COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-068

DATE: 20230214

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

MARK TAYLOR

Defendant

Jenna Dafoe, for the Crown

Craig Zeeh, for the Defendant

HEARD: May 30, 31, June 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, August 4, August 5, 2022

PUBLICATION BAN

Subject to any further Order by a Court of competent jurisdiction, an Order has been made in this proceeding directing that the identity of the complainants and any information that could disclose such identities shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way pursuant to s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CASULLO J.:

I. OVERVIEW

[1] Mark Taylor was the owner of Nite Candy, an escort service selling the services of sex workers.

[2] In mid-2019, M.C.P, who worked for Nite Candy, reached out to the Human Trafficking Unit of the Barrie Police Service, looking for help to extricate herself from the sex trade. While she initially resisted police involvement regarding a criminal investigation, she ultimately gave a statement on November 13, 2019, which was the impetus for the investigation into Mr. Taylor and Nite Candy.

[3] As a result of the police investigation, Mr. Taylor was arrested on March 5, 2020, and charged with sexual assault and human trafficking related offences alleged to have been committed against seven complainants. The particulars of the 23-count indictment[1] are as follows:

Count 1 – That between June 1, 2011 and December 31, 2019, Mr. Taylor did receive a financial or other material benefit, namely money, knowing that it was obtained from the commission of an offence under subsection 279.01(1) or 279.011(1) of the Criminal Code, contrary to subsection 279.02 of the Criminal Code.

Count 2 – That between December 6, 2014 and September 17, 2020, Mr. Taylor did receive a financial or other material benefit, namely money, knowing that it was by the commission of an offence under section 286.1(1) of the Criminal Code, contrary to s. 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 3 – That between the December 6, 2014 and September 17, 2020, Mr. Taylor did, knowingly, advertise offers to provide sexual services for consideration, contrary to s. 286.4 of the Criminal Code.

Count 4 – That between December 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018, Mr. Taylor did sexually assault M.C.P., contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

Count 5 – That between December 1, 2018 and August 31, 2019, Mr. Taylor did recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold, conceal, harbor or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of M.C.P. for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of M.C.P., contrary to s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 6 – That between January 1, 2015 and August 31, 2019, Mr. Taylor did, for the purposes of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(1), exercise control, direction or influence over the movement of M.C.P., contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 7 – That between December 1, 2018 and August 31, 2019, Mr. Taylor did obtain for consideration, or communicated with M.C.P. for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of M.C.P., contrary to s. 286.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 8 – That between June 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, Mr. Taylor did sexually assault O.D.C., contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

Count 9 – That between June 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, Mr. Taylor did recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold, conceal, harbor or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of O.D.C. for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of O.D.C., contrary to s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 10 – That between June 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, Mr. Taylor did, for the purposes of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(1), exercise control, direction or influence over the movement of O.D.C., contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 11 – That between June 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, Mr. Taylor did obtain for consideration, or communicated with O.D.C. for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of O.D.C., contrary to s. 286.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 12 – That between August 1, 2019 and August 31, 2019, Mr. Taylor did recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold, conceal, harbor or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of C.M. for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of C.M., contrary to s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 13 – That between August 1, 2019 and August 31, 2019, Mr. Taylor did, for the purposes of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(1), exercise control, direction or influence over the movement of C.M., contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 14 – That between August 1, 2019 and August 31, 2019, Mr. Taylor did obtain for consideration, or communicated with C.M. for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of C.M., contrary to s. 286.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 15 – That between March 1, 2014 and February 12, 2020, Mr. Taylor did recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold, conceal, harbor or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of N.E. for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of N.E., contrary to s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 16 – That between December 6, 2014 and February 12, 2020, Mr. Taylor did, for the purposes of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(1), exercise control, direction or influence over the movement of N.E., contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 17 – That between December 6, 2014 and February 12, 2020, Mr. Taylor did obtain for consideration, or communicated with N.E. for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of N.E., contrary to s. 286.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 18 – That between May 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018, Mr. Taylor did, for the purposes of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(1), exercise control, direction or influence over the movement of S.D., contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 19 – That between June 1, 2011 and December 21, 2018, Mr. Taylor did recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold, conceal, harbor or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of V.T. for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of V.T., contrary to s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 20 – That between December 6, 2014 and December 21, 2018, Mr. Taylor did, for the purposes of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(1), exercise control, direction or influence over the movement of V.T., contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 21 – That between December 6, 2014 and December 21, 2018, Mr. Taylor did obtain for consideration, or communicated with V.T. for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of V.T., contrary to s. 286.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 22 – That between January 1, 2020 and September 17, 2020, Mr. Taylor did, for the purposes of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(1), exercise control, direction or influence over the movement of A.M., contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 23 – That between March 6, 2020 and September 24, 2020, Mr. Taylor did, being at large on a release order, fail to comply with a condition of that release order that he not advertise any escort services on behalf of anyone else, contrary to s. 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.

[4] Mr. Taylor initially elected to be tried by a judge and jury. He re-elected to be tried before a judge alone.

[5] Mr. Taylor does not plead guilty to, but will accept guilt on, the following counts:

• 2 (financially benefitting from sexual services);

• 3 (advertising sexual services);

• 6 (exercising control, direction or influence over M.C.P. to facilitate a s. 286.1 offence);

• 10 (exercising control, direction or influence over O.D.C. to facilitate a s. 286.1 offence);

• 16 (exercising control, direction or influence over N.E. to facilitate a s. 286.1 offence); and

• 23 (breach recognizance by advertising the sexual services of others).

[6] Mr. Taylor contests count 1 (financially benefitting from human trafficking), unless there is a conviction on a s. 279.01 charge, then Mr. Taylor concedes count 1 for that/those particular complainant(s).

[7] The Crown withdrew the following counts:

• 15 (human trafficking of N.E.); and

• 21 (obtaining the sexual services of V.T. for consideration).

[8] The trial thus went forward in respect of the following offences:

• s. 271 – sexual assault x 2 (M.C.P., O.D.C.)

• s. 279.01 – human trafficking x 4 (M.C.P., O.D.C., C.M., V.T.)

• s. 279.02 – receiving a financial benefit from human trafficking x 1 (global count in respect of M.C.P., O.D.C., C.M., V.T.)

• s. 286.1 – obtaining sexual services for consideration x 4 (M.C.P., O.D.C., C.M., N.E.)

• s. 286.3 – exercising control, direction or influence over movements to facilitate a s. 286.1 offence x 4 (C.M., S.D., V.T., A.M.)

[9] Once the crown concluded its case, it brought a similar fact evidence application which I reserved upon.

[10] At the conclusion of the trial I reserved my decision and indicated I would provide reasons at a later date. These are those reasons.

[11] I have divided these reasons into a number of sections. I will first set out some fundamental principles of criminal law. Then, I will outline the evidence of the seven complainants, followed by the remaining Crown witnesses. Next, I will outline the evidence of Mr. Taylor. Following that I will consider the similar fact evidence application. I will then examine the charged offences, beginning with the exploitation offences, followed by the procurement offences, and then the obtaining sexual services for consideration offences, and finally the sexual assault offences.

[12] This was a document-heavy trial with, inter alia, cell phone extractions, financial records, income tax records, banking records, and credit card records processed by Nite Candy through Elavon, a processor of credit card transactions. The Crown also tendered computer files, copies of advertisements for the sexual services offered by Nite Candy’s, Nite Candy’s price lists, etc. I will reference only those documents that are of particular import.

II. Fundamental Legal Principles

[13] There are several fundamental principles that must be kept foremost in mind in any criminal trial in Canada.

[14] First, Mr. Taylor is presumed innocent until the Crown proves the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

[15] Second, I am not to lose sight of the fact that the burden always remains on the Crown to prove every element of every offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is “a doubt based on reason and common sense which must be logically based upon the evidence or lack of evidence”: R. v. Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320, at para. 30. Reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty, nor is it proof beyond any reasonable doubt, such as an imaginary or frivolous doubt: R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, 2 S.C.R. 144.

[16] Finally, even though Mr. Taylor elected to call evidence at his trial, he is under no obligation to prove anything in this case. However, given that he did testify, the reasonable doubt standard, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, must be applied to the assessment of Mr. Taylor’s credibility:

a. If I believe Mr. Taylor, I must acquit, as the Crown will not have established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

b. Even if I do not believe Mr. Taylor’s denial, if his evidence raises a reasonable doubt, then I must acquit.

c. Finally, even if I am not left in doubt by Mr. Taylor’s evidence, I must ask myself whether, on the basis of the evidence I do accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence of Mr. Taylor’s guilt.

III. Assessing Credibility and Reliability

[17] Where there is competing evidence about what happened, I must consider the evidence in its totality when undertaking the ultimate assessment of the case. I cannot simply compare each version and decide which account I believe: R. v. Esquivel-Benitez, 2020 ONCA 160.

[18] As Justice Molloy held in R. v. Nyznik, 2017 ONSC 4392, 350 C.C.C. (3d) 335, at para. 7:

The bottom line is that probable or likely guilt is insufficient. If all I can say is that the [defendant is] likely guilty, I must acquit. It would not be safe to convict someone of a criminal offence with only that degree of confidence. Before I can find the [defendant] guilty, I must be sure that they committed the offence charged.”

[19] When determinations of guilt are to be made based on competing evidence, or in a “he said, she said” scenario, the trier’s task includes assessing witness credibility. The Court of Appeal for Ontario has confirmed that:

Probably the most valuable means of assessing the credibility of a crucial witness is to examine the consistency between what the witness said in the witness box and what the witness has said on other occasions, whether on oath or not. Inconsistencies on minor matters or matters of detail are normal and are to be expected. They do not generally affect the credibility of the witness. This is particularly true in cases of young persons. But where the inconsistency involves a material matter about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken the inconsistency can demonstrate a carelessness with the truth.

See R. v. M.G. (1994), 1994 CanLII 8733 (ON CA), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 347 (Ont. C.A.) at p. 6.

[20] One or two minor inconsistencies will not render a witness incredible, but a number of inconsistencies may. I am to “look at the totality of the inconsistencies in order to assess whether the witness’ evidence is reliable.” See R. v. Bowe, [1993] B.C.J. No. 758 (C.A.), at para. 29.

[21] Of course, credibility and reliability are not interchangeable. Credibility has to do with truthfulness, while reliability has to do with accuracy – what is the witness’s ability to accurately observe, recall and recount evidence.

[22] Any witness whose evidence on an issue is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on the same point. Credibility, on the other hand, is not a proxy for reliability. The distinction between credibility and reliability was explained by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v. Morrissey (1995), 1995 CanLII 3498 (ON CA), 22 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.) at p. 526:

Testimonial evidence can raise veracity and accuracy concerns. The former relate to the witness’s sincerity, that is, his or her willingness to speak the truth as the witness believes it to be. The latter concerns relate to the actual accuracy of the witness’s testimony. The accuracy of a witness’s testimony involves considerations of the witness’s ability to accurately observe, recall and recount the events in issue. When one is concerned with a witness’s veracity, one speaks of the witness’s credibility. When one is concerned with the accuracy of a witness’s testimony, one speaks of the reliability of that testimony. Obviously a witness whose evidence on a point is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on that point. The evidence of a credible, that is, honest witness, may, however, still be unreliable.

IV. Review of Evidence

Evidence of M.C.P.

[23] M.C.P. was 27 when she testified at trial. There were two separate phases to her time at Nite Candy. The first was from the summer of 2014 to the summer of 2016. She was on social assistance in 2014, with one child, and her primary motivators were drugs and money. She was a user of cocaine, but she was not yet addicted. In phase one, the charges against Mr. Taylor in respect of M.C.P. are the sexual services offences only.

[24] When M.C.P. got pregnant in 2016 she left Nite Candy and worked on her recovery. She had nothing further to do with the sex trade until her grandmother, who was her lifeline and one true supporter, died in 2018. M.C.P. relapsed and went back to work for Mr. Taylor. It is in phase two that the human trafficking allegations are alleged against Mr. Taylor.

Phase One

[25] M.C.P. knew of Nite Candy through a friend who worked there, and she looked up Mr. Taylor on Backpage. She reached out to him in the summer of 2014 with a view to working as an escort. They communicated via text at first. M.C.P. set out her restrictions (no cum in mouth or on face, no anal, and no bareback[2]). In turn, Mr. Taylor told her how jobs worked: girls were driven to calls, and both he and the driver would get a cut of whatever fee was charged. Barrie calls were an hour long and typically cost $200. The girl would get $120, and the remaining $80 would be divided between the driver ($35) and dispatch ($45).

[26] M.C.P. and Mr. Taylor eventually met in person at what M.C.P. understood to be Mr. Taylor’s parents’ home. He provided further details about how Nite Candy operated, and his expectations as an employer. Girls were expected to complete the hour long call – he did not like them leaving early. Girls could keep any tips they made. If a girl worked for a certain amount of time she would go up in status within the company.

[27] Mr. Taylor also explained the anatomy of a call. The girl would be driven to the call – they would not be told where they were going unless it was to see a regular customer, or the driver let her know. Before she went in, the girl was told how much to collect. Once inside, the girl would get the money from the customer, text the driver that everything was okay, and then complete the call.

[28] When she was finished, the girl came back to the car and gave the driver his/her cut, as well as Mr. Taylor’s cut. One exception to this rule was if the girl received more than $500, she had to briefly leave the call to give the money to the driver.

[29] Credit card calls worked differently. Mr. Taylor would get all the money from the client, and would either e-transfer the girl her portion, or the driver would pay her out if they had money on them. Any tips were also given to the girl.

[30] During the interview meeting Mr. Taylor asked to see M.C.P. naked, which she acquiesced to. He also asked if she did drugs, and she said occasionally.

[31] Mr. Taylor was in control of the business. He had full control over the rate charged by Nite Candy. He was the one M.C.P. would go to if she had a problem. He referred to himself as “Boss” or Mark.

[32] M.C.P. lived in Orillia at the time. If she booked on she would pay one of the drivers to come get her and bring her to Barrie. She had places to hang between calls, but she was also friends with K.K., another Nite Candy girl who lived in Mr. Taylor’s basement, and at times she would wait there as well.

[33] The first few months of work were fine, but things got rocky about six months in. The restrictions M.C.P. set for herself meant she earned less than other girls at Nite Candy, because she was ranked lower on the grading system. This led M.C.P. to do things on calls she was not comfortable with, so she could move up the ladder and earn more money. And her drug addiction was growing stronger.

[34] There were times clients pushed against M.C.P.’s boundaries. She would complain to Mr. Taylor to no avail. One client in particular, a methamphetamine addict, put peanut butter on her body and had his dog lick it off. She left that residence naked she was so upset. When she told Mr. Taylor, he told her to suck it up. Despite knowing how upset M.C.P. was over the incident, Mr. Taylor sent M.C.P. back to him. M.C.P. felt she had no choice but to do the call, as she needed to make money to support her addiction.

[35] Another client also ignored M.C.P.’s restrictions, having sex with her anally. She told Mr. Taylor, but her complaint fell on deaf ears – he tried to send her back to this same client two more times. It was unclear whether she did those calls.

[36] Mr. Taylor became upset with M.C.P. because her drug use was affecting her performance. She started getting less calls, and Mr. Taylor’s demeanor toward her changed. Instead of being nice he was vindictive, and if there was a call she did not want to go to, he would threaten not to sent her on any other calls unless she capitulated.

[37] During this phase at Nite Candy, M.C.P. always dealt with Mr. Taylor. During her second stint, it varied between Mr. Taylor and the other women dispatchers.

[38] Working for Nite Candy enabled M.C.P.’s drug use – she worked to get high, and this ultimately became less a choice and more a need. Her withdrawals were physically debilitating.

[39] Drugs were readily available at Nite Candy. M.C.P. bought her drugs from the Nite Candy drivers (Sim and Sal). During her second stint at Nite Candy she bought from Mr. Taylor as well; once directly, but typically he would source the drugs for her and have a driver drop them off to her.

[40] Eventually, Mr. Taylor stopped selling to M.C.P. because of her behaviour. Her performance declined, she left calls before they were over, and she started taking Mr. Taylor’s clients independently. This was a clear breach of Nite Candy’s rules. And it angered Mr. Taylor. He said she was jeopardizing his business. He never talked to her about her drug addiction.

[41] The quality of the calls started to change – M.C.P was sent to clients who were addicts, and clients who wanted to party. The clients would want her to use their drug supply, and if she did not they would get angry. This was problematic for M.C.P., who was getting high on drugs she was unfamiliar with. She described these situations as dehumanizing. She gave up asking Mr. Taylor for help because he had failed to help her on previous occasions. For example, he did nothing to assist when she told him that a driver had taken her tip.

[42] Mr. Taylor would get angry with M.C.P. if she left a call early – he told her it impacted on Nite Candy’s reputation. If she did not do the full hour, he would extend the wait time for her next call. If she was on a two-girl call and they did not perform to the client’s expectation, there would be consequences. Once it was her tip being taken away. Another was the driver dropping her off in the middle of nowhere.

