COURT FILE NO.: 19-1941

DATE: 2023/02/01

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Juteah Downey

Accused

Siobhain Wetscher, Kerry McVey, and Julien Lalonde for the Crown

Robert Carew, for Mr. Downey

HEARD: May 17-21, 25-28, 31, June 1-4, 7-8, 10, 11, 14, 15, August 4, 5, 2021, January 26, 27, March 15, 16, 24, 25, 28, April 19,20, 22, 25, 28, May 24, 25, 27, October 19, 20, 2022, oral decision given January 31, 2023

Restriction on Publication

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proceeding directing that the identity of the complainant and any information that could disclose such identity shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

reasons for judgment

SOMJI J

Overview

[1] The accused, Juteah Downey, is charged with human trafficking and related offences involving four complainants: M.M., P.C., S.T., and P.G. The offences are alleged to have occurred between February 15, 2018, and May 19, 2019.

[2] Each of the four complainants testified that they entered into a relationship with the accused in response to an advertisement for escort services at a time when they were personally and financially vulnerable. The accused offered the complainants an arrangement whereby they would provide sexual services for clients organized by the accused or a person in his agency named Jamie. The complainants would provide the accused with 100% of their earnings and, in exchange, the accused promised to provide the complainants with accommodations and food and to assist them with achieving their personal and financial goals.

[3] The complainants were photographed, and their photos were posted on a variety of websites. The complainants did in-calls and out-calls providing sexual services both at their residential accommodations and outside the residence including at parties, while travelling with the accused to different cities, and later at a spa opened by the accused in 2019. Some of the complainants also danced at strip clubs. The periods during which they worked for the accused varied from 1 to 15 months.

[4] The Crown takes the position that all four complainants are credible and reliable. Their testimony was not fatally contradicted in cross-examination. Moreover, the complainants’ testimony is corroborated by physical evidence such as text messages, financial documents, and tracker warrant records.

[5] Defence identifies a large numbers of inconsistencies in each complainant’s testimony which he argues destroys their credibility. Defence also asserts that the complainants’ evidence cannot be relied on to establish the essential elements of the counts charged and consequently, the Crown has failed to prove the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

[6] The trial commenced in the spring of 2021. It was originally scheduled for six weeks, but additional time was required due to multiple pre-trial applications brought at the eve of trial, including an application for third-party records. The Crown closed its case on May 24, 2022. Defence elected not to call evidence. I received thorough written closing submissions from both the Crown and defence and heard oral submissions on October 20, 2022.

[7] The original Indictment contained 17 counts. The Crown called no evidence on five counts, and the accused was accordingly acquitted of those charges. This decision sets out my reasons for judgment on the remaining 12 counts.

[8] The decision is organized as follows:

A. Review of the evidence of the complainants M.M., P.C., S.T., and P.G. including an analysis of their credibility and reliability followed by a review of civilian and police evidence regarding the investigation and operation of the accused’s agency.

B. Analysis of the evidence as it applies to the law for the following offences:

1. Counts 3, 8, 11, 13: Human Trafficking contrary to s. 279.01(1) with respect to P.G., M.M., P.C., S.T.

2. Count 15: Material Benefit from Trafficking contrary to s. 279.02(1)

3. Count 10: Assault contrary to s. 266 with respect to P.C.

4. Count 4, 9, 12, and 14: Procuring contrary to s. 286.3(1) with respect to P.G., M.M., P.C., S.T.

5. Count 16: Material Benefit from Sexual Services contrary to s. 286.2(1)

6. Count 17: Advertising Sexual Services contrary to s. 286.4

[9] I have referred to the complainants ages at the time of the offences by extrapolating from their ages at the time of their testimony, and for that reason, their ages may be off by a year. However, all four complainants were between the ages of 19 and 26 when they met the accused. In addition, the complainants referred to the other women working for the accused as “girls” and that is how I have referred to them in this decision. The complainants also refer to each other using their alias names which are as follows:

M.M. = Gigi

P.C. = Queen, Lust, Hera

S.T. = Trinity, Trinity Lust

P.G = Maya (from Alberta)

[10] All legislative references are to the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, unless otherwise stated.

Fundamental Legal Principles

[11] The primary and overarching principle in every criminal trial is the presumption of innocence. It is a fundamental right of every person accused of criminal conduct to be presumed innocent of every count on the indictment.

[12] The presumption of innocence stays with the accused throughout the trial and is only displaced upon the Crown proving each count beyond a reasonable doubt.

[13] The burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the Crown and does not shift. The accused is not obliged to prove anything.

[14] Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high legal standard. It is higher than a balance of probabilities yet less than proof to an absolute certainty. Doubt is based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence.

[15] To obtain a conviction the Crown must go beyond establishing probable or likely guilt. However, it is nearly impossible for the Crown to prove anything with absolute certainty and the Crown is not required to do so. Ultimately, I must be certain that the accused committed the offence to convict him on any count. If I am not certain, I must acquit.

[16] In assessing the evidence at trial, I must consider all the evidence adduced at trial and direct my mind to making the necessary findings of fact based on the issues to be decided.

[17] I must assess the credibility and reliability of each Crown witness to arrive at a proper verdict. There is no magic formula in determining whether a witness is telling the truth: R v McEwan, 2022 ONSC 4298, at para. 8. However, the following factors may be relevant in determining credibility:

➢ whether the witnesses’ testimony is internally consistent;

➢ whether the witnesses’ testimony is externally consistent with other witness testimony and exhibits;

➢ if there are inconsistencies, whether they are on material or peripheral matters;

➢ whether the witness provided an explanation for any given inconsistency or whether the inconsistency suggests the witness is lying;

➢ whether the witness was able to make accurate and complete observations about the events as well as the circumstances and condition of the witness at the time of their observations;

➢ whether the witness has a bias or motive to give evidence favorable to one side;

➢ whether the witness had a good memory of the events;

➢ whether the witness had difficulty remembering events, and if so, did it seem genuine or did it seem made up as an excuse to avoid answering questions; and

➢ whether the witness seemed to be reporting what s/he saw or heard or simply putting together an account based on information obtained from other sources.

[18] Inconsistencies on material matters about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken may demonstrate a carelessness with the truth that should be of concern for the trier of fact: R v A.M., 2014 ONCA 769, 123 O.R. (3d) 536, at para. 13.

[19] While the demeanor of a witness is a relevant factor for consideration, it is not an exclusive determinant: R v A.A., 2015 ONCA 558, 327 C.C.C. (3d) 377, at paras. 131-132. Witnesses come from different backgrounds. They have different abilities, values, and life experiences. Demeanour cannot be the only or most important factor in assessing the credibility and reliability of a witness because too many variables impact the manner in which a witness testifies.

[20] Finally, a trial judge must provide sufficient reasons to permit effective appellate review. The trial judge’s reasons must demonstrate consideration of the entire evidence, an appreciation of the weaknesses in the complainant evidence, an understanding of the position of the defence, and a proper application of the relevant legal principles including the reasonable doubt standard: R v J.J.R.D. (2006), 2006 40088 (ON CA), 215 C.C.C. (3d) 252, at para. 2 (Ont. C.A.). However, in composing reasons for judgment, a trial judge is not required to discuss all the evidence or to answer every argument advanced by counsel: R v A.A., at para. 120.

Review of Evidence

A. M.M.’s evidence

i. Testimony

[21] M.M. was 26 years old when she responded to a modelling advertisement by an agency called Lust Inc. on the website Craig’s List in 2018. She was directed to go to Yonge Street in Toronto to meet the “girls” and see if she wanted to work there. She became nervous and did not go. She responded to a similar ad a second time and spoke directly to the accused, who she referred to as “Preston,” about modelling. At the time, she was broke. On July 19, 2018, he sent her $25 and money to purchase a train ticket to Windsor where he said his uncle ran a strip club called the Playhouse. She travelled to Windsor the following day.

[22] Preston discussed working in the sex trade with her. He told her she did not have to worry about money, and she would be safe. He explained that all the other girls working for the agency had condos and vehicles and that they had bettered their lives by working for him. She was made to feel secure and assured that there would be no worries about paying for hotels or other costs. Someone named Jamie would “dispatch” meaning they would respond to client calls from the advertisements (“ads”) and organize the girls appointments with the clients.

[23] Jamie was the person M.M. initially dealt with by text at the time of her recruitment. She also sent Jamie pictures of herself. Jamie connected M.M. to Preston. She continued to communicate with Jamie by text over the seven months she worked for the accused; she never once met or spoke to Jamie.

[24] In their initial telephone discussions, the accused explained to M.M. that there would be a 10% to 25% fee paid to him for the costs of dispatch, posting ads, etc. If she wanted to work out of the residence, the fee could be higher. Preston told her that when she met the other girls, she would want to be a 100 percenter. The girls who were 100 percenters gave Preston all their earnings and were provided with everything. He told her these girls were living the high life. Once she got to Windsor, he would explain everything to her.

[25] Upon her arrival, she was picked up by A.B. who worked for the accused at the time and went by the name Misty or Misty Rain. M.M. had no clothes or belongings. At one point, the accused took pictures of M.M. wearing a Lust Inc. shirt. M.M. recalled going for walk with the accused, he put his arm around her and had a pep talk with her. They went back to the motel room where other girls were walking around naked. He told her she could stay there. In their discussions at this time, he told her that it would be better if she gave him all her money because then she would be able to have a vehicle, a nice condo, and a hair salon. She told him she wanted a car, had debts, and needed stability for her son. M.M. testified that the accused sold her “a pipe dream” and she later realized they were all fake promises.

[26] In cross-examination, M.M. had difficulty remembering if the agency she responded to for the first and second ads was Exotic 6 or C.B. (Canada Bookings). However, I find the complainant’s confusion of little consequence. Ultimately, both agencies were operated by the accused and her response to the recruitment ad led her to Jamie and then to the accused.

[27] Defence argues the fact that Misty encouraged M.M. to join the company suggests she is responsible for recruitment and not the accused. I find that the fact that Misty had also done a “real sales pitch in Windsor” and encouraged M.M. to be a 100 percenter does not negate the accused’s role in recruiting M.M. into his enterprise. In fact, M.M. and several other complainants testified that once they became 100 percenters, they were required to pitch the 100% model and pump up the agency when the accused brought in new recruits.

[28] M.M. was not looking to strip, but Preston directed her to go on stage at the Playhouse. She borrowed $80 to get clothes to work in. The accused told her that the rule was you had to make money before you spend money. Within two or three days of her arrival, she danced at the club. She also did sexual favours in a private room at the club and gave the accused the money. A few days later, she went with Misty to the Best Western and did sex work there.

[29] Within a few nights, M.M. slept with the accused. He also slept with the other girls in the motel including Misty and another girl named P.C. who was referred to as Queen.

[30] M.M. became a 100 percenter. She provided all her earnings from her sex work to the accused. The client rates for sexual services were $100 for 15 minutes, $160 for 30 minutes, and $240 for an hour. The rates were determined by the accused and Misty. After a couple of weeks in Windsor, M.M. went to Ottawa at an address on Uplands Drive where she continued to do sex work for the accused and his agency. The rates were comparable in Ottawa but could fluctuate depending on the day. She recalled the rates being higher and closer to $180 for 30 minutes and $300 for an hour when they travelled and conducted sex work out west.

[31] M.M. testified that ads were dispatched initially by Misty but also by Jamie and Preston. All three had the dispatch phones. M.M. acknowledged that later in the relationship, she would also dispatch from her phone. The agency posted the photos of her that she had initially sent and later the photo taken by the accused of her in a Lust Inc. shirt. Lust Inc. was the brand name of the accused’s modelling agency that recruited and booked models and sold clothing. The photo was posted on websites offering sex work including, for example, Leo List. M.M. was given the alias name “Gigi”.

[32] M.M. testified that the accused’s agency identified itself in ads as Canada Bookings. The ads included a dispatch number containing the numbers 804. Seven months later, at the time of the accused’s arrest in April 2019, a pink iPhone was located charging in the lobby where the accused had been sitting. M.M. identified it as the accused’s phone. The associated number contained 804 and was registered to Jamie Gray. All the complainants ultimately believed Jamie was the accused himself.

[33] According to M.M., Jamie would tell you where to go for the sex work, how much you would receive, and to text when you started and finished. Once she was dispatched, the client would have M.M.’s number. Initially, M.M. relied on the agency number that started with 804 or 1844 to communicate with clients. While in B.C., she got a new telephone number that started with 604. After obtaining her own phone number, clients could call her on her personal number. Sgt. Laflamme later confirmed that her number was 604-966-4872.

[34] Ads were posted daily. The key was to keep your ad on the top on websites like Leo List with a daily post so that you could get service calls more easily. For some websites you had to pay a fee to keep your ad on the top. She understood Jamie oversaw that part of the business.

[35] M.M. did in-calls at Uplands Drive. She also did out-calls but did not work in hotels while in Ottawa or Cornwall. She was transported to out-calls by the other girls or took an Uber. Sometimes the accused would pick her up or drop her off. She also drove the girls to calls because P.C. did not drive and Misty was not always available if she was working. Each time M.M. saw a client, she would text the accused or Jamie when she was starting and finishing the sex work. This is corroborated in some of the text messages viewed at trial.

[36] Defence counsel argues that M.M.’s claim that the accused knew every moment of her day is an exaggeration and that M.M.’s assertion is contradicted by her testimony that the accused spent time with other girls and at his own home. I disagree. M.M. never testified the accused was with her every second of the day. Her evidence was that she was effectively available for service calls 24/7, that she would report her start and finish times to the accused or Jamie, and she was required to seek the accused’s permission for various activities unrelated to work. Except perhaps during the period when she moved to Murray Street and became friends with another tenant, M.M. did not have much of a life outside of working for the agency, caring for her child when with her, and spending time with the girls or the accused. In these isolated living circumstances she described, I find the accused did effectively know her day to day activity.

[37] M.M. reviewed and identified herself in several ads. She was advertised as being 20 years of age and referred to as Gigi Lust and available for in-calls and out-calls. The contact information always included the dispatch number 613-804-9474 but sometimes also included 613-209-5954 which she believed was Queen’s number. In later ads, contact information included her own number with the B.C. area code. There were also email and website contacts all associated with names of the accused’s agencies: canadabookings; highendwishes; xtrasclub. M.M. explained it was preferable to have an extra telephone number on the ads so you do not miss any incoming client calls which P.C. corroborated in her testimony.

[38] M.M. testified that she worked every day. On good days she could earn over $1000. Her best day was $4000. She described herself as working 24/7. She testified that she did a lot more calls than the other girls. At one point in her testimony, she suggested she made $500,000 in the seven-month period working for Preston and was challenged on this figure. While I agree with defence counsel that the final tally of $500,000 is excessive because it would have required her to make close to $2400/day, I did not find it undermined the credibility of M.M.’s evidence. As discussed below, the other complainants provided comparable evidence about the rates charged and their daily earnings.

[39] Defence counsel argues that the complainant testified that she sometimes earned $600 by 10 or 11 am and this was contradicted by a text message where at 11:32 am she told the accused she had no money. I do not find this to be a contradiction. Her testimony was not that she always made $600 by 10 or 11 am. The mere fact that on one day she had not made that amount is not inconsistent with her evidence.

[40] As a 100 percenter, M.M. gave all her earnings to the accused except when she needed funds for basic necessities. She would always inform him before keeping money except in a few exceptional instances discussed below. She explained that you always had to report to the accused how much you made and obtain permission to keep any money. For example, if she needed $20, she would take it and give him the rest. Sometimes she would take $40 for the girls to get groceries. She would always ensure she made money from sex work before she spent money in a day, and even if she took a little out, she would always tell the accused. Other girls, like Phoenix, told her to hide money but she did not do that. All the money M.M. earned was put in a drawer beside a bed in P.C.’s bedroom. Preston would retrieve the money when he came at night or P.C. would give it to him. M.M. explained that she sometimes sent e-transfers of her earnings to Preston using the email associated with Highendwishes. She reviewed some of these financial transactions with the accused in court.

[41] M.M. testified that the girls shared the food at Uplands. Food was determined daily. Sometimes they would phone the accused and tell him to send food, and other times one of the girls would get groceries. The accused would tell M.M. to take $20 or $40 from the drawer. Sometimes M.M. would just tell the accused they were going to Thai Express to get food. One girl would hide money if they needed it for cigarettes. Since M.M. worked every day, she never had an issue with getting funds from the accused for food, but she felt other girls sometimes did.

[42] M.M. explained that if you did not work enough or if the accused got mad at you, there were consequences. The accused would punish her by sending her to dance at NuDen, a strip club.

[43] There were also times when sex work was done on the road. She travelled with Preston, P.C., and Misty to Kamloops, Vancouver, and other places. They travelled in Misty’s Cadillac. They all stayed in one room. The girls worked out of the same hotel room. If a client came, they left. They also did out-calls in the various cities.

[44] During the trip, Preston and the girls would stay in one spot for a couple of days and work. At one point, they had car troubles. The girls worked out of a motel until the car was fixed. Ads were posted by the agency in the same way as in Ottawa. Preston was able to use all their phones to post ads. M.M. recalls the accused having a pink iPhone and a black LG phone. The pink phone had Mac messages and the LG phone was used for personal texts. Mac was a term Preston used for himself. He would say, “I am not a pimp, I am a Mac.”

[45] M.M. testified that she slept with the accused within a few nights of her arrival in Windsor, and they had a sexual relationship thereafter. While at Uplands, he would have sex with her and then go to another bedroom and have sex with another girl. The girls referred to each other as “sister wives.” Tensions resulted from his simultaneous sexual relationships with the girls. For example, she recalled that they were travelling out west, and on P.C.’s birthday, she became upset because Preston and Misty were having sex beside her. Despite these tensions, M.M. testified that the accused would do what he needed to do to make sure none of the girls got mad. All the girls had their alone time with him. There were nights that he would go home to his wife and children.

[46] M.M. testified that over time, she and the accused became more intimate. Jealousies arose. Issues developed between Preston and Misty. M.M. believes Misty was jealous that she had become the accused’s top girl. She recalled one incident during which the accused choked Misty against the wall and Misty hit her head against the cupboard. Things got heated. Misty started crying and left the house. She has not seen Misty since that day. When asked what precipitated the choking, M.M. candidly stated “Honestly, I can’t remember.” P.C. also testified that she recalled the day Misty left, but she described the assault by the accused as a slap.

[47] Upon returning from the trip out west, M.M. got sick with gonorrhea. The only person she had unprotected sex with was the accused. She recalls the girls leaving her a plate of food on the bed and P.C. taking care of her. She took a week off work. P.C. then became sick as did other girls in the house. M.M. believes she was sick with gonorrhea and vaginitis several times. She tried to ensure she did not work during this time. M.M. could not go to the doctor right away, in part because M.M. did not have a health card but also because the accused told the girls they did not have gonorrhea, and that they should keep working. M.M. believes the girls were passing sexually transmitted infections to each other from having unprotected sex with the accused. The accused denied he had gonorrhea. He and M.M. had a big fight about the subject. M.M. was concerned that clients would get gonorrhea from Uplands and take it home to their spouses putting them at risk.

[48] Over time, M.M. and Preston started to argue about money. In November or December 2018, a dispute arose after they went to pay for a parking ticket M.M. received. She had not paid the fine and her license was suspended. Preston was driving his black convertible and she was in the passenger seat. After dealing with the fines, she asked him for money to get groceries. He told her that they could get more groceries after she was done working. She said the amount he gave her was not enough and she needed more to feed her son. He got “pissed at her” and punched her with a closed fist on the left side of the jaw. It was hard enough to hurt badly, but not hard enough to knock her out. She exited the car. He told her to get back in to pick up her son but she ended up getting a ride from another girl.

[49] She recalled another incident when the accused was physically violent with her. She had asked Preston for marijuana that she had purchased. He told her she had to work before she had it. They had an argument. M.M. testified that the accused then took a chubby chicken burger and rubbed it on each side of her face. He was wearing a grey Puma sweatshirt which she grabbed. He pulled out a huge chunk of her hair. The incident occurred above the stairs near the laundry room at the residence on Uplands Drive.

[50] Defence counsel argues that the fact that she could not remember the date, which hand the accused used, or the precise manner in which the burger came out of the packaging undermines her credibility. I disagree. The complainant recalled several details surrounding the circumstances of the assault, including what the accused was wearing and the brand of his clothing. If the complainant simply wished to fabricate an assault against the accused, it is highly unusual that she would do so by fabricating a story of being assaulted with a chicken burger.

