Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 16178/23 DATE: 20240528

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

His Majesty the King – and – Steve Williams

Counsel: Tammy Holland, for the Crown Howard Cohen, for the Defendant

HEARD: April 22, 23, 26, 2024

WOODLEY, J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OVERVIEW

[1] Steve Williams (“Mr. Williams”) is charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of procuring which offences are alleged to have been committed against his stepdaughter’s friend, KC (“the complainant or KC”), when KC was between 16 and 17 years of age.

[2] The specific charges against Mr. Williams are as follows:

1. Count 1: that between the 1st day of September in the year 2018 and the 1st day of September in the year 2020, at the City of Pickering, in the Province of Ontario, did commit a sexual assault on KC, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada;
2. Count 2: that between the 1st day of September in the year 2018 and the 1st day of September in the year 2020, in City of Pickering, in the Province of Ontario, did procure a person under the age of 18 years, namely KC to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, contrary to Section 286.3 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[3] With respect to Count 1, sexual assault, KC alleged that Mr. Williams touched the top of her vagina with his finger which occurred while she was a guest at Mr. Williams’ home, on the main floor living room couch, while Mr. Williams’ family were asleep in their bedrooms. Mr. Williams testified and denied that he ever touched KC’s vagina or sexually assaulted her in any manner.

[4] With respect to Count 2, procuring, this charge relates to a series of text messages sent by Mr. Williams to KC requesting that KC provide sexual services to Mr. Williams and and/or a “friend” in exchange for money. The text messages were sent by Mr. Williams to KC throughout the period January 2020 to April 2020. Mr. Williams testified that no money was ever provided to KC and professed that the texts were the result of an elaborate “prank” and not intended to illicit sexual services from KC.

Background

[5] KC was born in September of 2002. KC was 16 to 17 years old at the date of the alleged offences and 21 years old at the date of trial. KC excelled in school and lived with her parents in a strict but loving home. At the time of trial KC was attending university and working part-time.

[6] Mr. Williams was born in May of 1977. Mr. Williams was 41 to 42 years old at the date of the alleged offences and 46 years old at the date of trial. Mr. Williams is married, has a stepdaughter whom I will refer to as “Julie” who is the same age as KC, and has two natural daughters who are now teenagers. Mr. Williams immigrated from Jamaica to Canada in 2000 and has worked as a chef at the airport for the past 15 years.

[7] KC met “Julie” (Mr. Williams’ stepdaughter) when they were in grade 9. KC and Julie became friends and by the time they were 15 years of age, KC and Julie began spending weekends sleeping over at each other’s homes.

[8] When KC and Julie turned 16 years of age, they each obtained their G1 driver’s license and Mr. Williams provided driving lessons for KC and Julie.

[9] For the most part, Mr. Williams took KC and Julie driving together, but on at least one occasion, he took KC out driving alone.

[10] KC and Mr. Williams both testified that they (KC and Mr. Williams) got along well together and shared cultural familiarity, through Mr. Williams’ and KC’s father’s Jamaican heritage.

[11] KC and Mr. Williams testified that when KC visited, KC would assist Mr. Williams with cooking and cleanup of the kitchen and when she slept overnight, she would sleep on the couch on the main floor in the living room.

Facts Relating to the Allegation of Sexual Assault

[12] KC testified that on one occasion when she was in grade 11 and was staying overnight at Mr. Williams’ home he came downstairs to the couch where she was sleeping, sat down on the couch, and asked if he could see her vagina. KC testified that Mr. Williams asked repeatedly and pleaded using his nickname for her (which was her last name) saying “C please just one peek”. KC testified that initially she refused Mr. Williams’ request and advised that there were people upstairs and she didn’t want to do it. KC testified that she also told Mr. Williams that she was on her period to dissuade him as she thought he would think this was “gross”.

[13] KC testified that Mr. Williams continued to plead to see her vagina. KC testified that Mr. Williams said, “Please let me have a look, I want to see how it is shaped”. KC testified that she felt “boxed in” and after a bit she let Mr. Williams see “the top” of her vagina.

[14] KC testified that Mr. Williams pulled down the blanket and her shorts/pants and her underwear and saw the “top of her vagina”. KC testified that Mr. Williams was looking at her vagina and saying she had a “good, shaped vagina” which she interpreted to mean that she had a good vagina “for sex”.

[15] KC testified that she said, “This is not appropriate, your children are upstairs and so is Julie”, and so KC pulled her pants back up and told Mr. Williams that he needed to go back upstairs. KC stated that she was feeling uncomfortable and uneasy.

[16] During cross-examination KC testified that Mr. Williams briefly touched the “top” part of her vagina. This is the first occasion that KC alleged that Mr. Williams touched any part of her vagina with his bare hand. KC testified that Mr. Williams also requested to put his finger inside her vagina, but she did not allow this to happen.

[17] Mr. Williams denied that he ever has touched KC in a sexual manner and specifically denied that he pulled down KC’s pajama bottoms or touched KC’s vagina. Mr. Williams testified that on one occasion when KC was sleeping at his home that he came downstairs around 1:30 am to leave for his work and heard a strange “moaning” sound coming from the couch. Mr. Williams stated that he noticed that KC was sitting on the couch with her pants down, a blanket behind her head, and was “playing with herself”. Mr. Williams testified that he asked KC “What are you doing? Go back to sleep”. Mr. Williams stated that he immediately left for work and did not mention the incident to anyone as KC “trusted” him and he didn’t want to embarrass her.

Facts Relating to the Procuring Allegation

[18] Sometime after KC turned 16 years of age, KC and Mr. Williams exchanged phone numbers and began to text one another privately, without the knowledge of Julie, Mr. Williams’ spouse, or KC’s parents.

[19] KC had Mr. Williams registered in her phone as “Steven” and Mr. Williams had KC registered in his phone as “Gangster”.

[20] Mr. Williams testified that he registered KC in his phone as “Gangster” not to hide her identity from his wife but simply as a nickname.

[21] By January of 2020, when KC was in grade 12, Mr. Williams and KC texted each other regularly. Sometimes the text messages were innocuous, but over time the text messages sent by Mr. Williams to KC became highly sexual in nature.