[43] During her first period with Nite Candy, M.C.P. estimated she worked four days a week, seeing between 2 and 6 customers a night. There were times when she transacted with Mr. Taylor directly (handing him his cut, or him giving her cash for a credit card call). She recalled one time where she had to give him all the money she earned, as she owed him money for drugs.

Phase Two

[44] When M.C.P. got pregnant in 2016 with her second child she left the sex trade and got sober. She had no interaction with Nite Candy during this period, although she did reach out to Mr. Taylor at one point to let him know she was okay.

[45] In December 2018 everything came crashing down for M.C.P. Her grandmother, her rock and main source of support, passed away unexpectedly, and M.C.P. took her death hard. She lost hope in herself, and went back to using cocaine.

[46] M.C.P. reached out to Mr. Taylor for work. He said she could come back, but first he wanted to ensure she still had the skills for the job. He picked her up and brought her to his house, where he said he would give her $50 for a blow job. M.C.P. acquiesced, but said he could not ejaculate in her mouth. As Mr. Taylor was close to climaxing, M.C.P. started to pull away. Instead of letting her go, Mr. Taylor grabbed the back of her head and forced her back toward, thrusting his penis down her throat and ejaculating inside her mouth. M.C.P. testified she consented to the blow job, but not him coming in her mouth.

[47] Afterward M.C.P. got dressed, and does not recall any conversation between the two of them. She did recall feeling horrible and, in her words, “less than.” While she was high during this interaction, she had a recollection of the events. In her view the cocaine did not impact on her memory. She did recall getting paid the $50. She did not consider calling the police about this, she simply wanted to be booked on another call so she could make money to buy more drugs. M.C.P. believes she did three more calls that night.

[48] M.C.P. lost hope in Nite Candy, but was compelled to keeping working there, as she had no other way to support her drug habit, which was about $350 per day. Working for Mr. Taylor was easier than going out on her own and establishing her own client list.

[49] At the outset of phase two, Mr. Taylor asked M.C.P. whether she was still on drugs, and M.C.P. said yes, but it was not a problem.

[50] M.C.P. describes phase two at Nite Candy as chaotic. She was caught in a cycle of working, getting high, working, and getting high. In her words, a “constant rush.” If M.C.P. stopped using drugs she would crash and become suicidal. She hallucinated during withdrawals.

[51] She saw Mr. Taylor get into arguments with Kaitlynn, who lived in the basement of his house, over her use of drugs, and one time he threw a cup at her in anger.

[52] Her drug use made M.C.P. less cautious, and put her in precarious situations. During this second phase Mr. Taylor was not available to her – if she went to him with an issue he would direct her to Ms. Asmann-Brown, a dispatcher for Nite Candy at this time. Or he would tell her to just “do more drugs.” In M.C.P.’s view he enabled drug use by allowing drivers to sell to his girls.

[53] It was during this phase that M.C.P. bought drugs directly from Mr. Taylor. She texted and asked if he had an 8-ball. He said yes, and she took an uber to his house to pick it up.

[54] M.C.P. did not ever consider going to the authorities – her focus was on earning enough money to get high. She was also drinking each night, which helped her to focus, or levelled her out if the drugs made her too high.

[55] M.C.P. recalled one night where she could not go on a call because she had her children with her. Mr. Taylor ignored this, and sent a driver and another man, “Jay”, to pick her up to take her to a call.

[56] When Mr. Taylor found out M.C.P. was taking his clients he threatened to expose her by sending the ads he posted of her to her family. This caused M.C.P. great concern, as she did not want people in her life to know what kind of work she was doing. These threats happened five or six times, and each time she became defensive, intimidated, and scared.

[57] Her relationship with Mr. Taylor during phase two was difficult. She would quit, then ask to come back. Or she would displease him some way, and he would withhold work. She recalled one incident where she had an overnight job booked, but got a $600 tip for an earlier call, and decided not to do the overnight – she had the money she needed to buy her drugs. She had to go to Mr. Taylor’s house to get her tip money, and he was so angry about her backing out of the overnight he told her never to text him again. Eventually she did, and he took her back.

[58] On Sunday, July 7, 2019, M.C.P. messaged Mr. Taylor asking for the money she was owed from a credit card call. Mr. Taylor’s response was that’s fine, but “don’t ever text this or any of my numbers again rat goof.” By this time M.C.P. had already gone to police, and Mr. Taylor acknowledged in his evidence that a woman named Samantha had told him M.C.P. had gone to police. This was the last time M.C.P. worked for Mr. Taylor or Nite Candy.

M.C.P.’s Credibility and Reliability

[59] M.C.P. struck me as a sincere witness. Life had clearly thrown her some curve balls, and she frankly explained that her choices were informed by trauma and lived experiences.

[60] Despite a rigorous cross-examination, M.C.P.’s evidence was not significantly shaken. There were gaps in her memory, certainly, and she fairly acknowledged these. For example, she got the date of her grandmother’s funeral confused. But she clearly explained that her grandmother died on December 18th, and the family’s goodbyes took place at the hospital on December 19th, which to her represented the funeral. This is an example of a minor inconsistency that I described at the outset of these reasons.

[61] There was also some discrepancy about her getting pregnant and leaving Nite Candy. She testified that she quit when she was pregnant. Yet in her police statement, she said Mr. Taylor told her she could not work if she was pregnant. I find this inconsistency to be of a minor nature.

[62] M.C.P.’s depiction of Mr. Taylor holding her head and preventing her from pulling away because he was going to ejaculate in her mouth was compelling. It was not exaggerated. It was factual and not vindictive or overstated. M.C.P. may not have recalled each detail leading up to the event, or how the offer of $50 was made, but she did recall it happening in the living room, and she did get paid $50.

[63] I find these gaps in M.C.P.’s memory can be attributed both to M.C.P.’s drug use, and the trauma she sustained, on what appears to be a heightened level, while she worked for Mr. Taylor. In any event, despite some gaps she clearly remembers the core of her experience with Nite Candy.

[64] I found M.C.P.’s testimony to be credible and reliable.

Evidence of O.D.C.

[65] O.D.C. was 25 when she testified at trial. O.D.C. has Tourette syndrome for which she takes anti-tremor medication. She also has autism, which was undiagnosed during her time at Nite Candy. O.D.C. explained that her autism made her appear naïve – at times she can laugh at inappropriate situations. She also felt that she did not react to things the way most people would. For example, many women in her situation would be crying while they gave such difficult testimony at a trial, but not her. O.D.C. believes she is resilient.

[66] In 2019 O.D.C. was 22, and already involved in the sex trade. She worked for an escort agency in Toronto, but was moving further north to start nursing school in September, and hoping to find work closer to her new home. She saw Nite Candy advertised and texted to see if they were hiring. Carrie Amann-Brown answered her text.

[67] O.D.C. told Ms. Asmann-Brown her boundaries and restrictions (yes to oral sex and blow jobs, but only with protection; no to anal sex). Ms. Asmann-Brown asked if she would do “party calls”, and O.D.C. said that was a hard no – she did not drink or do drugs. Ms. Asmann-Brown also told O.D.C. that a driver would take her to calls, and wait outside until she was done, which gave O.D.C. some comfort.

[68] Ms. Asmann-Brown arranged for O.D.C. to meet Mr. Taylor the next day. O.D.C.’s partner, who approved of her sex work, drove her to the house on Radenhurst Crescent. O.D.C. knew she would be meeting the owner of Nite Candy, who Ms. Asmann-Brown described as “a little rough around the edges.”

[69] When O.D.C. got to Radenhurst Crescent her first impressions were not positive. The home was dirty, with open food out on the table. Mr. Taylor was shirtless on the couch. There were lots of animals, and a girl[3] who seemed angry and “out of it.” However, Mr. Taylor’s son was there, who seemed happy, which made O.D.C. feel a bit better.

[70] O.D.C. told Mr. Taylor about her Tourette syndrome, and how it was hard for her to find work because of it. Mr. Taylor told O.D.C. she was very pretty, and would be ranked a Diamond, Nite Candy’s highest level. He said that Ms. Asmann-Brown had filled him in on her details, although O.D.C. did not know what was communicated. She did not speak to Mr. Taylor about her opposition to drugs.

[71] Before she left, he told her to come into the kitchen. He gave her little white packets of what she assumed to be drugs, and that she was to give them to the client. O.D.C. got angry and scared. She told Mr. Taylor she was against drugs, and wanted to go home. He pulled what appeared to be a firearm from out of a drawer, held it to her head, and said she was “going to do this.”

[72] Next he told her to snort the substance off the kitchen counter. O.D.C. panicked. She was afraid of drugs because she had experienced bad reactions to pharmaceuticals in the past. She felt trapped, and did as she was instructed. At first it felt like she had drunk 1000 cups of coffee, and then she felt more sedated. She does not know what she ingested.

[73] She was taken to her first call with an easy client who extended the hour. She was unaware she had to bring her own condoms. She broke her boundary by giving the client unprotected oral sex. The client got high on coke she delivered to him and could not get an erection. She started feeling blackout drunk, and does not have a clear memory of the rest of the night, although she believes she did two or three more calls. She described it as being “shipped around” that first night.

[74] O.D.C. does not remember going back to Mr. Taylor’s, but she woke up there the next morning feeling sore and bruised, particularly around her ribs. O.D.C. took pictures of her injuries, which had not been given to the police (they did not ask for them), and were produced during the trial.[4]

[75] Ms. Asmann-Brown texted O.D.C., asking what happened. Mr. Taylor found O.D.C. on Facebook, and asked when she was coming back. She told him she was not. He said that was a shame, and that her mom (who he also saw on Facebook) was very pretty and would also do well at Nite Candy. O.D.C. took this as a threat to expose her to her mother if she did not come back to work, and she did not want her parents to find out how she was earning money. O.D.C. freely admitted, during cross-examination, that Mr. Taylor did not say those words, but she found it scary that he knew who her mom was. He also knew she was starting school in September, and was afraid he would send the school “suggestive” pictures that O.D.C. had sent Mr. Taylor.

[76] O.D.C. returned to Nite Candy. She did not want consequences that would affect her future. Before she resumed she told Mr. Taylor she would not do drugs, but agreed to deliver them. He accepted this.

[77] O.D.C. worked another five weeks. She spent much of her time waiting for calls at Mr. Taylor’s house. O.D.C. had no control over what rates were charged. She did not know how the money was divided; she only knew she received 44.4% of what the client paid. She learned early on that stealing clients was taboo, and she would pay for it if she did. As Mr. Taylor said, that would be like stealing from his son.

[78] During those five weeks O.D.C. saw Mr. Taylor, Ms. Asmann-Brown, a woman named Corrie, and an ex-girlfriend of Mr. Taylor all work as dispatchers. Corrie was the mother of Mr. Taylor’s son, and she lived in the basement at Radenhurst.

[79] Mr. Buccellato was O.D.C.’s primary driver. At some point during this first time with Nite Candy he had sex with her. O.D.C. consented, but not because she wanted to. She simply felt the need to have someone on her side.

[80] Mr. Taylor made passive threats as well, like if she did not give a client what they wanted, she would be demoted. He yelled at her frequently, would tell her to “shut the fuck up” when she spoke out of turn or cracked her knuckles too frequently. O.D.C. testified that Mr. Taylor told her she was fair game if she came to his house drunk – in other words, that would be implicit permission for him to have sex with her.

[81] Mr. Taylor told O.D.C. that if she slept with him, she would get better clients, and not be sent to men who were on her blacklist[5]. This did not always pan out, however. One client anally raped her, and when she complained to Mr. Taylor he told her that was typical, that all men want to do anal. Not only that, but he sent her back to the same client, who anally raped her again.

[82] If O.D.C. told Mr. Taylor she did not want to see any more customers, he would get angry and yell at her. His ex-girlfriend (either Corrie or Michelle) was also mean to O.D.C.

[83] One night, O.D.C. was waiting for her next call at Mr. Taylor’s house. She had taken her medication and was falling asleep at one end of the couch. She woke up to Mr. Taylor trying to vaginally penetrate her. He was spooning her from behind, and had pulled up her dress. She became afraid, recalling the gun incident. She submitted, but did not consent. He did not wear a condom.

[84] O.D.C. said she recalled three other times when she had sex with Mr. Taylor. One of the times he offered to pay her, and she agreed for fear of angering him. Another time he penetrated her anally. These incidents left her feeling vulnerable. He also took naked pictures of her with his phone after they had sex, and she was afraid of what he could do with them. O.D.C. felt trapped, helpless, and scared for her health. She felt like she was in “really deep” and could not leave.

[85] O.D.C. testified that each time she had sex with Mr. Taylor she considered it a workplace rape. Eventually O.D.C. started staying in hotel rooms between clients to avoid Mr. Taylor. She considered going to police, but she mistrusted the legal system. Also, O.D.C. had introduced her cousin, C.M., to Mr. Taylor, which made O.D.C. feel compelled to stay.

[86] O.D.C. testified that she saw Mr. Taylor give C.M. cocaine the second time C.M. was at the Radenhurst house with O.D.C. O.D.C. also testified that C.M. told her about Mr. Taylor’s birthday party. O.D.C. remembered C.M. telling her that she was forced to do drugs and do sexual acts with another woman. C.M. also told O.D.C. that Mr. Taylor beat her at the party while she was in the washroom. C.M. texted O.D.C. pictures of her bruises.[6]

[87] O.D.C. and C.M. both ended up leaving Nite Candy around the same time in August. O.D.C.’s text messages with Ms. Asmann-Brown from this period of time were entered into evidence as Exhibit 9. The tone of the texts conveys that O.D.C. was concerned about Mr. Taylor’s behaviour, and that she did not want to stay at his house. They are reproduced below:

August 16, 2019, 3:27 PM

O.D.C. Hey girl… sorry for going a-wall I was having some doubts due to some of marks odd behaviours and want to talk to you about it

C.A-B. I’m in Ottawa but ya I’ve been wanting to talk to you as well.

I’m away for the weekend visiting my kid.

O.D.C. Aw that’s sweet

But yeah I don’t have anything against anyone I actually love everyone in the agency , I’m just surprised by mark

August 18, 2019

O.D.C. How’s the agency going

C.A-B. We’ve been doing ok.

Had a busy week before last. Lots of calls. I was booking 20+ a few nights in a row.

O.D.C. Omg so good

C.A-B. Yes it was

O.D.C. I want to work again but I don’t want to stay with mark you know.

(Notification of a missed call from C.A-B. to O.D.C. placed 4 minutes after above text)

C.A-B. Ya I have no problem with that. I want you to work as well.

[88] O.D.C. started nursing school in September 2019 as scheduled. School was fine at first, but she left after the first semester because she was getting bullied. She was also experiencing panic attacks when out on placements.

[89] This was a low point for O.D.C. She had two leases to pay for and needed to make money. Sex work seemed the quickest way to do this. However, based on earlier comments from Mr. Taylor that he would “make her pay” if he found out she was working for other agencies, O.D.C. felt she had no choice but to return to Nite Candy. This second phase only lasted three days.

[90] O.D.C. reached out to Ms. Asmann-Brown, whom she felt comfortable working with. To O.D.C., Ms. Asmann-Brown acted like a true manager. She was nice, and would not ask O.D.C. to do anything outside of her comfort zone. In comparison, Mr. Taylor was gruff and mean, and always pressuring the girls to do more.

[91] This next exchange with O.C.D. and Ms. Asmann-Brown took place when O.D.C. was looking to go back to Nite Candy.

December 18, 2019

O.D.C. Loyal is a good quality

C.A-B. Did you message mark yet?

O.D.C. No yet, I’m a bit nervous honestly because of how things left off between him and I and my cousin was very upset by him

[92] This next exchange shows O.D.C. was back working at Nite Candy.

December 21, 2019 6:17 PM

O.D.C. I’m working tonight lmfao

C.A-B. Awesome

[93] O.D.C. testified that Mr. Taylor seemed unhinged during this second phase of her time with Nite Candy. Less threatening, but reckless with his gun (on one occasion he was waving it around in the kitchen in front of O.D.C. and another girl), and generally “off the rails.” O.D.C. had no money to rent a hotel room, so she had no choice but to wait at Mr. Taylor’s house between calls.

[94] In this second stint O.D.C. had sex with Mr. Taylor to get better clients. The first time she did it for free. The second time, Mr. Taylor said he would pay O.D.C. for her drive to Barrie in exchange for sex. They had sex, but he did not pay her. This is confirmed in this next text exchange between O.D.C. and Ms. Asmann-Brown:

December 29, 6:53 PM

C.A-B. I’m baaaaacck

O.D.C. Mark and I had another falling ouuuut lmao

C.A-B. He didn’t say much to me about anything. Just wanted to know when I was back lol

I knew I was coming back to clean up (emoji of a woman smacking her forehead)

O.D.C. Lmfao I literally never fight with anyone except mark

C.A-B. He’s just one of those ppl. I just ignore him when he starts lol

O.D.C. Ya lol

I just get really frustrated with him lol

C.A-B. Yes I know. Everyone does. Well except me lol

I just let it go in one ear and our the other. Too old for shit (laughing emoji)

Out*

O.D.C. Like clean your house, put on a shirt, shovel your driveway and don’t be a perv lol

C.A-B. Ya nope not going to happen.