[51] Furthermore, an assault of some form by the accused on M.M. was corroborated by Trinity (alias name for S.T.) who did not witness the assault but spoke to M.M. about it. M.M. testified that S.T. came upstairs after the incident and asked M.M. if she was okay, and M.M. told her not to worry about it. In contrast, S.T. testified that when she inquired with M.M. what happened, M.M. told her she was smacked by the accused. When S.T. pressed her on it, M.M. laughed it off and said it aroused her.

[52] In the fall of 2018, M.M. had a falling out with the accused. She had been working with him since September 2018 and yet she still did not have any money. She also had a child to feed. The accused became upset with M.M. for telling the girls that what was going on was “bullshit.” He told her she could not work out of Uplands because she had her son there. M.M. acknowledged it was a problem having her son reside in a place where there was sex work.

[53] The accused found her an apartment on Murray Street. M.M. described the residence as a “dump” and a dirty place. She denied a cleaner had come in until shown an invoice for cleaning services on November 4, 2018. I disagree with defence that this cleaning invoice undermines the reliability of her evidence about the state of cleanliness of the apartment. The cleaning receipt of November 4th and the text message of November 9th that she is cleaning the kitchen can equally be viewed as corroborating her evidence that the place was sufficiently dirty when she moved in that it warranted cleaning and cleaning services. For example, there was no evidence that services were ever hired to clean and maintain the Uplands residence. P.C. also reviewed a text on October 28, 2018, where she was asked by the accused to send money to Gigi so she could buy cleaning supplies which P.C. understood was for the Murray apartment which was messy. Similarly, I find that the accused’s purchase of mattresses for her at the end of November corroborates M.M.’s evidence that bedding at the Murray apartment was initially limited to air mattresses.

[54] While living at the Murray Street apartment, M.M. continued to work for the accused under the same arrangement and gave him all of her money. At one point the police attended for a wellness check and questioned her to determine if she was being pimped. She let them into the apartment, and Sgt. Laflamme observed that it contained pictures of people other than M.M. They found M.M. to be initially nervous but she started to relax after they told her they were just there to ensure her safety and reassured her that she was not in trouble.

[55] When M.M. took off her coat, the police observed that M.M. had tattoos on her that were similar to those seen in the ads for sexual services for “Gigi Lust.” One of the tattoos had the initials J.T. M.M. was reluctant to speak about this tattoo.

[56] M.M. informed the police that the apartment was not hers and that she used another place to service clients because of her child. She told them she was independent. She did not take them up on any offer of assistance, but she did take the officer’s card and texted Sgt. Laflamme to confirm she had his number. Sgt. Laflamme testified that in his experience, it takes a few interactions before people accept their offer of assistance. I find that Sgt. Laflamme’s evidence corroborates M.M.’s testimony that the Murray Street apartment was temporary placement to get M.M. out of Uplands, and it was certainly not an apartment provided to her to make into a home to fulfill her goals and dreams. Sgt. Laflamme’s evidence also corroborates what M.M. testified to, namely that she lied to the police about being independent because she did not want to get arrested since she had her child to care for.

[57] Defence counsel argues that M.M. gave contradictory evidence about her work after moving to the Murray Street apartment. She testified that she could not work at the apartment because of her son. However, she later acknowledged that she did a few calls in the building at another tenant’s place when her son was not there and also admitted she may have done a couple of calls while her son was at school. I find this evidence of little consequence. M.M. testified she continued to work for the accused while living at Murray Street. P.C. and S.T. both testified that M.M. came back to work at Uplands. Regardless of the amount of work or where the service calls were done, it is clear from the evidence that M.M. continued to work in the same arrangement with the accused and his agency and that she continued to provide him with her earnings.

[58] In December 2018, M.M. spent part of Christmas day at Uplands with her son. She described the holiday period as one where the girls were equally crying and laughing. They were all broke. They did not have money to cook a turkey. Phoenix, Queen, Misty, and Maya were present. The accused went home to his wife and kids.

[59] M.M.’s account was corroborated by S.T. She stated the house had no Christmas spirit. They had asked Preston for Christmas things, like a gingerbread house and he said no, he did not want the house to be “Christmassy”. They would not have put decorations up without his permission. S.T. believes M.M. may have got permission for a Christmas tree.

[60] M.M. testified about an incident with P.C. at Uplands during this period. M.M. kept some money after one of her calls so she could buy a Christmas present for her son. P.C. went into her wallet while she was in the shower and gave the money to Preston. Preston pulled M.M. into the bathroom. She explained to him she did not know what was wrong. He tried to comfort her. She told him she had had enough. He told her not to cause problems and that she was upsetting the girls. She slept on the bathroom floor of the Uplands residence that night.

[61] Towards the end of January 2019, the accused opened a spa with what M.M. believed were her and the other girls’ earnings. The spa was supposed to be a legitimate business offering massages and other licensed services with people paying fees up front. However, it soon turned into a place where people paid money for “extras,” i.e., sexual services. The sexual services were referred to as “happy endings” or “rub and tug”. She testified that there was sex work occurring in the form of sexual intercourse in the three days that she was there. The accused was supposed to bring in registered and licensed people, but he brought in more girls. When asked who instructed the workers to do sexual favours at the spa, she replied it was the accused. M.M. acknowledged in cross-examination that she retained her earnings from her three days at the spa and lied to the accused about it. As noted below, this occurred towards the tail end of their relationship.

[62] M.M. described the spa with some disdain and suggested that girls were “snorting cocaine, drinking, hanging half naked out of the front doors.” I would agree with defence counsel that this latter description may have been exaggerated. Nevertheless, I find there was considerable truth in what M.M. was trying to convey and with which the other complainants agreed: the spa continued to operate like a brothel where sexual services were being performed behind closed doors under the pretense of people procuring massages.

[63] For example, P.C. was asked if sex work happened at the spa. She initially denied it, but the following day, corrected herself in examination in chief and stated: “I think we did hand jobs..and blow jobs sometimes, but never really sex. But I think the answer was yes, so I was just going to circle back at that and make sure I say the truth so, yes.”

[64] In addition, S.T. testified that she offered massages with happy endings and offered sex services but that she to keep that to herself. The accused did not want the girls who were hired for legitimate spa services to know.

[65] That sex work occurred at the spa was supported by the ads filed. In one ad for the spa filed as an exhibit, there is a highly provocative image of a woman scantily dressed, wearing high heeled boots, and positioned on her hands and knees over a man lying on his stomach which, I find, is indicative that the spa was not a venue for just professional massage therapy. Another sexually provocative advertisement for spa services was also posted on Leo List, the same website the accused’s agency Canada Bookings used to post ads for sex work. In addition, during the execution of the search warrant, condoms were located at the spa. I find this evidence corroborates M.M.’s testimony that sexual services were performed at the spa.

[66] Around the time of the spa opening, M.M. learned that Preston used her email on the lease and pinned the certificate of her hairstylist license on the spa wall. In cross-examination, she stated she did not give him the certificate and that he must have gone into her email to get it. Later she stated it was never posted in the spa. Defence counsel argued that photographs shown in court do not show any hair certificate on the spa walls and the complainant’s testimony is unreliable. I respectfully disagree. There was a text message dated December 13, 2018, where the accused inquired about M.M.’s certificate and the text lends credence to her testimony. It suggests there was some discussion about the accused obtaining and posting her certificate to enhance the legitimacy of the spa. Ultimately, she may have been mistaken about whether the certificate actually made it onto the wall. I also note that while her email is not referenced on the spa lease, the lease does indicate that the tenant will provide “hair care” among other services.

[67] By mid-February, M.M.’s arrangement with the accused ended. There was an incident at the Bourbon Room. The accused told her there would be a live exotic photoshoot and that she would have her own website with her name. However, M.M. learned that the accused substituted another blonde girl in her place on the website. There was no photoshoot. M.M. was very upset. She candidly acknowledged that she got really intoxicated that night and was telling the girls she was done with the arrangement, and this was “bull”. She did not give Preston any more money after that night. She went to stay with her friend in the same building for a week or two and left after that. She left behind the car he had given her.

[68] M.M. next saw the accused in April 2019. M.M. testified that she had texted him about how he was doing, and he responded that he missed her. He told her he would help her leave Ottawa. The accused sent her funds to get an Airbnb in downtown Ottawa. They spent the night together. The following day, April 18, 2019, the accused posted an ad for her to do a service call telling her that it would pay for the day and help get her situated. The service call was scheduled to take place at the Marriott Hotel on Vanier Parkway. When she attended the room for the call, the police arrested her. She was taken into custody. She learned from the police that they had expected Queen for the call. Preston had told her that they would always have the best lawyers, but he did not provide one for her. The accused was downstairs at the time of the arrest and as discussed later, was also arrested and taken into custody.

[69] During the time that M.M. worked for the accused, she never met Jamie. None of the girls that she knew had ever met Jamie. All the communications with Jamie were by text. M.M. testified that she believed that Jamie was in fact Preston because Misty had told her that when he plugged his pink iPhone into Misty’s laptop, the display said Jamie’s iPhone had been connected. M.M. testified that she and Misty confronted Preston about him being Jamie. He told them they were crazy and that he was not Jamie.

[70] In her time with the accused, M.M. never received the financial gains promised. The accused once took her to Justin’s Automotive and purchased a black Acura for $3000. However, M.M. did not want it in her name, so the accused put it in his mother’s name and paid his mother the insurance cost. M.M. had the car for a few months and used it for her calls and to drive the girls to their calls or to the strip club. Defence notes that M.M. contradicted herself when confronted with a text in which she stated to the accused “you can drive whenever you want and say thank you to your mom” and then later changed her evidence that it was the accused who said this to her. I find this inconsistency of little weight because it is on a peripheral matter.

[71] M.M. did acknowledge that at Christmas she went shopping with Preston and the other girls and she purchased a pair of $300 boots and an $1800 ring. The accused signed for the ring using the name Derek Morrison rather than his own. The other girls also got rings. They were supposed to return to the store to pick up the rings, but never went back to the store to get them.

[72] M.M. arranged to obtain an apartment at Mayview Avenue but it was ultimately for the accused’s benefit. M.M. needed an address to register her son in school but did not want to use the Uplands address because it was a workhouse. She obtained funds from Ontario Works and used the money she received to pay for the first and last month’s rent, but she never actually stayed there. The accused directed her what to write in the letter to obtain the funds. Upon obtaining the apartment, she gave the keys to Preston. She is not sure who used it. She also gave the accused approximately $2000 of her Federal Child Tax Credit because he was managing her finances.

[73] M.M. summarized the discrepancy between the promises made and the reality of her situation as follows:

He promises like – because I’m a licensed hair stylist so he would promise things like you’ll have a hair salon; these girls have businesses running. He just sells you a pipe dream. Like he makes – he picks off the circumstance you’re in in your life knowing that you need to make quick money to resituate yourself …

Yeah, he just – he just – he just made it clear to you like these other girls all have vehicles, they have nice condos, which is extremely not true other than [MISTY] having a Cadillac. You’re just offered fake dreams but really once you get into it all the girls are broke, you don’t have nice vehicles, you’re in crappy apartment, and everybody lives in one house like they’re married to each other, they’re all sexual together, and it’s just – in the long run and after you get comfortable in there, you’re not getting the benefits, you’re trying to get $20 just so you can get money to go to a call. You don’t even have that much money you’re just left with nothing after you gave your friends, but you’re supposed to be managed properly and have support that oh, your business is getting worked out and there’s money in savings and business accounts, this, this, and this. (Transcript: M.M. June 7, 2021, at p. 15)

ii. Credibility and reliability of M.M.’s evidence

[74] M.M. was an excitable witness. There were times in cross-examination where she became particularly frustrated with counsel’s questions and suggestions and would engage in a passionate outburst. However, when she was reminded by the court to calm down and answer the questions asked. She was apologetic, respectful, and always obliging. While defence counsel described her as bombastic and argumentative, I would describe her as a person who testified passionately and from the heart. Notwithstanding her excitable demeanor, I found her to be a very credible witness for the following reasons.

[75] First, she was fair and frank in her description of events and the respective responsibilities of people working with or for the accused. For example, in her description of the accused’s operations, she explained the involvement of others such as Jamie or Misty in dispatching, setting rates, posting ads, sending and receiving communications, and transporting her and the other girls to clients for sex work. In other words, she did not attribute all tasks to the accused such that the evidence would be biased or unfavorable only to him. Her candour supported the credibility of her observations and her evidence generally.

[76] Second, M.M. had a very good memory. She recalled an immense number of details involving events that transpired over a seven-month period almost three years ago. She recalled details and dates of her travel to Windsor, rates of pay, the operational tasks and responsibilities of people, persons who were present at different locations and in circumstances where there were a lot of people coming and going, telephone numbers, details about an assault by the accused including the shirt brand he was wearing, and places she and the girls travelled with the accused. When she could not remember, she was frank and said so and did not try to fill in details.

[77] Third, her evidence was corroborated in many respects by the evidence of the other complainants which is discussed collectively further below.

[78] Fourth, her evidence was corroborated by the text messages filed. A few examples include:

a. Her evidence that the accused provided her $25 before travelling to Windsor was identified in an email communication dated July 19, 2018.

b. Her testimony that she asked for permission is referenced in text examples to the accused where she is asking for 45 minutes to take her son swimming, informing him that she is waiting to check on her son at school, or asking him if she can take Queen to the hospital.

c. Her testimony that she always informed the accused and/or Jamie of her whereabouts and earnings are found in multiple text messages where M.M. and the accused are discussing where she is, when she will be done, who she is with, and how much the service call is.

d. Her testimony that the accused told her to write a letter to Ontario Works to secure an apartment was corroborated by text exchanges containing a sample letter.

e. Her testimony that she made $4000 one night is corroborated by a photo taken of a wallet with cash in it.

f. Her testimony that she transferred funds to the accused for revenues is seen in financial transfers from him to his account.

[79] Defence counsel cited a number of alleged inconsistencies in her cross-examination which I have addressed above and do not find amounted to inconsistencies. However, I agree with defence that there were two areas of M.M.’s testimony that were problematic: first, she was reluctant to admit in cross-examination that she had lied to the accused about having no money after working at the spa for three days; and two, that she provided pictures of her injuries from the punch in the car when no such pictures were produced. While I would agree with defence counsel that these two issues are hard to reconcile, I do not find they undermine M.M.’s credibility. When one examines the whole of M.M.’s evidence, and in particular the consistent and corroborated account that she provides on matters material to the elements of the offence, I find that the M.M.’s account of events is highly credible.

[80] Defence counsel argues that M.M. was vengeful because she sent the accused pictures of herself prior to her return, spent the night with him prior to his arrest, and made statements to the police when taken into custody to the effect of “why am I gonna sit in a cell for that guy ….he didn’t [expletive] love me or I’d have a [expletive] huge bank account and I wouldn’t [be] escorting.” She also posted on Twitter that C.B. was a fraud after the Bourbon Room incident. Defence counsel argues her vengeful nature makes her testimony unreliable. I disagree.

[81] M.M. had started to realize even before the Bourbon Room incident that the arrangement with the accused was not what he had promised her. She voiced those complaints to the other girls which upset the accused. I find the Bourbon Room incident was perhaps the final straw that propelled her to exit the relationship.

[82] In addition, M.M. admitted she was angry and intoxicated after the Bourbon Room incident. The mere fact that she acted on those feelings by posting what she perceived to be the truth regarding the accused and his agencies does not mean she is lying about the accused’s operation. On the contrary, her testimony regarding how she viewed the accused and his operation at the end of her seven-month period working for him is corroborated by the testimony of the other complainants who described the operation similarly.

[83] No evidence was adduced to suggest that M.M. knew about or could have anticipated the arrest on April 18, 2019. She testified she returned for personal reasons. However, within less than 24 hours of being back with the accused, the accused arranged a service call for her with a client. When she was placed in custody, her working relationship with the accused had ended except for this last call that he arranged. That she no longer felt a need to be loyal to him or to protect him, as perhaps she first felt when the police attended on Murray Street for a wellness check, does not render her statement to the police or her testimony before the court unreliable.

[84] Defence counsel also argues that M.M. may have been influenced by Det. Carroll speaking negatively to her about the accused, but failed to substantiate the basis for this assertion.

[85] When all these factors are considered, including the consistencies in the evidence between the complainants discussed in Section E below, I find M.M. to be a credible and reliable witness.

B. P.C.’s evidence

i. Testimony of P.C.

[86] P.C. is originally from Kenya. She was 19 years old when she arrived in Canada via Montreal with the intention to study in Halifax. Her family’s expectation was that upon obtaining an education here, P.C. would be able to work and earn money to send back home. Not long after her arrival, P.C. needed money and started working at a gas station and then as an agent selling credit cards. She was having difficulty earning enough to live. She saw an ad for a job by an agency called Canada Bookings on Craig’s List which stated that she could make $1000/day and she applied for it. She believed that if she made enough, she would be able to finance her schooling.

[87] The advertisement required her to go onto a site and upload information and pictures about yourself which she did. The photos she sent were ones of her in a bikini. Like M.M., she received a response from a person named Jamie who directed her to speak to Preston. She later learned Preston’s name was Juteah Downey. Jamie told her that Preston was the head of the company and that he worked in Ottawa. She then spoke to Preston.

[88] Preston asked about her background, her goals, and what she wanted to achieve. After their first encounter, she spoke to him almost daily for a period of two months. He told her the company was there to help her achieve her goals and be the best that she could be. She told him her goals were to get a computer, go to school, and have a place to live. He explained to her the different options with the agency where you could be a 35 percenter or a 100 percenter and the benefits associated with each. He explained that as a 100 percenter you gave all your money to Preston, and he would take care of everything and pay all your expenses including food. The accused also told her that there were a lot of opportunities in the company, and he would help her as best he could to make her journey or experience a good one. She could work alternatively in the strip club or even be a manager of the club. She understood that she would be part of a team and living with some of the girls in Ottawa.

[89] P.C. testified that she believed at the time that escorting was like being an actress where you were hired to go out with people and pretend to be their girlfriend. She had known of people back home who had done such work. When asked if she was expecting to have a job engaging in sexual activity when she arrived in Ottawa, she said yes; however, she thought she would have some choice in the matter and only engaged in sexual activity if she wanted to. If she did not want to, she believed she would just go on dates. She had explained to Preston that she wanted to be a “sugar baby” which is where you pretend to be someone’s girlfriend. That is what she expected.

[90] Preston told her to book a flight and that she would be refunded. She was never refunded. She used her last $300 to fly to Ottawa from Halifax. She had less than $5 upon her arrival.

[91] When she arrived in Ottawa on January 27, 2018, no one was at the airport waiting for her. She started having a panic attack because she had little money, nowhere to go, and knew no one in the city. The accused arrived about 37 minutes later and she was grateful. The accused then took her to a hotel near Nicholas Street where she met A.B. (Misty) who she testified became her best friend. Misty gave her some condoms and told her to get ready for a client. P.C. was not expecting to meet this client.

[92] She engaged in sexual activity with the client; they had sex for 15 minutes. She took the money from the client, and he left. She believes she gave the accused 35% of the earnings but then later she and the accused talked about her becoming a 100 percenter. She acknowledged that the details of that first encounter were fuzzy. When asked how she felt after the incident, she stated she thought she would feel disgusted, horrified, and mentally damaged, but she felt nothing.

[93] When asked why she agreed to become a 100 percenter she explained she was alone, did not have enough experience in Canada to take care of herself, and here was this guy, the accused, offering to help her, take care of her, and assist her in achieving her goals. She perceived the accused to be an angel who had come to save her.

[94] P.C. stayed with Misty in various hotels upon her arrival. Preston provided them with money for the hotels, but they were giving him the money they received from clients. P.C. explained that ads were posted every day by Jamie. Jamie would contact them and tell them who their clients were. They would service the clients and give the money to Preston.

[95] P.C. explained that the accused’s enterprise used several names to identify itself: Canada Bookings, Lust Inc., and Bachelor Exotic 6. The shortform of Canada Bookings was C.B. The agency used these names to post ads for sex work on websites such as Craig’s List, Backpage, Kijiji, and Leo List. P.C. testified that the accused was in charge of the Canada Bookings website and that Misty was in charge of the Canada Bookings’ Twitter account. P.C. testified that it was explained to her that Lust Inc. was a modelling agency where models could work, and the company sold t-shirts and merchandise.

[96] Exotic 6 was the agency name used when they were booking bachelor parties. She acknowledged it was mainly she and Misty who organized those bachelor parties where they worked as strippers. Different girls operated the Exotic 6 website. If you were a 100 percenter, you were assigned by either Preston or Jamie to book calls, answer the phones, and ask girls what they liked. She did not initially receive any assignments, but within six months she was given Exotic 6 and became responsible for bookings. She was also tasked with overseeing the Xtras Club Twitter account. The bachelor parties occurred at locations near Montreal and Mont Tremblant and out east. There is a text exchange where she asks the accused if they can do a bachelor party as far as Moncton in September 2018.