[22] On January 24, 2020, at 3:16 pm Mr. Williams texted KC that he had “rum” for her and asked if she wanted him to drop it off to her. KC asked whether “Julie” was coming over and Mr. Williams replied that she was not coming. After a few exchanges Mr. Williams agreed that he would “leave it at the house until” KC was “ready for it”. At 6:26 pm Mr. Williams texted that he had “2” bottles and KC texted “one is fine”. Mr. Williams replied “ok so I’ll have the one and the rum. Should I keep the bottles in my car for you or what should I do”. KC texted “Sure keep it in the car and ok”. Mr. Williams then wrote “I know that you guys will have a good time at your place”.

[23] During cross-examination Mr. Williams swore that he did not drink alcohol and denied that he ever purchased alcohol for KC. Mr. Williams insisted that the “rum” was a gift for KC’s father and the “2” bottles referenced homemade wine that his spouse made that he was always giving away as he does not drink alcohol.

[24] On February 15, 2020, Mr. Williams texted KC that he “Just got your friend a car” and then went on to offer by text “if you want my friend a next (sic) one I can give him some money to keep one for you up to you”. Mr. Williams texted “I’ll put half off it”. KC stated that she would “need to see it”. Mr. Williams texted “When you have time, I’ll bring you to see it. Anytime and I put some money down”. KC refused the offer and noted “Maybe when things get a little better”. Mr. Williams enquired “What happened” and KC responded “No, I’ve just been dealing with a lot rn”. Mr. Williams offered to assist “Let me help you” to which KC responded, “I’m good even though I’m not”. Mr. Williams continued “No let me help you. So, what happened to you then. Life is too short you only got one life to live so live it and don’t stress”.

[25] On February 20, 2020, KC texted that she might go to Jamaica in March if she is well enough to fly. Mr. Williams responded by enquiring whether she had a boyfriend in Jamaica. KC denied having a boyfriend and the text messages returned to KC’s health. Mr. Williams sent several supportive messages asking what happened and advising “I’m here if you need me”.

[26] On April 3, 2020, Mr. Williams asked KC “Do you still want the car are (or) no”. KC responded, “Which one” and Mr. Williams stated “He got a lot. Just let me know so I can give him some money on it. He got one for $3,000. You would have to pick one so I can give him”. KC stated, “I would have to see them, but rn I’m not even tryna get one”. Mr. Williams responded, “Alright cool”.

[27] It is at this point, in April of 2020, that Mr. Williams began sending text messages enquiring whether KC would like to “chill” with a friend of his.

[28] On April 3, 2020, Mr. Williams texted KC “My friend was asking about you if you still wanna chill”. KC responded “Mb, ummm ok”. “Did he hear about quarantine”. Mr. Williams responded “Ya, I toll him. He don’t leave his house. But I tell him”. KC texted “Ya, I’m not tryna leave my house”. Mr. Williams responded, “Ok, I toll him”. “Whenever you free you can”. KC responded “OK”. Mr. Williams continued “If you want, I can get the $ for you just so you know it for real. Let me know”. KC responded, “We’ll talk about after this whole virus is over”. Mr. Williams responded “Lol, let me know what you think”. KC texted “Idk what to think”. Mr. Williams texted “ooook”. KC responded “I’m not seeing him anytime soon. Like my dad doesn’t want me leaving house”.

[29] On April 10, 2020, Mr. Williams texted KC “Hey you busy today” and KC responded, “Yes, I’m coming to your house”. Mr. Williams replied “Ok, you staying the night”. KC, “I’m not sure”. Mr. Williams, “Let me know so we can do something tonight, if anything”. “It ok I was just thinking to go pick up some $ from him for you but it ok”. KC responded “Oh, I don’t even know. I have to see if I’m sleeping over”. Mr. Williams replied, “Ok. You should. It you chance to make some $ tonight”. KC responded, “I’ll think about it”. Mr. Williams responded “Ok, good. He just wanted to eat lol”. KC responded, “DKM” (don’t kill me). Mr. Williams responded, “It ok just let him eat take the $. I can go pick it up now for you so that way you know that you get if for sure. So, think about it let me go get it”. KC replied, “No, don’t go get it”. Mr. Williams replied “Ok”.

[30] During her testimony KC explained that the reference to Mr. Williams’ friend wanting to eat, referenced him wanted to have oral sex with KC.

[31] On April 11, 2020, at 12:53 am, Mr. Williams texted KC, “Message me later when they go to sleep”. KC responded “yaya”. Mr. Williams texted “We can go to basement k”. KC texted “Your down there now??” Mr. Williams responded “No you want to go now. Anytime you want to we can go. Are you want we can go for a drive witch ever you like basement are ( sic) drive”. KC responded, “Everyone is up rn”. Mr. Williams responded “Ok, so we will wait until “Julie” come up then k”. KC responded, “To do what exactly”. Mr. Williams texted “Eat lol”.

[32] During her testimony KC explained that the reference to “eat” by Mr. Williams meant that he wanted to have oral sex with KC.

[33] Following Mr. Williams text message “Eat lol”, KC responded, “And your children are down here eating”. Mr. Williams replied, “After they leave”. KC, “Mhhmmm”. Mr. Williams, “Is that ok”. KC, “Depending if I don’t sleep and if “Julie” decides to go upstairs”. Mr. Williams, “Ok I’m waiting on you. I’ll wake you up.”. KC replied “Ya, but if “Julie” is still down here we can’t bc she’s a light sleeper”. Mr. Williams responded “K”. KC replied “Ya”. Mr. Williams texted “Ok thank you. And I have something for you to”. KC replied, “Mhhmm and what do you have for me??” Mr. Williams texted “$”. KC, “From you or your friend”. Mr. Williams “Me”. KC, “Oh okok”. Mr. Williams then texted “Thank you. You gonna have to take your time with me tho. Lol. K”. KC texted, “Ummm, if it happens”. Mr. Williams texted “It will happen. I’ll wake you up. Ok”. KC texted “If I wake up, I’m deep sleeper”. Mr. Williams texted “Don’t worry I’ll make you wake up. And I went to the bank today just for you so you have to wake up. Lol ok”. KC texted, “We’ll see”. Mr. Williams responded “Thank you boss. I’m sitting ip ( sic) here just waiting until “Julie” come up”. KC texted “she said she is sleeping downstairs with MKK”. Mr. Williams “So you sleeping upstairs” KC texted “No, I’m sleeping downstairs too”. Mr. Williams texted “Omg really o wow”. KC texted “Julie wants me to keep her company”. Mr. Williams texted, “I don’t think she will sleep downstairs. Trust me. Alright kool no worries”. KC, “Just have to wait and see”. Mr. Williams, “Kool”. KC, “Ya”. Mr. Williams, “Alright I’m up so just let me now cause we can just do a quick. Case ( sic) I went on get $ for you. We can do just a quick thing k”. KC replied, “Just have to wait and see”. Mr. Williams responded, “But I trust you I know you will make it happen. I believe in you”. KC, “Mhhhm”. Mr. Williams, “I’m in the basement when you wake up come”.

