COURT FILE NO.: CRIM J(P) 109/22 DATE: 20240110

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING Veronica Puls for the Crown

- and -

ROHAN JONES Hilary Dudding and Julia Kirby for the Accused

HEARD: May 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 29, November 27, 28, 29, December 1, 2023 (in person), and July 31, 2023 (by Zoom videoconference).

PUBLICATION BAN These Reasons for Judgment are subject to an order, under section 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, prohibiting any information that could identify the complainants in this case from being published in any document, broadcast, or transmitted in any way. This version of the judgment has been modified to comply with that order and may be published.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

STRIBOPOULOS J.:

INTRODUCTION

[1] Mr. Jones’s trial proceeded before me on an indictment charging him with twenty offences involving three different complainants, DG, JS, and HD.

[2] The charges against Mr. Jones concern allegations that he procured the three complainants into the sex trade, including while Ms. G and Ms. S were still under the age of eighteen years, advertised their sexual services, trafficked them to exploit them in the sex trade, and derived a financial benefit from procuring and trafficking them. Additionally, Mr. Jones faces separate charges of sexually assaulting Ms. G and Ms. S and a charge of assaulting Ms. D.

[3] Ultimately, the Crown did not call Ms. D to testify. As a result, without opposition from the Crown, the court granted Mr. Jones’ application for directed verdicts for most of the counts concerning Ms. D, except for a charge of procuring (count 15), given that Ms. S also provided evidence concerning that specific allegation.

[4] These are the court’s Reasons for Judgment in this case. They proceed in two main parts. The first part summarizes the evidence at trial. Then, in the second part, the reasons turn to analyze the evidence to assess whether the Crown has proven the charges against Mr. Jones beyond a reasonable doubt.

I. EVIDENCE

[5] Only a handful of witnesses testified at this trial. The Crown’s case against Mr. Jones relied primarily on the testimony of Ms. G and Ms. S and, to a much lesser extent, that of Ms. G’s mother. The parties also agreed on some relevant facts, including the admission of certain hotel records, dispensing with the need for the Crown to call evidence to prove them. Finally, Mr. Jones adduced evidence concerning his stay at various homeless shelters and testified in his defence.

[6] Given the material differences in the evidence provided by Ms. G, Ms. S, and Mr. Jones, a summary of the main aspects of their respective accounts is necessary because the outcome of this case turns on questions of credibility.

DG’s Evidence

[7] Ms. G, who was 23 by the time she testified at trial, described how a chance meeting outside the mall in the fall of 2015, when she was just 16 and in grade 11, with Mr. Jones and someone she only ever knew as “Ziggy,” morphed into her procurement into the sex trade by Mr. Jones and her working at his behest in that industry. Additionally, Ms. G alleged that Mr. Jones sexually assaulted her on two different occasions.

Meeting Mr. Jones and “Ziggy”

[8] Ms. G testified that she met Mr. Jones and Ziggy when they approached her outside Square One Mall while she took a cigarette break from her high school co-op placement. It is an agreed fact that Ms. G’s co-op placement at Square One Mall commenced on October 5, 2015.

[9] Ms. G testified that the young men complimented her looks and nails. During cross-examination, Ms. G clarified that Ziggy mainly talked, and Mr. Jones stood nearby. Ms. G exchanged phone numbers with Ziggy. She further acknowledged that when she described this initial meeting to the police, she only mentioned Mr. Jones and did not reference Ziggy’s presence.

[10] Within a week of them meeting and texting one another, Ms. G testified that Ziggy broached the topic of her working in the sex trade, a proposal that she spoke about with her best friend, JS. They both agreed to try it, thinking it would be safe if they worked together and that it would be “easy money.” At the time, Ms. G testified to being in a “dark place,” struggling at school, and only caring about smoking marihuana and getting high every day.

[11] After telling Ziggy she and Ms. S were interested, Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones somehow came into the picture and explained the “initiation.” However, she could not recall precisely how she went from communicating with Ziggy to texting with Mr. Jones about the sex trade.

The initiation

[12] Ms. G testified that after exchanging text messages, she and Mr. Jones eventually arranged a meeting at Square One Mall for her initiation. She believed that Ms. S had already had her initiation by that point.

[13] According to Ms. G, she met alone with Mr. Jones at Square One Mall, and the two of them walked around the mall as he explained the sex trade to her. During their discussion, Ms. G testified that, amongst other things, Mr. Jones, whom she only knew then as “Savage” or “Sav,” told her that once she began working with him, she could not stop.

[14] Ms. G testified that they made their way to the library near the mall and eventually found themselves alone in an enclosed stairwell. She described how, in that location, without warning, Mr. Jones forcefully pushed her up against the wall, pulled down her pants and began vaginal intercourse with her. While this happened, Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones told her this was “part of the initiation” to decide if she “passed the test” to work with him. According to Ms. G, this incident involved vaginal intercourse, and there was no oral sex at any point in the stairwell.

[15] Ms. G testified that the sexual intercourse in the library stairwell took place without her consent. They did not discuss becoming intimate before this happened, and Mr. Jones failed to take any steps to ascertain whether she was consenting. Ms. G testified that she said nothing while this sexual assault occurred because she was shocked and scared.

[16] According to Ms. G, the sexual intercourse only ended when they were both surprised by the sound of someone entering the stairwell from a floor above them. With that, she testified that Mr. Jones pushed her away and pulled up his pants, and she did the same.

[17] After the incident in the stairwell, Ms. G testified that they remained together for about another half-hour. During that period, she remained quiet, and Mr. Jones told her she “passed the test,” remarked “That was great,” and said she would “be great for this.”

[18] Ms. G testified that despite what had happened in the library stairwell, she did not feel she could refuse to work for Mr. Jones at that point. Ms. G explained that because of his comment about not being able to stop after she had started and that with the initiation complete, everything had begun, and he had her phone number, she did not believe she could go back at that stage and say “no.”

[19] Before parting ways that day, they also discussed whether Ms. G would be willing to do “duos” (working with another girl), and she said she would only consider doing that with Ms. S.

[20] Mr. Jones advised Ms. G that they would keep in touch about when she would start working, and she testified they continued texting one another over the following days.

The get-together at “Topshelf’s” house

[21] Ms. G testified that a week or two after the incident in the library, she met up with Mr. Jones again. She was home when she received a text from Ms. S, who told her she was with Mr. Jones, Ziggy and someone named “Topshelf.” (By that point, Ms. G believed that Ms. S had already gone through her initiation with Mr. Jones.) Ms. G agreed to meet them, thinking it would be her first night working with Mr. Jones.

[22] Instead, after they picked Ms. G up, the group went to a home in Mississauga, which she understood to be where Topshelf lived with his parents, who were also home. The group went to the basement, where Ms. G and Ms. S smoked marihuana and got high.

[23] Eventually, while in the basement that evening, Ms. G described Mr. Jones and Ms. S becoming intimate while she did the same with Topshelf. Ms. G testified that from what she observed, the sexual activity between Ms. S and Mr. Jones was consensual, noting that, at that time, Ms. S was infatuated with Mr. Jones.

[24] In contrast, Ms. G testified that her interaction with Topshelf was not consensual. Although Ms. G acknowledged that she had a “tiny crush” on Mr. Jones at the time, she testified to “putting it away” because she was also scared of him.

Ms. G’s first night working for Mr. Jones

[25] Ms. G testified that the first time she worked for Mr. Jones in the sex trade was two or three weeks after the events at the library and after the get-together at Topshelf’s house.

[26] Ms. G described the first night working for Mr. Jones. She testified to attending the Studio 6 hotel in Mississauga; she believed either Mr. Jones or Ziggy had rented the room there. Ms. G could not recall how she got to the hotel that day, acknowledging that she was “a little bit high” when she attended.

[27] Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones, Ziggy, and Ms. S were all at the hotel that night. However, she testified that Ms. S was just there; she was not working and left before Ms. G began to do so.

[28] Ms. G testified that she brought her passport and another piece of ID with her because Mr. Jones said he needed these to create an ad for her on LeoList, a website where sex workers advertise their services. Ms. G testified to understanding that her passport and ID were required to prove she was overage, which is necessary to post an ad on LeoList.

[29] Ms. G testified that she gave her documents to Mr. Jones and Ziggy, and they did something with them somehow related to setting up the LeoList account for her. Ms. G described having her photograph taken while holding her open passport and ID beside her face. She did not know how they managed to create an ad for her, given that her passport and ID showed her actual age (16).

[30] Ms. G also testified to taking photos of herself in her underwear and bra for use in the ad. Ms. G testified that although she approved the pictures in the ad, she had no role in preparing it. Mr. Jones took care of that. Once he posted it, Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones said, “Now we wait.”

[31] By then, Ms. G testified that Ms. S had departed, leaving her alone with Mr. Jones and Ziggy. According to her, while she was on the bed with Mr. Jones and while Ziggy was in the bathroom, Mr. Jones asked her to perform oral sex on him. Ms. G testified that she complied with that request because she was afraid and did not want to get hurt, given that she was alone with two men in a hotel room.