[97] P.C. was shown and identified herself in several ads. She was posted as a 20 year old and referred to as “Ebony Queen”. Her weight, height and cup size were all posted along with pictures of herself. She was available for in-calls and out-calls. The website was twitter.com/canadabookings, the accused’s agency. Clients could book using the dispatch number for Jamie 613-804-9474 and another number 613-209-5954 which she believes might have been hers. There were also an email address listed as highendwishes or the xtrasclub, agencies associated with the accused. She was also posted on an ad with other girls offering services to clients with 2-3 girls.

[98] P.C. also reviewed an ad that referenced a video of her where she was dancing. She explained videos were considered good and posted because they bought Preston more clients. She was referred to as “Queen LUST in Ottawa” with the acronym CB beside it. The ad was placed on LeoList.ca. The contact information was the dispatch number for the accused’s agency and email addresses associated with highendwishes and sexyottawaescorts.

[99] P.C. also reviewed an ad posted for her on July 18, 2018, for services in South Western, Ontario. It described her as “African Miss Kenya” and that she was the Queen at Playhouse. This was the same strip club referred to by M.M. P.C. explained that they went to Windsor whenever Preston wanted. She acknowledged she liked going there because it was like having a vacation. They would stay 2-3 days; it depended on how much money they made. The ad was posted and on/around the same time as M.M.’s arrival in Windsor. It corroborates M.M.’s evidence regarding the circumstances of her recruitment in Windsor.

[100] At the beginning, Jamie was posting all the ads for sex work. However, P.C. testified she got upset because Jamie was always posting Misty’s ads. Without ads, her ability to make money was curtailed. Eventually P.C. was also assigned to write the ads for sex work generally. The ads would include information such as race of the worker, age, hourly rate, location of service, and some other “cute stuff” to help a worker get booked.

[101] Dispatching was done by Jamie. She also received clients directly from Preston. While travelling with Preston, he would text her an assignment using an online app called TextNow and sometimes through his own number. Preston had two phones; one was grey and one was a pink iPhone. She recalls his hands being very big and his iPhone being small, and she and Misty would tease him about buying a new phone.

[102] She did both in-calls and out-calls. She recalls Preston having several cars and Misty having a personal car. Whoever among the girls was able to drive would transport the girls to clients. Otherwise, they would rely on Uber or Preston. Like M.M., P.C. testified that you had to inform the accused of start and finish times. She identified a text message where the accused got mad at her because she had failed to text him. She had not contacted the accused because the person was a regular.

[103] When asked what the different roles were for Jamie and Preston, she stated that she remembers Jamie sending her clients and Preston being the head of everything. Even when the 100 percenters were assigned roles to book hotels, bachelor parties, etc., she still had to run everything by Preston, or he would get mad. She did not know how Jamie got paid and never asked. She never met Jamie and communicated with her by text. She had initially tried to call Jamie, but realized after a while that Jamie would never pick up the phone. One day she and the accused had a fight about whether Jamie existed. She insisted she wanted to talk to Jamie. She does not recall what the accused said but then Jamie called her an hour or two later. They spoke for 2-3 minutes. She was left with the impression that it was a white girl. She never spoke to her again.

[104] While with Preston, she lived in several residences. She was tired of booking hotels and wasting money on Airbnbs which were costly. She wanted to save money so she could go to school. P.C. suggested getting a permanent place and Preston agreed. The first place was on Stamford Private. She liked the idea of having a place to call home. The Stamford residence was a three-bedroom house. Rent cost $2000/month. Preston directed her to put her name on the lease because it was less incriminating. She understood that because she was a sex worker she could rent a place whereas he could not. She discussed this with him before she signed the lease.

[105] The accused was responsible for paying the residential bills, including the phone bill. In practice P.C. and Misty would ask the accused for money and pay the bills themselves. The accused never sent rent directly to the landlord. Rent was always paid through her or Misty. Sometimes the rent would be late, and she would press him for funds. She did not want to be kicked out because her name was on the lease.

[106] Initially, Misty, Preston, and herself stayed at the Stamford residence. He would be there 20 to 25 days per month but he would often go home to see his kids. Later more girls came into the house, which meant more money. Both 100 percenters and 35 percenters stayed at the house. She recalled P.G., who came to the house from Alberta, who was initially a 35 percenter and then turned into a 100 percenter. P.G.’s goal had been to fix her car. P.C. recalled P.G. mainly stripping. She understood that all the girls at the residence worked for the accused. Like M.M., P.C. testified that she had to pretend it was nice working in the company when Preston brought in new girls.

[107] Later, she moved to another residence on Uplands Drive because the landlord kicked them out of the Stamford residence when Preston stopped paying rent. The house on Uplands also had three bedrooms. She recalls Misty, Gigi (M.M.), Phoenix, Gucci, the new Maya (not the one from Alberta), Trinity (S.T.), herself, and a few girls who were 35 percenters living at the Uplands residence. Both she and Misty were on the lease for the Uplands home for what she believed was the same reason as at Stamford, i.e., that it would be illegal for Preston to rent the home for the sex workers. The dynamic at the Uplands house was good. P.C. cleaned. Misty would cook, and the girls would wash up. When the girls cooked, they ate more in-house meals.

[108] In addition to the sex work in Ottawa or at bachelor parties, P.C. also travelled with Preston on tours. She recalls a trip across Canada and one out east to Halifax. The trips were largely organized by Preston, but Misty also drove. Their length of stay in a city depended on the number of clients they had. If they had only a few clients, they would move on. They would all stay together. Preston was more generous with food when they were travelling because they were making a lot of money. Because they all stay in one hotel room, they would exit and stay in the car when a girl was working in the hotel room. She and the girls would do the hotel bookings and she understood this was done for the same reason that Preston could not have his name on the house lease. All the earnings from the travelling sex work went to him.

[109] The organization and assignment of additional tasks over the course of her relationship with the accused did not change the financial arrangement. As a 100 percenter, she gave all the proceeds from the sex work, including at the bachelor parties to Preston. Rates were determined by Preston or Jamie. Payment by clients was in cash or by e-transfer. Sometimes Preston would tell her to deposit the funds in her bank account and then e-transfer him the money. She also referred to a drawer where she placed proceeds from sex work which she would give to Preston. Initially, she had a book where she would note her earnings, but it disappeared. Preston told her not to keep the information in a book because it could be used as evidence. She estimated that on a slow day she would make $500 to $1000, but that on a really good day she could earn upwards of $3000 to $5000. Her evidence was consistent with M.M. who said you could make up to $4000.

[110] While it was suggested by defence that P.C. was “hands on” in the operation of the agency and saw the accused as a business partner, it was clear that she did not financially gain from her association with the accused. Pamela Morley, an expert and Senior Forensic Accountant with the Forensic Accounting Management Group of Public Services and Procurement Canada, analyzed banking records associated with the accused as well that of P.C. Ms. Morley found that when one accounted for deposits and receipts between the accused and P.C.’s account, which P.C. testified were done because she was tasked to do these transactions, P.C.’s net gain between the period of January 1, 2014, and May 31, 2019, was less than $5000. As discussed further below, it paled against the tens of thousands of dollars deposited into the accused’s accounts in the same period.

[111] P.C. described the accused as “the boss”. She called him Preston, but also “Lord Downey” which was his nickname. She also referred to him as “Daddy”, as seen in text messages.

[112] P.C. had to obtain permission from the accused to keep proceeds for food, clothing, hygiene products, or lingerie for bachelor parties. Sometimes he would say yes, sometimes he would tell her to service another client, and other times he would just say no. P.C. testified the accused would say no to what she referred to as luxury items, nicer places to say, and sometimes food and snacks. Sometimes the wait to get items like tampons was long. The girls serviced calls even when they were menstruating. He told her to use a sponge and another time she stuffed toilet paper in her vagina. She did not refuse work unless she was sick to the point where she could not stand up. Initially he had purchased condoms, but then she and Misty would go to a free clinic and collect bags of condoms for everyone in the house to use.

[113] Defence argues there was a text message where P.C. told the accused she was hungry and ordering food and this undermines her claim that she had to get permission. I disagree. While she may not have formally asked the accused if she could purchase a meal, it was clear that as per their arrangement, she had to inform him of any money she spent. He controlled her earnings.

[114] Like M.M., she generally ate one meal per day particularly towards the end. She explained that it was not an issue for her as she was starving in Halifax, so this was better than having nothing to eat. When they were short of food, Misty would get food for her and the other girls. After Misty left, the girls struggled.

[115] She understood from Preston that the more loyal you were and the more you did good for the business, the more opportunities you would have to manage the business and become a permanent part of the company. The more obedient you were, the greater the chances of staying in the company. Obedience was following instructions without questioning the accused. If you were disobedient, he would start to get loud and would say mean things. She remembered the instance when Misty refused to give Preston $40 and he slapped her. She and the other girls witnessed the incident in the living room. Misty left forever.

[116] There were similar instances with M.M., who she referred to by the name “Gigi”, and who she described as a fighter. The accused and Gigi fought a lot.

[117] Like M.M. and S.T. later, P.C. also had a sexual relationship with Preston. The girls called each other “sister wives” because they were all sleeping with the accused, and in the same house. She testified that she trusted the accused with everything she had because he was the first person to show that he cared for her. At the same time, she knew the relationship was “fake” and it was not romantic love. She understood the more the girls gave him money and the more obedient they were to him, the more affectionate he would be. She did not believe it was from the goodness of his soul, but she could not deny that it still felt good. She explained that none of the girls had families. All the girls were “broken” in some way. From her perspective, it was better to have someone show you affection than to have nothing at all.

[118] She testified the girls only became competitive with each other around who was sleeping with Preston. Everyone wanted a piece of him. It was especially competitive when M.M. came into the home because she fell in love with him. P.C. acknowledged that she did not always get along with M.M. She identified text messages where the accused also criticized M.M. She did not understand why he was telling her this because she did not perceive it was within her power to kick M.M. out of the house. I find P.C.’s frankness about her feelings for M.M. corroborates M.M.’s evidence that there were jealousies and tensions. It also lends credence to M.M.’s testimony about the encounter where P.C. stole her money while she was in the shower.

[119] Although she arrived in Ottawa at the end of January 2018, P.C. did not get enrolled in school until September 2018. She had to persuade Preston to give her $4000 for the fee. He told her she had to hustle and earn it and so she booked extra bachelor parties. She worked hard for two weeks. He only gave her $500. She told him it was not enough. She had been working for eight months and could not go on anymore. She wanted to go to school. He insulted her. She started crying. He told her she had an African mentality believing that with schooling she would get a blue-collar job. He told her she should not bother, and she would make more as an escort. However, he did ultimately agree to pay $1500 for school fees. Surprisingly, the principal accepted it. In the fall of 2018 she was able to attend some courses. The accused also purchased her a laptop that fall. When she was in school, she felt like she was finally doing what she had come to Canada to do.

[120] P.C. acknowledged that the accused was initially supportive and would drive to her to school or get her an Uber. She finished four courses. She owed $3000 in tuition which she was supposed to pay before enrolling in the next course. It was not paid. The accused told her that she would manage the spa. She did not go back to school again while with the accused.

[121] P.C. had no support in Canada. She was asked why she did not leave and explained that you could not. Preston had all your money. He had everything. Where were you going to go? P.C. had no friends, family, or boyfriend. As she explained, she couldn’t run to an auntie’s place and say my life is [expletive] please take me in or she couldn’t just go sell her body in the middle of the street. She explained that at most she had was $10 or $20 in her pocket, and it was better to eat one meal a day than eat nothing at all.

[122] There was one instance when she did try to leave after the accused became violent with her. She claimed he tried to kill her. It was around April 4-5, 2019. She was residing at the spa. She refused to hand over to him the money she had set aside for her tuition so she could take further courses. P.C. testified that she was “bitch slapped” by the accused. She threw a computer and sewing machine back at him before retreating to the futon room in the spa. The accused followed and threw several wine glasses at her. She injured her eye. She took some drug medications and passed out.

[123] The following morning she took her backpack and went to Starbucks and researched hospitals or clinics. When defence asked what he was researching on the internet, she stated ways to get help and how to escape the life of an escort. The google search said go to the hospital and call the police. She spoke the police who had her see someone at the human trafficking section. She did provide the police a statement but was not willing to implicate the accused. The police asked why are you here then, and she replied she had nowhere to go. She was then sent to a shelter and given an application for subsidized housing. She returned to the spa 1 ½ days later.

[124] P.C.’s belief that she would rise to better fortune with the accused and his agency was coupled with a fear that he would kill her as summarized in the following quote:

Most times, like - like, this is a man that we were going to build empires together. I thought that - I felt like he was one of those soul best friends that we’re going to grow old together. Like, my kids are going to meet his kids and they’re going to call me Auntie or something, you know? Like, we’re going to legitimize these businesses and we’re have a company together and we’ll be shareholders and invest in a lot of things. Sometimes have vacations together. I thought we were going to be best friends for, like, life. But sometimes I felt like this was - he was [indiscernible] to kill me. When - sometimes I felt like I wasn’t worthy. Kind of an unworthy human being and this is all I deserved, and this was all I was going to get in terms of love and affection, and I better just do the best I can to serve and behave because there was nothing better for my anyway. So, yeah. (Transcript: Evidence of P.C. May 21, 2021, at pp. 35-36)

[125] When counsel suggested to her that she had options and chose to go back to escorting, she stated candidly that she was bored, had no money to go back to school, had no job, and was an hour and half away from school. She testified “You sound like this was the best option ever in the world. I had gotten a scholarship, add this was like my own house or something. No.” When pressed by counsel why she would return to the accused who had beat her up, her response was “Better the devil you know than the angel you don’t know.”

[126] It was not long after that a warrant was executed at the spa. P.C. was arrested and placed in detention centre because of her immigration status. She was at risk at getting deported. She felt abandoned. She did not hear from Preston while in jail even though she believed he would take care of her because this is what he had always said. She spent almost a full year in detention. P.C. acknowledged she gave statement to the police. She wanted to tell her story. She did not want to be deported or in jail and just wanted to go to school. Charges against her were ultimately stayed one month before the accused’s trial. She stated clearly that that she was never asked to testify in exchange for her charges being stayed, and she was aware that she could still be charged.

[127] At the time of arrest, she had no money except some that she had started to save under a futon at the spa. It was seized. She was left with nothing. When P.C. was asked what her loyalty to the accused get her, she replied:

Nothing. Well, I got the amazing opportunity of going to jail for a year and then being suspected as a human trafficker, living in the shelter and being poor, having to clean people’s houses where I am just to live even though I’m more qualified than that. I didn’t get to finish school or anything. So, amazing. I feel amazing. (Transcript P.C. May 20, 2021, at p. 33)

ii. Credibility and Reliability of P.C.

[128] P.C. testified for nine days. She was rigorously cross-examined. While there were times when she became fatigued and frustrated with defence counsel’s questions and the length of this process, she maintained her composure and was respectful. I found her to be a credible and reliable witness for the following reasons.

[129] First, she provided clear and succinct answers to questions. She was a witness who one might describe as a “straight shooter”. She provided the information requested and often her answers were short and to the point. If asked to elaborate, she would. Perhaps most importantly, P.C. was frank about things she did not know or could not recall even though she had been with accused and his agency for 15 months.

[130] Second, P.C. was able to make accurate and complete observations about the operations of the agency and the events that transpired. She described with detail her recruitment, her first night with a client, life at Stamford and then Uplands, the names of the accused’s agencies and what they did, how advertising and posting of sex work occurred, how bachelor parties were organized, the accused’s expectations, and the financial arrangements.

[131] Third, P.C.’s account of the accused’s operation and relationship with her was supported by large amounts of text messages and exchanges. Some examples include:

a. On August 28, 2018, she sent a text message to the accused indicating she needed $4000 for school before she can get an acceptance letter and she has to send it to immigration to start in September 2018. In another text message, she informs the accused that school is starting on August 29th. In a text message dated October 29, 2018, she indicates she was accepted and could go to school. Her excitement at the prospect is reflected in that she typed the message all in capital letters. These texts corroborate her evidence that it was her goal to go to school, and she persisted in getting money from the accused to make it happen as he had promised.

b. There were multiple messages corroborating her account that she would be assigned tasks by the accused and to deal with payments of the house rent. She would also be directed to check hotel prices, book rooms for the other girls, or collect money from the other girls.

c. There were texts when the accused made remarks like “get to work” which she understood was to go have sex with a client. She testified she would get texts like this particularly if bills were due. These texts corroborate her account that directions for sex work and tasks related to completing sex work came from the accused.

d. There is a text on August 31, 2018 where she wakes up and asks the accused if she can get an ad up and he says it’s already up corroborating her account that the accused controlled their postings and they were not, as suggested by defence, free agents.

e. There are text exchanges where P.C. reports her earnings to the accused.

f. There are entries directing him to get food, toilet per, dish soap or asking to get food corroborating her testimony that he controlled the purse strings and that they had to get permission to get food or basic necessities or have him purchase them.

g. There is a text exchange on September 12, 2018, where she tells the accused she has to go to the hospital. It’s getting worse. This corroborates her evidence that she would at minimum inform if not get permission from the accused for health visits.

h. In another entry on August 29, 2018, the accused informed her that the doctor had said you might want to sterilize your nail clipper. She explained that this was related to an incident where one of the girls had gonorrhea and he stuck his finger in it and then used a nail clipper. He was suggesting that it be sterilized. The text corroborates her account and that of M.M. with respect to their experiences with STDs.

i. On October 27, 2018, the accused tells P.C. not to reply to A.B. (Misty) until he gets $2000 corroborating the complainants’ testimony of the of the level of control he had over them and as between them. It was part of the loyalty.

j. There are text exchanges between P.C. and the dispatch phone 613-804-9474. She understood the dispatcher to be Jamie. However, the identification on the messages is not “Jamie” under whose name the phone was subscribed, but rather “dispatcher”. The texts corroborate P.C.’s account of appointment times, locations, and client fees, posting of ads, her requests to be posted, and even her frustrations with the dispatcher when she was not posted. In one text, P.C. states “I have been working for this company 24/7 for 8 months….am I allowed to have an opinion now?” In another text, she informs the dispatcher she had to first clear it with Preston corroborating her testimony that the accused was the head of the agency

[132] Fourth, contrary to defence’s assertion, I did not find P.C.’s evidence to be exaggerated or implausible. Defence asserts that P.C.’s entire account of her life at home in Kenya, her journey to Canada, and her early days out east at university are implausible. I respectfully disagree. Just because some of the experiences she described of life in Africa are not consistent with the Canadian experience, i.e.. not being able to easily obtain medical records or expectations that riches are easily attainable in North America, does not mean what she states is untrue. I did not find her accounts of her transition to Canada lacked credibility. Moreover, it is of little consequence as much of this evidence relates to peripheral matters unrelated to the offences.

[133] I also disagree with defence that P.C.’s confidence in her intellectual and academic strengths, that she testified about her abilities in this regard, or her hope to obtain a further education while with the accused undermines her credibility. I did not find she presented this evidence to throw herself in a better light but because she sincerely believed she had the ability and potential to make more of her life and felt thwarted that she was not advancing in those goals as promised by the accused.

[134] Fifth, I disagree that the fact that the complainant was charged undermines the credibility of her testimony. P.C. was frank about her circumstances in detention and the statements that she provided to the police. That she abandoned her loyalty to the accused and disclosed what she described as her story does not undermine her credibility. Her account of events, as discussed below, is significantly corroborated by the testimony of all the other complainants.

[135] Sixth, P.C.’s account was externally consistent with her prior statements to the police and text messages viewed. Defence was able to identify just 2-3 text messages where the complainant conceded she had been wrong in her earlier answers and corrected herself. Other than inconsistencies about the description of the assault in her prior police statement, most of defence’s arguments and submissions on P.C. centred on the fact that she chose to be an escort in an arrangement with the accused and this volition undermines the claim of exploitation. As discussed below in relation to the elements of the offence of human trafficking, the complainant’s subjective perception and experience is but one factor to be considered in assessing the elements of the offence of human trafficking.

[136] Finally, like the other complainants, P.C. fairly conceded the positive aspects of her relationship with the accused which lent credence to her testimony. She acknowledged he cared for her, that he was sometimes unexpectedly generous with food and shopping, that food was better when they travelled, that he gave her a prepaid credit card for emergencies, and that he did ultimately pay for some of her school fees and a laptop.

C. S.T.’s evidence

i. Testimony of S.T.