[34] During her testimony, KC testified that she was engaged in avoidance tactics with Mr. Williams at this point. Mr. Williams was her best friend’s stepfather, and she (KC) spent a lot of time at his home. KC testified that she never intended to have sexual relations with Mr. Williams or with his “friend”, ever. KC was simply putting Mr. Williams’ off to avoid conflict.

[35] On April 11, 2020 at 2:44 pm, Mr. Williams texted KC, “You ok”. KC replied “Ya”. Mr. Williams, “Ok good”. KC responded “Ya, your good”. Mr. Williams then texted KC, “Ya so far but if we could go for a drive would be fun lol”.

[36] On April 12, 2020 at 1:51 am, Mr. Williams texted KC, “Yow, You good”. At 3:44 pm KC responded, “Ya, you??”. At 4:55 pm Mr. Williams responded, “Ya”. KC, “ok”. Mr. Williams, “Kool”.

[37] On April 15, 2020, Mr. Williams texted, “Question”. KC, “Ya”. Mr. Williams, “Did you ever shear ( sic) what you and I talk about to anyone just asking”. KC, “No, y??”. Mr. Williams, “Hmhm nothing”. KC, “Ok”. Mr. Williams, “And I toll you that I have something for you from last week”. KC, “Ya”. Mr. Williams, “Can you come outside today for a little bit. If you busy it ok.” KC, “I can’t, I’m helping my grandma with something today”.

[38] KC testified that her text that she was helping her grandmother was a lie. KC testified that she was merely putting Mr. Williams off and had been doing that the entire time that Mr. Williams had been sending her sexually charged texts. KC stated that she had no intention of engaging in any sexual activity with either Mr Williams or any friend of his.

[39] During his testimony Mr. Williams insisted that all the sexually charged texts relating to KC providing sex or sexual services for money were an elaborate “prank” like a television show he claimed that everyone watched at the time called “Pranked”. Mr. Williams testified that there was no friend, and further that he “has no friends” other than his “pastor” and his “minister’s wife”. Mr. Williams also claimed that there was “no money and no cash” and that he couldn’t get cash if he wanted to as he could “barely keep groceries in his fridge to feed his family”.

[40] On April 17, 2020, Mr. Williams sent KC a text that read, “Sup when are you free”. KC replied, “Idk”.

[41] On April 18, 2020, Mr. Williams sent KC a text, “Hi”.

[42] On April 21, 2020, Mr. Williams sent KC a text, “Hi sup. You busy. Have something to tell you”. KC replied, “What’s up??”. Mr. Williams, “Sup with you”. KC, “Nothing much, just been busy”. Mr. Williams, “Ok”. KC, “Ya, you have to tell me something??” Mr. Williams then proceeded to advise KC that his stepdaughter Julie was on facetime with a mutual male friend of KC’s and the male was naked. KC was non-plussed noting that “He doesn’t care bout that stuff” and “Julie seen naked before”. Mr. Williams then continued “O well you know I have to let you know case ( sic) you are my right hand. I toll you I will always look out for you”. KC texts, “Ik and I appreciate it”. Mr. Williams then texts, “And ooo my friend give me $400 to give you too. You welcome”. KC responded, “And what, y?? I didn’t ask”. Mr. Williams texted, “I know he give me it to give you he really want you to Come. Lol. Should I give it back to him”. KC replied, “Ik but I haven’t even met him. He shouldn’t just give out money. Yes, give it back, keep it. Idk, but until I meet him I don’t want anything from him”.

[43] Mr. Williams responds, “I tell you to just go meet him. I’ll go with you if you want”. KC, “Sure, but not yet”. Mr. Williams, “You the man have nothing to do yow. Are you should send one off you friend them let him think it you. And you guys split what eve she makes”. KC, “I don’t have friends”. Mr. Williams, “Ok”. KC, “Ya”. Mr. Williams, “Well I guess he just have to wait on you” KC, “Mhhm”.

[44] Mr. Williams, “What about the picture you said you would. Yes.?”. KC replied, “The next time I’m come over I’ll send it to you”. Mr. Williams, “Send it now lol”. KC, “My bad, I was driving, but idk. I have to think about all this still”. Mr. Williams, “Ok. What so hard about that. It ok if you don’t trust me don’t bother”.

[45] KC replied, “It’s not that I just have to meet him first to get sense of everything. To me he just a ghost right now”. Mr. Williams, “I understand you. But put it this way it me. Put it like it me you dealing with. I got you a %110. You know that”.

[46] KC replied, “Ik, but its easy to say he’s like you. You know him I don’t. I can trust you because I know you. Once I meet it will be easier.”

[47] Mr. Williams replied, “That what I’m saying everything is true me. That y I ask I tell you just go with the flow. Go with make some money stop being shy. I understand you kinda shye. Just let the man have a fees that a I can stand right there with you if you want I got your back. If you see him and you don’t feel like you don’t want to then that fine we leave same time. Yes.”

[48] KC responded, “Of course I’m shy I never did this before. And I agreed meet him so that’s a step forward”.

[49] Mr. Williams texted, “I understand But I got you”.

[50] KC replied, “Ok so I meet first and then we can go from there…Just meet ok”. Mr. Williams responded “If you see him and you don’t feel like you don’t want to then that fine we leave same time. Yes”. KC replied, “Yes ok”.

[51] Mr. Williams, “Lok when today”. KC replied, “Not today. Maybe next weekend, I’ll sleep over”. Mr. Williams, “When”. KC, “Next weekend”. Mr. Williams, “OK”. KC, “Just make sure Julie isn’t busy, bc if she is then there would be no reason to sleep over”.