[32] At a certain point, Ms. G described Mr. Jones being on a video app talking to Ms. S while she performed oral sex on him. Ms. G testified that she felt horrible about what was happening because, by then, Ms. S thought she was in a relationship with Mr. Jones. At a certain point, Ms. G described trying to signal to Mr. Jones to stop because she was choking, but he told her it was okay and continued despite her protesting. Additionally, Ms. G testified that after the oral sex, Mr. Jones had non-consensual intercourse with her.

[33] During cross-examination, Ms. G acknowledged that in the statement she eventually provided to the police, she did not mention the incident involving her performing oral sex on Mr. Jones while he spoke to Ms. S on the phone. By way of explanation, she testified that the police never asked her about it.

[34] After the sexual activity on the bed was complete, Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones led her to the bathroom and said it was “Ziggy’s turn.” Once there, she performed oral sex on Ziggy. Ms. G testified that, in the circumstances, she did not feel she had any choice to do otherwise.

[35] As that first night progressed, Ms. G described Mr. Jones receiving texts from prospective clients on a “burner phone” he had to coordinate their attendance. Before the clients arrived, Mr. Jones and Ziggy would go to another room they had rented at the hotel. Mr. Jones told her to call him or scream if she was in danger.

[36] According to Ms. G, when clients attended, she would collect the money and count it to ensure it was the right amount, and then place it in a drawer furthest from the door before providing services to the client. Ms. G testified to handling the money that way at Mr. Jones’s direction. Then, after the client left, she would text Mr. Jones, who would return to the room and retrieve, count and keep the money.

[37] Ms. G estimated seeing as many as nine clients that first night and charging them $250 each. She testified that Mr. Jones and Ziggy were both there the entire evening. At the end of the night, Ms. G inquired about the money, and Mr. Jones told her that because they were working together, he would hold onto it and provide her with money when she needed it.

[38] Ms. G testified that she worked only one night on that first occasion. Further, while she was at the hotel with Mr. Jones that night, her parents believed she was at Ms. S’s house because that was what she told them.

Ms. G continues working for Mr. Jones

[39] Ms. G testified that after that first night, which would have been late in the fall of 2015, she continued working for Mr. Jones, always at the same hotel in Mississauga.

[40] In direct examination, Ms. G testified that she worked for Mr. Jones once a week, mainly on weekends, Saturday and Sunday nights, explaining that her parents were “super protective”, and it was hard for her to leave the house. To do so, she would tell her parents she was staying at Ms. S’s residence whenever she worked. By that point, Ms. S had relocated from Mississauga to St. Catherines.

[41] In contrast, during cross-examination, Ms. G acknowledged telling police that beyond the weekends, she would also work for Mr. Jones three nights during the week between Monday and Thursday. Further, she testified that what she told the police about how often she worked was the truth.

[42] Ms. G testified that when she worked all those nights, she would tell her mother she was staying with Ms. S in St. Catherines and that her mother was okay with her being out overnight on school nights because she trusted her. (Ms. G’s mother testified that she would allow her to stay at Ms. S’s place overnight during the school week.)

[43] Ms. G testified that she and Mr. Jones would communicate about when she would work by text. In addition, she testified that she would travel to the hotel by Uber and, after she got a car in 2017, drive there herself. In contrast, during cross-examination, she testified that she did not have her car when working for Mr. Jones and never drove herself to the hotel.

[44] Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones always rented the hotel rooms at the hotel but that she was never present when he did so. She testified that he always rented two rooms, one for her and one for him, where he would go when she saw clients.

[45] Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones never stayed in the room when she saw clients; he always left before the clients arrived. Further, Ms. G testified that it would have been impossible for Mr. Jones to remain in the room by hiding beneath the bed, explaining the beds in those rooms did not provide sufficient space under them for him to do so.

[46] According to Ms. G, Mr. Jones never gave her a share of the money she earned from the sex work she did for him. Instead, he would supply condoms, lubrication, alcohol, and marihuana when she was working. Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones was usually reluctant to provide her with any harder drugs, telling her that he wanted her to have her senses about her while seeing clients. Nevertheless, he did supply her with harder drugs, on occasion, when he knew she could not work without them.

[47] Ms. G testified that clients would arrange to meet with her by communicating with Mr. Jones on his phone. He would text with them, and if they called instead of texting, she would answer the phone and speak to them, saying what Mr. Jones told her she should.

[48] During direct examination, when asked if she had ever worked with anyone else, Ms. G testified that she had always worked alone except for a few occasions when she and Ms. S worked together, providing “duo” services. In other words, providing sexual services to a client together. She initially estimated that they did that “maybe three times.” In contrast, during cross-examination, she acknowledged telling the police that she and Ms. S worked together seeing clients “at least ten times.” And she adopted what she told the police as the more accurate description of the number of times that happened.

[49] Asked to describe the nature of her relationship with Mr. Jones while she worked in the sex trade, Ms. G characterized them as “employer” and “employee.” Besides the sexual assaults she described (the incidents in the stairwell and the first night she worked), Ms. G testified that she did not have a sexual relationship with Mr. Jones while working for him in the sex trade.

[50] Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones never threatened or struck her while she worked for him. Further, she testified that he never pressured her to work when she said she was unavailable. The only menacing thing he ever did, she testified, was the summer after she stopped working for him, when he called her on her birthday and said, “I would always be able to find you.”

The end of Ms. G’s working relationship with Mr. Jones

[51] Ms. G testified that she continued to work for Mr. Jones in the sex trade until the spring of 2017. She estimated that she stopped working for him in June of that year.

[52] Asked to explain why she stopped; Ms. G cited several reasons. First, she testified that she began to feel like she was nothing more than an escort to Mr. Jones, just another one of his girls. Second, after graduating from high school, she started a “more normal” relationship, which did not sit well with her continuing to work in the sex trade. Third, she cited being older, having more experience, being wiser and not wanting anyone to control her any longer. Finally, Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones had spoken about them going to Alberta and her working for him there, but that would require her to sever ties with her family, something she was not interested in doing.

[53] To stop working for Mr. Jones, Ms. G testified in her direct evidence that she blocked him on all her social media accounts and changed as much of her social media presence as possible. However, she did not change her phone number, which is how he ultimately managed to contact her again; for example, he called her, as noted, on her birthday the following year.

[54] When asked why she did not report what had happened with Mr. Jones to the police after she stopped working for him, Ms. G explained she did not think it was a “really big deal” and did not want it to become a “bigger deal.” She also explained that she did not want to talk about it because it affected her so much, and she wanted to move on with her life. Finally, she cited concerns about retribution, noting that “snitches get stitches.”

The Toronto meeting

[55] By 2020, Ms. G testified that she and Ms. S had reconnected. She testified that Ms. S arranged a meeting with Mr. Jones to get the money he owed her for her work in the sex trade. At Ms. S’s urging, Ms. G testified that she agreed to attend.

[56] Ms. G described being picked up by Ms. S from a family get-together at her grandparents’ place in Toronto. Ms. S was driving, and they went downtown, where they met with Mr. Jones. She estimated that this took place in February 2020.

[57] Ms. G testified that they all sat in Ms. S’s car and talked, with Mr. Jones sitting in the backseat. Ms. G did not have a detailed recollection of the conversation in the car that day. She did remember Mr. Jones mentioning that he was working delivering appliances. During the meeting, Ms. G recalled that Ms. S asked Mr. Jones for the money he owed her, and they struck a deal of some kind.

[58] Ms. G testified that they dropped Mr. Jones off at a friend’s apartment building on Sherbourne Street at the end of their meeting with him. They parted on amicable terms, with Mr. Jones hugging each of them before he left.

Ms. G and Mr. Jones develop a romantic relationship

[59] By 2020, Ms. G acknowledged that her drug problem had worsened; she was using heroin and smoking crack cocaine. Ms. G described almost overdosing at Ms. S’s house and falling out with her because of how Ms. S had responded to the overdose.

[60] Against that backdrop, after their meeting in Toronto, Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones began contacting her to get a hold of Ms. S, who he said was not responding to him. However, by then, Ms. G was no longer in contact with Ms. S.

[61] During these conversations, Ms. G testified to telling Mr. Jones that Ms. S did not intend to follow through on their agreement and just wanted to rip him off. After that, he expressed regret for focusing on Ms. S in the past and said he should have paid more attention to Ms. G.

[62] According to Ms. G, at that point, she and Mr. Jones continued texting and slowly developed feelings for one another, and a romantic relationship eventually began between them that summer. It lasted through July and August 2020.

[63] Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones visited her at her parent’s house a couple of times that summer. She introduced him as someone she knew from high school. They told her parents his name was “Jonathan.” By then, she knew his real name, as she had asked for his identification, which he had shown her. She thought she had seen the name “Jonathan” on his identification, which he only let her quickly look at. At the time, her parents were not okay with her leaving the house because of her ongoing drug issues. During her testimony, Ms. G’s mother confirmed these visits by Mr. Jones. However, she testified that she understood his name to be “Junior,” a nickname Mr. Jones admitted using during his testimony.