His house will get cleaned shortly I know that. Driveway nope shirt nope. And he will always be a perv.

I’m a perv too u just haven’t been around long to see it.

O.D.C. Yeah I think the thing that I’m mad at the most is he told me he’d give me money to bang him … did it twice because there was no calls and needed $ for gas and then he was like jk no $

C.A-B. I don’t know what to say to that.

O.D.C. Yeah lol

[95] The final straw came when O.D.C. was at a family function and the dispatcher (not Mr. Taylor or Ms. Asmann-Brown) was pressuring her to take calls, which she said no to. She then received a text from Mr. Taylor from his phone, telling her that if she did not come in to work he would cut her partner’s fingers off[7]. After this she blocked Mr. Taylor, deleted all of her Nite Candy texts, and privatized her Facebook account.

[96] Afterward Mr. Taylor sent her the following text message; the screen shot of which is undated:

“You blocked my number????? You will never work here again. All u had to say was you didn’t want to go. Ass. Hole.”

[97] While Mr. Taylor’s text is undated, it had to have been sent before the following text exchange between O.D.C. and C.M. on December 27, 12:04 AM, because O.D.C. sent C.M. a screen shot of the text. What follows is the discussion between O.D.C. and C.M.:

O.D.C. Gets raped in the ass by mark….doesn’t wanna work for him anymore

Seems logical

C.M. Bro this is like when I blocked his number after the group assault that bruised me shitless (laughing emoji) smh[8] he can die

O.D.C. I’m gonna call crime stoppers and CPS

Lol

C.M. “Ass. Hole. ”

Do it

Please

O.D.C. I’m calling cps “ass.hole”

C.M. Report his address and that prostitutes are around his kid

[98] C.M. then attached three pictures of her legs and one of her shoulder, all with circles placed by her, pointing out bruises she sustained at Mr. Taylor’s birthday party. O.D.C. told C.M. the day she goes in to report Mr. Taylor she will take her on a spa date.

[99] O.D.C. did ultimately call Crimestoppers, some time in January 2020. She wanted only to report Mr. Taylor, she did not want to get involved, and she wanted to remain anonymous. She was referred to Officer Jansen through the channels at Crimestoppers, and after many conversations with Officer Jansen she agreed to give a statement, which she did on February 21, 2020.

O.D.C.’s Credibility and Reliability

[100] O.D.C. was an earnest witness. She is clearly bright, and articulate. She described herself as chatty, and this was apparent. But O.D.C.’s need to speak out about what happened to her, and ensure that she was heard, would at times get in the way, causing her to provide lengthy answers.

[101] O.D.C. took a long time to process the gun incident, and now when she hears about shootings (O.D.C. gave the Texas shooting as an example), it is triggering to her.

[102] I found her explanation as to why she stayed at Nite Candy for five weeks, and why she returned, was internally sound. The first time she was scared, and naïve about what consequences could come of her work there (her boyfriend getting in trouble just for driving her). She returned because she was too anxious to hold a job after leaving nursing school, which she attributed to the trauma she suffered the first time she worked for him. And she needed money. But she walked back quickly from that decision once the mistreatment began again.

[103] Despite a thorough cross-examination, O.D.C.’s testimony remained intact. There were some holes in her memory, but O.D.C. explained that one of the coping mechanisms she employed for dealing with her time at Nite Candy was to forget what she could.

[104] During the Crown’s re-direct, O.D.C. lost her composure, but not in a histrionic way. She simply reiterated that she did not want to be at trial, that she did not want to be involved in this case. Her intention in going to Crimestoppers was to give her story anonymously, in the hopes that other victims would come forward, not to be “gaslit” by a lawyer who would try to say what happened to her did not happen.

[105] O.D.C. did seem to bear some animus toward Mr. Taylor, but I am not satisfied it was to such a degree that she was motivated to fabricate.

[106] I found O.D.C.’s testimony to be credible and reliable.

Evidence of C.M.

[107] C.M. was 23 when she testified at trial. She has Tourette syndrome.

[108] C.M. was 20 in August 2019 when learned about Nite Candy through her cousin, O.D.C. She knew O.D.C. was an escort. One night before going to a call O.D.C. had to go to Mr. Taylor’s house first, and C.M. asked to tag along because she was curious about her work. She went with her to the house on Radenhurst. O.D.C. left for the call shortly after getting there, and C.M. stayed behind with Mr. Taylor.

[109] C.M. had just left a relationship, and was behind in her rent. Her plan was to work only to pay off her debts. All told, she worked for Nite Candy for only six or seven nights. C.M. thinks that she did 8 to 15 calls over this period, and she achieved her goal of paying off her debts.

[110] At the time, C.M. was doing online dominatrix work, that did not involve sex. She told Mr. Taylor that was what she wanted to do at Nite Candy, but he said the demand was not high enough to earn good money. He ultimately convinced her to provide sexual services in exchange for money. She agreed to have sex with condoms, but was adamant that anal sex, and sex without condoms, were off limits. When C.M. told Mr. Taylor she had been clean from cocaine for two years, he told her he would not send her to see his drug-addicted clients, which made her feel safe.

[111] He offered C.M. immediate Diamond status – Nite Candy’s highest ranking – if she had sex with him, so he could vouch for her with clients. She conceded, although it made her uneasy, as he was the same age as her father. After they had sex she was sent out on her first call. The routine followed the same pattern as most of the other women – texting when first in the room, collecting the money, then texting when the job was done.

[112] C.M. thought she made $260 per call, with $90 to the driver and $100 to Mr. Taylor, and the balance, $70, was hers. She could also keep her tips. She had no say over what her rate was.

[113] The next day C.M. went back to Mr. Taylor’s house. They agreed to enter into a “sugar daddy/sugar baby” relationship, where C.M. would be in an intimate partner relationship with Mr. Taylor in exchange for money. This would also ensure she was sent on the better calls. He paid her for some of their sexual encounters, but not all of them.

[114] C.M. recalled booking on for work, but asking to cancel because she was having a bad mental health day. Mr. Taylor guilted her into working, because she had already given him her word, and how could he trust her.

[115] C.M. testified that she saw cocaine, wrapped in tinfoil, on the coffee table in Mr. Taylor’s living room. She and KJ also delivered similar packages to clients the night they did a two-girl call. It was KJ who picked up the cocaine from Mr. Taylor’s house beforehand.

[116] Mr. Taylor had a birthday celebration at his home on what C.M. thinks was Saturday August 10, 2019. He asked her to attend, and he would pay her for the calls she would be missing out on. She agreed to come, but said she did not want to drink. She said he told her she “was drinking.” Mr. Taylor had three male friends over; there were also three women who worked for Nite Candy.

[117] The event started with everyone having drinks in the living room. A stripper pole had been installed for the party. Mr. Taylor told C.M. to dance on the pole, so she started to, but felt woozy and stopped.

[118] Mr. Taylor was aggressive with her – he yanked C.M. onto his lap, which caused fingerprint bruising to her thighs. He bragged to his friends that “this hot piece of ass is mine.”

[119] At one point when C.M. was sitting on the couch, one of the girls started giving her oral sex in front of everyone. Mr. Taylor told her to reciprocate, which shocked her, but she did as she was told. People began to split off. C.M. went upstairs with two women who brought out cocaine. They offered some to C.M., who capitulated and took some.

[120] C.M. tried to pole dance again, but she fell and hit her head. She sustained bruises to her calves from trying to stay on the pole, and a bruise on her shoulder from falling and hitting the mat. Photographs of these injuries were produced as exhibits.

[121] At some point Mr. Taylor, C.M. and another woman had a threesome. In the middle of this session, when Mr. Taylor had left to go to the washroom, C.M. told the girl this was not the kind of life she wanted, and she left the house with her friend S. Either that day, or the day after, Mr. Buccellato reached out to her. Later that night she met up with Mr. Buccellato at a coffee shop.

[122] Mr. Taylor texted her, angry that she left. C.M. told him she was done, and she wanted the money she was owed for the night. Mr. Taylor told her she would never work for Nite Candy again, and C.M. blocked him from her phone. C.M. never received the money she was owed.

[123] After the party C.M. felt used, stupid and guilty.

[124] Mr. Taylor did not take any pictures of C.M., but she did send him a few of her. She believed these were for him to send to clients, not for the website, because she understood she was not put on the website. O.D.C. had shown her the website before she started working at Nite Candy, where she saw pictures of girls who worked for Nite Candy.

C.M.’s Credibility and Reliability

[125] C.M. was not an impeccably credible and reliable witness, and a number of inconsistencies were brought to light during her cross-examination.

[126] For example, she testified that O.D.C. had shown her Nite Candy’s website a day or two before taking C.M. to meet Mr. Taylor. Defence took her to the preliminary hearing transcript, where she testified she was unaware that Nite Candy had a website until a few days after she started working there, when Mr. Taylor pulled up an ad for one of the girls. C.M. readily admitted the difference, and agreed she knew about the site before she started working for Mr. Taylor, but offered no plausible explanation why she said what she did. When pressed, she said she just misunderstood the question, and blamed her confusion on her autism, which causes her to misunderstand things.

[127] There was also a discrepancy about what happened to cause C.M.’s bruises at Mr. Taylor’s birthday party. C.M. testified that the bruises were from dancing on the pole, and Mr. Taylor roughly pulling her on to him. However, in her December 27, 2019 text to O.D.C., she said the bruising happened “after the group assault.” C.M. said she was referring to the threesome with Mr. Taylor, where he had also manhandled her. C.M. agreed this was the first time she mentioned being bruised in that manner.

[128] C.M. confirmed that she never told O.D.C. she was punched while sitting on a toilet at that party, and was surprised that O.D.C. would say that.

[129] C.M. was taken to her police statement, where she said she was not paid for her time at the birthday party, and that put her in more debt to her landlord when she quit. When questioned why this was different from her trial testimony, when she said she had paid off her debt, she gave a very confusing explanation that I admit to being unable to follow.

[130] There were a number of other discrepancies, which I would characterize as minor. Each time she readily admitted the difference.

[131] Despite these challenges to her evidence, I find that C.M. was telling the truth for the most part. I do not find she was deliberately attempting to lie or mislead the court. And I find her evidence to be consistent with evidence given by the other complainants on some of the more important issues.

[132] I found C.M.’s testimony to be credible and reliable.

Evidence of N.E.

[133] N.E. was 30 years old at the time of her testimony. She suffers from verbal apraxia, which impacts on her ability to communicate, which made it difficult to hold a job.

[134] In and around 2014 N.E. was looking to make some quick money during a financially difficult time, and needed a job where she could make her own schedule. She had verbal apraxia which impeded her ability to communicate and pronounce words. N.E. described mental health issues that prevented her from working in a regular job.

[135] She connected with Mr. Taylor on Backpage.com. She initially thought that she would be an escort for Nite Candy, which to her meant going out for dinner and movie dates, and that sex may be required. It was not until one week into the job she realized it was straight up prostitution. In other words, she would go to the client’s house, she would get the money, they would have sex, and she would leave. No dinner, no movie.

[136] At their first meeting Mr. Taylor told N.E. a bit about the job, and how much money she could make. He asked if she smoked or did weed or cocaine, so he’d know what clients to send her to. She was not a regular drug or alcohol user when she started working at Nite Candy. She told Mr. Taylor she would be prepared to do cocaine and drink on the job, but not weed.

[137] N.E. also told Mr. Taylor about her restrictions – no unprotected sex, no blow jobs, no anal sex. He accepted these, but told her she could make more money if she was available for anal sex, or would have sex without a condom. He described there were different levels of payments depending on the girl. N.E. would get $100 per call, the rest would go to the driver and him. She could keep whatever tips were paid.

[138] He explained how a driver would take her to a call, and wait for the girl outside as a form of protection. During this meeting he also told her if she was good to her boss she would get better calls and make more money.

[139] N.E. started working for Nite Candy the next day, doing three calls. She followed the protocol she was told in terms of cash calls: meet the client, collect the money, text the driver “good”, complete the call. The money was to be handed to the driver, and the driver would then give the girl her cut.

[140] The next night Mr. Buccellato picked her up and took her to Mr. Taylor’s home on Owl Crescent. Mr. Taylor said he wanted to see how she performed, and made her give him a blow job. They also had intercourse. She felt uncomfortable but permitted the sexual acts to happen. Mr. Taylor then took topless pictures of her for Nite Candy’s website. He promised that her face would not be seen. Over time she found out that Mr. Taylor would go on to the girls’ Facebook pages and download pictures of their face to send to clients who wanted to know what the girl looked like.

[141] On an average week N.E. worked four to five nights. There were days she did not want to work as much, but Mr. Taylor kept asking her to take calls and she felt pressured into working.

[142] There were times when N.E. would step away to deal with mental health issues. There were also times N.E. stopped working for Mr. Taylor. She would start feeling better about herself, and wanted to step away from drugs and the dangers of sleeping with strangers. But it was a vicious cycle – eventually she would need money to pay her bills and return.

[143] N.E. quickly developed a drug and alcohol problem – in her words, the work she did was hard. She would have two ounces of vodka before starting her shift to help get her started. If she drank too much at work (clients would often supply alcohol) N.E. would have to do cocaine to stay alert. She went from social drinking to problem drinking, and her drug use went from a $100 per week habit to a $300 per week habit. Mr. Taylor never told N.E. to stop using. Indeed, he supported her seeing clients drunk – he wanted his girls “giddy and more easygoing” when they went on calls.

[144] At times N.E. reluctantly went to Mr. Taylor’s house to have sex with him. She did this because the quantity and quality of the calls she was sent on improved afterward. After sleeping with him she would not be sent to “scuzzy motels” or to “clients who looked sick and skinny.” N.E. estimated she had sex with Mr. Taylor upwards of ten times. On one occasion he took his condom off midway, although he knew this was one of her restrictions.

[145] Mr. Taylor would send N.E. on calls that made her uncomfortable. She did not complain, however, because during her first four months at Nite Candy she saw Mr. Taylor slam one of his girls, Amber, up against a wall when he was mad at her. From then on N.E. believed she could get hurt if she said no, so she just did what she was told.

[146] There was an incident where she was taken to a known biker clubhouse to service one client. There were ten men there when she arrived. N.E. was nervous, and reached out to Sal that she wanted to leave. He said no, they were all friends of his. She then called Mr. Taylor, who also said he could not let her leave, again because the men were his friends. N.E. had no choice but to go back in. One of the men, Harry, forced her to give him a blow job in front of everyone. The men clamoured also for her to strip for them, but she refused. Despite her protestations to Mr. Taylor afterward, he sent her back to the same clubhouse three or four more times.

[147] One night N.E. left her phone in the driver’s car while she went in to conduct a call. The driver looked through her messages and saw that she had been communicating with two of Nite Candy’s clients. The driver told Mr. Taylor, who took the texts to mean N.E. was stealing clients. He got very upset. She had to go to his house to get her phone back. While there, he told her she was a “fucking idiot,” that Nite Candy was his business, and the clients belonged to him. He accused her of stealing from his child. He wanted to keep her phone to ensure the other girls knew they could not get away with “this shit.” N.E. ultimately got her phone back, but not before he went through her personal information and took the phone numbers of her brother, sister, mother, and father.

[148] N.E. testified to being treated very poorly by Mr. Taylor. He would yell at her, tell her he owned her, and said he would “ruin her life.” He threatened to expose her to her family. He threatened to take work away if she did not sleep with him: “you won’t get work until you come to your senses, or I really need girls.” He blackmailed her with nude pictures. Despite everything, she continued working for him because she needed the money. Eventually, though, it all became too much, and N.E. stopped working for Nite Candy around the fall of 2019.

[149] Around this time she asked for the referral fee she was promised for recommending “Kelsey” to Nite Candy. Mr. Taylor’s reply was as follows:

Are you that fuckin retarded?? Take a hint man. You actually have the nerve to ask for money after I give you a break stealing clients and having the girl you referred to me help get you there? You’re fucked!

Then you call me pathetic? I’m your boss you fuckin cow or I was until you overstepped your shit AGAIN.

Now FUCK OFF IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH

[150] The text message exchange was marked as Exhibit 1.

[151] Despite N.E.’s repeated requests after being fired, Mr. Taylor refused to take her pictures off the website. Mr. Taylor testified the pictures were his to do as he wished.

[152] Exhibit 2, which contained extractions from N.E.’s cell phone, contained text messages between N.E., Mr. Taylor, Ms. Asmann-Brown, and Mr. Buccellato. The messages were in respect of clients, locations, cost of services, and money transfers – evidence to corroborate the testimony of many witnesses in respect of how Nite Candy operated.