[52] Mr. Williams, “But you can still send me the picture now I’ll show it to him on my phone I won’t send it to him. K. Ok. I’ll try to keep her in the house”. KC responds, “What kind of picture”. Mr. Williams responds, “N. Just get him going crazy lol”. KC responded, “No not a N, maybe a semi-N”.

[53] Mr. Williams, “Come on. Don’t be shy”. KC, “I’m not, can’t show him everything. Have to tease a little. You don’t know how this works (with emojis)”. Mr. Williams, “Yes (emojis).

[54] There is an extended conversation between Mr. Williams and KC regarding the platform on which KC is to send the photo. Mr. Williams provides his WhatsApp number to receive the photo and after some delay KC delivered the requested photo (which was in fact a video) to Mr. Williams’ WhatsApp phone number.

[55] Mr. Williams texts, “Ok would you causing MK go do it”. KC replies, “Once I meet it will be easier. She (MK) wouldn’t do something like this”. Mr. Williams, “So just make ip (sic) you mind and do it. I understand you kinda shye (sic). But just trust me it all on me. Just let the man have a fees that a I can stand right there with you if you want I got your back. Hello like it me I got you”.

[56] KC, “Of course I’m shy I never did this before. And I agreed meet him so that’s a step forward”. Mr. Williams, “I understand but I got you”. KC, “Ok, so I meet first and then we can go from there”.

[57] Mr. Williams, “I just want you to start making that shitt. You know”. KC, “Ik”. Mr. Williams “Yes. That fine”. KC, “Just meet, ok”.

[58] KC testified that when Mr. Williams’ began enquiring about her cousin, MK, and whether MK would have sexual relations for money, she (KC) became concerned with the nature of the texts sent to her by Mr. Williams. KC testified that after Mr. Williams’ referenced MK providing sexual services for money, she (KC) began sharing Mr. Williams’ sexually charged text messages with Julie who would sometimes assist with the responses to Mr. Williams’ texts.

[59] By my review of the text messages, the first suggestion by Mr. Williams that MK be persuaded to provide sexual services for money arose on April 21, 2020. It is of course possible that there were earlier deleted text messages that referenced MK. However, based on the available evidence, it clear that on April 21, 2020, Mr. Williams’ enquired as to whether KC’s cousin, MK, would provide sexual services for money. KC testified that Mr. Williams’ reference to MK caused her protective instincts to engage which is why she began showing the text messages to Mr. Williams’ stepdaughter Julie.

[60] Whether KC began sharing text messages with Julie prior to April 21, 2020, is unclear. However, it is clear, that following disclosure to Julie, and on or about April 21, 2020, KC disclosed some of the sexualized text messages to Mr. Williams’ spouse.

[61] KC testified that on or about April 21, 2020, she (KC) and Julie, disclosed the allegations to Julie’s “aunt” who called Mr. Williams’ spouse who then spoke to KC. KC did not advise her parents at this time and did not intend to go to the police as Mr. Williams’ spouse advised that she would “deal with the situation”.

[62] On April 21, 2020, between 11:30 and 11:39 pm, Mr. Williams sent the following text messages, “Really. KC. What going on. Call the house phone. Ok I have the wat app message I never shower (show her).” At 11:39, Mr. Williams texts, “I try to touch you when waz that”. “Really”.

[63] On April 23, 2020, Mr. Williams sent the following text to KC, “C, I’m sorry I was just pranking you it went too far but I was just playing with you I wasn’t mean anything are any off it I’m sorry I went too far for give me I should have stop the game long time ago but I don’t so I’m sorry it my bad I didn’t mean it let us all done with this on over with”.

[64] Shortly following disclosure to Julie and her mother, KC and Julie began to see less of one another and their friendship came to an end.

[65] Approximately one year following, KC was with friends that were mutual friends of Julie and asked if Julie had mentioned her. The mutual friends advised that Julie told them that KC was pursuing Mr. Williams to “sleep with him”, and that KC is “bad news”. KC testified that she felt overwhelmed, began crying, and disclosed her version of the events to her friend.

[66] KC’s friend called her mother (the friend’s mother), and then they called Julie’s grandmother, Julie’s uncle, and Julie’s biological father, and “they” said to go to the police.

[67] KC testified that she ended up telling her mother at this time because someone would have told her father (KC’s father) and she didn’t want that to happen.

[68] On June 7, 2021, KC attended the police station and provided a statement. KC testified that she went to the police as she wanted people to “know the truth” and to “stop thinking what they were thinking and saying what they were saying”.

[69] KC testified that she was not pursuing Mr. Williams or his friend and that they were pursuing her.

[70] KC testified that on June 7, 2023, she alerted police to the exchange of text messages between herself and Mr. Williams and advised the police that although she had deleted the bulk of the messages from her phone, some of the messages were still on her Mac Book.

[71] In June of 2021 KC photographed the messages from her Mac Book and provided the messages to the police. KC also signed a consent to allow the police to gather her messages.

[72] Upon Mr. Williams’ arrest, his phones were seized and some of the text messages exchanged between Mr. Williams and KC that remained on his phone were recovered.

[73] The text messages that remained were entered as Exhibits: Exhibit 2 (messages retrieved from KC’s telephone and Mac Book); and Exhibit 3 (messages retrieved from Mr. Williams telephone(s)).

[74] To the extent that KC deleted any messages sent to Mr. Williams and such messages were kept by Mr. Williams on his device(s), such messages were presented to the Court.

[75] To the extent that Mr. Williams deleted any messages sent to KC and such messages were kept by KC on her device(s), such messages were presented to the Court.

[76] To the extent that KC and/or Mr. Williams deleted any messages that were not kept by the other and/or deleted any messages that were not sent or shared with the other, such messages were not recovered by the police and were not presented to the Court.

[77] The witnesses at trial were the complainant KC and the Defendant Steve Williams.

THE ISSUES

[78] There are two issues in this case:

1. Whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged act that forms the basis of the sexual assault charge occurred; and
2. Whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence of “procuring” was committed by Mr. Williams.

[79] The findings related to the charges depends in large part on the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s and the accused’s testimony. The principles in R. v. W. (D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 apply.

