Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-50000131 DATE: 20230929

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – JUSTIN EUROPE

Counsel: S. Rothman, for the Crown M. Hayworth, for Mr. Europe

HEARD: September 11, 13-14, 2023

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SCHRECK J.:

[1] In November 2018, Justin Europe began a relationship with L.G., a young woman he had known for several years, and they moved in together. Over the next two months, L.G. worked every day as a sex trade worker and gave all of the money she earned to Mr. Europe. Mr. Europe paid the rent and bought her food and clothing.

[2] In late December 2018, Mr. Europe and L.G. had an argument. The following morning, L.G. went to the hospital with a broken rib and injuries to her back and face. Although she told the hospital personnel that she had been attacked by a stranger on the street, she now alleges that the injuries were caused by Mr. Europe.

[3] After leaving the hospital, L.G. went to live with her parents for a few days, but then returned to live with Mr. Europe. She resumed her work in the sex trade despite still being injured. A short while later, however, she returned to her parents’ home and contacted the police to ask for assistance in retrieving her belongings from Mr. Europe’s home. Upon learning this, Mr. Europe sent her a text message telling her that if she lied about him to the police, people would “air out” her home.

[4] L.G. eventually gave a statement to the police which resulted in Mr. Europe being arrested. He stands charged on an Indictment with: (1) human trafficking; (2) procuring L.G. to provide sexual services for consideration; (3) receiving a material benefit from human trafficking; (4) receiving a material benefit from the sale of sexual services; (5) advertising an offer to provide sexual services for consideration; (6) assault; (7) aggravated assault; (8) threatening L.G. and her parents with death; and (9) threatening to kill L.G.’s dog. [^1]

[5] Mr. Europe elected to be tried in this court without a jury. L.G. was the only witness at his trial and the credibility and reliability of her evidence is the central issue.

[6] For the reasons that follow, Mr. Europe is found not guilty on Counts 6 (assault) and 9 (threatening to kill a dog). He is found guilty on all of the remaining counts.

I. Evidence

A. The Beginning of the Relationship

[7] L.G. first met Mr. Europe in 2012 or 2013. At first, they were only friends. According to L.G., Mr. Europe had been good to her in the past and had taken care of her in times of need.

[8] In November 2013, L.G. ran into Mr. Europe and a friend of his while working at a club. She provided her phone number to Mr. Europe’s friend so that Mr. Europe could contact her. When they spoke, they learned that neither of them was in a relationship at the time, so they decided to try being in a relationship together. Soon after, L.G. moved into a condominium unit with Mr. Europe after he took over the lease from someone else. It was her understanding that they would share finances and “take care of things together.”

B. L.G.’s Involvement in the Sex Trade

[9] L.G. was involved in the sex trade at the time she began her relationship with Mr. Europe and was employed at two spas where she provided “erotic massage.” She was paid by the spas as well as directly by her clients. She also worked on occasion at a “strip club,” where she was paid by customers but not by the club. L.G. agreed that she would have continued to work in the sex trade if she had not started a relationship with Mr. Europe. It was her belief that at the time she began her relationship with Mr. Europe, she had more experience with the sex trade than he did.

C. The Nature of the Relationship

[10] When asked to describe her relationship with Mr. Europe in November and December 2018, L.G. explained that she had referred to him at the time as “my man” but that this was “self-deceiving” on her part as he was actually her “pimp.” She described a “pimp” as someone who falsely says that he will take of her and get her “out of it” and then takes her money, never having had any real intention of taking care of her.

[11] According to L.G., once she began living with Mr. Europe, she gave all of her earnings to him because “that’s the expectation” and because she felt like she belonged to him. Mr. Europe bought her food and occasionally bought her clothing. According to her, if she wanted to buy something to eat while at work, she had to call Mr. Europe to ask his permission because any money she earned belonged to him as soon as the client gave it to her and was “never my money.” While she was not able to say how much money she gave to him during their relationship, it was over $20,000.