N.E.’s Credibility and Reliability

[153] N.E. was an effective witness. She was composed. She did not try to embellish her testimony. There were no histrionics when she spoke of the conditions she endured at Nite Candy – her words spoke for themselves. When N.E. described her work as ‘hard,’ her tone conveyed the emotional toll sex work took on her.

[154] In cross-examination she readily conceded that she was never forced to work for Nite Candy, that she could, and did, leave when she wanted to. However, Mr. Taylor would typically entice her back with false promises about her work conditions (for example, Sal would not be her driver).

[155] She conceded that the staff at Nite Candy were not always mean, there were good times. But some of the people were dangerous, and Mr. Taylor managed with manipulations and threats.

[156] In cross-examination it was put to N.E. that her evidence was inconsistent with her cell phone extraction, and there were no texts in which Mr. Taylor threatened N.E. N.E. said she had deleted many texts. Indeed, the extraction report covered just a short period of time in 2019. N.E. also said that Mr. Taylor threatened her verbally, and manipulated her by not giving her work.

[157] N.E.’s evidence was not impeached to any degree during cross-examination, and her evidence in respect of her sexual relationship with Mr. Taylor was unshaken. When questioned as to why she gave evidence at trial that was not in her police statement, she said that too many things had happened at Nite Candy to fit into one police statement. Given her tenure at Nite Candy, I find this to be a rational answer.

[158] I found N.E.’s testimony to be credible and reliable.

Evidence of S.D.

[159] S.D. was 26 at the time of trial. She worked for Nite Candy during the spring and summer of 2018 when she was looking to make money. She was in college at the time and had just split up with her boyfriend. S.D. had struggled with substance abuse in the past, but during this period she kept that at bay with alcohol and weed.

[160] After connecting via text, S.D. met with Mr. Taylor in a coffee shop’s parking lot, where they talked about the business. This turned out to be the only time she ever met with Mr. Taylor.

[161] At the interview, S.D. explained what her comfort levels were (no anal, no oral performed on her, but she would perform oral on a client if he wore a condom), and Mr. Taylor did not try to convince her otherwise during the interview.

[162] Mr. Taylor told her Nite Candy was a legal business, which was important to S.D. He presented as confident and successful to her. He called himself “Boss.”

[163] He gave her an overview of how the business worked. He expected a girl to work a minimum of three days a week. Whoever was working the phones on a given night (it could be Mr. Taylor, or Amy) would send a general text to see who was working that night. Once he established who was available, he would coordinate the calls and schedule the drivers to do the pick ups.

[164] In terms of rates, that depended on the location of the call. Mr. Taylor said the rates for Orillia were higher, which was a positive for S.D., as she wanted to work outside of Barrie. Any tips earned were hers to keep. S.D. started working for Nite Candy that night.

[165] S.D. sent pictures to Mr. Taylor as he asked. She assumed he would use them to show clients what she looked like. She did not recall him telling her he was going to use them on Nite Candy’s website, which is where her pictures ended up.

[166] S.D. was never told the address of where she was going. She did have a number of regular clients, and came to recognize their homes when she got there. Sal Buccellato was her primary driver. More than once during a drive to a call Mr. Buccellato would talk about the complaints other girls made about Mr. Taylor mistreating them.

[167] When Sal would stop at Mr. Taylor’s home to drop off money, S.D. stayed in the car and did not go in.

[168] S.D. described how credit card calls worked. She would be given the cardholder’s name, card number, and CVS, she would fill out the receipt with this information and text it to Mr. Taylor. At the end of the call she would hand the receipt to the driver, who would give her her cut in cash. If a driver did not have enough cash (which might happen on a two-girl call), Mr. Taylor would e-transfer the money.

[169] Mr. Taylor told S.D. when they first met that he wanted his girls to feel safe, and at the outset she did feel safe. This changed toward the end of her time at Nite Candy – she felt less and less comfortable doing sex work, and increasingly worn out. This did not move Mr. Taylor, who acted like he no longer cared. He got annoyed when she rejected calls, and would guilt trip her into going because he had no one else to send.

[170] S.D. recounted one night on a call at Casino Rama. When she got there the client had a friend who was sleeping in the other bed in the room, and wanted her to perform the services while the friend was there. S.D. resisted. The client threatened to call security if she did not leave. But S.D. did not want to leave without being paid. S.D. called the dispatcher on duty that night, she could not recall who, and was told she could have just gone into the washroom to perform the services. She was not paid for this call.

[171] S.D. described an occasion where she advised Mr. Taylor that her cut-off time was 2:00 a.m. Amy, on dispatch, asked her to take a call at 1:59 a.m., justifying the booking because S.D. was “still on shift.” She did the call because she wanted to stay in Mr. Taylor’s good books – she had heard from drivers that there was conflict between Mr. Taylor and a girl when she said no to a job. Sal, for example, her primary driver, would share these stories with S.D. S.D. did not witness anything that caused her concern.

[172] The night she was fired, Mr. Taylor had sent out a group text that things would be changing at Nite Candy, and that he planned to fire a number of girls. S.D. had just finished a call, and Mr. Taylor wanted her to go to her next call right away. S.D. wanted a break first. Mr. Taylor said if she did not take the call she would be fired. S.D. said fine. She had no further contact with him or Nite Candy.

[173] S.D. did not know any of the complainants.

S.D.’s Credibility and Reliability

[174] S.D. was an imminently credible witness. She testified in an even-handed manner, and was not shaken in any way during cross-examination.

[175] She conceded that Nite Candy generally abided by her boundaries, aside from the instances where she felt guilt-tripped into working. She was never asked to deliver drugs to client, and Mr. Taylor never threatened to keep calls from her.

[176] I found S.D.’s testimony to be credible and reliable.

Evidence of V.T.

[177] V.T. was 33 at the time of trial. She worked for Nite Candy off and on for 3 to 4 years, from 2012 to the end of 2018.

[178] Life did not start out bright and shiny for V.T. She had her first child when she was 14. In 2012 she was 21, unemployed, and living on social assistance. She had lost custody of her two children. She saw an advertisement for Nite Candy in the job section of a newspaper, depicting a silhouette of a woman, and called the number. Mr. Taylor answered the phone, and they met up shortly thereafter at a local coffee shop in Orillia.

[179] Mr. Taylor and another woman were waiting for her in the parking lot – the other woman moved to the back seat and V.T. got in the front. Mr. Taylor talked on a surface level about Nite Candy. He was the boss, and he ran the business. He talked primarily about girls mainly doing “bachelor parties.” He said girls could have sex if they choose – it all depended on how much money they wanted to earn. V.T. was unsure whether the job entailed stripping or escorting.

[180] They shared some personal information during this first meeting. Mr. Taylor told her he was living with his mother after leaving a relationship, and V.T. shared that she was broke and needed money to get her own place and get her kids back. She told him CAS was involved, because she had weekly visits with her children that she did not want to miss.

[181] At one point a second girl joined them in the SUV, and the two girls told her about jobs and described protective equipment. They also showed her money they were earning, which led V.T. to think work for Nite Candy would be lucrative. Mr. Taylor was also driving an SUV, so he appeared to be successful.

[182] She also laid out her restrictions – yes to sex, but only with a condom. She was adamant about this. She would also give blow jobs, but only if the man wore a condom. Mr. Taylor thought that was weird, and told her she would have to take that up with the clients directly.

[183] Mr. Taylor appeared to her to be a protector of his girls – he told her he would ensure the clients wore the appropriate protection. In terms of personal safety, V.T. thought that if she was working a bachelor party there would be two security guards.

[184] Mr. Taylor told her he made 40% from every call. Over the course of V.T.’s time at Nite Candy this never changed.

[185] V.T. was 21, but Mr. Taylor said he would post her as younger. He flirted with her a bit during their first meeting, putting his hand on her leg, asking whether she liked sex, whether she “took it in the ass,” but V.T. was not disturbed by this. Her impression was that she could make a lot of money working for Nite Candy, and she told Mr. Taylor she would think about taking the job.

[186] V.T. had been clean and sober since her second child’s birth. She had had an oxycontin addiction, but was doing well in the methadone program which was funded through social assistance. Being around people under the influence was triggering for her.

[187] Once she decided to work for Nite Candy, V.T. called Mr. Taylor and laid out some parameters. She wanted jobs away from Orillia, because she did not want her family to find out what she was doing. Pick ups and drop offs had to be discrete. She wanted as many calls as possible with other girls. When she asked whether she would be ranked Platinum or Premium[9], V.T. was told she would have to earn her ranking.

[188] V.T. started working that same night, and stayed for one to two years. The first month she felt Mr. Taylor was trying to help her earn money, as she did not have much downtime. The second month things shifted. He made her come to his house to wait between calls. While there she would hear his telephone discussions with other workers. He would degrade them verbally. For example, if a girl called in to say she could not get to a call because she had a problems with her kid, he would disregard the issue and threaten to withhold work from them if they did not attend a call.

[189] She also saw Mr. Taylor treat women poorly, one woman in particular like a “wet door mat.” This behaviour worried V.T., as Mr. Taylor was supposed to be her protector.

[190] While at his house V.T. saw Mr. Taylor take oxycontin pills, and also give them to the women.

[191] She would be sent on calls where customers wanted bareback service, despite Mr. Taylor knowing that this was not a service V.T. was willing to perform. This put her at risk, particularly with drunk or high clients. Once the client found out she would not do bareback things would turn argumentative.

[192] There was one regular customer who only wanted bareback, and would provide documentation that he was disease-free. Mr. Taylor convinced her to take the call, and it was the first time she got a tip. V.T. saw that doing bareback might allow her to do fewer calls per day, so she changed her position on this restriction.

[193] During these early months, she started having sex with Mr. Taylor. The first time it happened she was at his house, and she was in the midst of a full-blown methadone withdrawal. It was the weekend, her busiest time, and she was making a lot of money. She did not want to pay for a ride to Orillia to get to the clinic, and Mr. Taylor would not let her use one of his drivers. V.T. recalls she was not thinking straight.

[194] V.T. said she felt extremely sick, like she was dying. To her mind, a methadone withdrawal was ten times worse than an oxycontin withdrawal. She had diarrhea, and body pain so bad she felt it in her bones.

[195] Mr. Taylor put an oxycontin pill on the table in front of her. It was 40 mg. She hugged him, grateful for the opportunity to feel better. However the one pill did not relieve her symptoms, and she begged him for a second. She knew there would be repercussions, as she had seen how he treated other women who used drugs. But her withdrawal symptoms were so severe she had no choice.

[196] It appeared to V.T. that Mr. Taylor had experience with withdrawal symptoms, as he suggested she take showers to help feel better, and it worked. He saw her in the bathroom after one of the showers, and asked her to come to his room to take pictures for the website. They then had sex. V.T. asked him to wear a condom, but he said he did not do that with girls. V.T. said this was one of the most hurtful things Mr. Taylor did to her. She did not want to have sex with him. She had pride in herself, and felt he did not deserve her. He also had poor hygiene, which she found distasteful. But she felt she owed him sex for giving her the pills, so she conceded. She was taken aback when, a few days later, he charged her for the pills.

[197] V.T. stayed on oxycontin rather than go back to methadone. This made sense to her in the moment, as she was spending most of her time at Mr. Taylor’s home in Barrie, and he was supplying her. She was also enjoying the oxycontin high better.

[198] By her fourth month working for Nite Candy V.T. was working solely to get high. All of her money went to Mr. Taylor. She was taking three 80 mg pills each day. It became a vicious cycle. It was Mr. Taylor who kept track of V.T.’s debt to him; V.T. was too incapacitated to do so.

[199] Mr. Taylor treated V.T. differently once she was back on oxycontin. He would hang up on her, tell her she would not get her kids back, that she was too far gone and would never get sober again. He would send her on bad calls – often to drug addicts. If she had trouble at a call she would tell him what happened, and he would ultimately turn things around and make her feel the problems were all with her.

[200] Mr. Taylor threatened to expose V.T.’s sex work to her family, and told her she would lose her kids if her family found out.

[201] In this first phase of working for Mr. Taylor V.T. turned to sleeping with him to get better calls. This was an effective strategy, and one that was known, but not spoken of openly, amongst the girls.

[202] There was a drug bust in 2012 and Mr. Taylor stopped selling oxycontin. V.T. bought her drugs off the drivers instead.

[203] V.T.’s oxycontin relapse continued until the drug was no longer available in April 2014. She left Nite Candy, went back to school, and remained sober until she relapsed again and returned to work for Mr. Taylor. During this phase he was in a relationship with Michelle, and she was often working dispatch. V.T. and Michelle did not have a good relationship (although they did work together on calls before Michelle became a dispatcher), and V.T. preferred to take work from Mr. Taylor. Further, when V.T. had sex with Mr. Taylor she would get better calls. She could not do that with Michelle.

[204] V.T. noted that during this second period, the women working at Nite Candy were drug addicts with obvious track marks, abscesses, and sores. She told Mr. Taylor she did not want to be sent on calls with them.

[205] V.T.’s drug use was much worse in her second phase. She thought she had control of her addiction, but the reality was otherwise. She started using cocaine and crack cocaine, buying it from drivers Sim and Dylan, and she bought pills from Mr. Buccellato.

[206] V.T. and Mr. Taylor did have discussions about her addiction during her second stint. He knew she needed drugs to go on a call, but had a really short fuse when girls did lots of drugs. Mr. Taylor was less tolerant during phase 2. When V.T. called saying she needed drugs before the call, he would tell her it was her problem, and that she should take it up with the driver, as long as she got to the call.

[207] In March of 2018, there was a stretch where V.T. did not get any calls. However, at a call with one of her regulars, he told her he had called and requested her, but dispatch told him V.T. was unavailable. When V.T. brought this up with Mr. Taylor, he did not believe her.

[208] V.T. stepped away from Nite Candy after this, and worked on her own. In September of 2018 she reached out to Mr. Taylor and told him she had seven girls working for her. She also asked how business was going. She explained she was not looking for work, she was looking for information.

[209] Mr. Taylor was always the boss when V.T. worked for Nite Candy. He or his employees set up the calls, arranged the drivers, and communicated with the clients about the services they wanted. He also controlled the rates charged and the amounts the girls received, something he admitted during the trial.

[210] V.T. freely explained that she and Mr. Taylor did have good times early on, and she looked at him as somewhat of a father figure. She had no animus toward Mr. Taylor, despite his treatment of her.

[211] She only came forward after seeking a news release directing the reader to contact police if they were a victim of Nite Candy. It took her a while to process, but she realized she was a victim, that Mr. Taylor had taken advantage of her by sleeping with her. Before seeing the news release, she had no intention of going to the police on her own accord, and no one influenced her to reach out.

V.T.’s Credibility and Reliability

[212] V.T. testified in an even-handed, calm manner. She was candid, forthright, articulate and honest. She appeared to bear no animus toward Mr. Taylor. In fact, she testified that she had no spite in her heart toward him, and that she hoped and prayed they could all find some peace out of all of this.

[213] V.T.’s credibility remained intact during a demanding cross-examination. She fairly acknowledged her shortcomings. When she returned to Nite Candy the second time her goal was to become a driver and sell drugs. She would be doing to other girls the same thing she was caught up in and what was causing her pain. However, as she explained it, “when you are morally compromised, you don’t really think about what you are doing.” She did not attempt to minimize or excuse her conduct. Her goal was impossible to achieve, however, because V.T. found herself doing the drugs instead of selling them.

[214] In respect of the “seven girls working for her” comment to Mr. Taylor, V.T. testified she was not making money from the girls, she was simply helping them to get established. They had no client lists of their own, and they were interested in hers.

[215] V.T. admitted freely that she was charged with welfare fraud while on Ontario Works for failing to report her income as an escort. When she looks back at that time of her life she has trouble assessing how many of the events unfolded.

[216] V.T. also acknowledged during cross-examination that she did not tell police Mr. Taylor had threatened to tell her family. But when she was taken to her police statement it was apparent that she had not finished answering the question about whether Mr. Taylor had threatened her when the officer interrupted her and asked another follow-up question. V.T. also described how with therapy, she has been able to open-up about certain topics.

[217] I found V.T.’s testimony to be credible and reliable.

Evidence of A.M.

[218] A.M. was 31-years-old when she testified at trial, and 29 when she was involved with Mr. Taylor. She met Mr. Taylor on a “sugar dating” website[10] in January or February of 2020. She went to his home on Radenhurst Crescent in Barrie, where he told her he ran an escort business. He very clearly said he was not recruiting her, but let her know she could work for him if she wanted.

[219] A.M. started working for Nite Candy right away. Her rate, set by Mr. Taylor with no input from her, was $250 – she kept $190, and Mr. Taylor got $60. Mr. Taylor would text her the address of the call, tell her how much of money to collect, and how long she was booked for. A.M. would text Mr. Taylor when she arrived at a job, and to let him know she was done. He would then text her the next address. If it was a credit card call, A.M. would text Mr. Taylor the numbers on the card, and he would confirm if the card went through. She did not provide receipts.

[220] A.M. considered Mr. Taylor a friend. He treated her respectfully, and he always paid her. She decided when and for how long she would work. He was never violent towards her, and she never saw him do drugs. A.M. and Mr. Taylor also had a sexual relationship. He paid her $250 each time, and she kept the entire amount.