[64] Ms. G testified that she and Mr. Jones eventually began discussing being together long-term and having a family. They mutually agreed she would go to rehab, get sober, and that they would move to Alberta together and start a family. The idea, she testified, was for her to work in the sex trade in Alberta, servicing higher-end clients, but that Mr. Jones told her she would have to sever ties with her family if they did that. Ms. G did not mention this in the statement she eventually provided to the police and testified that she forgot those discussions when speaking to them.

[65] It was only during cross-examination that Ms. G first testified to being pregnant with Mr. Jones’s child before she went to rehab in the fall of 2020. She described them discussing her going to rehab, getting clean, and having a family together, something she was excited about. Ms. G also testified that Mr. Jones eventually told her, before she went to rehab, that because of her substance abuse issues, he did not think she would be a good mother and did not want to have a baby with her. Ms. G acknowledged that this hurt her feelings badly. Further, she testified to eventually terminating her pregnancy because of that conversation.

[66] Ms. G did not tell the police about the plans she made with Mr. Jones for the future or her pregnancy when she gave her statement. On the contrary, she told the police that she got checked before going to rehab and that, thankfully, she was not pregnant. Ms. G explained that she did not mention the pregnancy to the police or during her direct evidence because it was “super personal,” and no one asked about it.

Reporting her allegations to the police

[67] In September or October 2020, Ms. G testified to entering a rehab program. She testified that while in that program, the victim worker and counsellors told her that her relationship with Mr. Jones was not a good idea and that she should press charges against him. At the time, however, she still had feelings for him and did not want to get him into trouble.

[68] When she left rehab, Ms. G testified that she did not call Mr. Jones because she did not want to go to Alberta with him. She described being at her mother’s house in December when Mr. Jones called and him being upset that she had not called him when she got out of rehab. She testified that her mother was present when she received that call. After that, Ms. G described going to her friend Emily’s apartment in Brampton for a couple of days.

[69] Additionally, during cross-examination, Ms. G testified to there being two other phone calls with Mr. Jones after she left rehab, but before the one her mother was present for. During one of these, Ms. G acknowledged Mr. Jones asked her if she had an abortion and testified to finding this hurtful, resulting in her attitude toward Mr. Jones changing.

[70] Ms. G testified that after she went to Emily’s apartment, her parents became concerned about her and called the police. (Her mother testified that after Ms. G left the house following an upsetting phone call, they could not locate her and therefore called the police.) Eventually, Ms. G testified to leaving Emily’s building, thinking her father was outside, but discovering the police there. She then went with the police and gave a statement concerning her allegations against Mr. Jones.

[71] During cross-examination, Ms. G acknowledged that when she was with Emily, she relapsed with Xanax, failed to come home over multiple nights and that her parents were looking for her and concerned she had overdosed. Additionally, during cross-examination, she admitted that earlier on the day that the police picked her up, a security guard had caught her shoplifting at Shoppers Drug Mart and let her go.

[72] Further, during cross-examination, Ms. G conceded that when she went with the police, she did not feel she had a choice and, at the time, thought she was in trouble. Once at the station, Ms. G described sleeping for a period, as she was still high, seeing her aunt, a police dispatcher, who told her to tell the police everything.

[73] Ms. G testified that after she eventually woke up, she decided to provide a statement to the police and tell them about everything that had happened to her. She explained that they seemed interested in helping her and thought it would be stupid not to take the help they offered her.

[74] During cross-examination, Ms. G did not dispute that she may have told police she was “pimped” from the age of 13. But she testified that was incorrect and explained that that must have been a reference to when she began using drugs and noted that she was still high on drugs at the time of her police statement. Further, she acknowledged telling the police that Mr. Jones’s name was “Jonathan,” maintaining that that was what she thought his name was, even though her mother had found some documents belonging to Mr. Jones at their house that summer and asked her who “Rohan Jones” was.

Ms. G’s statements to Ms. S and her mother

[75] During cross-examination, Ms. G acknowledged that, in 2020, she had separately told Ms. S and her mother about the incident in the stairwell and that she had told them the truth about what had happened.

[76] According to Ms. S, however, Ms. G told her that Mr. Jones had forced her to perform oral sex in the stairwell at Square One as part of her “initiation.”

[77] Ms. G’s mother testified that her daughter told her about being raped. According to her mother, Ms. G said that “three-black guys” at the mall, when she was 15 and doing her co-op placement there, had approached her and complimented her on her nails. Further, according to her mother, Ms. G said the “three black guys” had raped her and that “one guy wanted me to suck his dick and the other fuck me in the ass.”

JS’s Evidence

[78] Ms. S, who was 23 when she testified at trial, described meeting Mr. Jones in the fall of 2015 when she was 16 and in grade 11, through her best friend at the time, Ms. G.

[79] During her testimony, Ms. S described how Mr. Jones recruited her into the sex trade and her experiences working for him in that industry from approximately September 2015 to February 2016. Ms. S alleged that Mr. Jones repeatedly sexually assaulted her throughout the time she worked for him and sexually assaulted her again a few years later during a meeting in Niagara Falls.

Introduction to Mr. Jones and the sex trade

[80] Ms. S testified to hearing about Mr. Jones after Ms. G told her about meeting him at Square One in grade 11. At the time, she only knew him as “Savage” and “Sav.”

[81] Ms. S testified that about a month after Ms. G first mentioned Mr. Jones, she arranged for them to meet him at Square One to discuss “a business proposition.” Ms. S testified that she agreed to the meeting without knowing what it involved, explaining that she did so because she was young and in financial need, given that her parents, who were going through a divorce, were not supporting her then.

[82] In contrast, during cross-examination, Ms. S acknowledged telling the police that when Ms. G called her and they spoke about the “business opportunity,” she knew from the “whole pimp speech what was going on.” (Similarly, Ms. G testified that after she shared with Ms. S what Mr. Jones had said, Ms. S knew they were talking about working in the sex trade.) Nevertheless, during her testimony, Ms. S maintained that before she met with Mr. Jones, she had no idea that the business opportunity they would be discussing had anything to do with the sex trade.

[83] Ms. S testified that she and Ms. G met Mr. Jones and his friend at Square One Mall. She could not recall his friend’s name but described him during her testimony. According to Ms. S, the four walked around the mall together, getting to know one another before they all went to a hotel, Studio 6 in Mississauga. Again, Ms. S cited her youth and need for money to explain why she agreed to go to a hotel with two men she had just met.

[84] Ms. S testified that she could not remember how the four got to the hotel. She testified that it was once they were all there and inside a hotel room that she learned of the nature of the business proposition, which involved working with Mr. Jones in the sex trade.

[85] Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones explained the sex trade to them, including how he wanted them to work together doing “duos,” how they would work as a team in that industry, and how they would make money. At the time, Ms. S explained that she thought this was something she could do to make money, which she needed.

[86] Ms. S testified that during the meeting at the hotel, she and Ms. G told Mr. Jones that they were only 16. According to her, he responded by saying something like that would require “more layers” not to raise alarm bells as he did not want to get into trouble because they were underage.

[87] According to Ms. S, they did not engage in sex work that first evening at the hotel. Instead, she exchanged contact details with Mr. Jones, and they agreed to stay in touch.

[88] Ms. S testified that during that first meeting at the hotel, she and Ms. G were together the entire time. She did not believe they left separately.

Ms. S’s first evening working for Mr. Jones

[89] About a month later, Ms. S testified concerning what she described as her “initiation” into the sex trade. According to her evidence, that involved her travelling to and meeting with Mr. Jones alone at the Studio 6 hotel in Mississauga, the same hotel they visited the first time they met. She did not know who rented the hotel room for that second meeting.

[90] Once inside the room, Ms. S testified that she and Mr. Jones discussed the logistics of how things would work, including the types of services she was and was not willing to provide, how she was to handle the money paid by clients (she was not to touch it, and have clients place it on the table), and things of that nature.

[91] Further, Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones demanded her health card during that meeting, and she produced it for him. She did not see him photograph her health card or write down the biographical information about her that it contained. She testified to thinking he just wanted to see it so he would have more information about her, including her date of birth.

[92] Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones told her about “Backpage,” a website for advertising her sexual services, that she took photographs at the hotel of herself wearing just a bra and underwear for use in that ad, and they both worked on creating a Backpage ad for her. That included setting the prices for her services: $300 for a half hour and $500 for an hour. He put his phone number on the ad, and he would respond to text messages to the number, while she would answer any phone calls.

[93] According to Ms. S, there was no detailed discussion concerning how they would divide the money—instead, Mr. Jones told her he would take care of her—for example, giving her money for her hair, clothes, and nails, which made her feel that the work would put her into a much more stable financial situation.