[12] L.G. testified that she worked every day during the time she lived with Mr. Europe, including when she was having her menstrual period. When asked whether she had wanted to work while having her period, L.G. replied that, “nobody wants to work on their period, it’s disgusting” but that she would rather do so than “have an issue inside my household.” She testified that if she expressed an unwillingness to work while having her period, Mr. Europe would “get mad” and tell her that she had to work anyway.

[13] According to L.G., she was intimidated by Mr. Europe because “the ‘what if’ was a big deal” and she “wasn’t poking the bear to see what would happen” because she “didn’t want any pain.”

D. The “Quota”

[14] L.G. testified that she was expected to earn at least $1000 each day, which she referred to as her “quota.” The expectation was that she would not stop working until the quota was met. L.G. testified that she was told about the quota by Mr. Europe.

[15] In her statement to the police, however, L.G. had said that Mr. Europe had not specifically told her that she had to pay him, although she was aware that she was expected to do so. She agreed that she had never mentioned the quota in her statement to the police or in her testimony at the preliminary inquiry, although she had said that she was expected to earn money.

[16] When asked whether Mr. Europe told her what would happen if she did not meet her quota, L.G. replied that she was unable to say specifically what she was told, but that she would not be picked up from work until the quota was met. Usually, she returned home from work being driven by Mr. Europe or in a taxi or Uber arranged by him. L.G. agreed, however, that she had a set schedule at the spas where she worked and that the spa would give her a “fine” or charge her a fee if she arrived late for a shift or left early and would then withhold earnings until the fine was paid. She agreed that she tried to be on time to avoid paying the fines.

[17] L.G. testified that although she usually had no difficulty meeting her quota, there were times when she was unable to do so because of a lack of clients, which she referred to as “blanking.” When asked what would happen as a result, she responded that there were “no happy faces” and that she was required to provide an explanation to Mr. Europe. She would often be told to do “outcalls” to make up the shortfall. When asked whether this was something she wanted to do, L.G. responded that she had wanted to make Mr. Europe happy and did not want any problems.

[18] In her statement to the police, however, L.G. had said that Mr. Europe “doesn’t really get mad if I blank.” She adopted this aspect of her statement during her testimony, but explained that the fact that he did not get mad did not mean that he did not express disappointment or disapproval.

E. Other Rules

[19] In her testimony, L.G. described other rules imposed by Mr. Europe in addition to the quota. She was not to talk to other men or “pimps,” she was not to spend money without asking Mr. Europe first, and she was not to have Black clients.

F. Advertising

[20] L.G.’s services were advertised on a website dedicated to advertising sexual services during the time she lived with Mr. Europe. Mr. Europe created the account on the website. Some of the photographs of her in the advertisements were taken by Mr. Europe and some had been professionally taken earlier. All of the photographs were approved by Mr. Europe because “its his program, everything goes through him.” When prospective clients responded to the advertisements, both she and Mr. Europe would communicate with them by telephone or text.

G. The Alleged Aggravated Assault

[21] One evening in December 2018, L.G. returned home from work drunk. When Mr. Europe asked her for money, she became upset and complained about him only ever asking her about money and not whether she was okay. According to L.G., Mr. Europe reacted by assaulting her, throwing her to the ground, kicking her in the ribs and stomping on her face.

[22] While L.G. testified that she remembered Mr. Europe assaulting her, at the preliminary inquiry she had testified that she remembered arriving home drunk, yelling at Mr. Europe, and then waking up feeling like she could not breathe.

[23] After L.G. woke up the following morning, she told Mr. Europe that she thought one of her ribs was broken. He provided her with a bag of frozen vegetables to reduce the swelling, but it did not help. L.G. asked Mr. Europe to bring her to the hospital and he agreed to do so. However, he dropped her off a short distance from the hospital. L.G. believed that this was because he did not wish to be caught on the hospital’s security video.

[24] L.G. told the hospital staff that she had been injured after being attacked on the street by a stranger. She spent several hours at the hospital, where she underwent an X-ray and received treatment. While she testified that she believed she had broken her ribs in four or five places, her hospital records (which were admitted on consent for the truth of their contents) state that only one rib was fractured. Photographs taken at the time which were tendered as exhibits show abrasions and bruising on L.G.’s back and the left side of her face.