POSITIONS OF COUNSEL

[80] The Crown claims that KC’s testimony was both credible and reliable and is deserving of belief. The Crown claims based on the whole of the evidence presented that KC’s evidence is both internally and externally consistent and satisfies the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt such that Mr. Williams’s guilt of the offences charged has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[81] The Defence asserts that the onus lies solely upon the Crown to prove the guilt of Mr. Williams beyond a reasonable doubt on the entirety of the evidence admitted. The Defence asserts that based on the entirety of the evidence admitted, a reasonable doubt exists as to Mr. William’s guilt. Consequently, the Defence asserts that Mr. Williams must be acquitted of all charges.

THE LAW

Reasonable Doubt and Burden of Proof

[82] The burden is on the Crown to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused comes before the court with the presumption of innocence. In other words, he has a clean slate. The presumption is only discharged when, and if, the Crown proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[83] At all times the Crown bears the onus of proving the case. The accused does not have to prove anything. The Crown is required to prove the essential elements of the offence to the reasonable doubt standard. I must assess the evidence submitted on the whole and decide whether, on the basis of all of the evidence, or lack thereof, the Crown has proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320, 150 D.L.R. (4th) 733.

[84] KC testified that Mr. Williams sexually assaulted her on one occasion on the couch in the living room of the home when he pulled down her pajama bottoms and touched the top of her vagina.

[85] Mr. Williams testified that KC fabricated the event, that he never touched KC, and KC’s version should not be accepted.

[86] My task is not to choose amongst these two different versions to see which one I prefer. Rather, I must assess Mr. William’s evidence, in the context of all the evidence, and if I believe Mr. Williams, I must acquit. Even if I do not believe Mr. Williams, in the context of all the evidence, but his testimony leaves me with a reasonable doubt, I must acquit. Even if I am not left in doubt by Mr. William’s testimony, I must still consider, based on the evidence that I do accept, if I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of Jason’s guilt.

[87] If I cannot decide whether to believe the accused, or if I cannot decide who to believe, or I am unable to resolve conflicting evidence and am therefore left in a state of reasonable doubt, I must acquit.

Assessment of Evidence

[88] A criminal trial is not a credibility contest. At the end of the day, the Crown has the onus of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, 3 C.R. (4th) 302; R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 66, 67.

[89] As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Vuradin, 2013 SCC 38, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 639, at para. 21, “A verdict of guilt must not be based on a choice between the accused's evidence and the Crown's evidence”, citing R. v. C.L.Y., 2008 SCC 2, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 5, at paras. 6-8.

[90] In assessing the evidence led at trial, I must consider the credibility and reliability of the witnesses’ evidence. Credibility and reliability are not the same thing, as stated by Watt J.A. in R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, 241 C.C.C. (3d) 45, at para. 41:

Credibility and reliability are different. Credibility has to do with a witness's veracity, reliability with the accuracy of the witness's testimony. Accuracy engages consideration of the witness's ability to accurately: observe; recall; and recount events in issue. Any witness whose evidence on an issue is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on the same point. Credibility, on the other hand, is not a proxy for reliability, a credible witness may give unreliable evidence [citations omitted.]

Also see R. v. Ghadghoni, 2020 ONCA 24, at para. 34.

[91] In assessing a witness’s credibility and reliability, I must examine the consistency between what the witness said throughout his or her evidence, and what was said on other occasions, whether or not under oath: R. v. G.(M.), (1994), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 347, 73 O.A.C. 356 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 23, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1994] S.C.C.A. No. 390; R. v. A.M., 2014 ONCA 769, 123 O.R. (3d) 536.

[92] It is important to consider not just the individual inconsistency but also the cumulative effect of any inconsistencies that I find and the nature of the inconsistency. Not all inconsistencies are the same, some are minor, others are not, some concern material issues, others peripheral subjects. As stated by the Court of Appeal in R. v. R.C., 2021 ONCA 419 at para. 37:

Inconsistencies about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken can demonstrate a "carelessness about the truth" while inconsistencies about peripheral issues are of less significance: R. v. G. (M.) (1994), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 347 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 354; see also R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788, at paras. 30- 31.

[93] The evidence must be assessed based on the entirety of the evidence provided and not just the evidence of the complainant, whether by videotaped statement or viva voce evidence. The ultimate issue is always reasonable doubt.

Credibility: Delay in Disclosure

[94] It has long been recognized that there is no inviolable rule on how people who are the victims of trauma like a sexual assault will behave: R v. D. (D.), 2000 SCC 43, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275 at para. 65.

[95] Delayed or incremental disclosure, standing alone, cannot adversely affect the credibility of a complainant. There are no fixed rules about how victims of sexual assaults must behave, including the timing of making reports.

ANALYSIS: APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS

Credibility and Reliability of Mr. William’s Evidence

[96] As noted, Mr. Williams was born in May of 1977. Mr. Williams was 41 to 42 years old at the date of the alleged offences and 46 years old at the date of trial. Mr. Williams is married, has a stepdaughter referred to herein as “Julie” who is the same age as KC, and has two natural daughters who are now teenagers. Mr. Williams immigrated from Jamaica to Canada in 2000 and has consistently been employed as a chef at the airport for the past 15 years.

[97] Mr. Williams presented as highly emotional and tearful throughout his testimony. Mr. Williams infused his testimony with references to religion and at several points invited himself to be struck down if he was not telling the truth.

[98] Mr. Williams denied that he ever touched KC in a sexual manner. He testified that everything KC said about the night on the couch was “a lie”.

[99] Mr. Williams denied that he ever intended to give KC any money for sexual services for himself or for a friend. Mr. Williams repeatedly testified that the entire exchange of text messages seeking sexual services and/or seeking a photograph from KC were all part of an elaborate “prank”.

[100] Mr. Williams explained that he was watching a tv show at the time and it was funny. Mr. Williams said that everyone was watching it and wherever you were you were watching it. He testified that he never knew the rules in this country that you can’t make these jokes and thought that everyone would understand that it was a prank.

[101] In reference to the text sent to KC by him, “I have something for you $”, Mr. Williams testified that he never had money to give to KC, he “has no money, where would he get money when he can’t feed his kids properly, he has five people to feed”.

[102] Mr. Williams testified that he never gave KC any money. He never bought KC anything. He never took KC to a shopping mall or to a motel or hotel or to someone’s house. He never showed KC a photo of a friend and testified, “I didn’t have any friends”.

[103] Mr. Williams testified that at some point he shared the “pranking” text messages with his spouse and after “this all blew up” his spouse said, “I told you so”.