[137] S.T. was 25 years of age when she joined the accused’s agency in 2018. She left her hometown because she wanted to live independently from her parents. An opportunity came up to live in Ottawa with a friend from high school. Upon arrival, she initially supported herself by getting a retail job but after the Christmas season, the hours were cut and she was not earning enough money to pay for rent. S.T. had trouble finding other retail work, and she started to look for ways of making money quickly. She responded to an online ad by a person named Matt who offered fast and easy money. She was reluctant to meet with him but felt desperate. She ended up escorting for Matt. He advertised her sexual services on Leo List. She gave him all her money. The entire experience that she described starting from their initial encounter was highly negative. About 6 ½ months after working for Matt, she left him.

[138] S.T. went on Leo List to look for other jobs. She saw ads for escort agencies stating escorts could earn up to $2000 a night. One ad in particular stood out more than others because it presented itself as a woman-run escort agency. She thought it might be an agency that was more professional and something she could trust given her negative experience with Matt. She texted the number and got a response from a lady named “Jamie”. She sent Jamie pictures and information about herself. She disclosed to Jamie her situation with Matt and that she was looking for a safer place to work where she could maintain boundaries with clients. Jamie apologized to her for her experience with Matt, and this made S.T. feel safer and that she was being heard and respected. Jamie asked S.T. when she could star. She was hired within a week of leaving Matt.

[139] While the recruitment ad that S.T. responded to in the late summer/early fall of 2018 was not obtained to view, S.T. was shown later in her testimony an ad that was posted in February 2019. This ad was posted by the accused’s agency on Leo List and referenced the alias name that the accused had assigned her, Trinity. The ad said, “Reliable Escort Services Hiring in Ottawa - Female Operated”. S.T. explained that this ad was similar to what she had seen when she was recruited, and which had drawn her in because it advertised the agency as being female-operated. I find this ad corroborates S.T.’s evidence about the recruitment ad she viewed because it demonstrates the accused’s agency posted similar ads.

[140] After the initial text exchanges, Jamie texted S.T. and told her a very trusted friend who drives girls around is going to pick her up and take her to the townhouse. His name was Preston. Preston came to pick her up not far from where she was living because she did not want disclose her address. Her first impression of the accused was nothing alarming. She had been used to being around men at this time. She thought he seemed nice and charming. Preston told her Jamie had informed him about S.T.’s experience with Matt and that he was sorry. Preston told her Matt was a loser, and she was now in safe hands.

[141] Preston also discussed her goals with her. She told him her dream was to move to Kingston and open up a home daycare. He told her that it was not a problem to make her dream come true. S.T. testified he made her feel safe. He made her laugh. She did not feel any danger. He took her to the townhouse on Uplands Drive. It was a three-bedroom apartment with a pullout couch in the living room. It was clean and in a family friendly neighbourhood. Present at the house were Gigi (M.M.) and her son, Phoenix, Gucci, Queen (P.C.), and another woman she did not see again. She felt a sense of ease and thought it was indeed a real agency run and owned by women because she was surrounded by women at the Uplands home. She was still under the impression that Preston was just a driver for the girls’ out-calls.

[142] After she was introduced to the girls, Preston took her upstairs, gave her a tour, and took pictures of her in her bra and panties using his phone. These photos were posted on Leo List. Maybe an hour later she had her first client. She was not expecting him to take pictures of her and expected one of the girls would because it was a women’s agency. She realized then and there that was not the case. After the photos, Preston lay down on the bed with her while she was naked. There was tension in the room. She knew one thing was going to lead to another and they had sex. She acknowledged she initiated the sexual activity. He did not force her. She had previously asked Jamie if she needed to have sex with Preston to say “thank you” for him picking her up, and Jamie had said it was not required. The sex did not take long because the other girls were downstairs, and Preston did not want them to walk in on them.

[143] S.T. and Preston went on to have a sexual relationship. She thought it came along with the job, and she was not surprised by it. She acknowledged they never talked about it. It was just assumed. He told her that their sexual relationship was to stay between them, and she was not permitted to discuss it with the other girls. She initially complied, but over time it became known that all the girls were all having sex with the accused, and it was silly to keep it a secret. The accused would spend some nights at home with his children, but when he was at the Uplands home, which was about five days a week, he would go from one bedroom to another. She testified that he had a different relationship with you behind closed doors.

[144] Preston told the girls they had to be loyal to him. If she decided to say something to one of the girls because she was upset, sometimes that girl would go tell Preston. This also caused her to pause before sharing information with the other girls. If you were running your mouth, Preston would handle each girl differently. With S.T., the accused would calmly confront her and this was sufficient for her to stop talking badly about him.

[145] There were tensions, arguments, and fights, but for the most part the girls got along. From her perspective, it was not competitive, but she acknowledged that she did not like conflict. Most of the arguments in the house were over groceries.

[146] The accused and Gigi would argue a fair amount. One day she observed him slap her. This made S.T. cry. Another time she could hear the accused and Gigi arguing upstairs and went into the bathroom because she was upset. She does not know why he never hit her, but he did not. The accused rarely went more than one week without being in an argument with at least one of the girls. He was always in the dog house with one of the girls, but as she explained, he was in the business of girls and so he brought that on himself. S.T. identified text communications with the accused where he told her “I don’t hit girls” and she replied, “you hit Gigi, Gucci, and Queen in front of me.” The text corroborates her observations of violence by the accused against the other girls and also corroborates the other girls’ claims of violence by the accused.

[147] The girls called each other by their sex worker names, but Gigi would also call them “sister-wives.” S.T. thought calling the girls sister-wives was cringy, and she avoided it. Despite tensions and arguments, she would like to say the girls cared for each. The girls helped each other out. She got help when she was sick. She got soup and cold medicine for Phoenix when she was sick. When asked why she would not ask Preston for money in these times, she said he would likely shrug it off, and it was not worth wasting time messaging him.

[148] Loyalty to Preston also meant having sex with him, without protection, when he wanted it. S.T. understood they were in a relationship. S.T. testified that early in the relationship, she had a text exchange with Jamie about her feelings. Jamie asked her if she loved the accused and she said no. Jamie was taken aback and asked why and also told S.T. that the accused loved her. She told Jamie she was reluctant and that she did not love him, and that was the end of the conversation. It made her feel uneasy saying she loved the accused, but as time went on she started to say it back.

[149] When asked why she felt uneasy about saying she loved him, she explained that in the sex work world, it was not common to feel love. It was something that caught her off guard. She had never heard anyone in that line of work say such things. She thought it was a mistake and wondered why he would say it to her, but he said it often and within about 2 ½ weeks of her being at Uplands.

[150] S.T. acknowledged that over time her feelings changed for the accused, and she came to care about him because he cared for her. He was kind and would make her laugh or feel better if upset. They would watch comedy shows on the couch and cuddle. She started to feel bonded to him and eventually believed her feelings of care must be love. She eventually began saying “I love you.” All these feelings were private and the word “love” was never thrown around in front of others. At one point, she even told her mother that she had met someone special. They never discussed marriage. Once she was laying in bed with him and she mentioned how cute it would be to have babies; he shut down the topic right there.

[151] With respect to the work expectations, the implicit rule was you had to have your ringer on. You could not miss a text or a call because if you did you missed an opportunity to make money. Most of the time it was Preston or Jamie telling them that a client was coming. If Preston was at the Uplands home, he would tell her directly that a client is coming and remind her to get the money first from the client. Otherwise, either he or Jamie would text her. You also had to let everyone know if a client was coming so the other girls and Preston could hide in the bedroom. If more than one client came, they would use Gigi and her son’s room and if Gigi’s child was there, someone would take him to the park. Eventually Gigi and her son went to another apartment which she believes Preston paid for, but Gigi would still come back to Uplands to work. Everyone worried about Gigi’s child being there. S.T. acknowledged she cared for the child.

[152] S.T. testified that she serviced clients largely in one bedroom in the house which she referred to as the “sex room”. It had a bedside table filled with condoms. She believed that Preston and Queen would go to a health centre that handed out condoms for free.

[153] At the start and end of a client call, S.T. would text both Preston and Jamie so they could keep track of the length of the sessions and make sure she did not go over time because that would be considered a loss of money.

[154] S.T. explained that Preston and Jamie were responsible for creating and posting ads, but she did not see them do this. She also did not see the other girls posting ads. It made sense to her that the only people posting ads were Preston and Jamie. She understood that you had to pay to post; Leo List was not free. She did, however, view the ads. She and the girls would sometimes wonder if they were posted and would go to the website to see the ad, content, pictures, and phone number. If you were not posted, it was stressful because without exposure you would have fewer views and less clients.

[155] She was not posted on days off, but there were also times that the accused did not post her as punishment. During times of punishment, neither Jamie nor Preston would text her. Punishments arose if they had an argument, she acted up, or did something the accused had not wanted her to do like not performing sexual acts that she did not want to do. Not posting S.T. as punishment was not frequent but occurred enough to make her upset. The girls had no control over the advertising and just had to deal with not being posted. The girls felt guilty for not working and not making money when they were not posted. If you were not making money, you did not have the right to ask for money. Her testimony in this regard corroborates M.M. who stated the accused would also not post her to punish her.

[156] If a request came in from a client, S.T. explained you could not decline the call or client. However, she acknowledged that the promise made by Jamie that boundaries for sex work would be respected was largely true. She was mostly able to choose and pick what kind of services she was willing to provide, but not necessarily the clients or the hours. She had to be on call and available at all times with the ringer up so she did not miss calls. The girls never got a full night sleep because you were often between clients.

[157] Her hours with the agency were initially Wednesday to Saturday and then she was free to leave to visit family on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, but things changed over time. She acknowledged that the accused did not stop her from going home. She could not recall how often she went home, but she could go when she wanted to. She went home partly to avoid her parents becoming suspicious about anything. She felt she was living a double life. She thought about moving back home, but she did not want to admit defeat because she wanted to prove to her parents that she had been ready to leave home.

[158] While S.T. did not post her own ads, she acknowledged that eventually, she started booking her own clients with whom she felt safe with and who respected her. She would give them her personal telephone number so they could contact her for an appointment. This did not change the financial or logistical arrangement with the accused. She would still let everyone know she had a client, and the earnings were still handed over to the accused. S.T. explained there were two financial options: 30 or 100 percenters. 30 percenters had to pay for their own travel and accommodation. They were girls who wanted to make quick money. They would come over three to four times a week. Often they were college girls. They would use her room, and she would sleep with Queen, or the sex room. S.T.’s bedroom was initially the sex room and if someone needed it, she would go hide until the girl and client were finished. There were clients in and out most of the day and night.

[159] S.T. was a 100 percenter which she understood meant that she gave 100% of her money to Preston but received free room and board and money when she needed it. S.T. chose the 100% model from the beginning and was happy with her choice. It made sense to her since she did not drive, preferred to be in one place with people she could trust, and have a roof over her head. Initially, she was still living at her own residence with a roommate. She made it clear at the outset that she needed money to pay rent for that residence. At first she was not told not to worry about it, but after the first payment was made, she said it was like pulling teeth to get money from Preston. She would get upset and cry because she was worried that she would not have rent money and upset her roommate. Her roommate had a boyfriend who moved in with them, thereby decreasing the rent, but S.T. still owed her share. Preston became reluctant to give her any money. She continued to go back and forth between her apartment and the Uplands residence, but about a month and a half after working with the accused, she stopped going to her original home. She stopped responding to her roommate and her requests for rent money.

[160] S.T. gave her earnings from sex work to Queen who would give it to Preston. Over time, she would also put her earnings at a bedside table and Preston would collect it. He checked for earnings in the drawers every day. Tip money from clients was also given to him. She recalls the rates being $120 for 30 minutes, $220 for 60 minutes, and for service by two women it was $420/hour. She assumed everyone had the same rates. S.T. perceived the other girls made more money because she believed they were more attractive than her, but everyone had ups and downs and good days and bad days. She never tracked how much money she made. Her mindset was to get the guys in and out and to ensure she collected the correct amount for her service. She rarely fell short and when she did, to avoid a confrontation with Preston, she would take any money received from her parents or grandparents to complete the balance. She wanted to make sure she was pleasing everybody.

[161] She also did out-calls. The other girls or Preston would drive her. He had one or two cars. He had taken the car from Gigi a few times and left her to get her child to school without a car.

[162] The Uplands home would get typically messy, but they would clean it. They had daily chores like cleaning bedding, recycling, and dishes. They would especially clean if a new girl was coming so they could make sure she felt welcome. She did not recall specific instructions from the accused, but she was left with the impression that the girls had to make the recruit feel as comfortable as they could and to get her ready to start working. She would not discuss financial terms with them.

[163] When she started with the agency, she had a bank account with maybe $1000 in it. She quickly spent this money on groceries, food, or medicine for her and the girls. They struggled to get Preston to pay for groceries. There was never enough food or, if there was food, it was not enough for everybody. Whenever they could, they would try to get Preston to go to the grocery store but he would have a limit on what they could spend. Once they were surprised when he spent almost $400 for groceries, but it was never like that again. He usually provided $120 to $130 for groceries. About six people lived in the house, including her. She lost weight after she started working there. When she saw her doctor in February 2019, she had lost about 30 pounds.

[164] Counsel argues there is an absence of text messages from the accused stating to the complainants that food would be withheld if they did not escort and undermines S.T.’s reliability on the issue of food. I respectfully disagree. S.T.’s description of the food shortages were corroborated by all the complainants.

[165] Preston preferred to purchase fast food for the girls because it was less expensive whereas they wanted groceries because it was healthier and made them feel less sluggish. He or Queen would order the girls fast food through Uber Eats. When they would ask him for money for groceries, he would shrug it off or delay giving it. He would say things like “we have an empire” and “we are rich.” She started to respond that “if we are so rich, where is the money? Why am I struggling to get money from you and for rent,” and he would not have an answer.

[166] The landlord turned off the heat because Preston had not been paying rent. They went a few months without heat. She thought the heater was broken. She told Preston, and he shrugged it off. They were never told that the heat was turned off. They kept warm with blankets. Just before Preston opened up the spa, their internet was also cut off and they did not have Wi-Fi so they had to go the spa for it.

[167] Counsel argues that the fact that the other complainants did not reference lack of heat or internet undermines S.T.’s credibility. I disagree. At this time, M.M. was no longer living full time at Uplands and P.G. did not stay at Uplands for more than one month. The only remaining complainant would be P.C. and this issue was not addressed by counsel with her. Furthermore, while P.C. may not have volunteered information around heat and internet, she identified many other things the accused failed to pay for. For example, rent at Stamford, food, hygiene products, and even condoms. Furthermore, as noted below, even the landlord of the spa identified the repeated late payments by the accused for rent. S.T.’s account of the accused failing to pay heat is consistent with his failure to ignore expenses and failure to make timely payments.

[168] By “empire,” Preston meant to tell them that what they were doing was important and nothing was wrong with it. If the police were communicating with the girls, he would say they cannot break down our empire that we built. He took pride in this perceived empire. The police did, in fact, attend for a wellness check. S.T. understood a client was coming but when she opened the door, she met an officer who showed her his badge. She understood his name was “Detective Owen” and there were three others. She told them she felt safe. The officers looked around a bit and saw the Lord Downey stickers. She told them he was a rapper that the girls liked. The girls all texted Preston not to attend the house. After that incident, Gucci and Queen became upset with her because she let the police in without a warrant. She did not think she had done anything wrong and thought if she let them in they would see a clean and safe spot. S.T.’s account is consistent with the evidence of Det. Owen Carroll who testified that he spoke with S.T. during a wellness check at Uplands. She told him she liked what she was doing, was not forced, and kept her own money, she paid rent, and she had been in the sex trade for a few months.

[169] With respect to other necessities, S.T. does not recall struggling for sanitary products. She had clothes and acknowledged he once asked her if she wanted to go shopping. She declined as she had a suitcase of clothes. She did not view money for herself as a priority. She would rather see it go to the house, car, or the girls. She had her own phone and bank account until she no longer had money to pay for it. She would tell Preston that she was short and Rogers would cut her off. He would say he would get her the money but he did not. Eventually her phone was cut off. Preston got her a sim card for Chatr. He later put her on his Rogers account. During this period she communicated with her family using a texting app.

[170] When S.T. was sick, she acknowledged the accused took her to the clinic and paid for the prescription. But when she later got worse and was not eating, he gave her fruit. She threw up. He took a picture of her in bed while she was sick and posted it because he liked the way she was lying down. When she became even more sick, he told her he would take her to the clinic but the other girls argued that she needed to go to a hospital. Gigi took her there because he refused to. Phoenix was also sick and they wanted to see the doctor together. She cannot recall what the diagnosis was but she told the doctor she was a sex worker. The doctor offered help but she told him she was okay. Looking back, she realizes her mental state was not okay. She could not recognize what was going on. She just wanted medical help and to return to the house. She did not work for a week and the accused did not push her to return to work. He still had other girls bringing money into the house. She believes he treated the other girls similarly when they were sick.

[171] Counsel argues that the fact that S.T. told to Det. Carroll and a physician that she was safe indicates, “she was proud” of what she was doing at the time. Counsel argues that her present day claim that she was numb and blind to the reality of what she was doing undermines her credibility and reliability. I respectfully disagree. S.T.’s evidence that she told others – police or physicians – that she was safe and did not need assistance at that time is consistent with the evidence of all the complainants who made similar reports during the police wellness checks. The fact that S.T. and the complainants now view things differently having exited the relationship and are able to articulate that they may not have appreciated the reality of their circumstances does not suggest they are lying about the events that transpired. Furthermore, as discussed below, their subjective perception of their circumstances is but one factor for consideration in determining exploitation.

[172] She understood Queen was on the lease for the house because the landlord would often attend and was upset because rent had not been paid. She would tell the landlord Queen was out. The landlord did not appear to know what was going on and how many people lived there.

[173] S.T. reviewed in court various ads posted of her as exhibits. She testified her advertisement usually describe her as “GFE” meaning the “girlfriend experience”. She took the time to make people feel like she was their girlfriend.

[174] S.T. reviewed the components of another ad with her alias name, Trinity Lust, on it and advertised by “C.B.” meaning Canada Bookings. The ad posted her as being 21 years old but she was 25 at the time. The number to call was 613-804-9474. She could not recall if it was Preston’s or Jamie’s number. I note that it is the number associated with the pink iPhone or what was referred to as the dispatch phone. There was also a number starting with 702 which she believes was her work phone number. She could not explain why the ad contained the words “Trinitylust.com website” or what the expression “Super open no GK” meant. She understood the term “Highendwishes” related to a service for bachelor parties.

[175] S.T. also reviewed an advertisement that said, “Trinity Ad 3, industry Party.” She believes that this was a party that the accused organized at the Concorde Motel Bar on January 19, 2019, to get Gigi’s name out there and to recruit more girls but was not sure.

[176] She also reviewed an and that said “Trinity Ad 4 – Lust Inc” which she believes was a brand name created for her. Preston had spaghetti strap shirts made for the girls with the brand name “Lust” on it, but she did not want one. I do not find the fact, as suggested by defence, that she posed or was seen wearing such a shirt in a photo undermines her testimony that she did not want such a shirt.

[177] She did not like working at the spa. It did not seem like a safe environment because the pricing for everything varied. Men would come in for services and would get upset if prices were unclear or differed among girls. They offered massages with “happy endings,” but you had to keep that to yourself so that the girls hired for other spa services would not know. Happy endings involved male ejaculation at the end of a massage or being topless, bottomless or naked. The various sexual services required extra charges. The spa website was created by Preston and Queen. All earnings were put in an office desk and Preston would take from it. She did not know if it was mixed with legitimate massage money.

[178] She worked at the spa 2-3 days a week with girls from the Uplands home. She does not believe all the girls hired for the spa were providing sexual services. She was there around the clock. She told the accused many times that she wanted to stop working there because she did not feel safe because of the pricing issues and the lack of certainty it created with the clients. At least at Uplands, the clients knew the service they were getting and the price they were paying. Preston’s response when she told him did not want to work there was to play mind games with her telling her she was his working girl or that she was same no matter what location. He was completely disconnected from her perspective.

[179] Defence counsel argues that the accused did not promise S.T. any goals and dreams and that it was a casual conversation. I disagree. S.T. testified that the accused spoke to her about 5 or 6 times over the course of their relationship about her hopes and dreams. He told her he was going to get that for her. He once told her if she did not want to escort, then the spa was better. She acknowledged he offered her work in his aunt’s day care but she declined. Counsel argued those refusals suggest she had a preference to escort over any other job. As discussed below, while that may have been the case at the time, I find that choice of profession is not determinative of whether the working relationship was exploitative. Furthermore, there was no suggestion that even if she took on another job for him that terms of their financial arrangement would change. P.C. had increased tasks over her 14 months but the 100 percenter financial arrangement remained.