H. The End of the Relationship

[25] After leaving the hospital, L.G. went to stay at her parents’ home. Mr. Europe contacted her and told her that he wanted to come to pick her up. She initially refused, but on the second day after going to her parents’ home she agreed. Mr. Europe came to pick her up. He then took her to work at the spa. She testified that she agreed to continue to work despite being in pain because she “didn’t want things to get worse,” and because she “lived off fear.”

[26] A few days later, L.G. returned to her parents’ home after telling Mr. Europe that there was a family emergency, although this was not true. Mr. Europe contacted her and told her to return. According to her, he said that he would shoot her dog and shoot up her parents’ home if she did not.

I. The Text Messages

[27] L.G. wanted to retrieve her belongings from Mr. Europe’s home, so she contacted the police to enlist their assistance in doing so. After she did so, she and Mr. Europe exchanged a series of text messages, which L.G. preserved and which were tendered as exhibits at trial. The messages were as follows: [^2]

L.G.: I’ve let them kno [ sic ] they will meet me there J.E.: Rat me out your family will have to move. I’m not wave [ sic ] man. L.G.: I’ll show them al [ sic ] this J.E.: After all I did for u you want to fuck me over Your fake I don’t care L.G.: I asked u to get my stuff nd [ sic ] u said no U can’t do that J.E.: Your stuff will be outside L.G.: I’m still calling them U can’t do this to me J.E.: Don’t tress pass [ sic ] on my property U could have your shit My bucket will be there waiten [ sic ] [^3] L.G.: Ok J.E.: He will make sure you get your things It’s his unit L.G.: U threatened my family N hurt me J.E.: It’s not a threat If u lie on me to the cops L.G.: Let them judge You broke my ribs J.E.: And I go 2 jail Ppl will air our your house I’m not joking L.G.: Ok J.E.: I never did nothing Y didn’t u tell them that When it hapoened [ sic ] L.G.: I was scared J.E.: If u wanna leave u can leave

[28] L.G. showed the text messages to the police. She later made a statement and Mr. Europe was arrested and charged.

II. Analysis

A. Overview of Relevant Legal Principles

[29] Mr. Europe is presumed innocent of the charges against him and cannot be convicted of any charge unless the Crown proves each and every essential element of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no onus on Mr. Europe to prove anything, least of all his innocence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard. It is far higher than proof of likely or probable guilt.

[30] Although Mr. Europe did not testify, the Crown tendered text messages authored by him in which he denied assaulting L.G. Statements by an accused tendered by the Crown are evidence for or against him, depending on the trier of fact’s view of them: R. v. Humphrey (2003), 2003 ONCA 6855, 172 C.C.C. (3d) 332 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 19. Insofar as the statements are exculpatory, I have three options in terms of my assessment of them: I can reject them, accept them, or be unsure whether they are true or false. The latter two options must result in an acquittal with respect to the charges to which the statement relates: R. v. L.K., 2020 ONCA 262, at paras.18-19. The first option does not necessarily lead to a conviction, which can only result if the remaining evidence I do accept proves the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

B. Consideration of the Evidence

(i) Inconsistencies in L.G.’s Evidence

[31] L.G. was the only witness at trial. As a result, the Crown’s case rests entirely on her evidence.

[32] L.G.’s evidence suffers from certain frailties. As she acknowledges, she was describing events from 2018 and her memory with respect to some of them is not entirely clear. As well, there were certain inconsistencies in her testimony. For example, while the $1000 quota was a central feature of her description of her relationship with Mr. Europe, she never mentioned it in her statement to the police or her evidence at the preliminary inquiry. She testified that Mr. Europe would not pick her up until she met her quota, although she later described having a set work schedule which she adhered to, suggesting that the time at which she finished work was unrelated to meeting the quota. While she testified to recalling the assault by Mr. Europe, her testimony at the preliminary inquiry was that she woke up injured and had inferred that Mr. Europe had assaulted her. This is not an exhaustive list of all of the inconsistencies in L.G.’s evidence, although I have considered all of them.