[104] Mr. Williams also testified that he never bought KC alcohol and “would never buy alcohol for KC and Julie” at the time as they were only 16 – 17 years old. When the text messages were put to Mr. Williams during cross-examination that seem to indicate that he gave KC “rum” and a bottle, Mr. Williams explained that the alcohol was a gift for KC’s father, not KC.

[105] Having considered the whole of Mr. Williams’ evidence in the context of KC’s evidence and the text messages entered as evidence, I do not find Mr. Williams to be a credible witness, nor do I find his evidence to be reliable. Mr. Williams’ testimony was self-serving, convoluted, and for the most part fantastical.

Credibility and Reliability of KC’s Evidence

[106] KC testified that the one alleged incident of sexual assault occurred when she was 16 years old. KC provided disclosure to Julie, Julie’s aunt, and Julie’s mother (Mr. Williams’ spouse) in or about April of 2020, when she was 17 years old.

[107] KC provided disclosure to her mother, Julie’s grandmother, Julie’s uncle, Julie’s biological father, and to the police in June of 2021, when she was 18 years old.

[108] KC provided testimony at trial when she was 21 years old.

[109] KC presented as well-spoken and articulate. She provided her testimony in a self- assured, measured, and calm manner.

[110] KC’s evidence was generally internally and externally consistent and the allegations relating to the procuring charge (excepting the issue of intent) were corroborated by the text messages exchanged between KC and Mr. Williams.

[111] There was one aspect of KC’s evidence relating to the sexual assault charge that was somewhat inconsistent, which was KC’s reference to Mr. Williams touching the “top” of her vagina with his bare hand, which was disclosed for the first-time during cross-examination at trial. KC’s explanation of the inconsistency was that when she told the police that Mr. Williams did not touch her vagina, she meant the inside of her vagina.

[112] Having considered all of KC’s evidence, together and separately, I have difficulty accepting KC’s explanation of this critical fact. I am also troubled with the timing of the disclosure, which only occurred during cross-examination.

[113] This hesitation aside, having considered the whole of the evidence, separately and together, I find KC overall to be a reasonably credible witness whose evidence was generally reliable.

Count 1: Sexual Assault Contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code

[114] Mr. Williams is charged with sexual assault.

[115] For Mr. Williams to be guilty of sexual assault, Crown counsel must prove each of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• that Mr. Williams intentionally applied force to KC;
• that the force that Mr. Williams applied took place in circumstances of a sexual nature;
• that KC did not consent to the force that Mr. Williams applied; and
• that Mr. Williams knew that KC did not consent to the force that he applied.

[116] The intentional application of force in the present case is the pulling down of KC’s pajama bottoms and/or the touching of the top of KC’s vagina by Mr. Williams with his bare hand.

[117] As noted earlier, KC and Mr. Williams each presented two entirely different scenarios relating to the allegation of sexual assault. My task is not to choose amongst these two different versions to see which one I prefer. Rather, I must assess Mr. William’s evidence, in the context of all the evidence, and if I believe Mr. Williams, I must acquit.

[118] Before commencing this line of analysis, I wish to be clear that I absolutely accept KC’s testimony that when she was 16 years old and staying overnight at Mr. Williams’ home, that Mr. Williams pleaded with KC to allow him to look at her vagina and after some time KC relented and allowed Mr. Williams to look at the “shape” of her vagina.

[119] Separate and apart from any issue of consent, before Mr. Williams can be convicted of sexual assault, the Crown must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. That Mr. Williams intentionally applied force to KC; and
2. That the force that Mr. Williams applied took place in circumstances of a sexual nature.

[120] Having considered Mr. Williams’ evidence related to the allegation of sexual assault in the context of all the evidence, I find that I do not believe Mr. Williams.

[121] As I do not believe Mr. Williams, I must consider whether in the context of all the evidence, his testimony leaves me with a reasonable doubt, and if so, I must acquit. Having considered Mr. Williams’ evidence in the context of all the evidence, I find that his evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt.

[122] Although I am not left in doubt by Mr. William’s testimony, I must still consider, on the basis of the evidence that I do accept, if I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr. Williams’ guilt.

[123] In the present case, having considered all the evidence, including all text messages, I find that I am unable to resolve the conflicting evidence as to whether Mr. Williams actually touched KC, and as such am left in a state of reasonable doubt as to whether Mr. Williams (intentionally) applied force to KC’s person.

[124] For this reason, I am therefore left in a state of reasonable doubt with respect to Count 1, sexual assault, and as such, I must acquit.

Count 2: Procuring

[125] Mr. Williams is charged with procuring. More specifically, the Crown alleges that Mr. Williams did procure a person under the age of 18 years, namely KC to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, contrary to Section 286.3 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which reads as follows:

Everyone who procures a person under the age of 18 years to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(2), recruits, holds, conceals or harbours a person under the age of 18 who offers of provides sexual services for consideration, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years. [1]

[126] The essential elements of this offence contain both an intent requirement (the mens rea) and a conduct requirement (the “actus reus”).

[127] The Crown is required to prove both elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt before Mr. Williams can be found guilty of this offence.

[128] The relevant questions relating to the mens rea and the actus reus are as follows:

1. Did Mr. Williams intend to procure KC to offer or provide sexual services for consideration? (mens rea); and
2. Did Mr. Williams procure KC to offer or provide sexual services for consideration? (actus reus).

The Law: Mens Rea for Procuring

[129] To prove mens rea for the offence of procuring under s. 286.3(2), the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams intended to procure KC to offer or provide sexual services for consideration.

[130] The term “procure” means “to cause, induce, or have a persuasive effect” upon the conduct that is alleged: see R. v. Gallone, 2019 ONCA 663 at para 61; R. v. Joseph, at para 67; R. v. Deutsch, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 2; R. v. Bennett, (2004) 184 C.C.C. (3d) 290 at para 53; R. v. Barrow, (2001) 54 O.R. (3D) 417 at para 37; R. v. Burton, [2013] O.J. No. 1748 at para 142; R. v. Griffiths, 2015 ONSC 6237, [2015] O.J. No. 5674 at para. 37.

[131] The focus of the mens rea analysis is on the accused’s state of mind, the accused’s purpose in engaging in the prohibited conduct. The focus is not the actual consequences of the accused’s conduct on the complainant: see R. v. Gallone at para 54; and R. v. A.A., 2015 ONCA 558, at paras 79, 82.