[180] S.T. testified that she never met Jamie. When asked why she believed Jamie was female, she said she assumed it from the name, but had never seen a picture of her, met her, or heard her voice. She understood that Jamie was a good friend of Preston's and lived in Montreal. She did not send money to Jamie.

[181] She and the girls constantly questioned if Jamie was a real person or Preston himself. They kept their suspicions to themselves and tried not question who she was. When asked if she researched it, she said no, but once she observed his phones sprawled out. Preston had a lot of phones, and she believes at one time he had up to four phones. She saw that Jamie texted him and he went outside. She tried to text Jamie saying, “Preston told me I have a client and told me to leave now,” but she did not see any of his phones go off.

[182] S.T. was asked about her perception of the legality of what she was doing. She was candid in her response and stated that she believed she made a choice to stay in her situation and was therefore responsible for the consequences of her decisions. She knew that sex work was legal for the sex worker but that for pimps and clients it was not legal. She tried to leave a few times, but she always got sucked back. She missed the girls and the accused.

[183] When asked if she felt she had a way out, S.T. explained that even though she had friends and family in Ottawa and her home city, she felt stuck and trapped. She explained she felt homeless in the sense that she was living a double life and keeping work a secret from family and friends. She felt she had to lie to keep her friends and family from being suspicious of what she was really doing. She did not want them to worry and be scared for her because even though she felt unsafe, there was also part of her that felt safe.

[184] In early January 2019 S.T. was fed up with the accused and at a low point. She was starting to have suicidal thoughts. The accused would send her text messages saying things that would intimidate her from leaving. In one message viewed, the accused states: “while your getting injected with heroin in your sleep by the guys with the fake website and africans I will be building day cares sps, and dance studios with the willing.”

[185] She finally left when in the spring of 2019 she received a call from her parents who suspected something was wrong. They begged her to come home and so she did and never went back. Seeing the devastation and fear of her parents made her snap and come out of whatever haze she was in. She did not want to devastate them further.

[186] Looking back, she realizes what she really feared was her family finding out what she was doing. When she looks back, she now sees manipulation, mental and emotional control, and grooming. She believes that she experienced Stockholm Syndrome because the accused was simultaneously her unsafe and safe person. She felt safe during the kind moments, moments of intimacy and laughter, and when she felt she had a relationship with him. At other times she felt like she was part of a business that benefited him.

ii. Credibility and Reliability of S.T.

[187] I found S.T. to be a highly credible witness for multiple reasons.

[188] First, S.T. had a calm and respectful demeanor on the stand. She listened and answered questions clearly. She was never argumentative or aggressive with counsel.

[189] Second, she was fair and frank, and tried to be accurate in her description of events. She described how she was recruited, the responsibilities of Jamie and the accused as she viewed them, the day to day operations of the agency, the roles and responsibilities of other girls, and her own relationship with the accused in a manner that did not seek to embellish or exaggerate the situation. Despite her frustrations with not having enough money for rent or food or obtaining the riches promised, she fairly conceded the things the accused did provide, that he made her feel safe, that he would take her to the clinic and pay for prescriptions, that he accommodated her requests to see family, that he never hit her, and the surprising moments when he was generous by offering to take her shopping or spending $400 for groceries. These concessions lent credence to her testimony.

[190] S.T. also had a very good memory of events. She described with considerable detail her recruitment and her first encounter with Preston. She recalled: the names of persons at the house and the rules of the house; the operations of the agency such as advertising, posting, hours of work, transportation; the operations of the spa; the period she was ill and the accused took a photo of her; the details of the wellness check with Det. Carroll; the financial struggles to obtain rent or phone money; and her relationship with the accused. I also found that S.T.’s claims of how the accused and the arrangement operated were not merely bald assertions, but were descriptive explanations supported by examples.

[191] Third, S.T.’s evidence was corroborated in multiple respects by the evidence of the other complainants, which is discussed collectively further below.

[192] Fourth, her evidence was corroborated by the text messages. A few examples include:

a. Text messages were reviewed where she informs the accused she had a client and the money was waiting for him corroborating that she reported her earnings.

b. There are text messages where she informs the accused she needs to get cold and flu medicine, corroborating the requirement to obtain permission.

c. There is a text message where she inquires about the state of the house that Gigi (M.M.) was moving into. She testified that she had received a message from M.M. that the house was gross and dirty. The message corroborates her evidence about M.M.’s departure, that she cared for M.M. and her son, and also M.M.’s own evidence that the place she got on Murray Street was dirty.

d. There are text messages where S.T. encourages her to take on responsibilities at the spa and she declines corroborating her testimony that she was not comfortable or interested in working at the spa and lacked confidence to take on such jobs.

e. In one text the accused tells S.T “I am googling your mom’s address” and “You wanna threaten people” which she explained worried her initially because he knew her parents did not know what she did for a living, but then she realized he was just saying these things to get her to stop running her mouth. In another text the accused plays on her fears by stating “Your whole family will know your true colors.” In another text he threatens to tell the police that she will be a Kingston escort, playing once again on her fears and threatening her reputation.

f. A text where she informs the accused that she has told her mom about him, corroborating the development of her romantic feelings for the accused over time.

[193] Finally, her testimony was both internally and externally consistent. Counsel did not identify any real inconsistencies from her prior statements or in her testimony in-chief. Counsel’s argument and submissions with respect to S.T. all centred around the fact that she acknowledged she one, had chosen to escort, two, elected to join the accused’s agency, and three, refused to take up other offers of work by the accused. Counsel argues that these choices reflect S.T.’s willingness to work as an escort and for the accused. Counsel argues that these choices are inconsistent with exploitation. As discussed below, a complainant’s choice to engage in sex work is not in and of itself determinative of whether exploitation resulted. The complainant’s subjective perception of the situation – including her choice to enter and stay in the working arrangement - is but one, amongst many factors, that must be considered in examining the accused’s conduct and purpose.

D. P.G.’s evidence

i. Testimony of P.G.

[194] P.G was 21 years of age when she responded to an advertisement on Craig’s List that stated a person could earn $1000 a day. She understood the ad was for escorting. She was first in contact with a person named Jamie who directed her to Preston. She identified the accused as Preston. She was in Calgary when she started speaking to the accused.

[195] In their initial conversations, the accused told her that he had a legitimate company. He explained that under the financial arrangement she would retain 65% of her earnings and he would take 35%. During their later conversations, he told her the agency was very lucrative. He would give examples of the girls making $2000 a night. He once said in her presence that he needed a rubber band for all the money.

[196] P.G. did not join immediately. She had been working independently as an escort and decided to go to Montreal for work. She drove there by car. She entered into a 50/50 arrangement with another person. During this time she continued to speak to the accused and discussed joining him and his company. About 2 ½ to 3 weeks later she came to Ottawa.

[197] On her way to Ottawa, she was pulled over by the police for speeding and an issue with her Alberta plate. A breathalyzer triggered an alert and her licence was suspended. She contacted the accused, and he said his cousin would come and get her and give her a tow. She was upset, crying, and disappointed in herself. She paid $200 of the $600 she had for the tow.

[198] She met the accused at his mom’s mechanic shop. They were going to park her car there, but then later he decided they would park it at his house. While they were in his vehicle, they had a discussion about the arrangement. She told him she wanted to engage in the 65/35 deal but he persuaded her to become a 100 percenter. He told her that as a 35 percenter she would have to pay for a hotel and transportation to work. The accused also told her that “if you give me everything, I can help you towards your goals.” She discussed her goals with him which were to learn about nails so that she could start her own business. She understood that as a 100 percenter, all her expenses and needs would be taken care of including her living costs.

[199] At this point, she realized she was being scammed. But she had no car, no credit card, her license was suspended, she did not know anyone in Ottawa, and had only $400 in her pocket. She felt she had no choice but to agree to the terms. As she explained, she was at her lowest:

“So, I’m in his vehicle and then I remember we were talking, and this is when I knew that like, this – this was all like, a scam because when we were talking, I’m like, ok, I want this 35/65 percentage and he’s like, no. Like, if you do that then you have to pay for your own hotel and everything but if you give me all the money, I’ll take care of you. You’ll always have a guaranteed place and everything and at this point I was at my lowest because you know, I didn’t have my life in – I didn’t have my car. I can’t drive my car because I don’t even have a license. Even if it was a three-day suspension, I know like, I don’t even have a physical copy of my license and I only have $400.00. I don’t know nobody in Ottawa, so I kind of had no choice.” (Transcript: Evidence P.C.– May 31, 2021, at p. 19)

[200] P.G. testified the accused kept asking her how much money she had and how much she had previously made which she found odd. She eventually handed over her $400 because he had told her if you give me all the money, I will take care of you. He left her $40 for food. He took her to an Airbnb where she met Misty. Misty told P.G. that she had worked for the accused for six months, had given him all her money too, and that he was going to get her a car. Misty mentioned the accused helped her purchase a property. P.G. was suspicions of these claims.

[201] Misty took photos of her, posted the ads, and then later messaged that she had a call, but it did not go through. P.G. had no control over the content of the ad. She saw it on Leo List. She used the alias name Maya which she acknowledged she assigned to herself. P.G. was frustrated because for a while she was not getting any work. The accused told Misty to post ads for her. She noted that someone named Jamie also seemed to run things including posting ads and determining rates. P.G. described the Jamie character as “weird” because you could not call, but only text or email her. She never met Jamie. She learned from the girls that apparently Jamie did not live in Ottawa.

[202] The following day she moved to Stamford Private. It was a three-bedroom house. There was another girl there named Queen. The living situation was messy. There was no food in the fridge. There was no internet and everybody’s data was running out. P.G. had used her $40 to order pizza the night before. The girls went shopping the next day for groceries, but it was the only time they went shopping. They shared the food. When it ran out, no one bothered getting anymore. If she was hungry, she would ask the accused for money. She ate once or twice a day.

[203] With respect to her revenues, if she made money on a day, the accused would take most of it but she would keep a little for herself. She would ask him if she could keep $25 for herself and he would say “sure”. The money would go directly to him or in a drawer and he would collect it later. She once gave it to Queen to give to him.

[204] She spent most of her time at the house. Other than working and sleeping, the girls watched DVDs to entertain themselves. At one point, it became really slow. She was not getting any messages and work. She decided to take matters into her own hands after which she started to make more money. She turned it over to the accused as per their arrangement.

[205] Her perception of Queen and Misty were that they were infatuated with the accused and isolated in the Stamford home. The were constantly working. They could not see friends, if they had any, and they did not appear to do anything outside of work. She observed that both girls had sexual relations with the accused. At one point another girl named Cat arrived with whom she got along very well. Cat worked as a 35 percenter and had to pay a fee for accommodation and for her food. Cat also got few bookings. Cat stayed for 2 weeks at most and slept on the couch.

[206] P.G. remembers the rates for sex work being $220/1 hour, $120/30 minutes, and $80/15 minutes. She found them to be low.

[207] During her first week with the accused, she earned $600 which she gave him. After when she took matters into her own hands and did her own posts, she made $1000 in one day which she also gave to him. Defence argues that P.G.’s numbers “don’t add up” and you cannot reconcile making $600/week and then $1000 in one day. I disagree. P.G. did not suggest that she went from then on to make $1000 a day, but that when she posted herself she was able to get more calls and clients. In fact, she acknowledged there was another lull in activity that followed.

[208] P.G. explained that oddly, the other girls like Queen and Misty were allowed to post but she was not. She posted anyway because she was not getting work. I find her evidence is consistent with P.C.’s testimony that once you were with the accused for a while, you earned the privilege to post yourself, but that you still had to hand over your revenues.

[209] When things were slow after the first week, the accused also directed P.G. to strip in a club called Playmate. Misty and Queen also worked there sometimes. Stripping was something she had never done. She did it for about two weeks almost every day. The accused gave her $40 for DJ fees, drove her there and picked her up. When things got busy and he could not drive her, she took the bus. Shifts were from 4 pm until 2 pm or 8 pm until 2 am. She made about $200 to $300 per shift and was paid in cash. Most of it went to the accused, but she kept a little because she needed outfits for dancing.

[210] P.G. asked the accused for funds, but he would not give her any. He refused her money for personal items, daily necessities, clothing, or more than one work outfit. For the strip club outfit, he took her shopping at a sex shop. There was also an issue that arose with a wig. Jamie texted P.G. that the accused had some money for her to get her hair done and bought her a wig. She noted it was a $100 synthetic wig.

[211] P.G. candidly acknowledged that she did withhold some money without permission, and she explained she needed to so she could buy better food or call a cab home from the club. She acknowledged she took advantage of free drinks at Playmate. She also acknowledged she was not starving and used the funds she retained to get fast food and eat when she needed to. Contrary to defence’s assertion, I do not find these assertions contradictory.

[212] Her lack of earnings were an issue for the accused. He would tell her that the other girls made all this money and that she was bringing in less. Misty would tell her you are only earning $80 for him and you have to make more money. Misty and Queen referred to the accused as Preston and sometimes Downey. She recalls Misty using the term “Daddy”. Misty would say words to the effect of you have to bring daddy money.

[213] P.G. remained in her arrangement with the accused for under a month. After a few weeks, she left the house. Just prior to her exit, she had started to stay in a hotel room once or twice paid for a guy she met at the strip club who felt bad for her. She stayed there again the night before her final departure. On those nights, the accused kept messaging her and asking why she was there. He threatened to cut off her access to the house. She also got messages from the girls asking where she was. The morning she finally left, she went back to the house at a time when she could avoid seeing or arguing with the accused. Queen was present and P.G. pretended everything was good. She packed her stuff and left. She then met with Victim Services. They provided her a hotel and she worked independently until she flew back to Alberta. She believes she arrived around April 25, 2018, and left Stamford around May 19, 2018.

[214] At the time of her departure, she was sick of everything. She was sick of having to go to a strip club, being stuck in a house, the accused taking all her money, and having to make more money on the side. She missed her family and her life at home.

[215] During the entire period with the accused, she continually asked for updates about her car. She was told it went to the shop for repairs. After she had support from Victim Services and they paid for her hotel and flight to Alberta, she arranged to get her car back. She candidly acknowledged in both chief and cross-examination that she engaged in sex work while at the hotel paid for by Victim Services. She needed this money to pay for car repairs which were costly. Someone eventually picked the car up for her. She flew back from Alberta in July and drove the car back home. She recalled receiving the information about the name and the location of the mechanic only a few days before she left for Alberta.

ii. Credibility and Reliability of P.G.

[216] I found P.G. to be a credible witness. Other than the period in which she was asked repeated questions about her car repairs, she remained calm throughout her testimony. She was also clear about what she could or could not remember and acknowledged that the events of these few weeks were over three years ago.

[217] I found that P.G. . had a good memory of events. She remembered details including rates, how much she made in the weeks there, the name of the strip club, her hours, shopping details, names of girls, what they did, where people slept in the house, amounts of money she had and earned, her conversations with the accused prior to her arrival, and the work arrangement she entered into with the accused.

[218] While she was only in an arrangement with the accused for less than a month, her testimony about the arrangement was corroborated by what the other complainants testified to such as:

➢ Her observation that P.C. (Queen) could post ads but that she could not was consistent with P.C.’s testimony that you had to earn privileges such as posting

➢ Her observation that Queen and Misty had no life outside of work was consistent with the testimony of all the complainants

➢ Her observation of food scarcity at Stamford was consistent with the testimony of the complainants who described the same at Uplands

➢ Her testimony that the accused was unwilling to pay for personal supplies is consistent with what some of the other complainants stated

➢ Like the other complainants, she testified the accused directed your work including telling her to strip at a club

➢ Her testimony that the earnings went into a drawer or that she gave it once to Queen was consistent with the practice described at Uplands

➢ The accused transported her to the club several times is consistent with the complainants’ testimony that transportation was provided by the accused

[219] Defence argues P.G.’s evidence in relation to her car undermines her credibility. I disagree. Defence suggested to P.G. that she would have known about the location of her car as it was given to her by the accused a week before her departure. P.G. testified she recalls only receiving information after she exited the house and spoke to mechanic. P.G. did not deny that there was an invoice dated May 18th that suggested considerable repairs were done or that the accused paid for some of the repairs. However, she maintained that her recollection is that she did not have all the information regarding the car before she left for Alberta. Defence suggested to P.G. that she could have had the other girls take her to the shop, but she testified she did not know where the shop was and did not want the girls involved in her affairs. Defence also suggested that she cold have researched mechanic shops or called the police, and she agreed she did neither of these things.

[220] I find that all of P.G.’s explanations for why she did not do more to locate her car are reasonable and plausible given the circumstances she was in. I also find that even if she was mistaken about when precisely she received information about her car, it does not undermine her credibility. The issue of the car location and repairs are peripheral matters. P.G. made genuine efforts to answer questions about the car and was clear about what she could and could not recall.

[221] Furthermore, P.G. was in a city where she did not know anyone and in an arrangement where she felt trapped. That she did not immediately sort out all the challenges of exiting the relationship, including finding her car, is understandable and does not undermine her credibility. On the contrary, it is remarkable that she was able to get her affairs together, contact victim services, and exit the relationship in the time that she did.

[222] Defence suggested that P.G. could have left at any time, her suspension was only for three days, and that she had a valid license, and therefore, this undermines her credibility and assertion that she was trapped. I disagree. P.G. explained that she did not feel comfortable driving. She was left with a paper copy of her license after she was pulled over and was not entirely certain she could drive with just that in Ontario. She also had another fine in Alberta. She did not have a car. I found P.G.’s explanations to be reasonable and do not undermine her credibility.

[223] Defence argues that the fact that P.G. worked as an escort while taking funds from Victim Services or drove her car from the tow drop off to the accused’s mother’s garage also undermines her credibility. On the contrary, I find it enhances her credibility. While these were dishonest acts, she was prepared to tell the truth about them in court.

E. Consistencies in the evidence of the four complainants

[224] The credibility and reliability of the complainants’ evidence is established, in part, by the consistencies in their evidence. The complainants corroborated each other on many material matters related to the elements of the offences such as the following:

a. The complainants gave consistent evidence with respect to the recruitment process. All the complainants stated that their first contact was with Jamie. They sent photos and information to Jamie. Jamie put them in touch with the accused.

b. Their communication with Jamie was strictly by text. No one ever met her. P.C. was the only one who had a 2-3 minute conversation with Jamie after confronting the accused.

c. They all suspected Jamie was the accused.

d. The accused raised the financial arrangement of being a 35 or 100 percenter and the complainants entered into the agreement with him. The arrangement promised room, board, and fulfillment of your goals and dreams which varied for each complainant.

e. They were all consistent that their financial goals and dreams never materialized and they were broke when the relationship with the accused terminated.

f. The accused took photos of them naked or partially dressed for posting ads.

g. Both Jamie and the accused were responsible for preparing ads, posting ads, and dispatching. If they were with the accused longer, like P.C., they were sometimes tasked with preparing ads. They all acknowledged they sometimes posted their own ads particularly if they were not being posted.

h. If the accused was upset with them, he would punish them by not posting their ads, and less exposure to clients meant less capacity to earn money.

i. You had to inform Jamie or the accused when you started and finished appointments and your earnings.

j. All revenues from sex work were given to the accused. Revenues were placed in a drawer or given to P.C. who handed it over to the accused at night.

k. The accused was the head of the agency and you had to obtain permission from him to keep money for basic necessities, food, house supplies, and for some, even hygiene products.

l. You had to obtain permission from the accused to participate in activities outside of work including medical appointments or family visits.

m. The accused operated multiple entities such as Lust Inc., Canada Bookings (C.B.), and Exotic 6, highendwishes, xtras club, from which he advertised sex work including bachelor parties.

n. Sex work was done at the Stamford home, the Uplands home, and the spa. Some of the complainants did sex work in Windsor or on cross-Canada trips taken with the accused.

o. The complainants gave consistent evidence about the circumstances of their living situation:

➢ there was limited food in the house; P.G. noted this at Stamford and she was only there one month; the other girls identified food shortages at Uplands;

➢ they all had less than three meals a day. They had either one or two meals a day or one meal and snacks;

➢ they relied on each other, particularly Misty and other 35 percenter girls, to get additional funds for food and other necessities;

➢ the accused was not forthcoming with funds for personal supplies;

➢ they would obtain condoms for free from medical clinics; and

➢ the accused was reluctant for them to go to a hospital when they were very sick and they had to plead with him to do so.

p. Except for P.G., they all commenced a sexual relationship with the accused within days of arrival and that sexual relationship continued throughout the arrangement.

q. Those in a sexual relationship with the accused referred to each other as sister-wives;

r. The spa was a venue where sex work continued to occur.

s. The complainants corroborated the accounts of violence they observed by the accused on each other.

t. The complainants provided comparable evidence of the rates charged for sexual services and how much one could earn in a day which could be as high as $3,000 to $5,000.

u. They reported that the police attended for wellness checks at the Uplands home and the Murray apartment.