[94] Ms. S testified that on that same occasion, Mr. Jones forced her onto her knees and required her to perform fellatio on him. According to Ms. S, she did not want to do that but complied because she felt she had no choice. In contrast, during cross-examination, Ms. S testified that the oral sex occurred in the bathroom and that Mr. Jones pushed her down onto the edge of the tub.

[95] Further, Ms. S testified that after she performed oral sex on Mr. Jones, he told her, “This is how it’s going to go; when I want it, this is going to happen,” that she was “now his property” and that she “had to do what he says.”

[96] Ms. S testified that she saw clients that night at the hotel, where, on that occasion, she remained for just one night.

Ms. S’s experience working for Mr. Jones in the sex trade

[97] After that first evening, Ms. S testified that she continued working for Mr. Jones in the sex trade for approximately six months, always at the same hotel in Mississauga, with him arranging the rooms. She estimated she stopped working with him shortly after January 1, 2016.

[98] During that period, Ms. S described working whenever she could get from where she lived in St. Catherines to Mississauga and that she worked for no more than two or three nights on each occasion. When she did so, she would tell her family she was visiting with friends. Ms. S could not estimate how many times she worked for Mr. Jones.

[99] Ms. S testified that on the nights she worked, she would see two clients on a “bad night” and as many as three to five on a “good night.” As instructed, Ms. S testified that she did not touch the money the clients gave her, and that Mr. Jones would retrieve it. According to her, Mr. Jones covered the expenses, the cost of the hotel and food and supplied her with cigarettes and marihuana. Further, she testified that he sometimes gave her $20 or $50 directly and gave her a couple of hundred dollars on other occasions by sending her a “money gram.”

[100] Ms. S testified that when she was with a client, Mr. Jones would either remain in the hotel room (hiding underneath the bed) or walk outside until the client left. Ms. S described having mixed feelings about Mr. Jones hiding underneath the bed; she found it awkward yet reassuring knowing he was there if she had difficulty with the client.

[101] Ms. S testified that whenever she worked with Mr. Jones, he would sexually assault her, like he did the first night, either by forcing her to perform oral sex or requiring her to have intercourse with him. Although she would try to make excuses not to submit to these acts, Ms. S described Mr. Jones as indifferent to her wishes and persisting despite her objections.

[102] Ms. S testified that in the time she worked for Mr. Jones in the sex trade, she and Ms. G never worked together. In fact, at the time, it was her understanding that Ms. G “flaked” and decided against working with Mr. Jones. While Ms. S worked for Mr. Jones, she testified that she and Ms. G were in daily contact, and Ms. G never said anything to suggest she was working for Mr. Jones. Only later, Ms. S testified, did Ms. G tell her she had worked for Mr. Jones.

[103] According to Ms. S, Mr. Jones repeatedly warned her that she could not stop working for him and threatened that he would always find her if she tried to stop. She testified that whenever she tried to end the arrangement by changing her social media accounts, he would call her from an unknown phone number and re-establish contact. Ms. S testified that she worked for Mr. Jones because she feared retaliation from him if she tried to stop and needed the money.

[104] Eventually, however, in about February 2016, Ms. S testified that her contact with Mr. Jones trailed off, and her involvement with him in the sex trade ended. Ms. S did not explain how she succeeded in her efforts to break ties with Mr. Jones at that time when she had failed to do so before.

The meeting at the Rainbow Inn in Niagara Falls

[105] Ms. S testified that in September 2019, she met Mr. Jones at the Rainbow Inn in Niagara Falls. (Records from the Rainbow Inn, admitted as part of an Agreed Statement of Fact, show that Mr. Jones’ then-girlfriend, Ms. D, rented a room there on September 19, 2019.)

[106] According to Ms. S, Mr. Jones contacted her through social media, and they eventually arranged for her to meet him. She testified that he picked her up at a mall in St. Catherines in a car driven by another man.

[107] Ms. S explained that she agreed to meet him for only one reason: to collect the money Mr. Jones owed her, and she testified to telling him that before they met. However, she did not believe she said anything about the money when they picked her up, citing the other man’s presence as her reason for not mentioning it then.

[108] Ms. S testified that once in the hotel room, Mr. Jones introduced her to his girlfriend. Ms. S could not recall his girlfriend’s name but provided a physical description of the woman. (The parties agree that the young woman Ms. S met was H D.) The three chatted for a bit. While they did so, Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones’s girlfriend posted escorting ads for that evening.

[109] Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones’s girlfriend said she did not want to see any clients; she was complaining she was not feeling well. With that, Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones suggested she work that evening, but she, too, refused. After a few hours, Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones grew extremely upset with his girlfriend for refusing to see clients and, to a lesser extent, upset with her for the same reason.

[110] Ms. S testified that they arrived at the hotel around 10:00 or 11:00 p.m., and she remained there until the following day. Asked to explain why she stayed so long, Ms. S testified, “That, I cannot tell you.” During her testimony, however, she described having challenges getting a car service to return her to St. Catherines and that she remained at the hotel while she waited for a car to pick her up.

[111] At some point, Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones and his girlfriend left the hotel room. She stayed in the room while waiting for the car service. After about an hour, Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones and his girlfriend returned. Ms. S testified that the girlfriend had a bruised face and a bloody lip, and she seemed very withdrawn.

[112] According to Ms. S, based on what she observed, she formed the impression that Mr. Jones had assaulted his girlfriend. She testified that before that, she had never seen anything to suggest he was violent and then realized that she had made a poor decision in visiting him that day.

[113] On their return, Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones told them that “this is not how this is going to work” and that “both of you are supposed to be mine.” With that, she testified that he put both of them on their knees by placing his hands on their shoulders and forcing them to the ground, and then he required them to perform oral sex on him. Ms. S testified that she did not want to do that but complied without objection.

[114] Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones and his girlfriend eventually fell asleep, him on the bed and his girlfriend on the couch. By then, it was the next morning. After that, she testified she finally left the room and returned to St. Catherines using the car service.

[115] Ms. S testified that while at the hotel, she did discuss the money he owed her with Mr. Jones, but she could not recall the details of that conversation. Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones did not provide any assurances about paying her the money he owed her.

The Toronto meeting

[116] Although she initially testified that the Rainbow Inn meeting was the last time she saw Mr. Jones, Ms. S acknowledged during cross-examination that she and Ms. G subsequently met him in Toronto.

[117] Ms. S testified that Ms. G, with whom she had not been speaking, reached out to her to tell her that Mr. Jones wanted to see her because he had money for her. Ms. S testified that, by her calculation, Mr. Jones owed her between $1,000 and $2,000.

[118] Ms. S had difficulty identifying when the meeting in Toronto happened. Initially, she testified it was sometime before the pandemic and a year or two after her “emancipation.” During cross-examination, she acknowledged the meeting occurred during the summer of 2020.

[119] Ms. S testified that she picked up Ms. G in Toronto, and they then met Mr. Jones near the Ed Mirvish Theatre. They met in Ms. S’s car with Mr. Jones seated in the backseat. They chatted a bit, and Mr. Jones mentioned that he was “flipping appliances.”

[120] According to Ms. S, Mr. Jones expressed an interest in them resuming their work in the sex trade together. Ms. S testified to replying that she was not interested in that or in having contact with him and just wanted the money he owed her. She testified that Mr. Jones did not give her any money that day but told her “It would come” and that he needed some time.

[121] Ms. S testified that they dropped Mr. Jones off somewhere in the Sherbourne area of Toronto.

Reporting her allegations to the police

[122] The police eventually contacted Ms. S on January 27, 2021, and she provided a statement to them that day about the events involving Mr. Jones. Asked to explain why she had never reported what had happened to the police in the interim, she cited fear of retaliation and embarrassment. Ms. S explained her decision to cooperate with the police in January 2021 because by then, she was no longer in “survival mode,” had come to realize that the situation was “not right, whatsoever,” and wanted to do the right thing “so it does not happen to any other woman.”

[123] Ms. S acknowledged that after giving her initial statement, on various occasions, she contacted the police to seek help accessing different programs, including ODSP, housing and counselling.

Ms. S’s statements to Ms. G

[124] Ms. S testified that she and Ms. G had minimal contact after they met with Mr. Jones in Toronto. Nevertheless, she described them texting and occasionally getting together during that period. When they saw each other, they discussed their respective experiences with Mr. Jones.

[125] During her testimony, Ms. S maintained that her sexual interactions with Mr. Jones were always non-consensual. It was only during cross-examination that she acknowledged attending a get-together at a house with Mr. Jones, his friend and Ms. G. She agreed that she had sex with Mr. Jones at that get-together but maintained that, like with all the other occasions, it was not consensual.

[126] In contrast, Ms. G testified that from what she observed, and the things Ms. S told her, Ms. S was infatuated with Mr. Jones from the outset and had a sexual interest in him throughout the time they knew him, even up to when they met him in Toronto. Recall that Ms. G testified that at the get-together at Topshelf’s house, at least from what she saw, Ms. S appeared to have sex with Mr. Jones willingly.