[33] Inconsistencies in a witness’s evidence are always a cause for concern. However, what is important with respect to any assessment of credibility and reliability is not the fact of the inconsistency, but the reason for it. Where an inconsistency is the product of a dishonest witness’s inability to keep his or her story straight, it will often lead to a rejection of the witness’s testimony. But where the inconsistency has other causes, such as an honest mistake or a faulty memory, it may affect the reliability of the witness’s evidence depending on the circumstances.

[34] The inconsistencies in L.G.’s evidence have to be evaluated in the context in which she came to make her allegations against Mr. Europe. She did not initially contact the police in order to have him arrested but, rather, simply because she wanted assistance in retrieving her belongings. This belies the suggestion that she made up her allegations in order to get Mr. Europe arrested.

[35] That said, it was clear during her testimony that L.G. is very angry at Mr. Europe. However, her anger seems to be centred on his assault of her rather than because he was her “pimp,” which she testified that she had “no problem” with at the time because she had “adoration” for Mr. Europe. As she put it, she believed that she was “his product” and that she “belonged to him.”

[36] Having considered L.G’s evidence carefully, I do not believe that the inconsistencies in her evidence are the result of any attempt by her to mislead the court. Some of them can be explained by the passage of time. Others relate to peripheral details rather than the substance of her evidence. For example, although she did not specifically mention having a quota, she has always been consistent that Mr. Europe expected her to earn money.

(ii) The Alleged Aggravated Assault

[37] Although I am not satisfied that L.G. recalls being assaulted, I am satisfied that she recalls arguing with Mr. Europe while intoxicated and then waking up the next morning with her injuries, all of which took place at time when they were the only people in the condominium unit. In the circumstances, the only reasonable inference is that Mr. Europe caused the injuries: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 30; R. v. Stennett, 2021 ONCA 258, 408 C.C.C. (3d) 141, at para. 60. L.G.’s evidence about being assaulted is corroborated by the photographs of her injuries and her medical records.

(iii) Mr. Europe’s Denials

[38] As noted earlier, the text messages include a denial by Mr. Europe of having assaulted L.G. More generally, his reference to “all I did for u” appears to be a denial of having mistreated her in any way. While the Crown suggested that Mr. Europe wrote these things because he knew that the police would see the texts, defence counsel points out that Mr. Europe wrote the threat to “air out” L.G.’s parents’ home at the same time, which he would not have done if he expected the police to see the messages. While that would make sense, L.G. did say at the outset of the text exchange that she would “show them al [sic] this,” so Mr. Europe must have known that the police might see the texts. In any event, the denials are devoid of detail and there is independent evidence that L.G. was assaulted. In all the circumstances, I do not accept the truth of Mr. Europe’s statements in the text messages nor do they raise a reasonable doubt.

C. Findings of Fact

[39] Having carefully considered L.G.’s evidence, I make the following findings of facts:

• L.G. lived with Mr. Europe for a period of time in November and December 2018. At the time she did so, she was engaged in the sex trade, although her involvement in it predated the relationship and was not the result of anything done by Mr. Europe.
• While they lived together, Mr. Europe provided shelter, food and clothing to L.G.
• L.G. engaged in the sale of sexual services while living with Mr. Europe. While she would have engaged in this conduct in any event, on at least some occasions she worked despite not wanting to do so when she was having her menstrual period and after she broke her rib. She worked on these occasions because Mr. Europe wanted her to and she feared the consequences of disappointing him.
• L.G. turned over all of her earnings from her work in the sex trade to Mr. Europe while they lived together. Mr. Europe was aware that the money came from the provision of sexual services for consideration.
• Mr. Europe expected L.G. to provide all of her earnings to him and she was aware of this. She did so, partly because she believed that he was entitled to it because he was “her man” and partly because she feared the consequences of failing to do so, which would include Mr. Europe becoming angry and expressing disapproval. L.G. also believed that there may have been additional unknown negative consequences.
• After Mr. Europe assaulted L.G. in December, she continued to engage in the sex trade because she feared further assaultive behaviour.
• Mr. Europe was aware that L.G. feared the consequences of failing to earn money and provide it to him and engaged in conduct which he knew reinforced that fear, such as berating her when she failed to earn enough money.
• Mr. Europe was involved in the creation and posting of advertisements for L.G.’s sexual services, although the extent and nature of that involvement is not clear.
• Mr. Europe assaulted L.G. in December 2018, causing her injuries which included a broken rib and bruising and abrasions to her back and face.
• Mr. Europe sent a text message to L.G. stating that he would “air out” her parents’ home. This was a threat to have someone discharge a firearm at L.G.’s parents’ home. [^4]

