to continue servicing clients even when she told him that she was out of condoms. Her requests for food or drinks were ignored, sometimes for hours, because she made the request by text again.

[132] In some text messages, R.G.B. says she does not feel good. She testified that she felt anxious. On November 10, 2018, she texted Augustin that she had a tooth ache and needed oral gel. He did not meet her request. She told Augustin she is “serious”; that she was “in pain”. Augustin responded by sending her more clients.

[133] She texted more than once in the messages that she wanted to kill herself: it might have been just an expression on one occasion, but on November 5, 2018 – a day she serviced 15 men – I find that the statement was reflective of how she felt. Despite providing sexual services to back-to-back clients, and earning thousands of dollars, she was not given oral gel for her toothache.

Degree of Planning and Deliberation:

[134] I find that the accused’s operation in respect of R.G.B. involved a significant degree of planning and sophistication. They scheduled their trips to the GTA, rented various hotel rooms, moved R.G.B. around those hotel rooms, placed advertisements for her sexual services online and responded to the flow of inquiries to those advertisements, directing clients to her. They orchestrated and coordinated themselves to ensure she was supervised and could not leave. This was a sophisticated, well planned exploitative criminal enterprise intended to generate as much money as possible by essentially enslaving R.G.B.

[135] The sheer number of clients serviced by R.G.B. is also a significant aggravating factor. As I have already set out, R.G.B. was servicing clients “back-to-back”. The evidence at this trial established that the accused came to this region specifically because, in their experience, the demand for paid sexual services in the local hotels in Burlington is high. Augustin texted an unknown recipient telling him or her that he was on his way to Burlington where there were “back to back clients”.

[136] There is a degree of sophistication in this case that distinguishes it from others. The text messages between Augustin and St. Armand show that they engaged in emotional manipulation of R.G.B. in order to control her. Augustin would play the “bad pimp”, the scary one who will hurt her, while St. Armand played the “good pimp”, her friend who is on her side.

[137] R.G.B. testified that she loved St. Armand. Throughout her text messages, R.G.B. texts St. Armand affectionately as “babe” or “baby”. There are 2,000 text messages between them. He had the most contact with her. Text messages between Augustin and St. Armand establish that they deliberately played on her attachment to St. Armand to control her.

[138] For example, when she escaped from Ontario and they were plotting on how to get her back, Augustin texted St. Armand to talk to her or he was going to kill her

[139] There is suggestion in the evidence that St. Armand was sexually intimate with R.G.B. It is not clear. In their text exchanges, Augustin and St. Armand talk about “her” leaving. St. Armand says: “She’s going to come back anyway”. Augustin says: “OK, give her a boner so that she’ll stop making such a fuss (laughing emoji)”. He says: “now she wants your attention”. St. Armand responds that he does not even feel like it and that he is having less physical contact with her now. Augustin texts him: “It’s at times like this that you shouldn’t have as much physical contact with her.” It is clear that they used her attachment to St. Armand to their advantage.

Size of Operation:

[140] As I have set out, the size of the operation was significant given the volume of clients R.G.B. was expected to service. At the same time, the size of the operation was small given that it did not involve multiple complainants.

Duration of Exploitive Conduct:

[141] The duration of the exploitation was significant. It did not span many months or years as in some cases, but the accused exercised their control, direction, and influence over R.G.B 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, over the course of several weeks.

[142] Ms. Lafleur argued that since there were no text messages between R.G.B. and Augustin prior to November 2, 2018, the period of offending I should consider is from November 2 to November 11, 2018. I disagree. All of the evidence in this case, including R.G.B.’s testimony, text messages between the two accused, and hotel registrations, satisfy me beyond a reasonable doubt that Augustin was certainly involved in trafficking R.G.B. in October.

[143] The text messages between Augustin and R.G.B. extracted from her phone start ‘mid-case’ – it is obvious that the messages of November 2, 2018 are not the start of their acquaintance. Putting together R.G.B.’s evidence about which hotels she worked out of, in combination with the other objective evidence in this case, I find that R.G.B. started working in Ontario for the two accused as early as September 30, 2018.

