ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
GAVIN REID
Amy Stevenson, for the Crown
Gavin Holder, for Gavin Reid
HEARD: July 31, 2023
REASONS FOR DECISION ON SENTENCING
Conlan j.
I. The Background
[1] The offender, Gavin Reid (“Reid”), on June 2, 2023, pleaded guilty to the following five counts: assault of the victim, S.R., causing her bodily harm, contrary to section 267 (b) of the Criminal Code (count 1, the lesser and included offence); unlawful confinement of S.R., contrary to section 279(2) of the Criminal Code (count 2); human trafficking of S.R., contrary to section 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code (count 3); receiving a financial benefit from S.R. in the course of the human trafficking offence, contrary to section 279.02 of the Criminal Code; and the attempted procurement of the victim, S.W., contrary to section 463(b) of the Criminal Code.
[2] The guilty pleas followed a judicial pretrial conference conducted by this Court.
[3] The remaining charges on the Indictment were adjourned to the sentencing date, to be spoken to. As the case will come to a close today, those remaining counts are now marked withdrawn at the request of the Crown.
[4] The sentencing hearing was adjourned more than once and was ultimately held today.
II. The Facts
[5] There is no victim input before the Court because, tragically, S.R. is deceased. She died of a drug overdose after giving her statement to the police. She was an Indigenous woman. The offender is a Black man.
[6] The facts are outlined in Exhibit 11, the agreed statement of facts.
[7] In summary, S.R. worked with Reid and a female accused for approximately two weeks. S.R. was addicted to and used drugs. She also used alcohol, which Reid supplied to her. As a sex trade worker, S.R. was controlled by Reid. He chose the hotels. He booked the hotels. He posted her online ads for sexual services. He communicated with clients and scheduled the clients. All money paid for S.R.’s sexual services was ultimately received by Reid.
[8] On March 18, 2021, the police responded to a residence in Oakville. After being observed in the middle of the road, among garbage bags, moaning and partially naked, a bystander called 9-1-1. After somehow making her way to the door of a nearby residence, those homeowners also called 9-1-1. They took S.R. inside. Exhibit 2 is a video of S.R. inside that home. It is a most disturbing video. It shows an incoherent woman, filthy dirty, partially naked, groaning and moaning on the floor. She had injuries and bruises throughout her body.
[9] Exhibit 6 is a video of what happened before S.R. was dumped in the middle of the road. Reid is seen dragging S.R. out of the hotel and throwing her into the back of a motor vehicle. S.R. appears like a doll, nearly naked, not visibly moving. After throwing S.R. into the motor vehicle, Reid punches her numerous times until he is stopped by the female accused.
[10] With regard to the second victim, S.W., Reid tried to arrange for her to accompany S.R. on an overnight sex call. Reid spoke to S.W. about doing her own sex calls. Reid spent several hours outside S.W.’s apartment, calling S.W., texting S.W., and knocking on S.W.’s apartment door, all in an effort to get S.W. involved in the sex trade industry.
[11] Reid was arrested by the police on March 20, 2021. He has been in custody ever since.
III. The Circumstances of the Offender
[12] Reid has one prior criminal conviction, from February 2014. On that date, he was convicted of robbery, contrary to section 343 of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to a period of probation for twelve months.
[13] Reid is currently 32 years old. He has two young children, ages three and eight years. He had a third child, however, that child passed away. The Court was not provided with any further details in that regard. Since being in custody, Reid has been an adherent of Islam. He has also completed programs in anger management and managing stress.
[14] Reid has no high school diploma but wants to obtain that and continue with post-secondary education. He used to own and operate a dog training business.
[15] In his statement to this Court earlier today, Reid expressed an apology to the victims and much remorse for his criminal actions.
IV. The Positions of the Crown and the Defence
[16] Both sides agree that this Court is not bound by any mandatory minimum penalties in this case.
[17] The Crown suggests a global sentence of seven years’ incarceration, less the appropriate credit for presentence custody. The Crown puts that credit at three years and 199 days (each actual day of custody grossed-up to 1.5 days), plus something in the Court’s discretion for the conditions at the correctional institution.