[221] A.M. worked for Nite Candy until COVID hit in mid-March 2020. Business resumed on August 20, 2020, and A.M. worked for Mr. Taylor until his arrest the following month, which she was unknowingly caught up in. To wit, she attended a call with a customer who was an undercover officer. When she got to the hotel room, the client gave her a prepaid Vanilla credit card to pay for the transaction. Once A.M. had processed the card for payment, the client said he was having second thoughts. No sex was exchanged. A withdrawal was eventually made on the credit card and deposited into Mr. Taylor’s account.

A.M.’s Credibility and Reliability

[222] A.M. was an articulate and credible witness. While it was patently obvious she did not want to be a witness at this trial, she gave her evidence in a forthright and honest manner.

[223] A.M. stood out from the other complainants. She came to Nite Candy free of addiction and poverty issues. She drove herself to her calls, and did not need a driver. She was autonomous, and interested in sex work as a fully informed woman choosing to generate an income in the sex industry.

[224] Mr. Taylor’s role was much more limited. On her own evidence, N.E. did what she wanted, when she wanted. She did not need to work to support an addiction.

[225] I found A.M.’s testimony to be credible and reliable.

Evidence of Carrie Asmann-Brown

[226] Ms. Asmann-Brown was charged with a number of offences arising from the police investigation into Nite Candy, and ultimately plead guilty to receiving a material benefit. She was called to give evidence at trial about the operations of Nite Candy, in the event Mr. Taylor did not take the stand. Her evidence largely supplemented the evidence of the complainants.

[227] Ms. Asmann-Brown started working for Nite Candy as a dispatcher in June 2018. She met Mr. Taylor at her previous job, Easy Home, where she had worked since 2012. He told her he ran an escort service, and offered her a job answering phones and setting up hourly appointments for women to meet men.

[228] Ms. Asmann-Brown had never worked in the sex industry before. Her training was minimal – she was given a list of acronyms for the services Nite Candy provided, and she listened to Mr. Taylor answer a couple of calls from clients. She operated as a dispatcher with phones provided by Mr. Taylor. There was more than one Nite Candy phone that she and Mr. Taylor used.

[229] Nite Candy operated 7 nights a week. Ms. Asmann-Brown started working for Nite Candy as a dispatcher in 2018, working three nights a week. In late 2018 early 2019, she became Nite Candy’s manager, working 4 to 5 nights a week. She would also drive girls to calls, but only when Nite Candy was short a driver.

[230] Cash calls were run as described earlier – the girl would go in to the call, text to say she had received the money, and Ms. Asmann-Brown would wait in the car for her to be finished. When the girl came out, she kept her share and gave Ms. Asmann-Brown her share, as well as Mr. Taylor’s. She would drive the money to Mr. Taylor once a week.

[231] Credit card calls, which Ms. Asmann-Brown said were infrequent, were handled differently. The client advised in advance that he would be paying by credit card. Ms. Asmann-Brown had an app on her phone for charging credit cards. She would get the card number and expiry date from the client and enter the information into the app, which would then approve or decline the charge.

[232] It was the girl’s responsibility to complete the invoice and have the customer sign it. The invoice read “NC Consulting, Computer Gaming & Internet, Mark Taylor.” Exhibit 17 contained a number of such invoices. The information to be included was as follows: the date, the client’s name and address, length of the call, the charge, the card number, the expiry date and the client’s signature. If any information was missing, Ms. Asmann-Brown would add it in.

[233] Ms. Asmann-Brown testified that there were three levels of girls – Platinum, Premium, and Diamond, although she could not recall the rates Nite Candy charged for each level. The Crown handed up a price list that was marked as Exhibit 19. While Ms. Asmann-Brown would at times suggest to Mr. Taylor that a girl should be bumped up a rank, the final say was always his.

[234] When she was a driver, Ms. Asmann-Brown would take Mr. Taylor’s money to him once per week, although they communicated on a daily basis about the operations (which girls were working, who went out the most, the number of calls, or lack thereof). If there were more calls than girls, she could let Mr. Taylor know.

[235] While she worked for Mr. Taylor there was a strict rule that there were to be no drugs in his house. If a customer requested that Nite Candy provide drugs, Ms. Asmann-Brown informed them they “were not drug dealers.”

[236] Ms. Asmann-Brown recalled the time O.D.C. went AWOL. It was not in her job description to ensure a girl’s safety, but she liked O.D.C. and was concerned about her. They developed what she thought was a relationship – they even had the other’s real name on Facebook. Ms. Asmann-Brown thought she appeared as a mother figure to the girls, since they would talk to her about their work problems more than anyone else at Nite Candy.

[237] She described Mr. Taylor as a pervert, and “into porn-based stuff.” He referred to himself as “Boss.” She never heard him refer to himself as daddy or Shrek.

[238] Ms. Asmann-Brown made $100 per night, with the potential to earn more. She did not ever earn less than this, even on nights where no calls came in. However, there was the potential to earn extra – if a dispatcher booked over 20 hours’ worth of work on any given night, they would receive a $50 bonus. Her hours were long, from noon until as late as 4:00 a.m., as Nite Candy operated 24 hours a day.

[239] Initially Ms. Asmann-Brown worked at both jobs, but she eventually left Easy Home and worked solely for Mr. Taylor. This allowed her to work from home, with the ability to do things (go camping, go shopping) as opposed to being stuck behind a desk.

[240] Ms. Asmann-Brown testified that at the time she worked for Nite Candy, she did not know what she was doing was a crime. She testified she asked Mr. Taylor at the beginning whether Nite Candy was legal. He told her he had been in operation for years, and that the girls came to work for him willingly.

Ms. Asmann-Brown’s Credibility and Reliability

[241] Ms. Asmann-Brown made a poor witness. She could not remember many details. For example, she said her brother was not involved with Nite Candy, or if he was, she was unaware of it. Crown counsel directed her to page 26 of the extraction records in Exhibit 2. In a text from Ms. Asmann-Brown to N.E. dated November 15, 2019, she said “sending my brother to get you around 8:30-8:40 for a call.” At that point she conceded that her brother did work for Nite Candy occasionally. She broke down somewhat at this point, explaining that she has tried to block her time at Nite Candy out and move on with her life.

[242] However, Ms. Asmann-Brown had no impetus to lie, and I find her evidence to be credible and reliable.

Evidence of Salvatore Buccellato

[243] Mr. Buccellato met Mr. Taylor in or around 2010, through a friend of his who was a sex worker for Nite Candy. He was hired as one of four or five drivers for Nite Candy, working off and on for the next ten years. His job was to drive a girl to a call, and wait for her until she was finished. If the girl ran into trouble during a call, she would reach out, and he’d go in to get her. He would also take the girl to pick up supplies (condoms, etc.) if requested.

[244] He worked 7 days a week unless he booked off, from noon to whenever business closed (usually between 3:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.). He estimated there would be an average of 20 calls in any seven day period.

[245] Mr. Buccellato always thought Nite Candy was legitimate while he worked there, although he learned later from police that it was not.

[246] Mr. Taylor called himself “Boss” and “Daddy.” Mr. Buccellato had heard Mr. Taylor say, “if you’re nice to Daddy, Daddy is nice to you.”

[247] The rate per call depended on whether the girl was ranked a Platinum or a Diamond, and the call location. He testified that if it was a job in Barrie, he would make $35 a call. The girl would receive $120, and Mr. Taylor would get the rest. If the girl was a Diamond, Mr. Buccellato would earn an extra $5.00 per call. If a call was extended by the client, he would get another $10 for each additional hour.

[248] For the first ten years or so, he would get his calls primarily from Mr. Taylor, although for some periods of time Mr. Taylor’s girlfriend of-the-moment worked the phones as well. Dispatch would text him the address, the girl, and where to pick her up. If it was the girl asking to be picked up, which also happened, she would pay him directly.

[249] In terms of handling the money, most girls would hand over his and Mr. Taylor’s portion only and keep their cut. Other girls handed him the entire amount, needing him to do the calculation. Either way, Mr. Buccellato would keep his share, and deliver Mr. Taylor’s portion to him directly. If it was a credit card call, he would have to go to Mr. Taylor’s to get paid. He estimated that in the early years he was at Mr. Taylor’s home every couple of days, but the frequency eventually dropped to once a week.

[250] Mr. Buccellato testified that he never sold the girls drugs, and that Mr. Taylor never asked him to do so. He never saw oxycontin in Mr. Taylor’s presence at the house, but he did know some of the girls had oxycontin pills with them.

[251] In addition to driving, Mr. Buccellato was Mr. Taylor’s thug, his eyes and ears on the ground so to speak. If Mr. Buccellato learned that a girl was working independently, trying to take customers from Nite Candy, he would report her to Mr. Taylor. Mr. Buccellato testified that this made Mr. Taylor distraught, not mad.

[252] He would also report to Mr. Taylor if a girl seemed too high to complete a call. If the girl was in town, Mr. Taylor would come to assess her personally. If not, he left the decision to Mr. Buccellato. If the girl was too drunk or high, Mr. Buccellato would take her home, and another girl would be sent to the call.

[253] If the girl did not want to go on a call, which happened weekly, he would call dispatch and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor would talk to the girl, reminding her that she had promised to book on, which had the desired effect the majority of the time.

[254] Mr. Buccellato recalled one occasion where he had to call Mr. Taylor and tell him a girl refused to do a multi-hour call that would have paid well. Mr. Taylor got very angry and told Mr. Buccellato to drive her home, because she would not be getting any more calls that night.

[255] He testified that if a girl asked, he would take her to Mr. Taylor’s house before a call to pick up booze or drugs. He also agreed that once or twice a week girls would be used to sell drugs to customers. He was not told what the substances were.

[256] Mr. Buccellato also fielded complaints from the girls, pretty much on a daily basis: the client did not have enough money; the client was too energetic; the client wanted more than the girl was prepared to do; the client had an obvious STD. He would raise these complaints with Mr. Taylor.

[257] Girls also complained about Mr. Taylor, and how some felt they were treated differently, for example, “why is X girl getting more calls than me?” Mr. Buccellato would explain that probably X booked when she said she would, she was business oriented, and she was respectful to the Boss. To Mr. Buccellato, if you treated the business well, you could be successful.

[258] Mr. Buccellato confirmed that he met C.M. at the coffee shop after the incident at Mr. Taylor’s birthday party. She was hysterical and upset, but did not want to talk about what happened. He testified that afterward he tried to get C.M. to come back to work, not for Mr. Taylor’s sake, but because she seemed cool, and they were ‘vibing well’ together.

[259] Mr. Buccellato also felt he and O.D.C. got along. She confided in him once when Mr. Taylor got upset at her when she refused to go on a call. He missed her when she left Nite Candy, and in November 2019 he texted her some fairly graphic messages[11], including a sexual video. She did not respond. Mr. Buccellato told the court these texts were not an example of how he treated the women who worked at Nite Candy, that he in fact respected them.

[260] Mr. Buccellato testified that he knew Mr. Taylor was having sex with the girls who worked for him, particularly N.E. and V.T. This caused trouble between the girls themselves, although how he could not say.

[261] He never saw Mr. Taylor assault or threaten to physically harm the girls.

Mr. Buccellato’s Credibility and Reliability

[262] Mr. Buccellato was an extremely poor witness. He couched his answers to present himself in most favourable light. He portrayed himself as a confidant, someone who respected the girls, and whom he went to bat for with Mr. Taylor. I do not believe any of his evidence in this regard. I find him neither credible nor reliable. However, to the extent that certain aspects of his evidence support the testimony of the complainants, I accept it.

[263] To be sure, Mr. Buccellato was not on trial for his role at Nite Candy. However, I was left with the distinct impression that he was trying to cover for himself.

Evidence of Mark Taylor

[264] Mr. Taylor was 50 when he testified. He started Nite Candy with a partner in 2007. When the partner moved away in 2008, Mr. Taylor was Nite Candy’s sole owner until his arrest in 2020. In addition to Nite Candy, Mr. Taylor owned and operated a gaming company, selling used video games, software, making repairs, and buying and selling electronics.

[265] Nite Candy ran like any other business. For a period of time it had office space, until Mr. Taylor started running it from his residences, including Snowy Owl Crescent and Radenhurst Crescent. It had a website. It utilized the services of accountants and photographers. And it hired employees. Dispatchers, for example, who would handle the intake calls. Mr. Taylor hired female dispatchers, as he believed the clients preferred to speak to women when they called the agency.

[266] Dispatchers would work the phones, book calls, and book girls. They earned $12 per booked hour, with a $100 minimum per night, and the bonus structure as set out by Ms. Asmann-Brown – if a dispatcher booked 10 or more hours a night she would earn an extra $20; if she booked 30 or more hours she earned an extra $100.

[267] Dispatchers were trained to take customer calls. They had to figure out what the client wanted, and asking the right questions ensured Nite Candy would meet their needs. Location and level of rank were also important points to cover. Based on these details, the dispatcher would choose the right girl to send out, based on who was working.[12]

[268] Over the years dispatchers included Michelle Powers, who started out as a sex worker before becoming a dispatcher and housecleaner, and with whom Mr. Taylor was in a personal relationship. Carrie Asmann Brown was initially hired as a dispatcher, then moved to manager in late 2018/early 2019, earning an extra $200 per week. Her responsibilities included the ability to hire and fire, settle disputes between the girls and the driver, blacklist clients, and decide whether a girl was too intoxicated to complete a call. While these were decisions that had previously been within the exclusive purview of Mr. Taylor, he was still the operating mind of the company, and still had the final say in all matters.

[269] Nite Candy also hired drivers, as many as five or six at a time. Sal Buccellato was with the company longest. Drivers were paid $35 per call. They were expected to take the girls to the calls, wait outside for them to be done, and take them to their next call. Drivers were also responsible for taking girls to get supplies (ie: condoms, booze).

[270] On a good day in the busy season (summer), the dispatcher could field 20 calls per day. In the winter, days could pass without a single call.

[271] Nite Candy also hired sex workers. Over the years Mr. Taylor estimated he hired over 500 women, although he never had more than 15 at a time. They would find out about Nite Candy in any number of ways. For example, until 2015 Nite Candy advertised in the job section in local newspapers. Thereafter, advertisements were only on Backpage and then LeoList. Typically, a girl would call to ask if Nite Candy was hiring. Mr. Taylor provided cursory details (schedule, rate of pay), and if all went well, he would meet up her. In his view, it was important to meet in person. There was a stigma attached to the sex trade industry, and it helped if a girl met with a normal guy.

[272] During the in-person meeting Mr. Taylor would ensure the girl was who she said she was, assess her looks, and discuss her restrictions. He would tell the girls what the base pay was, that they could charge extra money for services, that they could set their own schedule, their own hours, their own restrictions, their own blacklist, and whatever area they wanted to work in. They were also told they could take time off whenever they wanted, they were just to “shoot him a note.”

[273] The girls book on by notifying Mr. Taylor, or the dispatcher, that they were working that night, and what their hours were. They also had to advise when they were booking off.

[274] He testified that Nite Candy intentionally sent new girls the better and more regular clients, who would be nicer to the girls, which would help them become comfortable on the job.

[275] When he started Nite Candy, he based the rates charged on the industry standard in place at the time. Thereafter, while the rates may have risen, the portion to Nite Candy always remained the same - $55. Nite Candy never operated on a percentage basis. The girls could keep their tips, and if they managed to upsell their services during a call, they could keep any extra money earned.

[276] Mr. Taylor had exclusive control over the rates that Nite Candy charged a client. He also had exclusive control over the advertisements.

[277] All electronic payments went into Mr. Taylor’s bank accounts, and Mr. Taylor retained all the profits from Nite Candy. From these monies he would pay the dispatchers, web designers, photographers, etc.

[278] The tiered system, used by Nite Candy in later years, placed Diamond girls at the top, Platinum girls in the middle, and Premium girls in the lowest tier. There was a $30 difference between each category. Where a girl was placed on the tier system was ultimately Mr. Taylor’s call, but if a client called asking for a particular girl over and over, or a girl proved reliable, he could be persuaded to move her up in rank.

[279] Girls would drop in rank if they were using, unreliable, or received consistent customer complaints.

[280] For cash calls, the girl would obtain the money at the outset, advising the driver that the cash was in hand before completing the call. For credit card calls, which were run through an online portal, the girl would take the invoice to the customer to be signed.

[281] Nite Candy kept a list of each girl’s restrictions on file. There were times they were sent out on calls that went beyond their restrictions, but according to Mr. Taylor this was only because the customer was not honest with the dispatcher during the intake call.

[282] Nite Candy also provided “party calls” – bachelor parties, for example, where there would be a number of men. There was never a time when just one girl was sent on these calls.

[283] If a customer would complain about a girl’s performance – perhaps because she was drunk or on drugs, Mr. Taylor would talk to the girl, tell her it was not safe to be high for a call, and send her home to sober up.