[127] Further, according to Ms. G, when she shared what Mr. Jones had done to her as part of her initiation, Ms. S responded, “I am sorry that happened to you, but for me, I really liked him, so it wasn’t rape” and said that she “wanted to have a sexual relationship with him.”

[128] During cross-examination, Ms. S denied telling Ms. G that when she had sex with Mr. Jones, she had feelings for him and liked him or that with her, it was not rape. Ms. S testified that Ms. G was “in an extremely deluded state” and insisted that she would never have said anything like that to her.

Rohan Jones’ Evidence

[129] Mr. Jones is now 30 years of age. He was born in Jamaica and came to Canada when he was eight. Mr. Jones is a permanent resident; he has never obtained Canadian citizenship.

[130] During his testimony, Mr. Jones described a difficult childhood, which culminated in him being kicked out of his father and stepmother’s home when he was just 17.

[131] Since then, Mr. Jones has lived a transient lifestyle. He described sometimes staying with friends but mainly residing at various homeless shelters in Peel Region and Toronto since leaving his father and stepmother’s home. (Records from numerous homeless shelters were introduced as exhibits at trial and corroborated that Mr. Jones regularly stayed at such facilities during the period corresponding with the allegations of the complainants.)

[132] Mr. Jones has a criminal record that spans from 2013 to 2019. During that timeframe, Mr. Jones amassed numerous convictions, including seven convictions for crimes of dishonesty and six for breaching court orders.

[133] Although he has sometimes enjoyed gainful employment, Mr. Jones readily admitted that he has mainly supported himself over the years through ODSP benefits and by selling drugs.

[134] During his testimony, Mr. Jones denied procuring Ms. S or Ms. G into the sex trade, working with them in that industry, or sexually assaulting them.

Selling drugs at the Studio 6 hotel and meeting “Ziggy”

[135] Mr. Jones testified that he sometimes sold drugs at hotels, including the Studio 6 hotel in Mississauga. He described how he would loiter in a courtyard at the hotel and sell drugs to people there, including sex workers who worked out of the hotel and their clients. Through those interactions, Mr. Jones testified that he came to know many of the sex workers who plied their trade at the hotel.

[136] Mr. Jones testified that he met “Ziggy” at the hotel; he never learnt his surname. Mr. Jones described Ziggy as someone he would see in passing while selling drugs at that location. Eventually, they became friendly and smoked marihuana and hung out together. Mr. Jones testified that Ziggy was at the hotel because his “working girl” saw clients there.

Meeting Ms. S and Ms. G

[137] Mr. Jones testified to receiving a call from Ziggy, inviting him to come to the hotel to meet two girls, and Ziggy telling him that he thought he would like one of them. Relying on the records from a homeless shelter he stayed at in Mississauga in January 2016, Mr. Jones estimated this occurred around January 10, 2016. In response to Ziggy’s call, Mr. Jones testified to attending the hotel and going to a room that Ziggy had rented.

[138] Upon his arrival, Mr. Jones testified that he found Ms. S, Ms. G and Ziggy there. They were all drinking and smoking marihuana. Ziggy introduced him as “Savage.” According to Mr. Jones, Ziggy was talking to Ms. S and Ms. G about working in the sex trade when he arrived. When he entered the room, he testified that Ziggy was telling the young women how to text and talk to prospective clients. According to Mr. Jones, Ziggy said to them, referring to him, “This guy is sick at texting.”

[139] Mr. Jones explained that while selling drugs at the hotel, he had become friendly with a sex worker he sold cocaine to, named “Sky,” who saw clients at the hotel and worked for herself. Mr. Jones maintained that when Sky was busy with clients, she would have him manage one of her phones and that he had become adept at pretending to be Sky in texts and phone calls with her potential clients. Mr. Jones testified that Sky would pay him to assist her on the occasions he did this. And that was what Ziggy was referring to when he told Ms. S and Ms. G that Mr. Jones was adept at texting.

[140] Mr. Jones testified to participating in the conversation about the sex trade, at least sharing what he knew from his experience assisting Sky. He denied offering such assistance to Ms. G and Ms. S. Instead, he testified to participating in that aspect of the conversation merely because Ziggy referenced his abilities to bring him into the “vibe” of the room.

[141] Mr. Jones testified that Ziggy, Ms. S, Ms. G, and him all hung out in the hotel room, smoking marihuana and drinking alcohol. According to Mr. Jones, Ziggy seemed interested in Ms. G, so he hung out with Ms. S. They chatted, and according to him, during what he described as a casual conversation with Ms. S, she told him she was 19 and from St. Catherines.

[142] Mr. Jones testified that he and Ms. S began flirting, and that dynamic quickly escalated. Within an hour of his arrival, Mr. Jones testified that he and Ms. S went to a second room that Ziggy had rented for his “working girl,” who had left for the evening to see her children by then.

[143] Alone in that second hotel room, Mr. Jones testified that he and Ms. S began kissing and then lay down on the bed together. During his direct examination, Mr. Jones testified that he eventually asked Ms. S to perform oral sex on him. In contrast, during cross-examination, he testified that she asked if she could perform oral sex on him. Mr. Jones denied forcing Ms. S to do so.

[144] After that, Mr. Jones testified that Ms. S began talking about the sex trade, and she asked him to rent a hotel room for her for that purpose. He told her the “hotel was blessed” because you did not need a credit card to secure a room, just identification and the money to pay for the room.

[145] At that point, Mr. Jones testified Ms. S told him she only had a health card and seemed flummoxed. Given her reaction, he began doubting she was 19, as she had initially told him. As a result, Mr. Jones asked to see Ms. S’s ID. She produced her health card, and he learned she was only 16. Mr. Jones testified to becoming upset that Ms. S had lied to him about her age and told her he could not help her because she was underage.

[146] With that, Mr. Jones testified that Ms. S broke down, began crying and explained that her mother had stopped supporting her and that she needed to work in the sex trade to make money. He testified that she told him how stressed she was by her circumstances and that she had been cutting herself. She mentioned this as the reason why she only wanted to engage in oral sex with him and then showed him scars from her cuts. Despite all this, Mr. Jones insisted that he told Ms. S that he could not help her work in the sex trade because of her age.

[147] Mr. Jones testified that he and Ms. S remained in the hotel room that night, which caused him to miss his curfew at the Cawthra shelter in Mississauga, where he was staying at the time. Eventually, they lay back down on the bed, began to kiss again, and had consensual sex. They remained in the room together that night.

[148] The next day, Mr. Jones initially testified that he gave Ms. S $100 because he felt for her, given her difficult circumstances. They exchanged phone numbers to keep in touch. Mr. Jones testified that he was sexually interested in Ms. S, and that was why, from his standpoint, he took her phone number and shared his own. During cross-examination, Mr. Jones testified that his real motivation for giving Ms. S money was because he wanted to keep the option open of potentially resuming a sexual relationship with her.

The get-together at “Topshelf’s” house

[149] After their initial meeting at the hotel, Mr. Jones testified that Ms. S was in regular contact with him and continually asked to see him again. Within a week or so, he invited Ms. S to join him at a get-together that Ziggy had invited him to at his uncle’s house in Mississauga. Mr. Jones testified that he did not know Ziggy’s uncle’s name; when they met, Ziggy introduced his uncle as “Topshelf.”

[150] Mr. Jones testified that he invited Ms. S because he remained interested in her and was hoping for them to have another sexual encounter. He testified that at Topshelf’s place, they drank alcohol, smoked marihuana, and ate pizza. Mr. Jones testified that another girl was at the get-together, but he could not say whether it was Ms. G; he did not dispute her testimony that she was there.

[151] Mr. Jones testified that that evening, at Topshelf’s house, he and Ms. S had sex and that they spent the night there. He testified that from his perspective, the sex was consensual, that Ms. S was “all over” him and wanted to have sex with him.

[152] Mr. Jones testified that the next day, he took Ms. S to an Aquarium store he liked spending time at. (During cross-examination, Ms. S acknowledged attending such a store with Mr. Jones at some point.) He testified to giving her some marihuana and $50 before they parted ways. Mr. Jones testified to giving Ms. S money because he wanted to increase his chances of continuing a sexual relationship with her.

The period after the get-together at Topshelf’s house

[153] Mr. Jones estimated that the meeting at Topshelf’s house and the visit to the Aquarium store occurred in mid-January 2016.

[154] After that, Mr. Jones testified that he and Ms. S continued texting and speaking on the phone for about a month. He maintained that she was interested in seeing him again. However, he continually made excuses, for example, telling her he was out of town or busy and unavailable.

[155] On a few occasions, Mr. Jones maintained that he sent Ms. S money through MoneyGram, $100 or $50 each time because she told him she was struggling financially.

[156] Despite sending her money, Mr. Jones maintained that he did not see Ms. S because “the whole situation was not my scene.” During cross-examination, he testified that he sent her money to keep open the possibility of seeing her again for sex, should he wish to do so. He acknowledged that he was “stringing her along.” According to Mr. Jones, he eventually started a relationship with another woman and his interest in Ms. S fizzled out.