[144] On around October 30, 2018 she took $300 a client gave her and ran away from the Radisson Inn to return to Montreal. On November 1, 2018 she was forced to return to Ontario by the two accused. She continued to work in Ontario until November 11, 2018 when the police found her at the Admiral Inn in Burlington.

Degree of Violence:

[145] As I set out earlier, there is some conflict in the evidence about the degree of violence or threats used by the accused to control R.G.B. In the end, having regard to the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Augustin used violence and the threat of violence against her, while St. Armand was a party to that violence.

[146] R.G.B. testified that Augustin had hit her “so much”, slapped her in the face, beat her in front of clients when she was crying and did not want to “do” a client. When she tried to run away from the Admiral Inn, St. Armand stopped her. He and Augustin then assaulted her. Later on in her evidence, she added that Augustin had also assaulted her by punching her with a fist in the thigh while she was in her room. She said he had a knife and a gun, which he had shown her. She was scared of him. She told the police he was “crazy”, a position she adopted at trial.

[147] At the outset of her cross-examination, R.G.B. agreed with all of the suggestions put to her by Mr. Tomovski that St. Armand had done nothing wrong. But then she reiterated her evidence that he was present when Augustin assaulted her. He stopped her from leaving the Admiral Inn. She clarified that St. Armand grabbed her by the throat, while Augustin grabbed her by the cheeks. She testified that St. Armand was present on at least one or two other occasions when Augustin assaulted her.

[148] Her testimony that Augustin assaulted her, threatened her and that she feared him is confirmed in Augustin’s text message to the person I will refer to as “Lily”. On the day he and St. Armand traveled to Montreal to retrieve R.G.B., Lily texted Augustin: “What did Joke say when she saw you?? (laughing emoji)”. Augustin replied: “she screamed”, “she was freaking out lol”, “no, I don’t want to die lol”. Lily texted: “Awwh (three laughing emoji’s). Augustin replied: “she’s more lost than before”.

[149] I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that St. Armand was present on some occasions when Augustin assaulted or threatened R.B.G. and he was not merely present but was aiding and abetting Augustin. When she tried to leave the Admiral Inn one time in a taxi, St. Armand stopped her by getting into the taxi with her. He directed the taxi to a restaurant, where Augustin met them. They all got into Augustin’s car, where she was then assaulted.

[150] At trial, in cross-examination, she alleged for the first time that St. Armand also assaulted her: she said St. Armand grabbed her neck. This stands out from her otherwise consistent tendency to minimize his role in these offences.

[151] While I cannot be sure that St. Armand assaulted R.G.B., and there is no evidence that he threatened her or that she was afraid of him, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that St. Armand aided and abetted Augustin to use violence against her.

[152] The fact that St. Armand did not personally inflict violence on R.G.B. mitigates his role only slightly. He exploited R.G.B.’s emotional attachment to him instead of relying on violence. Just as the two accused relied on R.G.B.’s fear of Augustin to maintain control over her, they relied on her affection for and friendship with St. Armand to do the same. The text message exchanges between them prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the two accused orchestrated and planned to exploit R.G.B.’s emotional attachment to St. Armand in order to control her.

Use of Inducements such as Drugs or Alcohol:

[153] The text messages in this case established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused exploited R.G.B.’s addiction to nicotine and speed to control her. R.G.B. often asked the accused to have a cigarette or speed. She testified that she is addicted to both. In response to her text messages, Augustin and St. Armand would tell her to “do one more client.” Her ability to satisfy her cravings was entirely dependent on them.

Effect of the Exploitation on R.G.B.:

[154] I have already addressed the impact of these offences on R.G.B.. The effect of the exploitation was that R.G.B. had no choice but to comply with the accused’s direction. She provided sexual services to many men in a compressed time frame, in unsafe and inhumane working conditions, and was unable to keep any of the money she earned.

[155] I accept that R.G.B. was not introduced to the sex trade by these accused. Nor was she introduced to drugs by these accused. While the absence of this aggravating factor is significant, it does not mitigate the seriousness of what they did.

Sexual Favours:

[156] There is no evidence that either accused demanded or compelled sexual favours for himself from R.G.B.

Age of the Customers:

[157] It is apparent from the video of the one day at the Admiral Inn that the clients R.G.B. serviced were of various ages and sizes. It is also apparent from her text messages that she did not want to service black clients, but did so anyway.