[284] Girls knew not to see clients outside of Nite Candy’s purview, as that was akin to taking money from the company. The clients belonged to Mr. Taylor and Nite Candy, not the girl. Despite this rule, Mr. Taylor testified it always happened, with Mr. Taylor usually finding out through the customer.

[285] In terms of drugs, Mr. Taylor agreed that he sold oxycontin to the girls before the drug bust in August 2012, but he had only been doing so for three to six months. And he only got involved because Michelle Powers was addicted to oxycontin, and she was paying too much for her pills. She knew of a dealer in Toronto who sold them in bulk for less, so Mr. Taylor stepped in to help, buying them in bulk and selling them to Michelle for the same price he paid the dealer. Once he did this, it seemed like all the girls started doing oxycontin, and started buying from him, including V.T. As with Michelle, he sold the pills to them at cost.

[286] Other than that three-to-four month period, he did not sell drugs to the girls. His girls did not sell drugs to the clients, nor did the drivers.

[287] More than once he was told by a girl that the drivers were pushing cocaine. Each time this happened he spoke to Mr. Buccellato and Sim, but they flat out denied doing so. Without proof he could not do anything.

[288] Mr. Taylor denied that he ever sold drugs to the girls, or that he gave drugs to the drivers to sell to the girls.

[289] Following his conviction for possession in 2013, and for which he served a 90-day intermittent sentence, he stopped selling drugs completely because he was afraid of receiving an even longer sentence the next time. He had learned his lesson, because he almost lost everything. He was raising his son on his own, and realized he could have faced a long jail sentence. The experience scared him enough to extricate himself from drugs completely.

[290] Mr. Taylor agreed he had sex with some of his girls – C.M. and A.M. came to mind, as did V.T. on one occasion, when she first started, but only because she asked him to. He denied being sexually involved with the other complainants. This included O.D.C., although he actually told police he had sex with her, because she asked him to, and it was fully consensual. He could not say why he would have said this.

[291] When pressed, Mr. Taylor said he may have slept with more, and R. came to mind. He was then shown one of his text messages from 2020, which helped him remember being in a relationship with another woman, Z. He had forgotten about her, even though she was his most recent girlfriend.

[292] Mr. Taylor’s recollection of each girl’s time with Nite Candy generally echoed that of the complainant. In terms of O.D.C., he agreed with how she came to work at Nite Candy, and her tenure there. However, he denied ever pointing a gun at her or forcing her to take drugs.

[293] Mr. Taylor remembered being introduced to C.M. through her cousin, O.D.C. He agreed that they entered into a “sugar dating” relationship. In his view things were just causal. Yes, there was sex, but that was not the relationship’s focus. She was looking for an older, established man with money to spoil her. He would give her money, or buy her things if she asked. C.M. was also an escort for Nite Candy.

[294] His version of what happened at his birthday party generally matched C.M.’s. He causally portrayed it as a night like any other, with a bunch of people sitting around, drinking and listening to music – “it was all very relaxed, a fun atmosphere.” One of the girls set up a portable stripper pole, and even some of the guys gave it a try. He and C.M. did have a threesome with a girl named S., but said it was C.M. who asked S. to join them. C.M. left the party and did not come back, and Mr. Taylor went to bed. He did not know that people were using drugs at the party until after the fact.

[295] That night he decided that he did not want to see C.M. anymore. She sent him a video of her pole dancing from the night before, and he told her he did not want to continue their relationship, although C.M. could keep working for Nite Candy. Mr. Taylor testified that he and C.M. had never agreed on a $500 fee for the night. She did say he owed her $500 for the outfit she bought for the party, and for the hours she spent there.

[296] He remembered V.T. working for Nite Candy, and agreed they had sex on one occasion, when she was at his house waiting for a call. V.T. came out of the shower naked, and she asked him if he wanted to have sex. In cross-examination he said he did not recall V.T. having a full-blown methadone withdrawal at his home. He denied it was his suggestion for her to take showers to help her through the withdrawal and he denied giving her an oxycontin pill before they had sex – he said he gave her the pills a couple of days after they had sex. He denied giving her the impression the oxycontin was in exchange for sex.

[297] Mr. Taylor denied he saw V.T. frequently, and that she was routinely at his house. In fact, he said that girls “absolutely never” stayed at his house between calls.

[298] In terms of why he kept V.T. employed despite her unreliability and drug use, he said he was not anyone’s babysitter. It was not his job to worry about her addictions, his job was to book calls.

[299] M.C.P. started in 2015-ish, worked on and off for a while, then left. She came back to Nite Candy in 2019. He denied ever offering her $50 for a blow job to see if she “still had the goods.” He remembered firing M.C.P., and that he paid her what she said she was owed.

[300] Mr. Taylor recalled that N.E. worked for Nite Candy off and on for about five years. There were a couple of periods when she could not get her drinking under control, and would leave the industry to sober up. Mr. Taylor suspected N.E. was doing cocaine, but did not know for certain.

[301] He denied ever selling N.E. an eight-ball of cocaine. He also denied directing that she buy cocaine from the drivers. Mr. Taylor ultimately fired N.E. because of her alcohol issues. Even after he fired her, she kept asking to be put on a shift. In his words, Mr. Taylor finally “lost it,” and sent the text quoted earlier.

[302] Mr. Taylor did not remember who S.D. was until she took the stand during the trial. He recalled she only wanted to work for the summer to make money. Toward the end of the summer, she was not as reliable, and he fired her because it was obvious she did not want to be there anymore.

[303] Mr. Taylor’s recollection of A.M.’s time with Nite Candy squared with A.M.’s. She worked for him, yes, but they were also friends.

[304] Mr. Taylor denied that having sex with him would help a girl move up in ranking; that he threatened to withhold calls from girls if they did not have sex with him; or that he asked for sexual services so he could vouch for the girls with clients.

[305] Mr. Taylor denied ever having nonconsensual sex with M.C.P. or O.D.C.

Mark Taylor’s Credibility and Reliability

[306] Mr. Taylor was not a credible witness. Many inconsistencies were exposed during his cross-examination, beginning with the first question. Mr. Taylor confirmed his testimony in-chief that his only conviction was in 2013 for possession of oxycontin. When asked about a 2011 conviction for possession of a schedule one substance, Mr. Taylor quickly interjected and said he thought Mr. Zeeh was asking whether he had any other convictions after the 2013 conviction.

[307] He did recall that in 2009 he was charged with possession of cocaine and oxycontin.[13] The drugs were Corie’s, not his. Still, he plead guilty and received a 12-month conditional sentence.

[308] In my view, a strikingly similar charge, just two years before, took all the air out of Mr. Taylor’s “hallelujah moment” claim that he learned his lesson in 2013 when he came close to losing everything, and stopped dealing in drugs. I tend to align with the Crown’s suggestion that Mr. Taylor never stopped dealing, he just got better at hiding it by selling through his drivers. But that is not a determination I need to make. This is just another blow to Mr. Taylor’s overall credibility and reliability.

[309] The Crown put to Mr. Taylor that he knew M.C.P. was a massive drug addict. He said he did not know if she was a massive drug addict. He was taken to the statement he gave police on March 5, 2020. When he was asked by police if he knew M.C.P., and his answer was “we fired her.” Mr. Taylor did not recall saying this to the officer. When asked why she was fired, his answer was “she was a massive drug addict.”

[310] The Crown then asked whether he hired 150 girls per year. He said that number seemed excessive, but he really did not know. It was also put to him that he thought a large number of the girls he hired had drug problems. Mr. Taylor said he would not know that. The Crown again took him to his police statement, where he said, “in an escort service, there’s literally about 150 employees a year, and a large part of them have drug problems.” He agrees that was what his statement said, but he does not remember much of what he said that day, or why he said it.

[311] For every inconsistency found between his police statement and his trial testimony, Mr. Taylor fell back on the explanation that he was traumatized when he spoke to police, and did not recall why he said what he did. He may well have been traumatized. However, despite being given every opportunity to explain his inconsistencies he demurred.

[312] Mr. Taylor consistently evaded pointed questions, and his explanations in respect of incriminating evidence strained credulity.

[313] He agreed he would get angry at a girl if she showed up too drunk or high to perform call. He would text them, and berate them for their behaviour. If it was a continuous problem, he would threaten to fire them. He did not agree he would threaten to withhold work, but he agreed these behaviours threatened everyone’s livelihood. To wit, Nite Candy’s entire business model depended on these women being capable of performing sexual services in exchange for money.

[314] Mr. Taylor did his level best to portray himself as a benevolent employer. For example, if there was a dead call (where a girl arrived at a call, but for whatever reason the transaction did not happen), he said the girls would, at times, be paid for their travel time, similar to what the driver was paid ($40). But even if they were not paid, “the girls seemed to understand.” Nite Candy would do its best to get them out on the following call, or try to set them up with a client in whatever area they were working in.

[315] Mr. Taylor denied that Nite Candy sold drugs to clients. When asked why clients would send Nite Candy $50 transfers, given that there were no $50 services listed on Nite Candy’s website, Mr. Taylor said that would be the girl’s tip – this happened when the client didn’t have enough cash on hand. When the Crown asked whether a review of his records would show these tip transfers coming in, and a corresponding transfer being sent to the worker in question, Mr. Taylor said no, he would pay the girls in cash. While this does not go to the heart of the issues, it illustrates how Mr. Taylor adapts his testimony in answer to precise questions.

[316] When asked what the base rate the client was charged actually covered, Mr. Taylor said “being there, time, usually.” It was up to the girl if she wanted to charge for anything beyond that. For example, if a client wanted oral sex, the girl could decide whether she would do so for the base rate, or charge more for it. It appeared Mr. Taylor was saying that he was selling companionship, and if the client wanted anything sexual, that could cost more, and was at the girl’s discretion. This testimony flies in the face of all other evidence. Why require the dispatcher to drill down to determine exactly what services the client wanted? Why ensure that the girl they sent on the call would perform those particular services? For that matter, why keep a list of each girl’s restrictions in the first place? Mr. Taylor could only say this was the “industry standard”, and the discrepancy was never reconciled.

[317] Mr. Taylor could not answer the simple question of whether Nite Candy was primarily a cash business. This practice only makes sense in the sex trade industry, where clients might want to remain as anonymous as possible. And it is contrary to Ms. Asmann-Brown and Mr. Buccellato’s evidence that Nite Candy was mostly a cash business.

[318] Mr. Taylor also said during the high season in the summer, a dispatcher could field 20 calls per night. Ms. Asmann-Brown’s evidence was that a good night could yield 75 to 100 calls. I prefer Ms. Asmann-Brown’s evidence on this issue. Ms. Asmann-Brown had nothing to gain by exaggerating the extent of Nite Candy’s business, and Mr. Taylor had every reason to minimize the reach of his operations.

[319] When looked at in isolation, I cannot believe certain aspects of Mr. Taylor’s evidence. But my task is not to assess his evidence in isolation. I must compare his evidence to the evidence of all the witnesses, recognizing that one possible outcome of the comparison and overall assessment of evidence is that I may have a reasonable doubt about Mr. Taylor’s guilt: see R. v. Hull, 2006 CanLII 26572 (ON CA) , at para. 5.

[320] To be fair, not all of Mr. Taylor’s evidence was unreliable. He agreed he earned a living from the sexual labour supplied by the complainants, and all the other women he hired to work at Nite Candy. He agreed he advertised the sexual services of the women who worked for Nite Candy. He fairly conceded to having sex with many of his workers.

[321] I can believe, some, none, or all of Mr. Taylor’s evidence. In light of the credibility problems outlined above, I reject his evidence in its entirety except where it is corroborated by other evidence.

V. Count to Count Similar Fact Evidence

[322] The Crown requests that this court apply the evidence of each complainant regarding the allegations to that of the other in support of the inference that all of the offences were committed by Mr. Taylor.

[323] The Crown submits that the cross count evidence is probative to the four live issues at trial:

a. the atmosphere and conditions prevailing in the relationships that Mr. Taylor had with each of the complainants while they worked for him;

b. the purpose behind Mr. Taylor’s conduct within the relationships – for the human trafficking counts as well as the s. 286.3 counts;

c. to show that Mr. Taylor had a specific propensity to engage in sexual activity with the women who worked as escorts for him, and a disregard to the limitations placed on him when said sexual activity was taking place; and

d. the credibility of the complainants.

[324] Given these similarities, the Crown submits the probative value of the similar fact evidence exceeds any prejudicial effect, and asks for an order allowing the evidence of one complainant to be admitted as similar fact evidence on the allegations of the other complainant, because it is relevant to whether the acts occurred.

[325] Defence asks this court to dismiss the Crown’s application. The complainants all recounted different experiences. Their accounts do not overlap, nor do they share distinctive details, and there is a real risk that a complainant’s credibility might be improperly enhanced.

[326] Defence also submits that there is the potential for collusion amongst the complainants, given that they interacted with similar people.

Discussion

[327] The leading authority on the admission of similar fact evidence is the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908.

[328] As both counsel correctly point out, similar fact evidence linking the accused to other disreputable acts is presumptively inadmissible. Evidence of general propensity, disposition, or bad character is subject to a general exclusionary rule: Handy at para. 36.

[329] This rule is in place to avoid the trier of fact inferring, on the basis of the similar facts, that the accused is disposed to carry out the acts in question, and that she or he is therefore guilty: Handy at para. 31.

[330] This exclusionary rule applies whether the other alleged acts are included in other counts on the indictment or relate to conduct that is entirely off-indictment. Where the evidence in issue involves count-to-count similar acts, the prejudice associated with it is arguably lower than would be the case if the proffered similar fact evidence involved prior, off-indictment, disreputable conduct.

[331] However, there is a narrow exception of admissibility where the evidence is so highly relevant and cogent that its probative value outweighs any prejudice to the accused. This occurs where the force of similar circumstances makes coincidence improbable or defies other innocent explanation: Handy at para. 47.

[332] The Supreme Court set out a roadmap in Handy to assist triers of fact when grappling with similar fact evidence applications. First, the probative value of the evidence must be determined and considered. Second, there is to be a weighing of the probative value versus prejudice.

[333] The Crown bears the onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the likely probative value of the evidence will outweigh the potential prejudice.

Probative Value

[334] In examining probative value, the first consideration must be the issue to which the similar fact evidence is directed. In other words, what is it proposed to prove? In this case, the Crown seeks to use the evidence to prove:

1. That the acts occurred;

2. To negate the defence of innocent association or accident; and

3. To negate the defence of consent.

[335] The threshold for probative value is high and requires both a significant degree of cogency of the similar fact evidence in relation to the inferences sought to be drawn, and a demonstration of the strength of the proof of the similar facts themselves. Similarities in detail and proximity in time between the impugned evidence and the charged conduct will enhance the probative value, while differences in the evidence, lack of detail, and larger gaps in time between the events will diminish the probative value.

[336] I will now turn to the similarities and differences between the evidence.

Temporal Proximity of Similar Acts

[337] The allegations of sexual activity between Mr. Taylor and his workers occurred within a very large date range – for V.T. it was sometime around 2011 or 2012, and for A.M. it was 2020. However, for the most part the alleged similar acts are proximate in time, and for some complainants, there is an overlap in time.

Similarity in Detail

[338] The conduct is similar in nature. All of the complainants were sex workers. All but A.M. were young women, and looking to get out of difficult financial situations. Many, with the exception of A.M. and O.D.C., were dealing with substance abuse issues.

[339] The complainants experienced similar employment circumstances. Mr. Taylor was their boss, and they worked for him. The clients belonged to him, and they were not to see the clients outside of the Nite Candy business. They all followed the same payment systems – obtain funds before completing the call. The driver and Mr. Taylor earned a portion of the funds collected. They primarily did “in calls” at a client’s home or a hotel.[14]

[340] V.T., M.C.P., N.E., O.D.C. and A.M. all engaged in sexual activity with Mr. Taylor, although not all for the same reasons. Some were afraid not to (O.D.C.)., some because she thought it would garner better calls (V.T., N.E.), some because they were paid to (M.C.P., A.M.).

[341] I am reminded of Binnie J.’s caution in R. v. Shearing, 2002 SCC 58, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 33, where he explained, at para 60, “The judge’s task is not to add up similarities and dissimilarities and then, like an accountant, derive a net balance. At microscopic levels of detail, dissimilarities can always be exaggerated and multiplied.”

[342] Rather, the question is better framed as whether there was a "persuasive degree of connection between the similar fact evidence and the offence charged”: Shearing, at para. 48. I find that there was.

Circumstances Surrounding the Acts

[343] The circumstances surrounding the acts are similar. They include vaginal sex, anal sex, and oral sex. All sexual acts occurred at Mr. Taylor’s house, although the houses differed over time. All sexual acts took place while the complainant worked for Nite Candy.

Distinctive Unifying Features

[344] Where the evidence of similar acts is tendered in support of proof of the actus reus, rather than to establish the identity of the accused, it is not an invariable requirement that there be a ‘trademark’ or ‘signature’ distinctiveness underlying the events that are being compared.