[18] The Crown has provided the Court with a specific breakdown of how the seven years in custody is arrived at, among the various counts that Reid has been found guilty of.
[19] The defence suggests a global sentence, not broken-down among the various counts, of four years’ incarceration, less the appropriate “Summers credit” and “Duncan credit”. The former credit the defence puts at 1296 days (864 actual days grossed-up on a 1 to 1.5 scale). The defence places the latter credit at somewhere between 230 days (half of 460 days, if the Court favours the lockdown calculations provided in the records obtained from Maplehurst Correctional Complex) and 666 days (if the Court favours Reid’s own lockdown calculations as summarized in his affidavit filed on sentencing and his logbook, and if the Court also credits each lockdown day as calculated by Reid on a 1 to 1 scale).
[20] Either way, as per the position of the defence, the net sentence would be time served.
[21] The defence does not oppose any of the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.
V. The Sentence of the Court
Ancillary Orders
[22] Unopposed, all of the ancillary orders sought by the Crown are granted – the non-communication order with the victim, S.W., and with the female accused, A.D., while serving the sentence, under section 743.21 of the Criminal Code; the primary DNA order; and the section 109 order. Given the prior conviction for robbery, and given that the said conviction also resulted in a section 109 order, the order being made today is for life.
[23] Given the amount of time that Reid has already been in custody and the sentence being imposed herein, the victim fine surcharge is hereby waived.
“Summers Credit”
[24] As there is effectively no difference between counsel’s positions with regard to the appropriate “Summers credit”, this Court fixes that at 1296 days, 864 actual days grossed-up on a 1 to 1.5 scale.
“Duncan Credit”
[25] With regard to the appropriate “Duncan credit”, as the Crown, understandably, chose to put an end to this case today and not cross-examine Reid on his affidavit with regard to his lockdown calculations, this Court will accept that Reid has experienced, to date, 454 full lockdowns and 212 partial lockdowns (for a total of 666 lockdown days) while in custody at Maplehurst Correctional Complex.
[26] This Court also accepts that Reid, while in custody, has experienced relatively harsh conditions. As just two examples, he has contracted the COVID-19 virus multiple times, and he had to endure a very painful tooth condition for nearly two years before the tooth was finally extracted by medical staff in February 2023, despite Reid first complaining about the matter and asking for medical assistance as early as April 2021.
[27] Having said that, this Court is not about to give to Reid a “Duncan credit” of 666 days, as requested. In fact, unlike the “Summers credit”, this Court is not required to deduct any specific number of days from what would otherwise be a fit sentence for Reid on account of the conditions at the correctional facility. “Duncan credit” is simply a mitigating factor to take into consideration in the overall mix of circumstances.
[28] Maplehurst’s records, not challenged by the defence on this point, show that Reid had eight misconduct incidents while in custody. This is not an enviable disciplinary record for any inmate, relatively harsh conditions or not. I recognize that the offender in R. v. Dalia, [2023] O.J. No. 1587 (S.C.J.), the case relied upon by the defence in support of its submission that the 666 lockdown days ought to be credited on a 1 to 1 scale, also had misconduct incidents, and yet the learned justice in that case reduced the sentence that would have otherwise been imposed on an approximate 1 to 1 basis on account of the total lockdown days, but I choose not to take the same approach in this case.
[29] Rather, although not required to do so, I will assign a specific number of days to the “Duncan credit” for Reid, but that specific number of days will be 444 days. That is approximately two-thirds (not half, but also not all) of the 666 total lockdown days experienced by Reid while at Maplehurst Correctional Complex.
The Range of Sentence for Human Trafficking
[30] This Court agrees with those decisions that have placed the general range of sentencing for human trafficking offences at four to eight years’ incarceration. R. v. McIntosh, 2022 ONSC 6437, at paragraph 42; R. v. Augustin, 2022 ONSC 5901, at paragraph 89; and R. v. Campbell, et al (unreported, a February 9, 2023 decision of Justice Nightingale of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Court File Number CR-21-2), at paragraph 58.