Steps to Avoid Detection:

[158] The accused took steps to avoid detection.

[159] Augustin used text messaging apps that were harder to trace back to him. The text messages did not refer to anyone by name. St. Armand was referred to as “Brian”.

[160] When he realized that the police were on to him at the Admiral Inn, he told the person I call “Lily” to delete all the text messages. He abandoned his belongings and his car and fled. He attempted to get a taxi to take him from the area, which is apparent from the video surveillance at a nearby hotel, and the phone calls and text messages on his phone. He then lied to the arresting officer about his identity. These are, beyond a reasonable doubt, steps he took to avoid detection.

[161] St. Armand registered his phone to a “Sabrina XO”. He told R.G.B. that if she phoned him, she would hear an outgoing voice message in a female voice, but that it was his phone. I am not sure that these were steps St. Armand took to avoid detection: more than likely, but I cannot be sure beyond a reasonable doubt.

Attempts to Prevent the Complainant from Leaving:

[162] I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused took active steps to prevent R.G.B. from leaving. This is a significant aggravating factor. It is established by their text message exchanges, some of which I have already set out.

[163] R.G.B. voiced her desire to leave in the text messages to St. Armand more than once.

[164] She testified that while working at the Radisson Inn in Markham, she used $300 a client gave her to buy a bus ticket and returned to Montreal. Text messages between R.G.B. and St. Armand on October 30, 2018 showed that St. Armand attempted to lure her back to Ontario by promising her a 50/50 split of her earnings. She disclosed to St. Armand where she was, and agreed to have him come to her. In her text messages, she said that she did not feel like going back to Ontario. The next day, St. Armand arrived at her location with Augustin. They drove back to Ontario together, where she continued to work for them as I have described.

[165] R.G.B. started out her evidence at the trial saying that she was “surprised” to see the accused but that it did not “bother” her that they came and that it did not “bother” her to return to Ontario. She then adopted her statement to the police that they “kidnapped” her. She then insisted in her evidence repeatedly that they had “kidnapped” her.

[166] Based on all of the evidence, including the text messages between the accused, and between Augustin and “Lily” from that timeframe, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Augustin and St. Armand brought R.G.B. back to Ontario against her will.

[167] As I have set out, there were other times when she tried to leave, but the accused stopped her.

[168] Text messages between the accused showed that they were vigilant about her leaving. In one text, they discuss what to do with “her”. Augustin said to St. Armand that the social networks were a problem. St. Armand texts: “She’ll escape if you or I aren’t there”, “you just can’t lose sight of her. She can’t stay alone.” In a text to an unidentified person, Augustin says that he can’t leave to go out because he is watching someone.

[169] On November 11, 2018, Augustin took R.G.B.’s red boots. I find that he did so to prevent her from leaving. She then called her mother, who called the police.

[170] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable that the two accused forced R.G.B. to return to Ontario to work in the sex trade for them against her will. I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Augustin assaulted R.G.B. to prevent her from leaving the Admiral Inn, and that St. Armand aided or abetted him in this. Working together, the two accused physically and psychologically prevented R.G.B. from leaving their employ through intimidation, violence, threats of violence, control over her working conditions, and emotional manipulation. Both accused are equally blameworthy for this conduct. It is a significant aggravating factor.

Sentence for Augustin:

[171] Based on my review of the authorities, considering the principles of sentencing as I have set out, and balancing the factual findings of the jury, Augustin’s moral blameworthiness and personal circumstances, as well as the mitigating factors and aggravating factors, I am of the view that 8 years of incarceration for Augustin is a fit sentence. I must say that I would have found this range to be closer to 9 to 10 years, but for his background, remorse and the insights he offered when he addressed me.

[172] I have also considered the absence of a significant aggravating factor: Augustin did not introduce R.G.B. to prostitution or to drugs.

[173] Augustin is entitled to a deduction of 11 months from this total sentence for pre-trial custody.

[174] I am of the view that credit for pre-trial release would be inappropriate for him. First, he was not on bail very long. He had a curfew, but otherwise he continued to reside in his family home with his family. Second, he breached the terms of the release in a most egregious way: he was bound by a weapons prohibition as part of his release when a loaded firearm for which he was not licensed was found in his house. The loaded firearm was carelessly stored. He pleaded guilty on February 18, 2022 to the firearms offences, as well as to possession of false identification documents.