[157] Mr. Jones testified that, after their interactions in January 2016, he did not see Ms. S again for a few years. He maintained that he did not see Ms. G or keep in touch with her either.

[158] Mr. Jones denied ever working with either young woman in the sex trade at any time.

[159] Mr. Jones testified that he went into custody in 2016 or 2017 for a period and never got the phone back he had when he met Ms. S. As a result, when he was released from custody that year, he did not have Ms. S’s phone number.

The meeting at the Rainbow Inn in Niagara Falls

[160] Mr. Jones testified that a few years passed before he heard from Ms. S again. He testified that in September 2019, he received a “Do you know” request on Facebook from Ms. S and saw her picture associated with that. In response, he messaged Ms. S to reconnect with her.

[161] Mr. Jones testified that he decided to reach out to Ms. S at that point because she was older and looked good, and he wanted to see if something might happen between them again.

[162] According to Mr. Jones, he was in Niagara Falls at the time with his girlfriend, H D, who was working in the sex trade. Mr. Jones testified to being in Niagara Falls to keep Ms. D company while she worked and to enjoy the area, including attending the casino. Mr. Jones testified that Ms. S told him she was working in the sex trade and at Michaels while also attending school.

[163] Mr. Jones testified that Ms. S had previously mentioned to him that she was bisexual. (Parenthetically, I note that Ms. G testified that part of the strain in her relationship with Ms. S emerged from Ms. S being romantically interested in her but Ms. G not sharing those feelings.) Mr. Jones testified that Ms. D was also bisexual.

[164] Mr. Jones testified that he invited Ms. S to join him and Ms. D in Niagara Falls to “chill.” He testified that he did so in the hope that he could engage in a “threesome” with Ms. S and Ms. D. Mr. Jones testified to telling Ms. S about what he was hoping for and invited Ms. S to join them, and she accepted.

[165] Mr. Jones testified that his cousin drove him to St. Catherines, and they picked up Ms. S in the evening at a McDonald’s or Tim Horton’s close to where she lived. He testified that when he saw her again, they had immediate chemistry, and he sat in the backseat with Ms. S on the drive to the Rainbow Inn.

[166] Mr. Jones testified that once back at the Rainbow Inn, his cousin left to go to the casino. Mr. Jones and Ms. S entered the room, and he introduced her to Ms. D.

[167] Mr. Jones testified that once they were in the hotel room, Ms. S was keen on the threesome they had planned, but Ms. D was not. Although Ms. D had been open to the idea, Mr. Jones testified that she seemed apprehensive about it once Ms. S arrived.

[168] As a result, he testified that they all smoked some marihuana and chatted. Ms. S and Ms. D showed each other their respective escort ads, and each posted some ads for that evening.

[169] Mr. Jones testified that as the night unfolded, Ms. D seemed to grow increasingly apprehensive and threatened by Ms. S’s presence. While Ms. D was out of the room, he testified that Ms. S questioned why Ms. D was so standoffish and wondered whether she was into what they had in mind.

[170] In time, Mr. Jones testified that Ms. D seemed to relax, and when he asked her whether she was still keen on the idea of the threesome, she agreed. With that, Mr. Jones described them all getting onto the bed together, the two women disrobing to their underwear and taking turns performing fellatio on him. He testified that, at a certain point, Ms. D became upset while that was happening, seemingly jealous of what Ms. S was doing to him, and said, “Fuck this shit, I don’t want anything to do with this anymore.” With that, she got up from the bed, put on her clothes and said, “Fuck this, I am going to the car.”

[171] Despite Ms. D’s departure from the room, Mr. Jones testified that he and Ms. S continued and that she invited him to have intercourse with her, which he did. Once intercourse was complete, Mr. Jones testified to going outside to check on Ms. D.

[172] According to Mr. Jones, Ms. D was upset and crying and wanted Ms. S to leave. She demanded that Mr. Jones tell Ms. S to leave immediately.

[173] Mr. Jones testified that he returned to the hotel room and told Ms. S she had to put on her clothes and go, which upset her. As he spoke with Ms. S, he testified that Ms. D re-entered the room to ensure he made Ms. S leave. Mr. Jones denied that she had marks and bruises on her face when she came back to the room. Mr. Jones testified that Ms. S was mad but that she nevertheless put on her clothes and left, as he requested.

[174] After that, Mr. Jones testified that he had not remained in touch with Ms. S.

The Toronto meeting

[175] Mr. Jones testified that after he broke up with Ms. D at the end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020, he messaged Ms. S on Facebook. He testified that Ms. S asked, “What happened with your bitch?” He told Ms. S he and Ms. D had broken up, and Ms. S said that was good because she did not like her. Mr. Jones testified that he gave Ms. S his number and encouraged her to call him.

[176] Mr. Jones testified to reaching out to Ms. S again because he was single by then, she was two years older, and he wondered whether they might be able to resume a sexual relationship. About ten minutes after he gave her his number, Ms. S called him. She told him she was using Ms. G’s phone because of an issue with her phone service. Mr. Jones testified that he and Ms. S chatted and agreed to meet in Toronto.

[177] According to Mr. Jones, he agreed to meet with Ms. S because he was interested in resuming a sexual relationship with her. Additionally, he explained his decision to meet her as stemming partly from her expressing an interest in working in Toronto; he did not explain why her desire to work in Toronto would have played a role in his decision to meet her.

[178] Mr. Jones testified that in June 2020, he met Ms. S near the Mirvish Theatre. She was driving, and Ms. G was in the front passenger seat. According to Mr. Jones, Ms. S told him she wanted to start working in Toronto, that she “would want him around” and that they would have “to figure something out.” He testified to cutting their meeting short after that because he received a phone call and needed to make a drug sale. Mr. Jones testified that Ms. S and Ms. G dropped him off at Sherbourne for that purpose. Before parting ways, he testified that he provided Ms. S with his phone number, and she had given him her “TextNow” number.

[179] Mr. Jones testified that he never communicated with Ms. S again after that.

A romantic relationship with Ms. G

[180] Mr. Jones testified that a day or two after the meeting in Toronto, he received a call from Ms. G. According to him, Ms. G told him that Ms. S was a liar, that she had a working phone number but did not want to provide it to him, and that she was planning to set him up to be robbed or beaten up.

[181] Mr. Jones testified that he thanked Ms. G for telling him what Ms. S was planning. They chatted, and he told her he wished she had been the one he had talked to in the first place (an apparent reference to the night they all met in Ziggy’s hotel room). Mr. Jones testified that based on their meeting in Toronto, he thought Ms. G was cute and decided to pursue a sexual relationship with her.

[182] Mr. Jones testified that he and Ms. G began communicating after that, and he left her with the impression that he had always liked her and should have pursued her from the outset. During his testimony, he acknowledged that was untrue and admitted that he was “being a bit of a player” in saying these things to Ms. G.

[183] Eventually, Mr. Jones testified that he visited Ms. G at her parent’s residence but could not remember the name of the city where they lived by then (I note, parenthetically, that it was Burlington.) He testified to seeing her at her parent’s home about once per week in July and August 2020, including when her parents were not home. Mr. Jones testified that they developed a sexual relationship during that period. He testified that when he started seeing Ms. G, he knew that she had recently overdosed on Xanax.

[184] Mr. Jones testified that because of their sexual relationship, Ms. G became pregnant and that he had mixed emotions about the pregnancy; on the one hand, he was scared, and on the other, overjoyed by the possibility of having a family. Mr. Jones testified that he never told Ms. G that she would need to cut ties with her family for them to be together. On the contrary, he testified that Ms. G said they would need to move away to be together because she did not think her parents would approve of her having a baby with him.

[185] It was because of that, he testified, that Ms. G held off on telling her parents about the pregnancy, and he started coming around to meet them. Her thinking, he explained, was that after they met him, she could then share the news with them that she was pregnant and that they wanted to be together as a family.

[186] Mr. Jones testified to meeting Ms. G’s parents at their home a couple of times. They told her mother his name was “Jonathan,” Mr. Jones’ middle name. According to Mr. Jones, they did that because they did not want her parents to connect him to information on the Internet about him that a Google search of his real name might reveal.

[187] During his first visit with her parents, Mr. Jones testified that her mother told him privately that Ms. G was struggling with an addiction to Xanax and Crystal Meth and that she was trying to get her to attend rehab. During that conversation, her mother asked him not to give Ms. G any drugs, and he assured her he would not. Mr. Jones testified to being taken aback by the news that Ms. G’s substance abuse issues included Crystal Meth.

[188] After he learned that Ms. G had been using Crystal Meth, Mr. Jones testified to speaking to her about it and expressing concern about the impact that could have on the baby. They discussed it, and she assured him she would go to rehab, which he supported. According to Mr. Jones, he told Ms. G that she must go to rehab if they were going to have the baby.