Mitigating and Aggravating Factors, and the Considerations Outlined in R. v. Tang, 1997 ABCA 174 and R. v. Lopez, 2018 ONSC 4749
[31] The chief mitigating factor here, and a very significant one, is that Reid pleaded guilty to these offences, despite the fact that the primary victim, S.R., is deceased and would obviously not have been able to testify at trial.
[32] The chief aggravating factor is the sheer cruelty of Reid’s exploitation and abuse of S.R. To watch the two videos mentioned above is heart-wrenching. In one, the victim looks like a doll, totally defenseless and either unconscious or barely alert, and yet she is literally dragged out of a hotel building, slammed into the rear of a motor vehicle, and then pummeled at the hands of the much bigger and much stronger Reid. It is disgusting. It is cowardly and brutal. In the other, S.R. looks and sounds like a wounded animal. Covered in dirt and grime, having been dumped by Reid on the roadway as if she was simply another piece of garbage like the plastic bags surrounding her. Not fully clothed, lying under a blanket on the floor of strangers, mumbling incoherently. This was the direct result of having been trafficked by Reid. It is grotesque. It is worthy of serious condemnation by this Court, and it is a perfect example of why the predominant principles of sentencing in this case, and in other cases like it, are denunciation and deterrence.
[33] In terms of the Tang and Lopez considerations, those that tend to aggravate the circumstances of this case are: the degree of coercion and control (very high, as per the agreed facts), money received (all went to Reid, as per the agreed facts), the vulnerability of the victims, especially S.R. (very high, as per the agreed facts), violence (the one video at the hotel speaks for itself), drugs or alcohol (Reid was certainly well aware of S.R.’s addictions to drugs and alcohol, and yet the agreed facts expressly state that he provided her with alcohol), and victim impact (S.R. was ultimately discarded by Reid like trash, left alone on the street to somehow survive or die, whatever would have happened).
[34] Those Tang and Lopez considerations that tend to mitigate the circumstances, or at least those that are neutral in our case, are the ages of the victims (not as young as in some cases), working conditions (not much known about those in our case), planning and sophistication (not one of the more sophisticated human trafficking operations that this Court has seen), number of customers (not much known about that in our case), duration of the exploitation (approximately two weeks is a long time to exploit and abuse another human being, but that duration is also shorter than in many of the cases this Court has been involved in), personal sexual favours (not a factor here, at least with regard to Reid), ages of the customers (not much known about that in our case), avoiding authorities (not much known about that in our case), and preventing the victims from leaving (not much known about that in our case).
A Fit Sentence for Reid
[35] Taking everything into consideration, this Court finds that the appropriate global sentence for Reid is six years in the penitentiary, or 2190 days’ incarceration.
[36] From that the Court will deduct a total of 1740 days (1296 days for the “Summers credit” and 444 days for the “Duncan credit”).
[37] That leaves a total net sentence of imprisonment from today of 450 days.
[38] The breakdown of the sentence is as follows:
count 3 – human trafficking – 2190 days in custody, less 1740 days, for a net sentence from today of 450 days in jail;
count 1 – assault cause bodily harm – 365 days in custody, concurrent;
count 2 – unlawful confinement – 180 days in custody, concurrent;
count 7 – financial benefit – 180 days in custody, concurrent; and
count 11 – 365 days in custody, concurrent.
[39] But for Reid’s guilty pleas, highly mitigating in this case, the Court would have likely imposed on the offender a global period of imprisonment, before consideration of pretrial custody, of eight years, to reflect what I consider to be a relatively high degree of moral blameworthiness on the part of Reid and to denounce what I consider to be his particularly cruel treatment of the victim, S.R.
[40] As the net sentence from today is a reformatory one, the Crown asks that the Court consider making a probation order. I have considered that request, but I decline to do so.
[41] Tragically, one of the victims is deceased. The other victim will continue to be protected by the non-communication order while Reid is in custody. Reid, the Court accepts, has already begun concrete efforts to rehabilitate himself. I do not think that a probation order is necessary, either in the private or the public interests.
Conlan J.
Released: July 31, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-0101-0000
DATE: 2023 07 31
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
GAVIN REID
REASONS FOR DECISION ON SENTENCING
Conlan J.
Released: July 31, 2023