[175] As for the proposed restitution order, it is a nice gesture. Of course, I am unable to impose a probation order if the sentence is more than two years, which it must be on any view: s. 731.

[176] Given the length of his incarceration, I do not view a restitution order that Augustin volunteered as appropriate in this case.

[177] Augustin is therefore sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, less 11 months credit for pre-trial custody or a total remaining sentence of 7 years, 1 month on the human trafficking count, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking and advertising sexual services. The sentences shall run concurrently.

Sentence for St. Armand:

[178] Based on my review of the authorities, considering the principles of sentencing as I have set out, and balancing the factual findings of the jury, his moral blameworthiness and personal circumstances, as well as the mitigating factors and aggravating factors, I am not satisfied that a sentence of 3 years, as sought by the defence, is appropriate. In my view, a sentence of 5 years in the penitentiary, is a fit sentence for St. Armand.

[179] I have considered as a mitigating factor that St. Armand has no prior criminal record. He was a young man, only 24, when he committed these offences. I have considered that he has exhibited the ability to abide by a court order. I find that, as a youthful first offender, he has realistic prospects for rehabilitation. I accept that restraint is appropriate, given that this is his first term of imprisonment: R. v. Lacasse, at para. 133. These factors put him in a different position to Augustin.

[180] I have given effect to the absence of a significant aggravating factor: St. Armand did not introduce R.G.B. to prostitution, nor to drugs, nor did he assault her or threaten her with violence. At the same time, these are not mitigating factors.

[181] Although R.G.B. viewed St. Armand differently from Augustin - she loved him - this is not a mitigating factor either. I found beyond a reasonable doubt that St. Armand exploited her emotional attachment to him to control her.

[182] I have taken into account that St. Armand was not charged with or convicted of receiving a financial benefit from human trafficking. This is a significant factor that puts him in different position when compared to Augustin. At the same time, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact take money from R.G.B. while she was under his and Augustin’s control.

[183] St. Armand is entitled to credit of 6 months for the time he spent on strict pre-trial release and the 9 days of pre-trial incarceration. I accept that his pre-trial release was onerous because it was so lengthy. He has been bound by a strict curfew for almost 4 years, which is a significant imposition on his liberty.

[184] As a result, the remaining sentence for him to serve is 4 years and 6 months imprisonment.

CONCLUSION:

[185] In respect of Karl Lorthy Augustin, convictions for human trafficking (s.279.01(1)), receiving a material benefit from human trafficking (s.279.2(1)) and advertising sexual services (s.286.4) shall be entered. Counts of procuring (s.286.3(1)) and receiving material benefit from procuring (s.286.2(1)) shall be stayed.

[186] Augustin is sentenced to a total period of incarceration of 8 years. He shall be given credit of 11 months for pre-trial custody of 7 months and 9 days. The total remaining sentence to be served is 7 years and 1 months.

[187] There shall be the following ancillary orders:

a. an order under section 109 of the Criminal Code (weapon prohibition) for 25 years;

b. an order under section 487.051 of Criminal Code (DNA); and

c. an order pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code, prohibiting his contact with all involved parties and victims while incarcerated.

[188] In respect of Andrew St. Armand, convictions for human trafficking (s.279.01(1)) and advertising sexual services (s286.4) shall be entered. The count of procuring (s.286.3(1)) shall be stayed.

[189] St. Armand is sentenced to a total period of incarceration of 5 years. He shall be given credit of 6 months for 4 years spent on pre-trial release. The total remaining sentence to be served is 4 years and 6 months.

[190] There shall be the following ancillary orders:

a. An order under section 109 of the Criminal Code (weapons prohibition) for 10 years;

b. an order under section 487.051 of Criminal Code (DNA); and

c. an order pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code, prohibiting his contact with all involved parties and victims while incarcerated.

Chozik J.

DATED: October 14, 2022

CORRECTED: October 19, 2022

COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-38

DATE: 2022 10 14

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Karl Lorthy Augustin

– and –

Andrew St. Armand

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Chozik J.

Released: October 14, 2022