[189] Mr. Jones testified that on the last occasion when he visited Ms. G at her parent’s home, he became involved in a conflict with her father, who objected to them leaving the residence to go to a restaurant for dinner. As a result, Mr. Jones testified that he left, even though Ms. G wanted him to stay.

[190] Nevertheless, Mr. Jones testified that he continued speaking with Ms. G after that. However, his concerns about her drug use only worsened. He testified that during their calls, she seemed increasingly erratic, complained about her parents keeping them apart, said she was done “with all this,” that she just needed drugs, and asked him to supply her with Xanax and Crystal Meth.

[191] Mr. Jones testified that Ms. G’s repeated requests for drugs angered him. He testified to telling her she was being stupid and that she would have a deformed baby if she did drugs, and if that was the case, she should have an abortion. According to Mr. Jones, Ms. G told him she only wanted to have the baby if they were together.

[192] Mr. Jones testified that Ms. G would assure him she was not serious about wanting drugs, but because of her repeated requests, he did not believe her and told her as much. Eventually, he testified to telling Ms. G things would not work between them, that she should have an abortion, and that he was not going to talk to her anymore.

[193] After that, Mr. Jones testified that he changed his phone number in approximately September 2020. However, he was thinking about Ms. G by November or December and decided to call her from an unknown number. Mr. Jones testified to calling her and asking whether she had an abortion and her telling him she had. Beyond that, he testified that Ms. G was upset with him because he had changed his phone number, and he listened to her as she vented her anger at him.

[194] Not long afterward, Mr. Jones testified that he called Ms. G again, as he was feeling guilty about the baby and the abortion. He called her and asked if she was mad at him and apologized to her for not being there for her. Mr. Jones testified that Ms. G did not accept his apology, that she was “pissed,” and that the call ended badly.

[195] Mr. Jones testified that he never spoke to Ms. G or Ms. S again after that.

[196] Mr. Jones was arrested in February 2021 and charged with the various offences for which he stands accused in the indictment.

II. ANALYSIS

[197] If the respective accounts of Ms. G and Ms. S are true, Mr. Jones is guilty of all the charges relating to them and the remaining charge involving Ms. D. In contrast, if the account provided by Mr. Jones is true, he is not guilty of any of the charges. Accordingly, the outcome of this case depends on a careful assessment of the credibility of the key witnesses at this trial, Mr. Jones, Ms. G, and Ms. S.

Mr. Jones’ evidence

[198] According to Mr. Jones, he had nothing to do with either Ms. G or Ms. S working in the sex trade. Although he met them through his friend Ziggy, a pimp, whom he observed discussing the sex trade with them, Mr. Jones denied playing any role in trying to procure them into that insidious industry. Further, although he acknowledged having a sexual relationship with both young women at different points in time, Mr. Jones denied ever sexually assaulting either of them. Finally, although Mr. Jones admitted that Ms. D was a sex worker, that he was in a relationship with her, and he had accompanied her to Niagara Falls in September 2019, where she planned to work, he described himself as nothing more than a spectator to her involvement in the sex trade.

[199] Recognizing the importance of never shifting the burden of proof to an accused person, and since Mr. Jones’ evidence affords him a defence to all the charges he faces, I will follow the analytical framework suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W. (D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.

[200] Accordingly, if I believe Mr. Jones’ evidence, I must find him not guilty of all the charges. Further, even if I do not accept Mr. Jones’ evidence, I must consider whether it, along with all the other evidence or an absence of evidence, leaves me with a reasonable doubt concerning his guilt for any of the charges he faces. Finally, even if it does not, I must still consider the balance of the evidence to decide whether it establishes Mr. Jones’ guilt concerning each charge he faces beyond a reasonable doubt.

[201] After carefully considering Mr. Jones’ evidence, I cannot say that I believe him. There are several reasons why I find myself unable to accept Mr. Jones’ exculpatory account.

[202] First, Mr. Jones has a lengthy record for crimes of dishonesty and breaching court orders. He has a demonstrated track record of disrespecting the court and its process. As a result, there is good reason to question whether Mr. Jones’ obligation to tell the truth during his testimony before this court would have induced him to do so.

[203] Second, and closely related, is Mr. Jones’ longstanding involvement in the drug trade. When an accused adduces evidence of his bad character, such evidence is relevant when assessing the credibility of his evidence. That said, the trier-of-fact must guard against using such evidence to engage in impermissible propensity reasoning: see R. v. G. (S.G.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 716, per Cory J. at paras. 62-73; R. v. Drakes (1998), 122 C.C.C. (3d) 498 (B.C.C.A.), at paras. 18-23.

[204] Mr. Jones readily admitted to selling dangerous narcotics without any compunction. He is someone who has long done whatever he thought necessary to survive and has made choices that call his integrity into question. As such, Mr. Jones is not someone for whom the obligation to testify truthfully would likely have much effect.

[205] Third, there was at least one material inconsistency in Mr. Jones’ evidence involving his account regarding how Ms. S came to perform oral sex on him the night he testified they first met. He initially testified that he asked Ms. S to perform oral sex, then, later, without realizing the apparent contradiction, testified that she asked him if she could.

[206] Finally, Mr. Jones’ description of why he agreed to meet Ms. S in Toronto and what they discussed during that meeting is more consistent with her previously working with him in the sex trade. Otherwise, why would Ms. S wanting to work in Toronto influence his decision to meet with her, and why would she refer to wanting “him around” and them “having to figure something out” if she did, as Mr. Jones testified?

[207] For all these reasons, I have concluded that Mr. Jones is not a credible witness and that I cannot accept his evidence.

[208] Nevertheless, the required analysis does not end with my disbelief of Mr. Jones’ evidence. I must still go on to consider his testimony, along with all the other evidence or an absence of evidence, to decide whether I am left with reasonable doubt concerning his guilt for any of the charges he faces.

Ms. G’s and Ms. S’s evidence

[209] Ms. G and Ms. S each effectively testified that Mr. Jones procured them into the sex trade when they were only 16, advertised their sexual services, trafficked them to exploit them in the sex trade, and derived a financial benefit from procuring and trafficking them. Additionally, Ms. G testified that Mr. Jones sexually assaulted her on two occasions. Finally, Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones repeatedly sexually assaulted her during the six-month period she worked for him and sexually assaulted her again a few years later in Niagara Falls.

[210] For the court to find Mr. Jones guilty of the offences charged, it must accept these core elements of Ms. G’s and Ms. S’s accounts of their respective experiences involving Mr. Jones. However, like with Mr. Jones’ evidence, there are significant credibility concerns with Ms. G's and Ms. S's evidence. Given that some of these stem from material inconsistencies between their accounts of the same events, it is sensible to explain these various concerns together in this part.

[211] First, there are material omissions between Ms. G’s police statement and her testimony at trial. That included, for example, Ms. G’s evidence concerning how she initially met Mr. Jones and Ziggy at Square One Mall and what she told police about that meeting. In her police statement, Ms. G did not mention Ziggy being present at that meeting, even though, of the two men, he was the one who mainly did the talking. That omission is more curious when combined with Ms. G’s difficulty explaining how Mr. Jones even came into the picture, given that Ziggy is who she spoke to at the mall, exchanged numbers and texted with and who first raised the prospect of working in the sex trade with her.

[212] Second, Ms. G described her first in-person meeting with Mr. Jones, where they discussed the sex trade, as occurring at Square One Mall. Ms. G testified that she met Mr. Jones at the mall alone. The two of them walked around the mall together and discussed the sex trade before making their way to the library, where Mr. Jones sexually assaulted her in a stairwell. Within a half-hour of those events, Ms. G testified that they parted ways. She testified that the first time she and Mr. Jones were at a hotel together was several weeks after that “initiation” meeting at Square One, where Ms. S was also briefly present.

[213] In contrast, Ms. S testified that she and Ms. G met with Mr. Jones and a second man, at the Square One Mall. All four of them, together, then walked around the mall and discussed the sex trade before eventually making their way to the Studio 6 hotel, where they remained together for some time.

[214] To be sure, witnesses may sometimes remember events in the distant past differently. However, whether one’s introduction to the sex trade involved you and just one other person or you and three other people, including your best friend from high school, does not seem like a minor detail that one is likely to forget even after several years. This significant discrepancy between Ms. G’s and Ms. S’s evidence is difficult to explain.

[215] Third, there are material inconsistencies between how Ms. G described the events in the library stairwell and what she reportedly told Ms. S and her mother. During her testimony, Ms. G described that sexual assault as involving vaginal intercourse and denied that there was any oral sex. In contrast, Ms. S testified that Ms. G told her that Mr. Jones forced her to perform oral sex in the stairwell at Square One Mall as part of her “initiation.” Ms. G’s mother testified that her daughter told her that “three black guys” who she met at Square One Mall, who had complimented her on her nails, had raped her.

[216] Although a witness’ memory of a traumatic event can undoubtedly shift over time, the significant changes in Ms. G’s account concerning the nature of that initial sexual assault and the number of assailants seem incapable of explanation by the malleability of memory alone.