[345] This was confirmed in R. v. C.K., 2015 ONCA 747, 342 O.A.C. 87, where similar fact evidence was admitted both across counts and on extrinsic/uncharged conduct to prove the actus reus of the offences charged, and to, at para. 33, “assess the credibility of a blanket denial” by the accused.

Collusion

[346] Collusion is an important factor when considering admitting similar fact evidence. The issue is concoction or elaboration, not contact: Handy at para. 111.

[347] The Crown submits there is no air of reality to allegations of collusion amongst the complainants, with the exception O.D.C. and C.M. However, if the court were to find there was an air of reality in respect of the complainants, then the onus is on the Crown to satisfy the court that, on a balance of probabilities, their evidence has not been tainted by collusion. I find the Crown has met its onus in this regard. The complainants testified that they may have vaguely been aware of one or two of the others – for example, V.T. did not know who M.C.P. was, but M.C.P. knew of V.T. – the vast majority did not know one another. Or if they did, it was of a passing nature, to the effect that they knew a particular girl worked for Nite Candy. Their experiences, while bearing many similar features, were each uniquely individual.

[348] Defence submits that the fact all complainants knew of Mr. Buccellato and Michelle Power causes the potential for collusion, and also calls into question whether the complainants are truly independent. This argument is not persuasive, as it has no bearing on whether the complainants shared their evidence prior to giving testimony at trial.

[349] Defence also argues that many of the complainants testified they were told by other girls that if they slept with Mr. Taylor, they would get better calls. This calls their independence into question, because they received information and heard stories from similar sources. Again, this argument is not persuasive. The evidence shows that the complainants became aware of the “perks” of sleeping with Mr. Taylor during their tenure with him – it was the elephant in the room everyone knew about, but no one spoke openly of. Again, there is no evidence to suggest the complainants discussed these “perks” with one another with a view to ensuring they were all on the same page at trial.

[350] In respect of O.D.C. and C.M., they had the most potential to collude. They were cousins, and they confided their experiences with Mr. Taylor with each other via text messages, which were entered into evidence. For example, C.M. told O.D.C. that she was beaten up at Mr. Taylor’s birthday party, forced to do drugs, and forced to have sex with a girl. C.M. also told O.D.C. that Mr. Taylor told her she would get better clients if she slept with him. O.D.C. told C.M. that Mr. Taylor “fucked her in the ass.” She did not tell C.M. about the gun incident until after the police investigation was underway.

[351] In light of the evidence that O.D.C. and C.M. communicated about the allegations, there is an air of reality to the possibility of inadvertent or unintentional collusion. However, on a balance of probabilities the Crown has proven that the evidence of similar facts is not tainted by collusion. The mere opportunity for collusion does not render the similar fact evidence inadmissible if the evidence is otherwise probative. "The issue is concoction or collaboration, not contact": Handy at paragraph 111.

[352] As cousins, it was natural for the two to have discussions about their time with Mr. Taylor. It would be common to have discussions about their shared experiences, particularly given that O.D.C. was the one who introduced C.M. to Mr. Taylor. And it was O.D.C. who encouraged C.M. to come forward to the police. Indeed, O.D.C. called C.M. from the police station when she gave her statement February 21, 2019.

[353] However, I find their evidence is dissimilar on so many levels that it cannot be said to be tailored to fit that of the other. For example, Mr. Taylor did not threaten C.M. with a gun. Nor did Mr. Taylor use physical force on O.D.C.

[354] Further, O.D.C. testified C.M. told her that on the night of Mr. Taylor’s birthday party she was sitting on the toilet and being punched by people at the party – Mr. Taylor and his friends. Yet C.M. confirmed she did not ever say this to O.D.C.

Probative Value Against Prejudicial Effect

[355] Next, the applications judge must consider the prejudicial effect of the similar fact evidence. This prejudice presents itself in two forms: moral prejudice, which may cause the trier of fact to convict on the basis of bad character; and reasoning prejudice, which may divert the trier of fact and give the similar fact evidence more weight than it deserves.

[356] I refer to the Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. B. (R.T.), 2009 ONCA 177, 95 O.R. (3d) 21, and para. 27 in particular:

As the proposed similar fact evidence in this case was related to all the counts in the indictment and the evidence was already before the court, and because this was a non‑jury trial, reasoning prejudice was not a real issue. Unlike cases such as Handy, this was not a case where the proposed similar fact evidence was extrinsic to the charges before the court and required extra witnesses to present it. The only additional time needed as a result of the similar fact evidence was the time required to argue the motion to admit it. As trial judges are presumed to know the law and the proper and improper uses of evidence, it seems counterintuitive that similar fact evidence could be excluded in a non‑jury trial based on the trial judge's determination that the evidence would confuse him or induce him to put more weight on it than is logically justified.

[357] The proposed similar fact evidence is not extraneous to the counts before me. Further, both moral and reasoning prejudice are “significantly reduced” when the application is on a count-to-count similar fact application, as the evidence is admissible despite its status as simar fact: see R. v. J.H., 2018 ONCA 245.

[358] I am satisfied that the probative value of the similar fact evidence, for the uses described above, outweighs its prejudicial impact on Mr. Taylor. The probative value is significant, while any prejudicial impact is minor.

[359] Finally, I have already heard all of the evidence, and am cognizant of what weight I am to accord it. In other words, I will not be distracted from the proper focus of the charge: see R. v. M.T., 2009 CanLII 29204 (ON SC), at para. 18.

Conclusion on Similar Fact Application

[360] I find that Mr. Taylor’s involvement in the alleged similar acts is unlikely to be the product of mere coincidence, and the evidence has sufficient probative force to be admitted. Accordingly, the Crown’s motion is granted, and the cross-count similar fact evidence is admissible to demonstrate the atmosphere or culture of the relationships Mr. Taylor had with the complainants.

[361] Having canvassed the evidence, and having determined the permissible use of count to count similar fact evidence, I will now turn to an analysis of the charged offences.

VI. Analysis and Findings

[362] Before commencing my analysis, I have a general observation to make. This was a difficult trial, concerning difficult subject matter. It was also an important trial. Throughout it I was mindful of Justice Moldaver’s edict in R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 579, at para. 1, where he reminds us that “myths, stereotypes, and sexual violence against women – particularly Indigenous women and sex workers – are tragically common” and “without a doubt, eliminating myths, stereotypes and sexual violence against women is one of the more pressing challenges we face as a society…put simply, we can – and must – do better.”

[363] How is a judge to accomplish our highest court’s clarion call? Justice Nakatsuru recently provided sound guidance in R. v. Musara, 2022 ONSC 2835, at para. 12, a case which also dealt with human trafficking, where he held that:

To properly assess the evidence in cases like this, a trauma-informed approach must be taken. Otherwise, the testimony of a complainant will not be given the weight it deserves. Otherwise, the truth of what happened will not be uncovered.

[364] Justice Nakatsuru went on to caution that “inconsistency in details and recollections are to be expected when one suffers a trauma such as a sexual assault,” at para. 286.

[365] I was truly struck by the internal courage it took all seven complainants to come forward. Each woman spoke candidly about her experiences in the sex trade, an industry all but one might have chosen to avoid if life circumstances had been different.

[366] The complainants were not perfect witnesses, yet each wore her imperfections with pride.

[367] Memories have faded, some through time, some through drug use. The subject matter was difficult. The details were dark and intimate, typically discussed behind closed doors, not in the bright glare of a courtroom. Yet not one of the complainants shied away from speaking her truth. Every woman provided a logical and compelling account of her involvement with Mr. Taylor and Nite Candy. And despite there being inconsistencies, their evidence was harmonious on important issues.

[368] I have made every effort to approach this trial through the trauma-informed lens endorsed in Musara, all the while being ever-mindful of Mr. Taylor’s presumption of innocence.

Counts 5, 9, 12 and 19 – Human Trafficking

[369] Before commencing my analysis, I have a general observation to make. This was a difficult trial, concerning difficult subject matter. It was also an important trial. Throughout it I was mindful of Justice Moldaver’s edict in R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 579, at para. 1, where he reminds us that “myths, stereotypes, and sexual violence against women – particularly Indigenous women and sex workers – are tragically common” and “without a doubt, eliminating myths, stereotypes and sexual violence against women is one of the more pressing challenges we face as a society…put simply, we can – and must – do better.”

[370] How is a judge to accomplish our highest court’s clarion call? Justice Nakatsuru recently provided sound guidance in R. v. Musara, 2022 ONSC 2835, at para. 12, a case which also dealt with human trafficking, where he held that:

To properly assess the evidence in cases like this, a trauma-informed approach must be taken. Otherwise, the testimony of a complainant will not be given the weight it deserves. Otherwise, the truth of what happened will not be uncovered.

[371] Justice Nakatsuru went on to caution that “inconsistency in details and recollections are to be expected when one suffers a trauma such as a sexual assault,” at para. 286.

[372] I was truly struck by the internal courage it took all seven complainants to come forward. Each woman spoke candidly about her experiences in the sex trade, an industry all but one might have chosen to avoid if life circumstances had been different.

[373] The complainants were not perfect witnesses, yet each wore her imperfections with pride.

[374] Memories have faded, some through time, some through drug use. The subject matter was difficult. The details were dark and intimate, typically discussed behind closed doors, not in the bright glare of a courtroom. Yet not one of the complainants shied away from speaking her truth. Every woman provided a logical and compelling account of her involvement with Mr. Taylor and Nite Candy. And despite there being inconsistencies, their evidence was harmonious on important issues.

[375] I have made every effort to approach this trial through the trauma-informed lens endorsed in Musara, all the while being ever-mindful of Mr. Taylor’s presumption of innocence.

[376] Mr. Taylor is charged with human trafficking M.C.P., O.D.C., C.M. and V.T. under s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code, which provides:

Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person, for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence…

[377] Section 279.01(2) provides that any consent by a complainant to the conducted allegedly engaged in by Mr. Taylor is not valid. One cannot validly consent to being trafficked or exploited.

[378] Here, the Crown alleges that during the periods set out in the indictments, Mr. Taylor exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of M.C.P., O.D.C., C.M. and V.T., for the purpose of exploiting each of them, and thus is guilty of human trafficking.

[379] Given the Crown’s allegations, there are two essential elements that it must prove, to the reasonable doubt standard, in order to establish Mr. Taylor’s guilt on counts 5, 9, 12 and 19:

a. that Mr. Taylor exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of M.C.P., O.D.C., C.M., or V.T.; and

b. the purpose for which Mr. Taylor exercised control, direction or influence was the exploitation of M.C.P., O.D.C., C.M., or V.T.

[380] “Exercising control” has been defined by the Court of Appeal as giving an order that the person has little choice but to obey. “Exercising direction” is like imposing a rule that a person must follow. “Exercising influence” is like proposing an idea, and persuading the person to adopt it: see R. v. Gallone, 2019 ONCA 663, 147 O.R. (3d) 225, at para. 47

[381] As Hoy A.C.J.O. set out in Gallone, at para. 50:

[t]hese residual terms – “exercises control, direction or influence” – evoke a scenario in which a person, by virtue of his or her relationship with the complainant, has some power – whether physical, psychological, moral or otherwise – over the complainant and his or her movements.

[382] The Court in R.S..M. held that an accused exercised direction or influence by “telling complainants where to go, transporting them, telling them how much to charge, and collecting money from them”: R. v. R.S.M., 1994 CanLII 10511 (NL SC), at para. 48.

[383] I begin my analysis with the actus reus element, and whether Mr. Taylor exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of the complainants. For the following reasons, the Crown has proven Mr. Taylor did so beyond a reasonable doubt.

[384] With respect to all four complainants, I accept and rely on their evidence that Mr. Taylor did the following:

• he hired them as sex workers for Nite Candy

• he either took photographs, or used photographs the girl provided to him, to advertise her sexual services on the internet

• he controlled the advertising

• he exclusively decided what rank a girl was given

• he selected the calls she would be sent on – the girls did not have the ability to be assigned to a particular client

• he did not divulge the location of the call to the girls

• he controlled the situations the girls were placed into, some of which were dangerous

• he exclusively controlled the rates he charged for the girls

• he exclusively controlled the amounts everyone received from each call

• he or his drivers collected the pre-determined portion of her earnings immediately after the call (on cash jobs)

• he had a prescribed procedure to follow for credit card receipts

• he or his drivers drove the girl to the job, waited outside while the call was completed, and then took the girl to the next job

• he expected his drivers to report to him if a girl was having any issues (ie: intoxication)

• he used his home as a central place of operations during the alleged periods

• he forbade the girls from performing sexual services for money with Nite Candy’s clients

• he expected the girl to remain at the call for the full hour regardless of whether sexual services had been performed, to ensure Nite Candy’s reputation

• he was solely in charge of their hiring and firing

• he created a system at Nite Candy whereby every employee earned money based on the girls’ provision of sexual services

• he required or encouraged women to spend time at his house

• he sought to influence the services she provided – going beyond her restrictions would generate more income

• he told them their ranking and quality of calls depended on whether they had sex with him or not

• he would threaten to withhold calls from them if the did not take a call they were uncomfortable with

• Mr. Buccellato confirmed that drivers were told to use coercive measures to get the girls to take calls if they were reluctant

• he would send women on calls despite the client wanting services that were on her restricted list

• he threatened to expose them to their families or friends as a form of control over them

[385] In respect of V.T. and M.C.P., Mr. Taylor:

• used their children as pawns, threatening they would lose them if CAS found out that she was a sex worker

• took advantage of their drug addictions by supplying them drugs (either directly or through Nite Candy drivers)

[386] In respect of V.T., Mr. Taylor:

• would “spot” her drugs when she did not have money to pay for them, creating a cycle during certain points in her employment with Nite Candy whereby she worked just to repay her debts to him

• would receive the company’s portion of the call, along with V.T.’s

• solely kept track of this arrangement

• encouraged a cycle of drug abuse to increase V.T.’s dependence on him

• gave V.T. more calls during those periods she owed him money for drugs.

[387] The actus reus having been made out to the reasonable doubt standard, the analysis then turns to the mens rea – whether Mr. Taylor’s conduct was for the purpose of exploitation. Where exploitation arises from the facts, “inferring that the accused’s purpose was to exploit the victims will usually be a straightforward task”: Gallone, at para. 47.

[388] I must objectively examine all of the circumstances, if either of M.C.P., O.D.C., C.M. or V.T. had a subjective belief her safety would be threatened if she did not provide, or continue to provide, sexual services for consideration. This belief must arise out of Mr. Taylor’s conduct, and be subjectively reasonable.

[389] Exploitation is defined under s. 279.04(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code:

(1). For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety of the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

(2). In determining whether an accused person exploits another person under subsection (1), the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused

(a) used or threatened to use force or another form of coercion;

(b) used deception; or

(c) abused a position of trust, power or authority.

[390] Safety extends to psychological harm: R. v. A.(A.), 2015 ONCA 558, 327 C.C.C. (3d) 377, at para. 71.

[391] In considering what forms of conduct might reasonably cause a complainant to fear be fearful for her safety, there are a number of relevant facts to be taking into account:

• The presence or absence of violence or threats

• Coercion, including physical emotional or psychological

• Deception

• Abuse of trust, power, or authority

• Vulnerability due to age or personal circumstances, such as social or economic

disadvantage and victimization from other sources

• Isolation of the complainant

• The nature of the relationship between the accused and the complainant

• Directive behaviour

• Influence exercised over the nature and location services provided

• Control over advertising of services

• Limitations on the complainant’s movement

• Control of finances

• Financial benefit to the accused, and

• Use of social media to assert control or monitor communications with others.

R. v. Sinclair, 2020 ONCA 61, 384 C.C.C. (3d) 484, at para. 15.

[392] The testimony of M.C.P., O.D.C. and V.T. provides evidence of virtually all of these factors. Mr. Taylor intentionally created an environment at Nite Candy that caused each of them to psychologically fear for their safety. Using subtle and overt acts, he made it clear he was the boss, and dissent would be punished. This culture ensured that M.C.P., O.D.C., and V.T. would continue working for him, providing a steady income stream.

[393] These were young, vulnerable women, working in a dangerous and unpredictable industry. They looked to Mr. Taylor as a protector, at least when they started working for him.

[394] That relationship changed over time as the women became more beholden to him. Their pictures were now up on Nite Candy’s website. He had learned details about their families. They were manipulated to go to calls when they did not want to. They feared reprisals if they said no. Some had seen him lash out at other girls.

[395] Each of M.C.P., O.D.C., and V.T. were afraid of being exposed to family and friends. Mr. Taylor used this fear to his advantage by exercising influence over their movements to keep them working which, in turn, earned him more money.

[396] The women also needed money. I find Mr. Taylor would penalize the complainants by withholding work if they refused to take a call, which jeopardized their financial well-being. The threat of not earning enough money to support oneself can also be a form of psychological fear.

[397] The fact that each of them approached Mr. Taylor about working in the sex trade does not alter the fact that they eventually felt they had no real choice but to continue working for him.

[398] I find their fears were objectively reasonable.