[132] In other words, for the mens rea component to be satisfied, it is not necessary that the complainant offer or provide sexual services for consideration. The central issue is whether Mr. Williams’ words and actions were intended to cause or induce or persuade KC to offer or provide sexual services for consideration: see R. v. Gallone at para 76.

[133] Where procuring arises from the facts, inferring that the accused’s purpose was to “procure” is usually a straightforward task: see R. v. Gallone, supra, at para 54 and R. v. A.A., at para 87.

Analysis: Mens Rea Required for Procuring

[134] I find that Mr. Williams’ behavior towards KC after she attained 16 years of age, although superficially kind and considerate, when viewed in context, was intentional, purposeful, and reflective of grooming behavior designed to cause, induce, or have a persuasive effect upon KC to offer or provide sexual services for consideration.

[135] As context is important, I provide the following summary of Mr. Williams’ text messages, that in my view cause the act of “procuring” to arise from the facts such that “inferring that the accused’s purpose” was to procure KC to offer or provide sexual services for consideration is a relatively straightforward task.

• In or around KC’s 16th birthday, Mr. Williams secretly provided his telephone number and commenced privately texting KC having registered KC’s name in his phone as “Gangster”.
• In or around KC’s 16th birthday, Mr. Williams’ provided driving lessons to KC and Julie. However, while Julie was often present, Mr. Williams’ text messages reveal that he sought to use driving lessons to be alone with KC.
• In January of 2020, when KC was 17 years old, Mr. Williams texted KC that he had “rum” and “2 bottles” for her stating “I know you guys will have a good time at your place”.
• In February of 2020, Mr. Williams suggested that he buy a car for KC from his “friend” and offered to put “half off it”.
• On April 3, 2020, Mr. Williams renewed his offer to purchase a car for KC and advised that he would put “some money on it”. That same day, Mr. Williams advised that his “friend” was asking “if you still wanna chill”. Mr. Williams offered “to get the money” from his friend to give to KC so she “would know it for real”.
• On April 10, 2020, Mr. Williams suggested that he was “just thinking to go pick up some money from him for you but it ok”. He followed with “it you chance to make some $ tonight”. Mr. Williams advised KC of the sexual act that his friend wished to engage in and urged that he could “go pick up (the money) now for you so that you know that you get it for sure…let me go get it”.
• On April 11, 2020, Mr. Williams texted KC seeking to personally engage in a sexual act with her and offered that they go “to the basement or for a drive”. He texted that he had money for KC – from him – as he went to the bank that day so (if she fell asleep) she had “to wake up”. He then texted KC that he wanted to do “a quick” because he “went on get $ for you. We can do just a quick thing. K.” “But I trust you I know you will make it happen. I believe in you.” Later Mr. Williams texted to see “if we could go for a drive would be fun lol”.
• On April 15, 2020, Mr. Williams texted he had “something” for KC from last week. KC claimed to be too busy to meet.
• On April 21, 2020, Mr. Williams texted that his “friend” gave him $400 for KC and KC texted “give it back”. Mr. Williams pressed urging KC to meet his “friend” and offered to go with her if she liked. KC agreed but “not yet”. Mr. Williams continued to press suggesting that KC send a friend and split the money. Mr. Williams reminded KC she said she would send a picture. “Send it now lol” he stated and assured KC that she could trust him “110%”. In response to Mr. Williams’ urging, KC sent a risqué video recording of herself to him.
• Mr. Williams urged KC to stop being shy and to “go make some money”. He asked if KC’s cousin MK would also “go”.
• Mr. Williams texted KC to let his friend “have a fees” (feast) – “I can stand right there with you…I got your back”. Mr. Williams texted to “trust” him…“Hello, like it me, I got you”. Mr. Williams texted “he just wanted KC to start making that shitt”.

[136] When Mr. Williams’ behavior is viewed in context, with full knowledge of the content of the text messages, and the nature of the relationship between the parties, Mr. Williams actions, are without a doubt reflective of predatorial grooming behavior.

[137] The focus of Mr. Williams’ text messages clearly seeks to obtain a commitment from KC that she will engage in sexual services with Mr. Williams and/or his “friend” for money.

[138] Mr. Williams, through his words and deeds, exhibited predatorial grooming behavior that at its core sought to cause, or induce, or have a persuasive effect upon KC to offer or provide of sexual services for consideration.

[139] As for Mr. Williams’ claim that his texts were part of an elaborate “prank”, I reject this claim and find that it was swiftly undone by Crown counsel when Mr. Williams was asked, but could not explain, the nature of the “prank” played by him on KC.

[140] I find on the facts that Mr. Williams purposefully pursued KC with the clear intent to cause, induce, or have a persuasive effect upon KC to offer or provide sexual services to him and/or his “friend” for consideration.

[141] With respect to the WD analysis relating to the mens rea aspect of the procuring charge, I find as follows:

1. Having considered Mr. Williams’ evidence relating to whether he intended to procure KC, in the context of all the evidence, I find that I do not believe Mr. Williams.
2. As I do not believe Mr. Williams, I must consider whether in the context of all the evidence, Mr. Williams’ evidence relating to whether he intended to procure KC, leaves me with a reasonable doubt, and if so, I must acquit. Having considered Mr. Williams’ evidence relating to whether he intended to procure KC, in the context of all the evidence, I find that his evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt.
3. Although I am not left in doubt by Mr. William’s testimony, I must still consider, based on the evidence that I do accept, if I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams intended to procure KC. Based on the evidence that I do accept, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams intended to procure KC to offer or to provide sexual services for consideration.

[142] As I have found that the Crown has proven the mens rea of the offence of procuring beyond a reasonable doubt, I must move on to consider whether the Crown has proven the actus reus of the offence of procuring.

The Law: Actus Reus Required for Procuring

[143] The actus reus of the offence under section 286.3(2) requires proof of conduct that amounts to either:

1. Procures a person under 18 years of age 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.

[144] The Court of Appeal in R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733, held that in s. 286.3(2) the term “procures” means to cause, or to induce, or to have a persuasive effect upon the conduct that is alleged. There are three distinct ways of procuring, (to cause, to induce, or to have a persuasive effect) and procuring is not confined to causing someone to do something, let alone causing them to do it through reasoning or argument.