[217] Fourth, there is a material internal inconsistency in Ms. G’s evidence concerning how frequently she worked for Mr. Jones. Ms. G initially testified that she only worked for him on the weekends because her parents were “super-protective,” and it was hard for her to leave the house. In contrast, when questioned during cross-examination concerning what she told the police about how frequently she worked for him, Ms. G changed her evidence. She testified that she also worked for Mr. Jones three nights during the week between Monday and Thursday. That is hard to reconcile with her parents being “super-protective.”

[218] Fifth, there is a material internal inconsistency in Ms. S’s account of how Mr. Jones sexually assaulted her during her “initiation” the first night she worked at the hotel for him. During her direct evidence, she testified that Mr. Jones forced her onto her knees and demanded oral sex. In contrast, during cross-examination, she described being in the bathroom of the hotel room where Mr. Jones forced her to sit on the edge of the tub and provide him with oral sex in that position. Although Ms. S testified to being sexually assaulted on countless occasions by Mr. Jones, it is fair to think that the circumstances of the first incident would be especially memorable.

[219] Sixth, there are material inconsistencies between how Ms. S described her sexual interactions with Mr. Jones, which she testified took place virtually every time she worked for him and always being non-consensual, and how Ms. S characterized the sexual activity she engaged in with Mr. Jones when speaking to Ms. G.

[220] According to Ms. G, Ms. S was infatuated with Mr. Jones. To her, it appeared that they had consensual sex at Topshelf’s house. Notably, Ms. S did not mention that get-together during her direct evidence. However, she acknowledged it during cross-examination while further maintaining that the sex on that occasion was also not consensual. Ms. G testified that Ms. S told her she was into Mr. Jones “sexually,” wanted to be in a relationship with him and described her sexual relationship with him as consensual. Ms. S denied making these prior inconsistent statements and suggested that Ms. G was “deluded” if claiming she had. Either way, this does not instill confidence in Ms. S's or Ms. G’s credibility.

[221] Seventh, Ms. S's explanation for why she travelled to meet Mr. Jones in Niagara Falls in September 2019 and how events unfolded there seems implausible. If she only met with him to collect the money he owed her, why did she need to accompany him back to Niagara Falls? Further, although Ms. S claimed she remained at the hotel with him and Ms. D the entire night because she had difficulty arranging for a car to return her to St. Catherines, given the short distance between those two cities and how regularly people travel between them, that explanation seems less than credible.

[222] Eighth, Ms. G testified that she and Ms. S worked together and provided sexual services to clients as a “duo” between three and ten times. In stark contrast, Ms. S testified that she and Ms. G never worked together. Further, while working for Mr. Jones, Ms. S testified that she understood that Ms. G had “flaked” and decided not to work for him. This inconsistency in their accounts is no small matter. It is highly unlikely that one would remember engaging in sexual activity for money with strangers and your best friend, if it did not happen. Similarly, if that did occur, one would be unlikely to forget it.

[223] Ninth, there are some similarities in how Ms. G and Ms. S described their work in the sex trade for Mr. Jones, for example, it always taking place at the Studio 6 hotel in Mississauga, him handling clients’ texts and them answering clients’ calls, Mr. Jones keeping all the money but covering the expenses and him providing necessary supplies and marihuana. However, there were also material differences in how they described Mr. Jones’ modus operandi.

[224] According to Ms. G, Mr. Jones advertised her services on LeoList, had her charge clients $250 each, told her to collect the money from clients and count it before putting it in a drawer, and always left the hotel room when she saw clients, testifying that there was no space underneath the beds for him to hide in that location when she saw clients.

[225] In contrast, Ms. S testified that Mr. Jones advertised her sexual services on Backpage, had her charge clients $300 for a half hour and $500 for an hour, insisted that she not touch the money and have the clients place it on the table, and usually remained in the room hiding beneath the bed when she saw clients.

[226] On their evidence, Ms. S’s time working with Mr. Jones would have roughly corresponded with the first six months of Ms. G’s experience. Given this, it seems strange that there would be so many significant differences in their respective experiences working for Mr. Jones. In that regard, it is hard to imagine that he would advertise their sexual services on different websites, insist that one count the money received from clients while telling the other never to touch it, remain in the room underneath the bed with one and never the other.

[227] Finally, there is the fact that both Ms. G and Ms. S had potential motives to implicate Mr. Jones falsely.

[228] Ms. G never told the police that she became pregnant because of her sexual relationship with Mr. Jones in the summer of 2020. On the contrary, she told the police that she got checked and, thankfully, was not pregnant. The pregnancy, Ms. G not being entirely forthright about it with the police, and Mr. Jones saying she should have an abortion because of her substance abuse issues only emerged during Ms. G’s cross-examination.

[229] Ms. G testified that all this “hurt her badly,” and she terminated the pregnancy because of it. That upset could have supplied Ms. G with a motive to implicate Mr. Jones falsely. Although Ms. G’s delay in reporting is not, standing on its own, especially probative of her credibility: see R. v. D.D., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275, at para. 65. It is undoubtedly noteworthy that Ms. G only reported her allegations shortly after the upsetting events involving her pregnancy and Mr. Jones’ call to confirm she had an abortion.

[230] Similarly, Ms. S had a potential motive to implicate Mr. Jones falsely. According to Ms. G, Ms. S was infatuated with Mr. Jones and wanted to be in a relationship with him. However, as Mr. Jones acknowledged, he strung her along for years, used her for sex, and ultimately discarded her each time. If Mr. Jones threw Ms. S out of the motel room in Niagara Falls, as he claimed, that might understandably have angered her. Ms. G testified that Ms. S’s reason for arranging the meeting with Mr. Jones in Toronto, which occurred after the events in Niagara Falls, was to “rip him off.” All of this suggests a potential motive on the part of Ms. S to claim falsely that Mr. Jones procured her into the sex trade, exploited her in it, and sexually assaulted her.

The hotel records

[231] It is also difficult to reconcile the accounts provided by Mr. Jones, Ms. G and Ms. S with the records from the Studio 6 hotel in Mississauga. These records became an exhibit at trial, forming part of an Agreed Statement of Fact filed by the parties.

[232] The records establish that Mr. Jones rented rooms at the hotel on 14 separate occasions between January 28, 2015, and July 10, 2017. On a few nights he rented two rooms for the same evening, May 6, 2017, July 7, 2017, and July 8, 2017.

[233] Mr. Jones testified to renting rooms at the hotel sometimes to sell drugs and to have fun with friends (to drink and smoke marihuana). That hardly explains why he would rent two rooms for the same night on three occasions. Based on his description of his precarious finances, he scarcely had the means to pay for hotel rooms used by his friends. That, too, casts further doubt on the veracity of his evidence.

[234] Similarly, the accounts provided by Ms. G and Ms. S are impossible to reconcile with the hotel records. Ms. G testified to working for Mr. Jones beginning in the late fall of 2015 and continuing until June 2017. She described doing so several days every week during that timeframe. According to Ms. S, she worked for Mr. Jones, with some frequency, between September 2015 and February 2016. Each testified to only ever working for Mr. Jones at the Studio 6 hotel in Mississauga.

[235] The hotel records are inconsistent with Ms. G’s and Ms. S’s accounts. If they are telling the truth, there should be numerous room rentals in late 2015 and early 2016. Further, if Ms. G’s evidence is true, weekly room rentals should continue throughout 2016 and the first half of 2017.

[236] Instead, there is no record of Mr. Jones renting a room at the hotel between May 12, 2015, and May 19, 2016. Further, the room rentals are infrequent and sporadic from May 2016 until July 2017.

[237] Although it is possible, as Ms. Puls argued for the Crown, that Mr. Jones used rooms rented by someone else, for example, Ziggy, this seems highly speculative given that neither Ms. G nor Ms. S described ever seeing Ziggy again after what each described as their first night at the hotel.

[238] The hotel records call into question the veracity of the evidence of each of the key witnesses at this trial, Ms. G, Ms. S, and Mr. Jones.

Summary

[239] For all these reasons, I am less than confident that Ms. G and Ms. S were entirely forthright in their testimony. Although I think it is more likely than not that Mr. Jones played some role in their involvement in the sex trade, that conclusion is insufficient to justify guilty verdicts—the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard demands much more than that. I must be sure that Mr. Jones did the various things that Ms. G and Ms. S allege to find him guilty of the charges.

[240] On the whole of the evidence, including the testimony of Mr. Jones, Ms. G, Ms. S, and the hotel records, given the various concerns outlined above, ultimately, I am unsure who to believe in this case. In short, I have a reasonable doubt concerning Mr. Jones’ guilt for each charge he faces in the indictment. Mr. Jones is entitled to the benefit of that doubt.

CONCLUSION

[241] For all these reasons, the court finds Mr. Jones not guilty of counts 1 through 15 in the indictment.

Signed: “J. Stribopoulos J.”

Released: January 10, 2024