F. Cell phones seized associate accused to sex work operation

[225] During the course of the investigation, the cell phone information was obtained and identified to be associated with the persons listed below. These telephone numbers are relevant in understanding the text communications between the accused, the complainants, and the dispatcher named Jamie. The numbers are also relevant to understanding the ads for sexual services posted by the accused’s agency. The phones associated with Jamie were spelled differently on the subscriber information registered for each phone. In one instance it was “Jaime Grey” and in another instance it was “Jamie Gray”.

Number

Subscriber

User

Description and Connection

343-996-4785

Jaime Grey

100 Hunt Club Road

Downey

Accused had no phone on him at time of arrest

Phone recovered from the spa during execution of warrant – black Samsung

Text messages from the complainants to accused viewed on this phone number

613-804-9474

Jamie Gray

410 Bank Street

Alleged to be Downey

M.M. and P.C. both describes the pink iPhone belonging to the accused

Dispatch/ “Jamie” phone

Plugged in at the Marriot Hotel charging at near where he is seated at time of Downey’s arrest

647-896-2089

A.B. (also referred to as Misty)

Address in Ajax Ontario

A.B.

Call from dispatch were sometimes forwarded to this number

Recovered during A.B.’s arrest May 2, 2019

[226] The telephone number 343-996-4785 was identified to be the accused’s phone number. It was recovered from the spa during the execution of the warrant. Text messages from the complainants to the accused were viewed on this phone which supports a finding that it was his phone. Counsel for the accused conceded that the accused used the 343 phone notwithstanding the subscriber information is oddly Jamie Gray.

[227] The second phone starting with 613-804-9474 was a pink iPhone located and seized at the Marriot Hotel on the day of the arrest on April 18, 2019. The phone was found plugged into a wall at the lounge of the Marriott Hotel where the accused was sitting. A video was played showing the accused and M.M. entering the Marriott Hotel. M.M. went upstairs for a service call. She was arrested upstairs at which time she turned over her own phone.

[228] The accused remained downstairs in the lounge area. He was arrested shortly after and escorted out of the building. No phone was located on him at the time of arrest. However, following M.M.’s arrest and during her interview, M.M. explained that the accused had a pink iPhone that he had been using. Since the police had not located it on the accused at the time of his arrest, they returned to the Marriott where they found it charging about 15 feet from where he had been seated. The phone and sim card were seized. The tracker data also showed this phone at the Marriott Hotel on the date of the arrest. Other complainants also testified the pink iPhone belonged to the accused.

[229] The number 613-804-9474 is the number that appears on almost all the ads viewed. It was described by the complainants as the dispatch number used for clients to call and book sex work.

[230] Defence suggested that the evidence does not sufficiently identify the accused to be associated with the pink iPhone and with the phone number 613-804-9474. I respectfully disagree. I find that this was phone was used by the accused for the following reasons: one, the complainants observed the accused with the pink iPhone associated with 613-804-9474; two, the pink iPhone was identified by M.M. and located 15 feet away from where the accused was seated before his arrest; neither the video shown nor any police witness or M.M. identified a person named Jamie being at the Marriot that day; and three, an analysis of the phone data shows that the accused sent and received messages from this phone. Some examples are set out below.

[231] The police did a search of the web history of the pink iPhone associated with phone 613-804-9474. When they searched the word “escort”, they found received messages saying, “Hello Preston my name is Michelle” or sent messages saying, “Hello its Preston texting about the spa job touchtherapy.ca.” These pieces of evidence support a finding that this phone was used by the accused who commonly went by the name of Preston.

[232] Finally, the movement of the two phones also confirms that both phones belonged to and were used by the accused. Karine Cassagrande is a Crime Intelligence Analyst embedded in the Ottawa Police Service’s (“OPS”) Human Trafficking Unit. She was requested to examine cell phone data and information from and make visualization charts to depict who was involved in this matter and their devices. Using a mapping software, Ms. Casagrande tracked the movement of two phone numbers: 343-996-4785 and 613-804-9474, for the relevant production period of February 15, 2018, to May 5, 2018.

[233] Based on cell phone tracker analysis, Ms. Casagrande was able to see how each of these phones travelled for the relevant production period. She drew several conclusions some of which are: one, the phones often travelled together in and around Ottawa and outlying areas; two, sometime the phones were in the same city outside Ottawa; three, there did not appear to be messages from the accused to Jamie and vice versa. Based on this information, I find that if the phone (613) 804-9474 did indeed belong to Jamie, it is questionable why Jamie’s phone was travelling with the accused, particularly since no one ever met Jamie. The complainants were also led believe that Jamie lived in another city, but here was evidence that Jamie’s phone was indeed in Ottawa following the accused around. Furthermore, given the complainants were communicating with Jamie almost daily for agency related work – dispatching, advertising, and bookings for bachelor parties – its is remarkable that the accused would not himself be communicating with the person who allegedly played such a key role in his operation.

G. Ads posted by the accused’s agency

[234] Det. Carroll has been an investigator with the Human Trafficking Unit of the OPS since 2014. In May 2018, he was assigned to conduct a query of three names into Traffic Jam. Traffic Jam is a software program used by enforcement agencies that scrapes the internet to provide police with information about ads for sexual services.

[235] Det. Carroll inputted the telephone number 613-804-9474, the dispatch number used by the accused’s agency, and it yielded 1864 ads. He also inputted another telephone number 647-896- 2089 associated with A.B. (Misty) provided to him by Sgt. Laflamme which yielded 1227 ads. When he examined the results, it showed that the ads connected to both these numbers collectively were posted in multiple locations such as Ottawa, Niagara, Kingston, Guelph, Peterborough, Hamilton, Toronto, and Windsor. The greatest number of ads, 1493, was in Ottawa.

[236] The search results also showed a small number of ads posted outside Ontario such as Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. The date range for the search results was January 1, 2018, to May 28 2019. The ads were posted on places like Backpage.com, Leo List. The ads were also associated with different social media accounts including Canada Bookings, the accused’s agency.

[237] Det. Carroll also queried the alias names of “Queen”. He found that the alias name yielded 10,000 ads for the period October 28, 2011, until May 26, 2018. He acknowledged that Queen was a very generic name and may have yielded a higher result of ads. However, what was of significance is that the largest concentration of ads was in the Ottawa area.

[238] I find Det. Carroll’s search results corroborate the complainants’ testimony with respect to the volume of ads posted by the accused’s agency on an almost daily basis and that they worked in multiple cities across Canada on road trips with the accused.

[239] Det. Carroll also did a trail history to see if the ads associated with the 613-804-9474 number were associated with any particular names of sex workers. He found the ads connected to names of Phoenix, Gigi Lust, and Ebony Queen.

[240] On August 1, 2018, Det. Carroll sent a message to 613-804-7474 as listed on an ad and received a response. He initiated a conversation and there was an agreement for service at a price. He was told to go to Uplands Drive. On the way there, Det. Carroll received a message from Ebony Queen asking if he was coming and he said “yes.” Det. Carroll then received a reply, “Smart man.” He did not knock on the door or go in, but he did make observations outside the residence. For example, he was given information about a licence plate and told that a Dodge Van with a Lord Downey sticker was parked in the area of the address at Uplands Drive.

[241] Det. Carroll did a similar call at Uplands Drive on January 18, 2019, again using the dispatch telephone number 613-804-9474 posted on ads he viewed for sexual services. This time he did knock on the door. He was greeted by a woman wearing a robe and no pants who he later identified to be S.T. He identified himself as a police officer and indicated he was doing a wellness check. He observed three other females in the house. All the women were spoken to and asked if they wanted any assistance, but no one accepted the offer.

[242] On February 16, 2019, Det. Carroll did a text exchange with Gigi using the same phone number on an ad posted by Lust Inc. Gigi figured out she was speaking to a police officer. Det. Carroll suspected it was because he had used the same phone number previously.

[243] I find that Det. Carroll’s surveillance corroborates the complainants’ testimony that Uplands Drive was the venue where they provided in-calls because in all three instances when he arranged for services, he was directed to go there.

[244] Finally, Pamela Morley, Senior Forensic Accountant with the Forensic Accounting Management Group of Public Services and Procurement Canada, testified as an expert at trial about the accused’s banking records and in particular, expenditures made by various accounts. In Schedule 15 of her report filed with the court, she reported that the CIBC account ending in 798 belonging to Juteah Downey spent $26,988 for online ads. The expenditures were in the following amounts and to the following advertising agencies:

Year

Number of Transactions

Amount

2014

20

($160)

2015

0

2016

0

2017

1

(2)

2018

1,077

(18,101)

2019

907

(8,727)

Totals:

2,005

($26,989)

Vendor

of Trans

2014

2017

2018

2019

Total Amount

SegpayEU.com

1,742

($16,207)

($7,813)

($24,020)

LL Service

92

(948)

(272)

(1,220)

Ad Post Online

87

(609)

(609)

LLIST

36

(570)

(570)

Kijiji

10

(321)

(43)

(364)

BP Classified>1

20

(159)

(159)

Locanto

4

(29)

(29)

Craig’s List

12

(10)

(10)

Adpost24.com

1

(6)

(6)

Ads- Joboom.com

1

(2)

(2)

Totals:

2,005

($159)

($2)

($18,101)

($8,727)

($26,989)

[245] The top recipient of payments was SegpayEU.com. Based on Ms. Morley’s experience in the field of human trafficking, SegpayEU.com is an online service provider that processes payments in EU for customers like Leo List. The bulk of the payments appear to be made in 2018 when the four complainants all worked for the accused.

[246] Defence suggested that the accused was not responsible for advertising and some of the ads were posted by Misty, Jamie, or the complainants. However, I find the complainants testified that the accused was equally involved in advertising and posting ads. I also find the complainants’ evidence is corroborated by Ms. Morley’s findings that the accused paid for a large amount of on-line advertising on websites associated with marketing sex work.

H. Records relating to the lease of the Spa

[247] An agreed statement of facts was filed with respect to evidence surrounding the lease of a commercial property for the spa. The spa was operated by the accused starting at the end of January 2019 until the time of his arrest in April 2019.

[248] It is not disputed that the accused’s mother Margo Downey leased a property at Somerset Street to operate a spa. The property owner required a deposit of three months’ rent in the amount of $12,000. Margo Downey provided an initial deposit cheque of $5000 to the realtor and she also signed a lease on January 3, 2019, which was to take effect on January 15, 2019.

[249] Later, the deposit cheque was taken back by an individual who identified himself as “Preston” Downey. All the complainants referred to the accused as Preston. Preston exchanged the cheque for money orders in the same amount. The remaining $7,000 for rent was not received at the start of the lease but the property owner agreed to let the Downeys take possession of the property. The full deposit was only received on/around January 22-23, 2019.

[250] For the months that the Downeys’ occupied the unit, rent was never paid on time. Notices were sent. When rent was paid, it was paid by way of small e-transfers, many of which came from a mix of HERA Enterprises and SHDM, the latter company registered to Juteah Downey. The property owner believed the small minimum rent payments were an attempt by the Downeys to stop the owner from bothering them. Following the execution of the warrant and arrest of the accused, Margo Downey telephoned the property owner asking if she could still use the space. The property owner attended the spa after the fact and found condom wrappers.

[251] Based on this evidence, I find that the spa was the accused’s enterprise financed, in part, by his mother. As stated by the complainants, while the spa was to be a legitimate business providing licensed professional services by massage therapists and aestheticians, this was just a front a front to have another venue from which to provide sexual services.

I. The Jamie Mystery

[252] Based on the evidence of the complainants and information from the phone numbers operated, I find there is sufficient evidence to reasonably infer that Jamie was indeed the accused.

[253] First, none of the complainants met Jamie or had seen photographs of her despite her having a significant role in the company such as posting ads, dispatching, and recruiting women who responded to ads for work by the accused’s agency. All the complainants testified that they dealt with Jamie by text. They all suspected that the accused was in fact Jamie. P.C. stated, it was weird that you could only text Jamie and that if you called, it would go straight to voicemail. P.G. found the Jamie character “weird” for the same reasons. The surreptitious character of Jamie suggests either that the accused wished to create a false identity to shield his own activity in the sex trade or to protect the identity of a person working for him.

[254] Second, subscriber information for Jamie’s phone and the accused’s phone showed that both phones were registered to Jamie Grey. However, the name Jamie was spelled in two different ways and with two different addresses. It is unlikely that a person would spell their own name incorrectly when registering their own phone. It is more likely that someone relying on an anonymous name as part of a business operation might spell it incorrectly on different documents.

[255] Third, as per the tracker warrants, both the accused’s phone (343-996-4785) and Jamie’s phone (613-804-9474) travelled together in Ottawa and other cities and yet the complainants never met Jamie.

[256] Fourth, when the accused was arrested with the pink iPhone (613-804-9474) in close proximity, Jamie was nowhere to be seen.

[257] Fifth, M.M. testified that on one occasion, she texted Jamie and the accused’s iPhone lit up with a notification which was her text to Jamie. Misty also told her the pink iPhone identified as Jamie’s iPhone when plugged into her computer.

[258] One piece of evidence that challenges the notion of Jamie and the accused being the same person was the evidence of P.C. who testified that she did once speak to Jamie. It was a 2-3 minute conversation. It was also a telephone call that she received from Jamie within hours of confronting him about whether Jamie was a real person. I find it is plausible that the accused arranged for this call when he was challenged on the existence of Jamie.

[259] Even if I am incorrect with respect to the identity of Jamie, I find it is not determinative of the accused’s culpability with respect to the offences charged. While it is clear that Jamie played an active role in the operations of the accused’s agency, I find, as discussed below with respect to each of the offences, that the accused’s own direct conduct with respect to each complainant, as testified to by the complainants and supported by the documentary evidence, is sufficient to establish his culpability on the various counts charged.

Analysis

I. Counts 3, 8, 11, 13: Human Trafficking contrary to s. 279.01(1) – M.M., P.C., S.T., P.G.

[260] The accused is charged with four counts of human trafficking with respect to all four complainants contrary to s. 279.01(1). The time period for each of the charges is as follows:

Count 8: M.M. – July 20, 2018, to February 17, 2019 (approx. 7 months)

Count 11: P.C. – January 27, 2018, to April 18, 2019 (approx. 15 months)

Count 13: S.T. - August 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019 (approx. 7 months)

Count 3: P.G. – April 20to May 19, 2018 (approx. 1 month)

A. Law on Human Trafficking

[261] Section 279.01(1) states:

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

[262] The Crown must prove two main elements: the conduct and the purpose. The conduct requirement is disjunctive: R v Gallone, 2019 ONCA 663, 147 O.R. (3d) 225, at para 33. The conduct element is established if the Crown proves that the accused engaged in any one of the enumerated forms of conduct listed:

➢ recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals;

➢ harbours a person; or

➢ exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person:

[263] The phrase “exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person” generally suggests a situation that results from a series of acts rather than an isolated act: Gallone at para 48. As explained in Gallone at para 47, the phrase connotes different degrees of coercion:

Exercising influence over a person’s movements means doing anything to affect the person’s movements. Influence can be exerted while still allowing scope for the person’s free will to operate. This would include anything done to induce, alter, sway, or affect the will of the complainant. Thus, if exercising control is like giving an order that the person has little choice but to obey, and exercising direction is like imposing a rule that the person should follow, then exercising influence is like proposing an idea and persuading the person to adopt it.

[264] Exercising control, direction or influence evokes a scenario wherein, by virtue of their relationship with a complainant, an accused has some power – physical, psychological, moral or otherwise – over the complainant and their movements: Gallone at para 50.

[265] The purpose element requires the Crown to prove that the accused’s conduct was for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of the complainant.

[266] Exploitation is defined in s. 279.04 as follows:

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.

(2) In determining whether an accused 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.

[267] For the offence to be established, the Crown need not prove that exploitation actually occurred. The terms “exploitation” and “facilitation of exploitation” relate to the accused’s state of mind, i.e., the accused’s purpose in engaging in the prohibited conduct. As explained in R v A.A., “Said in another way, exploitation and safety relate to an accused’s purpose and not to the actual consequences of the accused’s behaviour for the victim.”: 2015 ONCA 558 at para 86.

[268] Where exploitation, as defined in s. 279.04, arises from the facts, inferring that the accused’s purpose was to exploit the complainant will be straightforward. Where the facts do not support actual exploitation, the definition in s. 279.04 can inform the court’s analysis of whether the accused engaged in one of the forms of enumerated conduct for the purpose of exploiting the complainant: A.A. at para 87. In those circumstances, the issue is whether the accused’s conduct could reasonably have been expected to cause the complainant(s) to believe that her own safety would be threatened if she failed to provide the sexual services.

[269] The term “safety” refers to both physical and psychological harm: A.A. at para 71.

[270] The assessment of safety is not purely subjective; it has an objective component. The complainant’s own perception of her safety and whether it was threatened is but one factor to be considered: A.A., at para. 74. Some of the factors to be considered in determining whether conduct could cause a complainant to reasonably fear for their safety were set out in R v Crosdale, 2018 ONCJ 800, at paras 146-147 and R v Sinclair, 2020 ONCA 61 at para 15:

➢ The presence or absence of violence or threats

➢ Coercion, including physical, emotional, or psychological coercion

➢ 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 from family or friends, and restrictions on social contacts outside of the sex trade industry

➢ The nature of the relationship between the accused and complainant

➢ Imposition of rules or directive behaviour

➢ Control over work and rest hours, location of work, and services provided

➢ Control over advertising of services

➢ Limitations on movement, including tracking and driving to and from work

➢ Monitoring victim contact and communications including checking text messages and call logs

➢ Frequency of contact between accused and victim, including frequency of inquiries or required notification regarding whereabouts, activities, and conduct

➢ Use of daily or monthly earning quotas and number of clients serviced

➢ Exercise control over identification and travel documents

➢ Branding or tattooing as a mark of ownership and control

➢ Control of finances

➢ Financial benefit to the accused

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

➢ Use of sexual intimacy or sexual violence as a means of control or coercion

B. Application of facts to law on human trafficking - M.M., P.C., S.T., and P.G.

i. Conduct requirements

[271] I find that the accused engaged in recruiting, transporting, harbouring, and exercised control, direction, and influence over each of the complainants.

[272] Recruitment involves a level of persuasion. Courts have interpreted the term to mean “to enlist or get someone involved” and “persuading or helping someone to do something”: R v D’Souza, 2016 ONSC 2749, at para 146; R v Lucas-Johnson, 2018 ONSC 3953, at para 225.

[273] I find there is evidence that the accused recruited M.M., S.T., P.C., and P.G. All four complainants were economically vulnerable at the time of recruitment.

[274] M.M. responded to ads posted by the accused’s agency and got in contact with him via Jamie. While they were ads for modelling jobs, M.M. was recruited for sex work. The accused paid for M.M.’s train ticket to travel to Windsor and sent $25 as she had no money. He told her that the other girls were financially enriched working for him and promised to assist her with her goals such as purchasing a condo and vehicle, obtaining a hair salon, and achieving financial stability for her son. Based on his promises, she agreed to provide him 100% of her income.

[275] S.T. responded to an ad for work as an escort. The content of the ad led her to believe it was a female run agency. She connected with Jamie who then put her in touch with the accused. The accused learned about S.T.’s goals to run a daycare in Kingston. He told her that making her dream come true would be “no problem”. He also assured her that she would be safe which was important given her very negative and recent experience with Matt. Like with the other complainants, the accused explained to her the financial options of the business, and she agreed to give him 100% of her earnings. She was struggling to make ends meet and pay rent at the time.

[276] P.C. was 19 years of age when she saw an ad by Canada Bookings which stated that she could make $1000/day. It connected her with Jamie who connected her with the accused. She purchased a ticket to Ottawa from Halifax and had $5 in her pocket when she arrived. She had no friends or family in Canada. She told him her goals were to get a computer, go to school, and have a place to live. and he promised her he could help her achieve those goals. He explained to her the different options with the agency where you could be a 35 percenter or a 100 percenter and the benefits associated with each. He explained that as a 100 percenter you gave all your money to Preston. The money was supposed to help her achieve her goals and be the best she could be.

[277] P.G. wanted to leave her arrangement in Montreal. She found an ad guaranteeing a $1000 a day. She had initial contact with Jamie and then corresponded and spoke directly with the accused. She came to Ottawa. On her way here she had car troubles. She expressed an interest in the 35 percenter arrangement, but the accused persuaded her to take the 100 percent option instead. She agreed. She handed him the $400 she had after she paid for the tow.