[40] I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Europe assaulted L.G. on an earlier occasion. [^5] L.G.’s evidence with respect to Mr. Europe’s threat to kill her dog was vague and lacked detail and I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the threat was made.

[41] Having found those facts, I will turn now to the counts in the Indictment.

D. Counts in the Indictment

(i) Count 1 – Human Trafficking

(a) Legal Principles and the Elements of the Offence

[42] In Count 1, Mr. Europe is charged that he

… did recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold, conceal, or harbour L.G., or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of L.G., for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person, contrary to s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offence of human trafficking has a conduct requirement and a purpose requirement: R. v. A.A., 2015 ONCA 558, 327 C.C.C. (3d) 377, at paras. 79-82. The Crown must prove both beyond a reasonable doubt.

[43] The conduct requirement is met if the Crown proves that the accused engaged in any one of the specified types of conduct, that is, “recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold, conceal, or harbour” or “exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of” the complainant: R. v. Gallone, 2019 ONCA 663, 147 O.R. (3d) 225, at para. 33.

[44] The purpose requirement has two components. First, the accused must intend to do the thing or things that satisfy the conduct requirement. Second, the accused must engage in the conduct for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of the complainant: A.A., at para. 82.

[45] The term “exploitation” is not to be given its ordinary meaning in this context but, rather, the definition set out in s. 279.04(1) of the Criminal Code, which provides that:

279.04 (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 or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

The Crown is only required to prove that the accused’s purpose in engaging in the prohibited conduct was to exploit the complainant, but need not prove that the complainant was actually exploited: A.A., at para. 84; Gallone, at paras. 53-54.

[46] In the context of s. 279.04(1), the term “safety” includes safety from psychological harm: A.A., at para. 71. However, something more than trivial interference with psychological well-being is required: R. v. Sinclair, 2020 ONCA 61, 384 C.C.C. (3d) 484, at para. 24.

(b) The Conduct Requirement

[47] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Europe engaged in some of the conduct identified in s. 279.01. While he clearly did not recruit L.G., he did “transport” her by driving her to and from the locations where she engaged in the sex trade. He also “harboured” her by providing her with a place to live: R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733, 153 O.R. (3d) 145, at para. 74; R. v. Ochrym, 2021 ONCA 48, 69 C.R. (7th) 285, at para. 32.

[48] I am also satisfied that Mr. Europe exercised “control, direction or influence” over L.G.’s movements. The nature of the relationship was such that Mr. Europe clearly had considerable power over L.G. and her movements: Gallone, at para. 50. Although she would have continued to work in the sex trade regardless of her relationship with Mr. Europe, I have found that there were times when she went to work despite not wanting to do so because she knew that Mr. Europe would “have an issue” or “get mad” if she did not. At the very least, he “exercised influence” over her activities working in the sex trade, although it is likely that what he did could also be described as “coercion”: Gallone, at para. 47.

(c) The Purpose Requirement

[49] There is no suggestion that Mr. Europe did not intend to do the things that he did. The real issue is whether he did those things for the purpose of exploiting L.G.