[399] The situation was heightened for M.C.P. and V.T., who struggled with addiction. I find Mr. Taylor was well aware of this, and he provided M.C.P. and V.T. with drugs to feed their addiction. They then had to work for Mr. Taylor to pay off their debts.

[400] A drug dealer/drug user scenario has been held to create a relationship of dependency that could be exploited by the dealer to vitiate consent to sexual activity: R. v. A.H., [2000] O.J. No. 3258, at para. 17. In R. v. Mohylov, 2019 ONSC 1269 at paras. 36 and 39, Di Luca J. applied this reasoning in the context of a certiorari application:

This argument can be readily rejected. At this stage, all that is required is some evidence that the relationship between the accused and the complainant involved a position of trust or power that was abused. More particularly, in the drug dealer- drug user context, an abuse of the trust relationship arises where there is an inference that a dependency was exploited to achieve a desired end.

In terms of abusing the relationship of trust or power, there must be evidence that the accused took advantage of the drug dependency to achieve a desired end. In the context of sexual assault, the desired end is the purported consent to sexual activity. In the context of human trafficking, the desired end is getting the sex worker to perform sexual acts.

[401] M.C.P. and V.T. also had the added layer of fearing losing their children if their families, or the CAS, found out about their sex work. In R. v. Antoine, 2019 ONSC 3843 , the court held that the use of a complainant’s concern for her child is a clear use of psychological pressure in order to have them continue to work in the sex trade.

M.C.P.

[402] I find that it is reasonable to infer that M.C.P. feared for her psychological or physical safety if (a) her drug supply was cut off; (b) her sex work was exposed; or (c) she lost her children to the CAS. Therefore, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taylor exercised influence over M.C.P. for the purpose of, and with the intention of, exploiting M.C.P. to have her provide sexual services in exchange for money. This was done to Mr. Taylor’s financial advantage.

[403] I therefore find Mr. Taylor guilty on this count.

O.D.C.

[404] I find that it is reasonable to infer that O.D.C. feared for her psychological or physical safety. Despite it not being a behaviour witnessed by any other complainant, I find that O.D.C. was threatened with a gun her first night at Nite Candy, and forced to do drugs. She was then picked up by a Nite Candy driver and taken to her first call, with drugs in hand to deliver to the client. I further find that Mr. Taylor’s comment that her “mother would do well at Nite Candy” was a veiled threat – meaning he knew where to find her mother if he wanted to make good on his promise to expose O.D.C.

[405] I therefore find Mr. Taylor guilty on this count.

C.M.

[406] I do not have the same level of confidence that Mr. Taylor trafficked C.M. To begin with, they were in a relationship, where he was her “sugar daddy,” meaning he would give her money and pay for things, in exchange for sex. She could also do calls for Nite Candy if she wished. But she was not forced to. C.M. was likely pressured to do things at Mr. Taylor’s birthday party that she was uncomfortable with, but I do not find that she was in fear for her safety if she did not comply, either that night or during the time she worked for Mr. Taylor overall.

[407] Mr. Taylor did not threaten to expose her.

[408] C.M. was not addicted to drugs and reliant on Mr. Taylor to send her on calls so she could support her addiction.

[409] In short, in the totality of the circumstances in respect of C.M., I am not satisfied Mr. Taylor exercised influence over C.M. for the purpose of, and with the intention of, exploiting her to perform sexual services for consideration.

[410] An acquittal will be entered in relation to count 12.

V.T.

[411] I find that it is reasonable to infer that V.T. feared for her psychological or physical safety if (a) her drug supply was cut off; (b) her sex work was exposed; or (c) she lost her children to the CAS. Therefore, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taylor exercised influence over V.T. for the purpose of, and with the intention of, exploiting V.T. to have her provide sexual services in exchange for money. This was done to Mr. Taylor’s financial advantage.

[412] I therefore find Mr. Taylor guilty on this count.

Count 1 – Financially Benefitting from Human Trafficking

[413] Mr. Taylor is charged with receiving a financial or other benefit knowing that it was obtained from the commission of an offence under s. 279.01 alone, or in conjunction with 279.011.

[414] In light of the fact that I have convicted Mr. Taylor of human trafficking in respect of M.C.P., O.D.C. and V.T., Mr. Taylor concedes to count 1 in relation to these three complainants only.

[415] I therefore find Mr. Taylor guilty on this count.

Counts 13, 18, 20, 22 – Procuring

[416] Mr. Taylor is charged with procuring C.M., S.D., V.T. and A.M. Prior to trial he conceded to procuring M.C.P., O.D.C., and N.E.

[417] Section 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code provides that:

Everyone who procures a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286(1), recruits, holds, conceals or harbours a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person is guilty of an indictable offence…

[418] As outlined in R. v. Alexander, 2016 ONCJ 882 at para. 51, procuring can be proved in one of two ways:

First, the term “procure” was interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Deutsch, 1986 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1986] S.C.J. No. 44 (S.C.C.) at para. 32, as meaning “to cause, induce or have persuasive effect.” This necessarily entails the accused’s active involvement in the prostitution of another. The second way the offence can be proved is by establishing that the accused recruited, held, concealed or harboured a person for the purposes of prostitution or ‘exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a person’ for that purpose.

[419] The mens rea component of these two modes of procurement was set out in Gallone at para. 63:

To prove mens rea for the first mode of the procuring offence, the Crown must prove that the accused intended to procure a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration. To prove mens rea for the second mode, the Crown must prove that the accused intended to do anything that satisfied the actus reus for this mode in relation to a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, and that the accused acted with the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1) (the purchase of sexual services offence).

[420] The Crown has conceded that the first mode of procurement is not at issue in this case. Consequently, to establish procurement, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taylor intentionally caused, persuaded or exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of C.M., S.D., V.T. and A.M. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration. More specifically, the Crown submits Mr. Taylor “exercised control, direction or influence” over C.M., S.D., V.T. and A.M.

[421] As the Court of Appeal noted in Gallone, this second mode of procurement shares language with the human trafficking offence in s. 279.01(1) (although transports, transfers and receives are absent). Accordingly, the actus reus for the procuring offence is made out if the Crown proves Mr. Taylor exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of C.M., S.D. V.T. and A.M.

[422] To prove mens rea, the Crown must prove that Mr. Taylor intended to do anything that satisfies the actus reus of this mode in relation to the complainants, and that he acted with the intention of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1), the offence of obtaining sexual services for consideration.

[423] When assessing the actus reus of procuring, a court should be mindful of the nature of the relationship between the accused and the complainant to determine whether the accused’s conduct impacted the complainant’s state of mind: see R. v. Ochrym, 2021 ONCA 48 at para. 33.

[424] Control over a complainant need not be complete, constant and absolute: see Chahinian c. R., 2022 QCCA 499, at para. 74.

C.M.

[425] When C.M. met Mr. Taylor, she was doing online dominatrix work, which did not include having sex. Her hope was to continue doing the same with Nite Candy. Mr. Taylor told her dominatrix work was in low demand, but she would make more money selling her sexual services – and C.M.’s goal was to make a lot of money, quickly.

[426] Mr. Taylor was a middle-aged man experienced in the sex trade, and C.M. a 20-year-old without any on-the-ground understanding of the inner workings of escorting. And the relationship between C.M. and Mr. Taylor was not simply an employment one. They started a “sugar dating” relationship. There was no element of love or infatuation, at least from C.M.’s perspective, but I find that Mr. Taylor’s conduct in becoming her “sugar daddy” impacted C.M.’s state of mind, and caused her to go out on calls to prove her worth to him.

[427] For these reasons I find Mr. Taylor guilty of procuring C.M, and exercising control, direction or influence over C.M. with the intention of facilitating the purchase of her sexual services.

[428] I therefore find Mr. Taylor guilty on this count.

S.D.

[429] S.D. worked for Nite Candy the summer of 2018. She was looking to make some fast cash so she could move.

[430] As with all the other complainants, Mr. Taylor had significant control over S.D.’s movements. He picked the calls she would go on, he set the rate, he decided her rank. Nite Candy drivers took her to and from calls.

[431] Mr. Taylor got annoyed with S.D. if she rejected calls, and she felt guilt-tripped into working when she wanted time off.

[432] Despite many of the same considerations being at play that I have relied upon to find Mr. Taylor guilty of procuring and human trafficking, here the Crown has not met its burden. Certainly Mr. Taylor is guilty of promoting the sale of S.D.’s sexual services for consideration. However, I do not find he exercised the same control, direction or influence over her movements to facilitate this, as he did over others.

[433] As instructed, I am to consider the nature of their relationship. When I do, I find it to be one of employment. Certainly S.D. had some bad experiences with clients, and toward the end of her time at Nite Candy she felt Mr. Taylor did not care anymore. But I do not find Mr. Taylor’s conduct influenced S.D.’s state of mind to the degree necessary to meet the elements of the offence. In other words, he did not have the same power over S.D. as he did over the other complainants.

[434] S.D. had no drug addiction that Mr. Taylor could exploit. She had no children to fear losing custody of that he could use to psychologically manipulate her. He did not hold over her head the threat of exposing her to friends and family.

[435] For these reasons Mr. Taylor is not guilty of procuring S.D.

[436] An acquittal will be entered in relation to count 18.

V.T.

[437] For substantially the same reasons I found Mr. Taylor guilty of the human trafficking charge in respect of V.T., I find him guilty of procuring. He exercised his control over V.T. in the form of psychological coercion. He was in a relationship of power over her in terms of their employment status (boss/worker), and her drug dependency (supplier/user). He prescribed what calls she would get, what her ranking would be, and the rate she would charge clients. Mr. Taylor did all this to promote V.T.’s sale of sexual services.

[438] For these reasons I find Mr. Taylor guilty of procuring C.M, and exercising control, direction or influence over C.M. with the intention of facilitating the purchase of her sexual services.

[439] I therefore find Mr. Taylor guilty on this count.

A.M.

[440] A.M. was fully autonomous when she started working for Nite Candy. On her own evidence, she did what she wanted to do, when she wanted to. She did not need to work to support an addiction. It is true she was in a “sugar dating” relationship with Mr. Taylor, unlike with C.M., it did not lead to a power imbalance.

[441] At 29 she was closer in age to Mr. Taylor than the other complainants, with life experiences that could inform her choices. She had a job, a life partner, and was looking to the sex trade to make money to open a business.

[442] Mr. Taylor never threatened or assaulted her. She testified he treated her with respect. She had her own car, so could get herself to and from calls without the need of a driver.

[443] As noted above, I am to look at the relationship between A.M. and Mr. Taylor when considering whether there was procurement. In so doing, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taylor procured A.M. and exercised control, direction or influence over her with the intention of facilitating the purchase of her sexual services. I find that A.M. had just as much control, direction or influence over her movements as Mr. Taylor did, and perhaps more.

[444] For these reasons Mr. Taylor is not guilty of procuring A.M.

[445] An acquittal will be entered in relation to count 22.

Counts 7, 11, 14, 17 – Obtaining Sexual Services for Consideration

[446] Mr. Taylor is charged with obtaining sexual services in exchange for money in respect of M.C.P., O.D.C., C.M. and N.E.

[447] Section 286.1 of the Criminal Code provides that:

Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of an indictable offence…

[448] In other words, it is crime for anyone to purchase sexual services. One who sells their sexual services, however, is immune from prosecution pursuant to s. 286.5.

[449] Section 286.1 is a hybrid offence, and can be committed either by obtaining or communicating.

M.C.P.

[450] I find Mr. Taylor obtained the sexual services of M.C.P. for consideration when he offered her $50 to give him oral sex. Her recollection of this event is clear, and not impacted despite being under the influence of cocaine. I do not accept Mr. Taylor’s denial.

[451] I therefore find Mr. Taylor guilty on this count.

O.D.C.

[452] I find that Mr. Taylor obtained the sexual services of O.D.C. for consideration. This offence is corroborated in O.D.C.’s text exchange with Ms. Asmann-Brown, in which she writes “he told me he’d give me money to bang him.” The fact that he did not pay her is of no accord.

[453] I therefore find Mr. Taylor guilty on this count.

C.M.

[454] I find that Mr. Taylor obtained the sexual services of C.M. for consideration. This is the very nature of sugar dating – sex for money under the guise of a relationship. Mr. Taylor admitted in cross-examination that he and C.M. had a monetary agreement.

[455] I therefore find Mr. Taylor guilty on this count.

N.E.

[456] In respect of N.E., there was no evidence that Mr. Taylor directly paid her for sex. However, N.E.’s evidence was that she had sex with Mr. Taylor 5 to 10 times for the sole purpose of generating more calls. These encounters had the desired effect – after having sex with him, she would be sent on more calls. Thus, while money did not change hands, N.E. received a direct benefit in exchange for sleeping with Mr. Taylor – namely, the ability to earn money. While this is a novel argument, I find that Mr. Taylor obtained N.E.’s sexual services for consideration.

[457] I therefore find Mr. Taylor guilty on this count.

Counts 4, 8 – Sexual Assault

[458] Mr. Taylor is charged with sexually assaulting M.C.P. and O.D.C.

[459] Section 276.1 of the Criminal Code provides that everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of an indictable offence.

[460] “Sexual assault” is not defined in the Criminal Code, but the elements of the offence are set out in Barton, at para. 87:

A person commits the actus reus of sexual assault “if he touches another person in a sexual way without her consent.” The mens rea consists of the “intention to touch and knowing, or being reckless of or wilfully blind to, a lack of consent on the part of the person touched.”

M.C.P.

[461] The event in question happened when M.C.P. returned to work at Nite Candy. She was at Mr. Taylor’s house, and he wanted to see what her body looked like naked after having a kid. He then said he was horny, and would give her $50 for a blow job. M.C.P. agreed but told him he could not ejaculate in her mouth. He ignored this restriction, and used his hand to keep her from pulling away as he climaxed in her mouth. M.C.P.’s description of this event was compelling.

[462] Mr. Taylor denies any sexual activity with M.C.P. I reject his evidence on this point. His memory cannot be counted on given the overwhelming evidence that he was sexually involved with many of the women who worked for him – Corie, Michelle, C.M., A.M., V.T., T., R., Z., some of whom he did not remember until prompted.

[463] I therefore find Mr. Taylor guilty on this count.

O.D.C.

[464] O.D.C. woke up to Mr. Taylor penetrating her as she was asleep on his couch. She did not fight him because the incident with the gun was still fresh in her mind. She did not communicate consent to Mr. Taylor. He did not wear a condom and he ejaculated inside of her, which caused her to fear getting a sexually transmitted disease and getting pregnant. She got tested regularly as a result.

[465] As with M.C.P., Mr. Taylor denies having sex with O.D.C., despite telling police that he did have sex with her in the context of their investigation following O.D.C.’s statement in February 2020. I do not accept Mr. Taylor’s protestations, and find that he had nonconsensual sex with O.D.C.

[466] I therefore find Mr. Taylor guilty on this count.

VI. CONCLUSION

[467] For the foregoing reasons, the following verdicts will be recorded with respect to each count on the indictment:

Count 1 Guilty (in respect of M.C.P., O.D.C., V.T.)

Count 2 Guilty

Count 3 Guilty

Count 4 Guilty

Count 5 Guilty

Count 6 Guilty

Count 7 Guilty

Count 8 Guilty

Count 9 Guilty

Count 10 Guilty

Count 11 Guilty

Count 12 Not guilty

Count 13 Guilty

Count 14 Guilty

Count 15 Withdrawn

Count 16 Guilty

Count 17 Guilty

Count 18 Not Guilty

Count 19 Guilty

Count 20 Guilty

Count 21 Withdrawn

Count 22 Not Guilty

Count 23 Guilty

CASULLO J.

Released: February 14, 2023

[1] Initially a 44-count indictment. A number of counts pertained to K.K., who could not be located for trial. The Crown conceded there was no reasonable prospect of conviction for the counts that related to K.K.

[2] Sex without protection.

[3] This was Mr. Taylor’s girlfriend at the time, Tanya Swales.

[4] It appears that these pictures were not entered as exhibits.

[5] A list of clients a girl would not want to service.

[6] Exhibit 9, Tab 3, text messages between O.D.C. and C.M. C.M.’s is identified on her phone as C.L.

[7] Mr. Taylor also threatened to get her boyfriend in trouble because he was driving her to Mr. Taylor’s house, and could be considered her pimp.

[8] “Shake my head”.

[9] She had noted on the website that girls were rated, and priced, differently.

[10] A site for persons looking for companionship, similar to a chat room.

[11] “I need to taste you again.”

[12] However, the right girl for any given customer was not always on call. N.E. heard calls where a client would ask for a certain girl, or a certain look, and if she was not available, Mr. Taylor would simply send a different girl in her place. The fallout with the client was the girl’s responsibility to handle.

[13] While he could not recall how much was in his possession, Crown confirmed it was 37.3 grams of cocaine and 43 oxycontin pills.

[14] There was some evidence that Mr. Taylor kept a condominium in Collingwood for “out calls” – where the client came to the girl – but it was of no consequence to the issues to be determined in this trial.