[278] The accused transported the complainants. He often drove all the complainants to and from their out-calls. He arranged M.M’s travel to Windsor. He took M.M. and P.C. on a tour across Canada where they engaged in sex work in several cities. He would arrange for the P.C.’s travel to Windsor where they would dance at the Playhouse or to other cities for bachelor parties. He transported M.M. to NuDen. He took P.G. on at least two occasions to dance at the Playmate.

[279] The term harbour means to shelter. It does not require any clandestine or secrecy element to be satisfied: R v Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733, at paras 87-92.

[280] I find the accused harboured all four complainants. Once their relationship commenced, the accused arranged for M.M. to stay in the hotel in Windsor. Upon arrival in Ottawa, he arranged for her to stay at the Uplands residence and later the Murray Street apartment. She stayed with him in hotel rooms during the trips out west. Her living arrangements, and in part her son, were all tied to the accused.

[281] P.C. was placed in a hotel immediately upon her arrival. She had $5 in her pocket. Thereafter, she continued to reside at hotels and Airbnbs at the direction of the accused. The accused then arranged for her to stay at Stamford, Uplands, and the spa. The only time in 15 months when she was not residing under the accused’s direction was a short few day stint when she tried to leave the arrangement and went temporarily to a women’s shelter.

[282] The accused also harboured S.T. at Uplands and the spa. While she did initially have an apartment where she would go to, this arrangement stopped after a period where the accused would not provide her sufficient money to pay for rent even though he had agreed to initially. Thereafter, her primary residence was Uplands.

[283] The accused harboured PG. at the Stamford residence. That was her principal residence until someone from the strip club paid for a hotel for two nights and Victim Services provided her a hotel facilitating her exit from the relationship.

[284] The terms exercising control, direction, or influence over the movements of a person, involves a spectrum of behaviours with “control” being most coercive and “influence” being the least. As stated in Gallone, control is like giving an order that the person has little choice but to obey and direction involves Imposing a rule that a person should follow: at para 47.

[285] Influence is exerted when a person does anything to affect another person’s movements. It includes anything done to alter, sway, or affect the will of a complainant: Gallone at para 46. As discussed further below in response to several arguments by defence, the fact that the complainants choose to escort does not necessarily negate the influence. Influence can be exerted over another person even while allowing scope for free will to operate: Gallone at para 47.

[286] I also find that the accused exercised control, direction, or influence over all the complainants with respect to a) their finances; b) their movements and c) psychologically.

[287] The accused exercised control over M.M. finances. M.M. provided 100% of her earnings for sex work over a seven-month period to the accused. She kept small amounts of $20 or $40 for basic necessities and only after obtaining permission from him. In this manner, he kept M.M. on a tight financial string. While there was one instance where she kept money for herself, which was taken out of her wallet by P.C., and a few instances towards the end of the relationship when she retained her three days of earnings at the Spa, I find these were isolated incidents borne by perhaps despair to obtain some funds for her child’s Christmas gift and to exit the relationship. In addition, M.M. once provided the accused her Federal Child Tax Benefit. She also obtained money from Ontario Works to pay for the first and last month’s rent for an apartment she never stayed in. The accused provided direction on the drafting of the letter to Ontario Works.

[288] The accused also exercised financial control in other ways. For example, he used funds earned from M.M.’s sex work to pay his entire car fine but had her pay her fine off on a $50/month financial plan effectively restricting her ability to regain control of her licence.

[289] The accused controlled M.M.’s residential situation. M.M. was particularly vulnerable because she had a school-aged child to support. She was sent to live at the Murray Street apartment after which she continued to work for him in another tenant’s apartment and at Uplands. In addition, the accused directed control, if not influence, over M.M. by directing her to travel across Canada for sex work and, for a short period, to engage in work at the spa.

[290] There were also instances when the accused would not let M.M. have her weed when she wanted it which I found to be a form of psychological control. On that occasion, her persistence resulted in him assaulting her by smearing a chicken burger all over her face.

[291] I find the accused exercised control direction and influence over P.C.’s finances. P.C. was a 100 percenter and handed over all her earnings. Like the other girls, P.C. would not keep any money except for basic necessities. She would have at most $20 to $40 in her pocket. She had to plead to get money for school which was her primary goal. He provided her some school fees after eight months but then denied her the ability to continue with schooling in the spring of 2019.

[292] The accused also controlled P.C.’s movements. P.C. testified she had little control over her schedule. She had to work even when she was ill. Jamie arranged clients but so did the accused. If she wanted time for school or to get medical attention, she had to clear it with him.

[293] The accused also exercised considerable psychological control over P.C. She was very young and vulnerable. When she was recruited, she was financially destitute and believed he was her saviour. Her deference to him is apparent in her reference to him as “daddy”.

[294] I find the accused also leveraged P.C.’s lack of options to his advantage. He directed her to put the lease for the residences in her name to, one can reasonably infer, avoid detection of his involvement in the sex trade. He assigned her an increasing number of tasks within the agency such as preparing ads, managing bachelor parties, and eventually managing the spa. He never compensated her financially for any of these increased duties.

[295] P.C. was aware that there were consequences to being disobedient such as not following instructions or handing over all her earnings. Those consequences included punishing you by not posting an ad or dispatching you. She feared his punishments because if he didn’t post her, she couldn’t earn money and go to school. She also feared him physically, particularly after the assault at the spa when she believed he would kill her.

[296] I find the accused exercised control over S.T.’s finances. Like the other girls, she handed over 100% of her earnings to the accused and only kept for herself what she was granted permission to keep and that was usually for basic necessities like food, clothing, and transportation. However, unlike the other girls, S.T. was blessed with a generous family who would provide her cash and other gifts during her visits. In some cases, she used those gifts to pay for food and necessities when the accused failed to come through. She also paid the accused from her gift money if ever there was a shortfall in what she collected from a client. She testified as follows:

I just went into my purse and took out the money that my parents or grandma gave me when I visited, and I would just fill up what they forgot to give me or just didn’t want to give me and that way I could not … I could refrain from conflict from him or the other girls … I just wanted to make sure that I was pleasing everybody (Transcript S.T. March 15, 2022)

[297] In addition to getting permission for expenses, S.T. asked permission for non-work-related activities like going to the hospital or visiting family. She also reported to the accused her comings and goings, as well as her earnings from clients. She took direction from the accused making sure that new girls who came to the house felt welcome and that the house looked good. She abandoned her apartment and roommate when the accused failed to come through on rent money as promised.

[298] The accused wielded considerable psychological control over S.T. She acknowledged she was a person who aimed to please. He capitalized on her own admittedly low self-esteem and would tell her she needed to watch her mouth if she argued or spoke poorly of him. The way he treated her would cause her to continuously to second guess herself before she spoke or reacted to the accused.

[299] She understood that the accused required loyalty and he vocalized that he had to be treated like “he was the only one.” She explained that it was a “rule for the girls”. Downey would also control privileges and oddly enough, one of those privileges was the ability to work. The accused would punish her and the other girls by not posting ads limiting their ability to work. This caused her considerable stress and anxiety because she was not then contributing to the household pot.

[300] The accused controlled P.G.’s finances. She immediately gave him all her money when she arrived. She provided him her sex work earnings except for that which she eventually retained to eat and for transportation. Like the other girls, she had to ask the accused for basic necessities, clothing, and funds for transportation. In the month that she was in Ottawa, she wore the same five sets of clothes.

[301] The accused controlled P.G.’s work by directing her to work at the strip club. He maintained control over her ability to leave by not telling her where her car was despite repeated requests for an update. She gained access to her car when she finally decided to leave.

[302] The accused intended to control P.G.’s movements but was not always successful. P.G. was the only one of the four complainants who did not always seek permission for some things. For example, one night she had not come home and stayed with someone she met at a bar. The accused’s response was to threaten to kick her out of the house. It was clear form his response that his expectation was that she would comply with his rules and keep him informed of her earnings and whereabouts. She explained:

So, I remember one night – cause I didn’t really like where I was staying. I would always try to find a way to escape the house, so one day I met a few people at the bar, so I went to their house and then he was calling me, calling me like, oh are you making money?

I remember Downey calling me asking me how much money did you make, whatnot. I think we got into a [indiscernible] a bit or he’s like, asking me when I was coming home and I didn’t respond and then – yea, he was asking me where – where abouts I was and I didn’t respond so then I got a message from him saying okay, make sure the people that you’re with right now have a place for you to stay. So pretty much kicking me out. (Transcript P.G. June 1, 2021, at pp. 28, 31)

[303] It was also clear from the evidence of all the complainants that there was no regular or consistent form of payment, no accounting of hours worked against renumeration paid either in the form of money or accommodation expenses, and certainly nothing resembling an employment contract or pay stub. I find the practice of arbitrary and random payments and renumeration of $20 or $40 for food and basic necessities constituted an exercise of financial control over the complainants.

[304] The accused also exercised control, direction, and influence through operational rules. For example, he assigned each complainant her alias name except P.G. He directed the complainants when to dance and when to escort. For example, upon her arrival in Windsor, the accused directed M.M. to take the stage at Playhouse. He directed the complainants to inform him or Jamie when they started and finished with a client and their earnings. He directed the complainants to make new recruits feel welcome so as to persuade them to join his enterprise and in effect, implicated the complainants in his operations. The accused had access to some of their phones. For example, M.M. testified he would post ads for sexual services from her phone. Finally, he required them to obtain permission for non-work related activities. M.M. had to obtain permission to take her son swimming, P.C. to go to school, and S.T. to visit family.

[305] The most egregious form of control was that the girls had to get permission from the accused to get medical help. When some of the girls were seriously ill with STDs, they had to plead with the accused to allow them to go to a hospital.

[306] Finally, the accused exerted emotional control over M.M., S.T., and P.C. through his intimate and sexual relationships with each of them. Although they were supposed to be in a professional business/working relationship, the accused slept with each of the girls within days of their arrival (except for P.G.) and maintained simultaneous sexual relationships with them throughout his relationship with them. He directed them to have unprotected sex with him only.

[307] None of them were entitled to have other intimate partners. He told M.M. “Any time you’re with a man is for money.” In one instance, he forced M.M. to service a friend’s husband after she told him she did not want to do it by telling her, “go get your money.”

[308] All of the girls testified that the accused had a different relationship with them behind closed doors. He made each of them feel special. They each felt that they were treated differently than the other girls. To maintain the specialness, he directed them not to discuss their intimate relationship with the other girls.

[309] Defence counsel highlights that M.M.’s voluntary and intimate relationship with the accused cannot constitute a form of control. He highlights M.M.’s text messages where she told him she loved him, that he was her knight in shining armour, that she felt safe when he was in her life. It is clear from these texts, and the testimony of others like P.C., that M.M. had fallen in love with the accused. She even got a tattoo with the accused’s initials “J.D.” of her own accord.

[310] While M.M. may have testified that she tried to keep her personal life separate from her working life, I find that one cannot disentangle the two. It would be incorrect not to consider the emotional relationship that existed between M.M. and the person who was effectively her employer. Control can be both physical and psychological: A.A. at paras 71-73. In this case, I find the swiftness with which the accused commenced an intimate and sexual relationship with M.M., its duration throughout the course of their working relationship, and the accused’s messaging that she was special and that there may be a future for them together, constituted a form of psychological control over the complainant. That the sexual relationship was consensual, that M.M. derived pleasure from it, and that the complainant did fall in love with the accused does not negate control. As indicated in Gallone at para 47, influence can be exerted over a person while still allowing scope for the person’s free will to operate.

[311] The same would apply for P.C. She was 19 years of age when she met the accused and highly vulnerable. She did not have any intimate personal relationships with anyone outside the accused. He also made her feel special. He told her she could not be with another man. Her lonely circumstances made her particularly vulnerable. I find the accused used their intimate relationship to garnish her loyalty and trust and maintain control over her psychologically and physically. As she herself best explained in her testimony:

He was the first person to pretend or to care, to show that he cares about me. I lived a very lonely and sad life, so to have somebody that you can pay to just pretend to care or to be there for you, it meant the world to me. I didn’t have to be alone anymore, even if it was just fake or a transaction … It was just – we knew that the more we gave him money, the more we – we were obedient and doing exactly what he tells us, that’s when he showed us affection and attention. So, we knew it wasn’t just, oh this guy, from the goodness of his soul, just wants to be there for you, no. But it felt good because none of us were doing this because we had happy homes and happy families and decided, oh we’re going to ruin our lives. We all had – we’re all broken in some way, and I think we felt it’s better having someone who shows you affection than having no one at all. Well, that’s from my perspective. I don’t know about the others.” (Transcript of P.C. May 19, 2021, at pp. 3-4)

[312] The accused also exercised control over S.T. through an intimate sexual relationship. She was sceptical to find love in this field of work, but the accused told her he loved her within 2 ½ weeks of knowing her and repeatedly encouraged her to express the same to him. If Jamie is the accused, which I find he is, the text messages from Jamie coaxing S.T. to declare her love to Preston are clearly a deceptive tactic by the accused to gain her affection and loyalty.

[313] Defence argues that some of the complainants were posting ads themselves or arranging for calls directly with clients indicating that they were not acting under the direction or control of the accused, but operating as free agents. The fact that the complainants posted ads for sexual services or sometimes arranged calls directly with trusted and repeat clients is not determinative.

[314] The Court of Appeal explained in Gallone, at para. 47, that “if exercising control is like giving an order that the person has little choice but to obey, and exercising direction is like imposing a rule that the person should follow, then exercising influence is like proposing an idea and persuading the person to adopt it.” The complainants may have posted their own ads or arranged their own calls at time, but it was in the hopes of earning money for the accused and his agency. Ultimately whatever they earned, all 100% of it, was remitted to the accused. That was the principal idea that the accused had proposed and persuaded the complainants to adopt and which they did. It was in this regard that the control was exercised.

[315] Furthermore, the posting of ads was just one aspect of the accused’s operation. The fact that some complainants were involved in the agency tasks does not undermine the accused’s own role in the overall operation of the agency and his conduct vis-à-vis the complainants.

ii. Purpose Requirement

[316] The purpose element requires the Crown to prove that the accused’s conduct was for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of the complainant.

[317] In this case, I find there is evidence that the accused’s conduct was engaged in for the purpose of exploiting each of the complainants. I find that the accused’s conduct caused each of the complainants to reasonably fear for their safety if they exited their arrangement.

[318] M.M.’s personal circumstances made her vulnerable. She had left an abusive relationship which she described as a “dangerous situation” with her son. She had no belongings and arrived in Windsor with a plastic bag and $25 the accused had sent her. She was in dire financial need with a child to support.

[319] The accused learned about M.M.’s background. He made promises that she would achieve her dreams and financial stability if she worked for him and handed over 100% of her income. During the relationship, he made her feel special telling her there would come a time they would not have to work with other girls. She believed she was special and that he treated her differently than the other girls. She came to realize only after she left that he did not really love her but was manipulating her for money.

[320] M.M. believed in his promise of financial stability. She worked long hours and earned large amounts of money from sex work which she handed over as per the arrangement. The accused preyed on M.M.’s need for financial and housing stability as evident in the following messages:

➢ “You’ll just be a bottom Leo list bitch if you leave the agency and you have to do it yourself”

➢ “How do you like it now, now you won’t have a car and you won’t have a place to live.”

[321] M.M. feared exiting would leave her financially destitute and that she would have to start rock bottom. It was particularly frightening for her given she had a child to support. She explained:

Well, if I leave, I’m going to be at rock bottom, which is where I was when I left. So, in reference to – it’s no different than a domestic violence situation. You could leave and be safe, but it may be dangerous for you to leave or there may be repercussions of your finances, your documentation, all different things with the real world, but it’s still an issue when you leave or if you’re if there. There’s more than one thing to deal with when you’re leaving, and you have a child, and you have – you have other things of real adult things to take care of. It’s not like – it’s not like I have nothing else to worry about. I’m still worried about things while I’m in so, there’s thing I need to deal whether I’m there or not. But leaving is gonna make it even harder ‘cause I have absolutely no means of – of money and nowhere to live for that instance of trying to set it all up again, so I’m back to even worse before I started. (Transcript: M.M. May 13, 2021, at p. 58)

[322] Similarly, P.C. feared that if she stopped working for the accused, she would lose her opportunity to go to school, her housing, food security, and the ability to stay in the country. She acknowledged her loneliness and that she feared losing the only person who showed her love and affection. P.C. also feared that if she disobeyed the accused there would be consequences. As she stated in her testimony referring to the accused: “are you going to piss off God if he can kill you at any time?”

[323] S.T. was laid off from seasonal employment and needed money, which led her to being trafficked by “Matt”. Her negative experience made her both emotionally and financially vulnerable. The accused’s agency provided her an opportunity to succeed and not return home a failure in the eyes of her parents. The accused learned about S.T.’s background, her goals, and made her believe her dreams were achievable. He also learned that she had low self-esteem, had never had a boyfriend, aimed to please, and feared her parents finding out her real line of work. He leveraged those fears to keep her working for him and because of those fears, she continued working with him for a significant period in a financial arrangement that left her with less funds than the $1000 she had when she arrived. As she explained:

I just felt even though I did have friends and family in Ottawa and in my home city, I felt very stuck and trapped and I felt homeless without living with Preston and the girls so I just, I felt like I had to stay many times, even though I wanted to leave. (Transcript S.T. March 24, 2022)

[324] While P.G. was with the accused for the shortest period of time, in that period she reasonably feared that if she did not continue working for the accused, her vehicle would not be returned and she would not be able to return to Alberta. She was alone in Ottawa with no friends or family. She turned over all her money to the accused upon her arrival and entered into the 100 percenter arrangement even though her preference was to be a 35 percenter. She was short on funds and had no credit card. The accused had her car and was not forthcoming with where it was located. She feared if she did not continue to work for the accused, she would have nowhere else to go. Her sense of being trapped was summarized in the following excerpt:

“Where was I supposed to go? Even any money that I have – like, let's say I had $100, where am I supposed to go with $100? What hotel can I rent with that money? (Transcript P.G. June 4, 2022, p. 38)

[325] There is a subjective component as to whether exploitation exists which is a complainant’s belief as to whether her safety is threatened or she is being exploited. However, in assessing the purpose component of the offence, there is also an objective factor which requires consideration of whether the facts of a complainant’s experience objectively amounts to exploitation: R v AA at paras 74-76; R v Lucas-Johnson at para 154.

[326] In this regard, the issue is whether the accused’s conduct could reasonably be expected to cause each of the complainants to believe that their safety would be threatened if they failed to offer sexual services for the accused and his agency. The determination of the expectation is made based on all the circumstances. Some factors for consideration in assessing those circumstances are set out in Crosdale at paras 146-147 and Sinclair at para 15. I consider those factors here.

a. Deception

[327] Each of the complainants was deceived into believing the accused would fulfill his promises to them whether it was to obtain a condo, open up a business such as a salon or daycare, go to school, or repair a car.

b. Vulnerability due to age or personal circumstances, such as social or economic disadvantage and victimization from other sources

[328] Each of the complainants was economically or emotionally vulnerable or both when they were recruited. M.M. had no money. She had a young son to support. She had no belongings upon her arrival in Windsor. M.M. did not have a place to live. She lived in residences arranged by the accused and hotel rooms with the accused and other girls when they were travelling.

[329] P.C. was 19 years of age, with no family or friends, and in a foreign country far from home. She had $5. She was expected to earn money and send it home. She yearned for an education. The accused tried to manipulate P.C. into believing post-secondary education was not worthwhile, that she had an African mentality, and that she would be better of as an escort than a psychologist or a business person. He held out tuition fees in small increments, like a “carrot” to keep P.C. loyal and working for him.

[330] S.T. was financially vulnerable looking for money to pay her rent so that she did not have to return home having admitted she could not make it on her own. She was emotionally vulnerable as a result of her negative experience with Matt.

[331] P.G. was in a city where she knew no one, had no car, a suspended license, no place to stay, no credit card, and only $400 left. She described herself as being at her lowest.

c. Isolation of the complainant from family or friends, and restrictions on social contacts outside of the sex trade industry

[332] Except for S.T. who did go home to see family, none of the girls appeared to have a life outside their work or relationship with the accused and the other girls in the agency. P.G. who was only at Stamford a few weeks testified that she found Queen and Misty spent all their time working, were infatuated with the accused, and had completely isolated lives in the house.