[50] As noted earlier, the Crown is not required to prove that L.G. was actually exploited. However, the Crown has done so in this case. The evidence must be considered in the context of the dynamics of this relationship and what impact the accused’s actions had on the complainant’s state of mind: Ochrym, at para. 29: Gallone, at para. 47. This was not a relationship based on equality and mutual respect, but rather one in which Mr. Europe held all of the power. L.G. worked every day for long hours, yet gave all of her earnings to Mr. Europe, who appears to have done little to justify profiting from her labour.

[51] It is clear that throughout their relationship, L.G. found the prospect of Mr. Europe’s disapproval to be extremely distressing and she conducted herself in such a way as to avoid it. For example, she testified that she worked while on her period despite not wanting to do so because she would rather do that than “have an issue inside my household.” She was afraid that Mr. Europe would “get mad.” She testified that she “didn’t want any pain” and that she would avoid “poking the bear to see what would happen.” In these circumstances, it is clear that L.G. believed that her psychological safety would be threatened if she failed to work in the sex trade and turn her earnings over to Mr. Europe: R. v. Tekin, 2022 ONCA 740, at para. 3. Her belief was reasonable in all of the circumstances.

[52] Furthermore, after the assault in December, I find that L.G. reasonably feared that her physical safety would be threatened by further assaultive behaviour if she did not continue to work.

[53] As noted in A.A., at para. 87, in cases of actual exploitation, “inferring that the accused’s purpose was to exploit the victim will usually be a relatively straightforward task.” It is in this case. I have no doubt that Mr. Europe was fully aware of L.G.’s fear and conducted himself in such a way as to reinforce it so that he could continue to profit from her work.

[54] Based on the foregoing, Mr. Europe is found guilty on Count 1.

(ii) Count 2 – Procuring

[55] Mr. Europe is charged in Count 2 with procuring L.G. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code. There is no issue that L.G. provided sexual services for consideration. The issue is whether Mr. Europe procured her to do so. [^6]

[56] “Procuring” in this context has been defined to mean “to cause, or to induce, or to have a persuasive effect upon the conduct that is alleged”: Gallone, at para. 61, R. v. Deutsch, 1986 SCC 21, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 2, at pp. 26-27. There is clearly significant overlap between this charge and the human trafficking charge. I have already found that Mr. Europe exercised influence over L.G. and that this caused her to provide sexual services for consideration on at least some occasions when she would not otherwise have done so. Based on this finding, it is clear that Mr. Europe’s conduct had at least some “persuasive effect” on L.G.

[57] Mr. Europe is found guilty on Count 2.

(iii) Count 3 – Material Benefit from Human Trafficking

[58] Mr. Europe is charged in Count 3 with receiving a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it was obtained by the commission of an offence under s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code. There is no issue that L.G. gave her earnings to Mr. Europe. I have already found that Mr. Europe committed an offence under s. 279.01(1), and that L.G. gave her earnings to Mr. Europe because of his coercive conduct.

[59] Mr. Europe is accordingly found guilty on Count 3.

(iv) Count 4 – Material Benefit from the Sale of Sexual Services

(a) Elements of the Offence

[60] In Count 4, Mr. Europe is charged with receiving a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it was obtained by the commission of an offence under s. 286.1(1) of the Criminal Code, contrary to s. 286.2(1). Section 286.1(1) of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to obtain the sexual services of a person for consideration. There is no issue that L.G. provided sexual services for consideration. The clients who obtained those services are therefore guilty of an offence under s. 286.1(1). There is also no issue that L.G. gave the money that she earned to Mr. Europe.

(b) Statutory Defences

[61] Unlike with obtaining a material benefit from human trafficking, there are certain statutory defences available to a charge of obtaining a material benefit from the commission of an offence under s. 286.1(1), which are enumerated in s. 286.2(4) of the Criminal Code. In this case, counsel for Mr. Europe relies on the exception in s. 286.2(4)(a), which applies “in the context of a legitimate living arrangement with the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived.” There are two reasons why this defence is unavailable to Mr. Europe.