[145] The Court of Appeal in R. v. Gallone held that the actus reus of the procuring offence can be established by proof of conduct satisfying either of the two modes noted above: (i) the first mode being “procures”; or (ii) the second mode being “recruits, holds, conceals, or harbours”.

[146] In the present case, the Crown alleges that Mr. Williams “procured” KC, a person under 18 years of age, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration. As such, we are concerned only with proof of conduct relating to the first mode “procures”.

[147] In the present case, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams procured KC (caused, induced, or had a persuasive effect), when she was under 18 years of age, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration.

Analysis: Actus Reus Required for Procuring

[148] Throughout her testimony, KC claimed that she never intended to offer or provide sexual services for consideration and was merely putting Mr. Williams off by using avoidance tactics. A review of the text messages produced to the court reveals that while KC offered to “meet” Mr. Williams’ friend, she never offered or provided sexual services. KC’s evidence on this point was consistent and was corroborated by the text messages filed with the court.

[149] The specific issue raised by the caselaw relevant to the actus reus component is whether the offence of procuring is completed in a situation such as the present where the complainant makes no offer and provides no sexual services.

[150] The Crown relied upon R. v. Gallone, at para 76, for the proposition that the offence of procuring does not require that the procured person be a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration.

[151] More specifically, the Crown submitted that the offence of s. 286.3(2) is made out even in situations where there is no offer and no provision of sexual services.

[152] While I agree that para 76 of Gallone states that “the first mode does not require that the procured person be a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration”, this statement cannot be read in isolation and must be read in context, and in light of the entire decision.

[153] Reviewing the statement in context, in light of the entire decision, I find that the example relied upon by the Court in Gallone at para 76, which the court notes as being “set out above” that supports the proposition that “the procured person does not need to be a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration”, specifically relates to the mens rea element of “procuring” and not to the actus reus: see paras 59 – 63 of Gallone.

[154] I agree that when considering the mens rea element of the procuring offence that there is no requirement that the procured person be a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration. This is because the focus of the mens rea review is on the accused’s state of mind – the accused’s intention – and not the actual consequences of the behaviour on the complainant.

[155] However, this same reasoning does not apply when we consider the actus reus of the offence.

[156] As per Gallone, at paras 59 - 61, the actus reus of the offence of procuring can be established by proof of conduct establishing that the accused “procures a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration”.

[157] Procures means “to cause, or to induce, or to have a persuasive effect upon the conduct that is alleged”.

[158] The “conduct that is alleged” is the procuring of a person under 18 years of age to offer or to provide sexual services for consideration.

[159] According to the Court of Appeal in R. v. Joseph at para 67, “procuring someone to engage in even one act of selling or offering to sell their sexual services is an offence”. By this definition, the actus reus of procuring appears to require at least one act of “selling or offering to sell” sexual services to constitute an offence.

[160] It is my view that the interpretation applied by the Court in Joseph relating to the actus reus element, is consistent with the generally accepted rules of statutory interpretation.

[161] The modern principle of statutory interpretation is that the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the Intention of Parliament. Additionally, the presumption against tautology that instructs that the legislature avoids superfluous or meaningless words, that it does not pointlessly repeat itself or speak in vain. Instead, every word in a statute is presumed to make sense and have a specific role to play in advancing the legislative purpose. Thus, every part of a provision or set of provisions should be given meaning if possible and the courts should avoid as much as possible, adopting interpretations that would render any portion of a statute meaningless or pointless or redundant: see R. v. Gallone, at paras 30 – 31 quoting Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed. (Markham: LexisNexis, 2014), at p. 7; Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re) at para 21; Attorney General of Quebec v. Carrieres Ste-Therese Ltee at p. 838; and R. v. Hutchison, 2014 SCC 19 at para 16.

[162] On a plain reading of s. 276.3(2), the following actus reus elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction can be entered: (i) the person being procured must be under 18 years of age (the fact that KC was 17 years old was clearly established on the record); and (ii) the accused must have “caused, induced, or persuaded” the procured person to “offer or provide sexual services for consideration”.

[163] A disjunctive interpretation of the words used to describe the first mode of procuring accords with the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words used in the provision, particularly with the use of the words “to offer or provide”, and with the presumption against tautology.

[164] Several cases have since considered the definition of procuring as discussed in Gallone, including R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733; R. v. Ochrym, 2021 ONCA 48; R. v. Safieh 2021 ONCA 643; and R. v. N.S., 2022 ONCA 160. However, none of the cases specifically deal with this issue, except R. v. Joseph, where the court held that procuring someone to engage in even one act of selling or offering to sell their sexual services is an offence.

[165] Applying the reasoning of R. v. Joseph to the present case, I am of the view that the actus reus of the offence of procuring is not proven unless the Crown proves that Mr. Williams “procured KC to offer or to provide sexual services for consideration”.

[166] In the present case, I find that the evidence is clear that KC did not “offer or to provide sexual services for consideration”.

[167] It is my view that where there were NO acts of selling or offering to sell sexual services, that the actus reus element of the offence is not made out on the record.

[168] With respect to the WD analysis relating to the actus reus aspect of the procuring charge, I find as follows:

1. Having considered Mr. Williams’ evidence relating to whether he procured KC to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, in the context of all the evidence, I find that I do not believe Mr. Williams.
2. As I do not believe Mr. Williams, I must consider whether in the context of all the evidence, Mr. Williams’ evidence relating to whether he procured KC to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, leaves me with a reasonable doubt, and if so, I must acquit. Having considered Mr. Williams’ evidence relating to whether he procured KC to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, in the context of all the evidence, I find that his evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt.
3. Although I am not left in doubt by Mr. William’s testimony, I must still consider, based on the evidence that I do accept, if I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams procured KC to offer or provide sexual services for consideration. Based on the evidence that I do accept, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams procured KC to offer or to provide sexual services for consideration.

[169] For the foregoing reasons, while I find Mr. Williams acted in a morally reprehensible manner towards KC, he is not guilty of the offence of procuring.

DISPOSITION AND CONCLUSIONS

[170] Based on the totality of the evidence presented, I find in the circumstances of this case that the Crown has not proven the guilt of Steve Williams for the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I find Steve Williams not guilty on all counts.

[1] The mandatory minimum sentence was struck down by the Court of Appeal as being of no force or effect: see R. v. Safieh, 2021 ONCA 643.