[333] The evidence was similar for Uplands. There was no evidence of any social gatherings at Uplands or outside with people other than the sex work girls. Even S.T. shut down her contact with her former roommate in Ottawa. I find these restricted environments at Stamford and Uplands was created and directed entirely by the accused through the operational rules of the agency and work expectations which included being available for calls 24/7.

d. The nature of the relationship between the accused and complainant

[334] The accused engaged in simultaneous intimate sexual relationships with each of the complainants except P.G. There could be no other rational explanation for the purpose of this conduct other than to foster loyalty and emotional dependency.

e. Imposition of rules or behaviours

[335] All of the complainants were subject to operational rules such as informing the accused or Jamie of arrival times and departures from client appointments; reporting their earnings from client appointments; providing all their revenues to the accused; seeking permission for non-work activities and for any expenses, including food.

f. Control over work and rest hours, location of work, and services provided

[336] The accused retained complete control over the complainants’ working hours. They each had to be available 24/7. They were not entitled to refuse clients, but could refuse certain sexual services they were uncomfortable with. They were told they had to make money before they could spend money. The ads were posted by Jamie and the accused. The rates were set by Jamie and the accused. Except for S.T., the other three complainants did not appear to have any time off from work. M.M. testified she even worked on Christmas day.

g. Control over advertising of services

[337] The complainants all testified that the accused and Jamie were responsible for creating the contents of the ads. The accused took photos and posted the pictures on the ads for sexual services. Even if some of the complainants posted ads later, all the earnings were given to the accused.

h. Limitations on movement, including tracking and driving to and from work

[338] The accused often drove the complainants to their calls and always tracked their hours and earnings. The complainants all had to obtain permission for non-work activities. I find these limitations on the complainants movements permitted the accused to maximize their availability to work and earn revenue for him.

i. Control of finances

[339] The accused controlled all the earnings from sex work. While a few of the complainants started to keep their earnings at the tail end of their relationships, I find it was to obtain some financial means to exit the relationship or to ensure basic necessities for themselves.

j. Financial benefit to the accused;

[340] The accused profited from all the sex work earnings. He even took M.M.’s Federal Child Tax Credit. He took P.G.’s $400 when he first met her and before she did any work.

[341] Financial records discussed below show that in 2018 alone, the accused made 262 cash deposits valued at $119,477.99 into his bank account. There is no evidence that the accused’s deposits are attributable to anything but the sex work earnings of the complainants. In addition, given their was no accounting of how much of the cash the accused collected from the girls he used to pay for his own personal expenses, it is highly likely that there was much more earned which was not deposited into the accused’s accounts. Finally, when P.C. tried tracking her earnings, the accused made her stop to avoid having any incriminating evidence.

k. The presence or absence of violence or threats

[342] All the complainants except P.G. witnessed violence by the accused on other girls or experienced it themselves.

l. Coercion, including physical, emotional, or psychological coercion

[343] While there was no evidence that the accused engaged in physical coercion, I find his simultaneous intimate relationship with each complainant was a form of emotional and psychological coercion.

[344] Upon consideration of the factors listed above and upon considering the evidence of each of the complainants as a whole, I am satisfied that the accused’s conduct could reasonably be expected to cause each of the complainants to believe that their own safety would be threatened if they failed to continue to provide the sexual services to the accused and his agency.

[345] The accused’s purpose in the prohibited conduct is also apparent in the search results of his phone and computers. For example, when the police conducted a search of the word “Lust” on the pink iPhone (613-804-9474) which I found can be attributed to the accused, it showed messages such as “Book Gigi for your next event – 1844-347-2789.” The web history also showed the accused’s phone visiting sites indicating “XXX content – Lust Models” or Edit Page “Lust Models.” When the word “pimp” was searched, the web history showed results like “how to pimp a virgin” or “Learn how to Pimp bitches” or “Pimps getting arrested form Talking to Undercovers on Facebook and Instagram – You Tube” or “Top 10 game rules I Learned from pimps.”

[346] Similarly, when one looks at the web history of the accused’s computer, the accused was undertaking searches such as “Bachelor parties Location,” “how to pimp,” “rich pimps,” how to start Pimp,” “how to promote a massages parlour,” “where do Ottawa girls chill,” “Canada bookings.ca.admin” and “Lust girls escort review 613 804 9474.”

[347] Keyword searches of the accused’s computer indicate he was doing searches for strippers in Tremblant, Ottawa Stripper’s bachelor party, Strippers for hire, bachelor party blue Mountain, and Bachelor Parties location. The accused was also gearing up throughout February 2019 to prepare for the opening of the spa as the web history shows him looking for massage signs for sale, spa lounge room idea, massage spa flier, business cards for massage therapy.

[348] I find the web history results on his phones and his computer show that the accused actively engaged in researching and operating a sex trade business and his conduct vis-à-vis the complainants was in support of this purpose.

[349] Ms. Casagrande also did a search of the websites associated with the accused’s agencies. The screen shots of the search results on January 24, 2019, showed that Canada Bookings Escorts relied on the contact number 613-804-9474. Similarly, a search of the website highendwishes on May 2, 2019, directed a person to call the dispatch number 613-804-9474. A search of the website Lust Inc on April 18, 2019 indicated it was a modelling agency and stated bookings were at 1-844-347-2789. This is the number that M.M. testified that was also used for booking her when she joined the accused’s agency. The accused’s agencies were clearly tied to the dispatch number for sex work.

[350] Finally, the main thrust of the defence’s argument is that the complainants engaged in the conduct with the accused voluntarily and therefore, were not exploited. Defence counsel argues that in cross-examination M.M. acknowledged one, she knew what the accused was selling was a pipe dream, nonsense, and garbage and two, she signed up and wanted to be an escort. Defence argues M.M. did not have to go to Windsor or get involved with the accused, but chose to. Defence states it is therefore reasonable to conclude that “this self-proclaimed smart businesswoman was not influenced by any bogus pipe dream and engaged in her conduct willingly.”

[351] Defence made similar arguments with respect to the other complainants. He argued that S.T. testified that she chose to be an escort and that she chose to stay and face the consequences. She was not in dire straights financially or emotionally and had the option of returning to her to her parents. Defence argued that P.C. admitted that she had chosen to be an escort, had chosen to return to the accused’s agency even after she alleged the accused slapped her, and had offers from the shelter and her friend Misty for housing and stability but refused to take it. Finally, defence argued that P.G. was her own enterprising person who made her own plans and agenda. Ottawa was just a stop on her road trip, and she used the accused to her advantage to have a place to stay temporarily to deal with her licence suspension. Defence argues the evidence is not that the accused controlled P.G. but that P.G. was uncontrollable and kicked out after three weeks.

[352] Defence argues these choices by the complainants belie the possibility of exploitation. I respectfully disagree.

[353] The nature of one’s profession and the choice to enter or remain in an economic arrangement with another person are not in themselves determinative of exploitation: R v Crosdale at para 165. For example, if a person educated in computer technology seeking to earn more money enters into a work arrangement where they agree to be on call 24/7 to provide IT services for a person and his agency in exchange for room and board and the promise of financial riches down the road and then later find themselves working under the same conditions as the complainants with no prospect of achieving the financial goals promised, one would hardly suggest that their choice of profession or their choice to enter or remain in the arrangement forecloses that they could have been exploited. Why would it be any different for sex workers?

[354] In short, exploitation is not to be determined simply by the choices made by the complainants, including the choice to work as escorts. Rather, as the legislation and jurisprudence indicates, the determination of exploitation is based on a wholistic examination of multiple factors – both subjective and objective - that address the accused’s conduct and purpose.

[355] In addition, even if any of the complainants agreed to work for the accused in the sex trade “willingly” as suggested by defence, s. 279.01(2) clearly states that consent to the activity that forms the subject matter of a human trafficking charge is not a valid defence. See, e.g., R v Maldonado Vallejos, 2022 ONSC 2753, at paras. 20-21; see also Crosdale at para 166.

[356] In conclusion, I find the accused engaged in the prohibited conduct enumerated in s. 279.01 for each of the complainants and the purpose of his conduct was to exploit, or facilitate the exploitation of, the complainants. I find the accused guilty of counts 3, 8, 11, and 13.

II. Count 15: Material Benefit from Trafficking Contrary to s. 279.02(1)

[357] The accused is also charged with receiving a financial or material benefit knowing it was obtained by the commission of an offence under s. 279.01 (human trafficking) for the period of February 15, 2018 until April 18, 2019 contrary to s.279.02(1).

A. Law on Material Benefit

Section 279.02(1) states:

Every person who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 279.01(1) …

[358] The Crown must establish that the accused received a financial or other material benefit (actus reus) and the benefit was derived from the commission of a trafficking in persons offence and the accused knew that fact (mens rea).

[359] Evidence including quantum or percentage of money going to an accused as opposed to the sex trade workers and how the complainants were required to pay the accused for expenses can guide the court’s findings about whether an accused receive a benefit or rather receives reimbursements for expenses incurred: R v Antoine, 2019 ONSC 3843. In Antoine, the court found that the accused’s collection of money every morning was more consistent with an accused obtaining all the victim’s earnings from the previous day and thereby receiving a benefit as opposed to a landlord collecting fees: Antoine at para 234.

B. Application of law to the facts

[360] There is considerable evidence that the accused materially benefitted from the offences of human trafficking. All the complainants described providing their revenues to him in cash. He collected the revenues from Uplands regularly, if not daily, from bedside drawers where the girls were instructed to keep the money or from Queen who was largely entrusted to collect the earnings and turn them over to him. P.G. who was only at Stamford testified that it was the same practice there; the accused would attend to collect the money, it was left in a drawer, or she once gave it to Queen. He also collected funds in the same manner from the spa.

[361] The complainants testified that the accused would use the cash to pay for bills and household expenses, make deposits, and pay for groceries. He would direct the girls to take small amounts of $20 or $40 to pay for groceries or take-out. He was at all times in charge of the money. He was also in charge in multiple aspects of the operation and would have had direct knowledge that the money was from the complainants’ sex work.

[362] It was also clear from the accused’s bank accounts that his main source of income was through regular cash deposits which is consistent with what the complainants described.

[363] There was no evidence presented of any form of accounting done by the accused to suggest that payments given to him were reimbursement for certain expenses. On the contrary, he discouraged such an arrangement and promoted the complainants to be 100 percenters.

[364] In addition, Ms. Morley prepared an extensive Forensic Accountant Report dated April 6, 2020. In her report and expert testimony, Ms. Morley explained that she examined four accounts in the name of Juteah Downey, Margo Downey, SH-DM Inc., and C4 Entertainment. SH-DM Inc. was a company incorporated in Ontario with the accused as registered director and president. C4L Entertainment was a sole proprietorship registered to Margo Downey.

[365] A review of the bank statements for these four accounts showed that between January 1, 2014, and May 31, 2019, there were 577 cash deposits valued at $198,551.23. The bulk of the payments were made into the accused’s personal Juteah Downey account consisting of 262 cash deposits valued at $125,916.29.

[366] Finally, when one breaks down the deposits annually over the five year period for all four accounts, over half the transactions and funds were deposited in 2018 when all four complainants were working with him. In 2018 alone, there were 262 cash deposits valued at $119,477.99.

[367] In contrast, all four complainants testified that they had little if anything when they entered their relationship with the accused and very little, if anything, by the time they exited.

[368] I also find that the accused materially benefitted from not only the complainant’s sex work earnings, but other government revenues or family gifts they received. M.M. handed over her child tax credit. S.T. would use her family funds to pay for shortfalls in fees collected from clients or to pay for necessities the girls needed when the accused was uncooperative. P.C. also described how more often it was Misty who came through in helping pay for the girls’ basic necessities.

[369] Finally, while defence suggests that the accused had other sources of revenue such as his rap music, I find the evidence does not support that the cash deposits came from any other source but sex work. There is no evidence that the accused had any form of stable employment. There was nothing going into the accounts by way of payroll or regular pay cheques, and there is no evidence that that the one record he released can account for the volume of multiple cash deposits made throughout the period of the offences.

[370] Given his involvement in the operation, I find the accused materially benefitted from his arrangement with the four complainants with full knowledge that the moneys he was being provided came from the sex work earnings of the girls.

[371] I find the accused guilty of count 15.

III. Count 10: Assault P.C.

[372] The accused was also charged with assaulting P.C. between April 4 and 5, 2019. P.C. described a dispute that occurred at the spa towards the tail end of their relationship where the accused slapped her for failing to turn over money that she wanted to keep for her school tuition. P.C. readily acknowledged that she struck back by throwing a sewing machine and a computer at the accused. She did not minimize her own conduct which lends credence to her account. She retreated to another room but the accused followed and persisted in the assault by throwing wine glasses at her. She injured her eye. That she did not seek immediate medical attention is not determinative. All the girls explained that they would not get medical help unless they were seriously ill.

[373] It is clear from her testimony that the confrontation with the accused was severe enough that it propelled her, after almost 14 months, to try and leave the relationship. The following day she left the house and contacted the police. Her sudden and unusual exit from the spa the following day lends credence to her account of an assault the night before.

[374] P.C. was rigorously cross-examined on this count. Counsel argues that there were several inconsistencies from her account to the police on April 30th:

➢ She told the police she did not know if she was slapped or punched but testified slapped.

➢ She had told the police in her statement that he had pulled her hair and she got rid of him and then she tried to punch him and he blocked her, but testified she forgot about those details in her testimony.

➢ She could not recall if she went into the futon room and had a knife or scissors ready to cut herself.

➢ She acknowledged that her memory might be jumbled in regard to the incident.

[375] Notwithstanding that P.C. could not recall all the details of the assault and failed to disclose additional information that she had reported to the police, I found that on the principal elements of the assault, that the accused struck her face and later threw wine glasses at her, she did not waiver. I did not find her account was undermined in cross-examination so as to leave me with a reasonable doubt that there was a confrontation with the accused, that he did assault her by striking her in the face, and that he did follow her into another room and threw wine glasses at her.

[376] I also find P.C.’s explanation for what triggered the fight to be highly credible. P.C. described throughout her testimony her repeated efforts to attend school and for the accused pay for her tuition as promised. It was clear throughout her testimony that she was decidedly focused on getting a higher education and fulfilling her objective for coming to Canada. She had managed to attend school in the fall of 2018 and completed several courses. She wished to continue, but the accused had enlisted her in the spa where she appeared to have also taken on a managerial role. The accused was not forthcoming with tuition funds or for taking her out of the spa work. Her explanation of what triggered the fight is highly plausible, and I accept her testimony in this regard.

[377] I find the accused guilty of count 10.

IV.Counts 4, 9, 12, and 14: Procuring Contrary to s. 286.3(1)

[378] The accused is also charged with offences contrary to s. 286.3, commonly referred to as “procuring” with respect to each complainant. The offence reads as follows:

s. 286.3(1) Everyone who procures a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(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

[379] The actus reus is established where it is shown in either of two ways that a person:

1. Procures a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration; or
2. 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 for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1)

[380] The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Deutsch, 1986 21 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 2, at para 32 interpreted the meaning of “procure” as being “to cause, or to induce, or to have a persuasive effect upon the conduct that is alleged”.

[381] With respect to the second way of committing the offence (b), the listed means are disjunctive. In other words, the Crown need only prove one of the particularized means of committee the offence: McEwan at para 141.

[382] In interpreting the term “exercises control, direction, or influence over the movements of a person” regard can be had to the meanings endorsed in Gallone and Ochrym as discussed earlier in relation to the law on the offences of human trafficking.

[383] The mens rea of the offence is established where the Crown proves that the accused:

1. intended to procure a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration; or
2. intended to do anything that satisfies the actus reus for this mode in relation to a person who provides sexual services for consideration, and the accused acted with the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1)

[384] In this case, I find that the accused recruited, harbored, and exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of the four complainants for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1. The findings are based on the same evidence relied upon in finding the accused engaged in the conduct of recruiting, harbouring, and exercising control, direction, or influence for the purpose of exploitation.

[385] While not required to find both, I also find the accused procured each of the complainants to offer or provide sexual services. Notwithstanding that some of the complainants had been previously working in the escorting business, each of them testified that the accused induced them to join his agency and more specifically, in the 100 percenter arrangement. He boasted about the riches they would make, how the women working from him were living the high-life, and how lucrative his agency once stating that he needed rubber bands to tie the money. Each of them testified about how the accused persuaded them that the 100 percenter arrangement would be better as it would cover their expenses and result in them making sufficiently large earnings to achieve their long term goals. These inducements had a persuasive effect.

[386] I find that the accused’s intention in procuring the complainants to offer or provide sexual services was for consideration. The sole purpose of the accused’s conduct and that of his agency was to recruit women, particularly young women, and have them offer sexual services in exchange for financial revenues that would be turned over to him. While some of the agencies were labeled as modelling agencies or agencies that branded clothing, the evidence indicated that the only type of work the complainants did was sex work, whether it was in the form of service calls or stripping. There is also no evidence that the accused’s interactions with each complainant at the time of recruitment was for anything other than bringing them into his operation.

[387] I find the accused guilty of counts 4, 9, 12, and 14.

V.Count 16: Material Benefit from Sexual Services contrary to s. 286.2(1)

[388] The accused is also charged with materially benefitting from sexual services. The provision reads

s. 286.2(1) Every person who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1)

s. 286.1(1) reads: 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 …

[389] The actus reus requires proof that the accused received a financial or other material benefit. The mens rea is established if the accused intended to receive the material benefit knowing that it was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under s. 286.1(1).

[390] The distinction between this offence and s. 279.02(1) is that the Crown need not establish that an accused procured or exercised control over the complainant. Rather, the Crown need only establish that the benefit was obtained from the sale of sexual services for consideration.

[391] The court may consider the statutory presumption set out tin s. 286.2(3) which reads:

s. 286.2(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person received a financial or other material benefit from those services

[392] In R v Morgan, 2018 ONSC 596, the court found that “habitually” should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. Where the evidence demonstrated, as it did in Morgan, that the accused was with the complainant on most days, if not every day, and for one purpose or another, the accused was found in that case to be habitually in the company of the complainant and the statutory presumption was met. In that instance, the accused was presumed to have benefitted financially from the complainant’s sex work where there was no evidence to the contrary to call into question that the complainant turned most of her earnings over to the accused: Morgan at paras 27-33.

[393] In this case, all the complainants (except P.G.) testified that the accused was regularly at Uplands and sometimes as often as five nights a week. He also spent time there during the days. He would come to collect money, drive them to service calls, appointments, school, or to shop for groceries, and eat meals with them. On this evidence, I find he was habitually with them and the statutory presumption is met. There is no evidence to the contrary that the complainants’ earnings were turned over to the accused. Ms. Morley’s evidence also establishes that the accused benefitted financially from the complainants’ sex work.

[394] In this case, defence has neither identified nor do I find that any of the statutory exceptions listed in s. 286.2(4) apply.

[395] I find the accused received a material benefit from the complainants’ sex work, and I find him guilty of count 16.

VI.Count 17: Advertising Sexual Services Contrary to s. 286.4

[396] The accused is also charged with advertising sexual services contrary to s. 286.4. S. 286.4 reads as follows:

s. 286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty …

[397] The actus reus of the offence requires proof that the accused advertised an offer to provide sexual services for consideration. The mens rea requires proof that accused intended to advertise the offer, and knew that the offer was one to provide sexual services for consideration: Gallone at para 78.

[398] All the complainants testified that both Jamie and the accused prepared and posted ads for sexual services to be offered by them. He took pictures of the complainants that were used on the ads. The ads were posted from his phone or computer. M.M. testified that he had access to her phone and posted ads directly from her phone. That he was responsible for advertising is also apparent in the fact that he would cease posting ads of the complainants as a form of punishment.

[399] Ms. Morley’s evidence established that the accused spent over $27,000 on advertising related to sex work corroborating the complainant’s testimony of his involvement in advertising.

[400] In addition, there are text messages from the complainants that corroborate their testimony that he was advertising. One example is a text message dated August 31, 2018, where P.C. tells the accused “Post me I wanna work and help dispatvh please.” In another example, when S.T. is exiting her arrangement with the accused, she sends him a text telling him to remove her from the CB website. She states “I’m not one of your girls anymore. I’m not a CB escort anymore so take me off the website.” The accused replies by calling her a “weirdo” but when she persists, he relents and states “Yea ok no big deal i will let them know. Have a good day.” Irrespective of who “them” is, it is clear that the accused is the decision maker on who gets removed from the advertising.

[401] Finally, given the volume of ads associated with the dispatch number as testified to by Det. Carroll, the evidence of the complainants that ads were posted daily, and the contents of the ads themselves including those for the spa, I find the accused intended to advertise the offer and knew the offer was to provide sexual services for consideration.

[402] I find the accused guilty of count 17.

Conclusion

[403] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has proven each charge against the accused, and I find him guilty on all counts.

Somji J.

Released: February 1, 2023

COURT FILE NO.: 19-1941

DATE: 2023/02/01

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Juteah Downey

Accused

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Somji J.

Released: February 1, 2023