[62] First, the defence is statutorily unavailable in certain circumstances enumerated in s. 286.2(5) of the Criminal Code, at least two of which apply here: Mr. Europe used intimidation and coercion in relation to L.G. (s. 286.1(5)(a)) and, for the reasons explained earlier, he “procured” her to provide sexual services for consideration (s. 286.1(5)(d)).

[63] Second, I accept L.G.’s evidence that she handed over all of her earnings to Mr. Europe and that this amounted to over $20,000. While I have not heard any evidence of what the rent was at the condominium L.G. and Mr. Europe lived in, I have no doubt that L.G.’s fair share of the living expenses would have been significantly less than what she gave to Mr. Europe.

[64] Mr. Europe is therefore found guilty on Count 4.

(v) Count 5 – Advertising Sexual Services for Consideration

[65] Mr. Europe is charged in Count 5 with knowingly advertising an offer to provide sexual services for consideration by posting an advertisement on the Internet, contrary to s. 286.4(a) of the Criminal Code.

[66] It was L.G.’s unchallenged evidence that Mr. Europe posted photographs of her on a webpage dedicated to advertising the sale of sexual services. While there was some suggestion that he was simply assisting L.G. to post the advertisements, this is not a defence. All the Crown needs to prove is that Mr. Europe knowingly participated in causing the advertisement to be posted: Gallone, at paras. 83-84. The Crown has done so.

[67] Mr. Europe is found guilty on Count 5.

(vi) Count 6 – Assault

[68] Mr. Europe is charged with simple assault in Count 6. The Crown concedes that there is insufficient evidence to justify a conviction on this count.

[69] Mr. Europe is found not guilty on Count 6.

(vii) Count 7 – Aggravated Assault

[70] Mr. Europe is charged with aggravated assault in Count 7 in relation to the alleged incident which resulted in L.G.’s rib fracture. Counsel for Mr. Europe concedes that the fractured rib constitutes a “wound,” so the sole issue is whether it resulted from an assault by Mr. Europe.

[71] As explained earlier, while L.G’s evidence about remembering being assaulted by Mr. Europe suffers from certain frailties, I accept that she sustained her injuries after arguing with Mr. Europe at a time when she and he were the only people in the unit. I have no doubt that Mr. Europe assaulted her and thereby caused her injuries.

[72] Mr. Europe is found guilty on Count 7.

(viii) Count 8 – Threatening Death

[73] Mr. Europe is charged in Count 8 with knowingly uttering a threat to L.G. to cause death to her or her family. This charge is based on the text messages in which Mr. Europe said “If u lie on me to the cops … And I go 2 jail … Ppl will air out your house … I’m not joking.”

[74] Counsel for Mr. Europe made no submissions with respect to this count. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Europe wrote the text and that he intended to convey to L.G. that someone would discharge a firearm at the house where she was staying with her parents if she reported him to the police.

[75] Mr. Europe is found guilty on Count 8.

(ix) Count 9 – Threatening to Kill a Dog

[76] Mr. Europe is charged in Count 9 with threatening to kill L.G.’s dog. Earlier, I explained why I was not satisfied of the factual basis for this charge to the requisite degree of certainty.

[77] Mr. Europe is found not guilty on Count 9.

III. Disposition

[78] For the foregoing reasons, the verdicts are as follows:

Count 1: Guilty Count 2: Guilty Count 3: Guilty Count 4: Guilty Count 5: Guilty Count 6: Not guilty Count 7: Guilty Count 8: Guilty Count 9: Not guilty

[79] I would like to thank both counsel for the professional and efficient manner in which they conducted this trial.

Justice P.A. Schreck

Released: September 29, 2023

Footnotes

[^1]: A 10th count of possession of a controlled substance was withdrawn by the Crown. [^2]: Each line represents a separate text message. [^3]: According to L.G., Mr. Europe referred to the person from whom he sublet the condominium as his “bucket,” meaning a purchaser of drugs. [^4]: Defence counsel made no submissions with respect to Count 8. [^5]: The Crown accepts that there is insufficient evidence to justify a conviction on Count 6. [^6]: While s. 286.3 also describes other modes of committing the offence, in this case the Indictment is particularized to include only procuring.