Superior Court of Justice

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-0004-0000

DATE: 2024 10 11

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

His Majesty the King

A. Stevenson, for the Crown

– and –

Loic Aurel Simeu

M. Forte, for the Accused

HEARD: April 23, June 14, and October 1, 2024

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

I. Introduction

[1] After a lengthy trial, judge-alone, Loic Aurel Simeu (“Simeu”) was found guilty of several offences related to human trafficking. He was acquitted on other counts of sexual assault, assault, and unlawful confinement.

[2] The Reasons for Judgment, with all of the relevant facts, are reported at R. v. Simeu, 2024 ONSC 762.

[3] Simeu had also pleaded guilty to some counts that were contained in the Indictment that went to trial (“the N.C. Indictment”).

[4] There was a separate Indictment against Simeu (“the C.R. Indictment”) containing two counts similar to those in the N.C. Indictment – procuring and receipt of a material benefit from sexual services. Simeu pleaded guilty to both of those charges. The facts admitted by Simeu were not significantly different than those that grounded the findings of guilt on the procuring and receipt of a material benefit from sexual services offences that went to trial involving N.C., except that Simeu’s involvement with C.R. was (i) much shorter and (ii) less malignant overall than were the circumstances involving N.C.

[5] On October 1, 2024, Simeu was sentenced by this Court on both Indictments, with written reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

II. The Sentence Imposed

[6] Globally, Simeu was sentenced as follows: time served on the N.C. Indictment and 265 days’ imprisonment, consecutive, on the C.R. Indictment. The detailed breakdown is below.

N.C. Indictment

• Count 1, section 279.01 CCC, human trafficking – time served (1735 days’ imprisonment less 1280 days of presentence custody credited as 1920 days);

• Count 2, section 286.3(1) CCC, procuring – same sentence as count 1;

• Count 3, section 286.4(a) CCC, advertising sexual services – time served (730 days’ imprisonment less presentence custody);

• Count 8, section 279.02(1) CCC, receipt of a material benefit from human trafficking – same sentence as count 3;

• Count 9, section 286.2(1) CCC, receipt of a material benefit from sexual services – conditional stay entered as per the Kienapple principle; and

• Count 14, section 145(5)(a) CCC, failure to comply with release order – time served (90 days’ imprisonment less presentence custody).

C.R. Indictment

• Count 1, section 286.3(1) CCC, procuring – 265 days’ imprisonment (450 days’ imprisonment less 185 days of presentence custody);

• Count 2, section 286.2(1) CCC, receipt of a material benefit from sexual services – same sentence as count 1.

Global Net Sentence of Imprisonment

[7] Because all of the sentences on the N.C. Indictment were concurrent to one another, and the sentences on the C.R. Indictment were concurrent to each other but consecutive to those on the N.C. Indictment, the end result was a sentence of 265 days’ imprisonment for Simeu to serve from the date of sentence.

Other Orders on Sentence

[8] All victim fine surcharges were waived. A forfeiture order was made; a firearms and weapons prohibition order was made under section 109 CCC for 10 years and life as per the two subsections; a Primary DNA order was made; a section 743.21 CCC order was made for the two victims and one other person; and a section 738(1)(a) CCC restitution order was made in favour of N.C. in the amount of $35,000.00, with 10 years to pay.

[9] None of the said ancillary orders was opposed by Simeu, except that the defence questioned whether the restitution order was entirely appropriate. This Court decided to impose the restitution order because I was satisfied that the quantum was “readily ascertainable”, given the banking records filed as exhibits at trial, and in fact the $35,000.00 was very likely a sizeable discount from what Simeu had actually improperly deprived N.C. of during their time together.

III. The Positions of the Crown and the Defence

[10] The debate between the Crown and the defence was a fairly narrow one.

[11] There was a joint submission that the total sentence imposed on the C.R. Indictment be 15 months’ imprisonment and be consecutive to the sentences imposed on the N.C. Indictment.

[12] This Court respected that joint submission, hence the 450 days’ imprisonment (the equivalent of 15 months) on each of the two counts on the C.R. Indictment, before consideration of presentence custody.

[13] Starting from a position of 7 years’ imprisonment, the Crown conceded a net sentence of time served on the N.C. Indictment. In other words, after giving the offender the maximum allowable Summers credit under section 719(3.1) CCC – one and one-half days for each day spent in custody, which would mean 1280 real days in jail grossed-up to the equivalent of 1920 days, the Court could get the rest of the way needed to the 7 years by applying some Duncan/Marshall credit as a mitigating factor on sentence.

[14] Thus, the Crown asked for a global net sentence on both Indictments of 15 months’ imprisonment from the date of sentence.

[15] The defence asked for a net sentence of time served on both Indictments. The defence, quite responsibly, did not quarrel with the starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment on the N.C. Indictment. Further, the defence did not attempt to resile from the joint submission for 15 months’ imprisonment, consecutive, for the C.R. Indictment. But the defence asked for this Court to effectively give to Simeu more Duncan/Marshall credit than what the Crown was suggesting.

IV. The Issue on Sentencing

[16] From the above description of the positions of the Crown and the defence, it can readily be seen that the decision of the Court boiled down to an assessment of the impact of Simeu’s time in presentence custody, within the meaning of R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 and R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.

V. Understanding what this Court did on Sentencing

[17] In the end, what this Court did on sentencing is:

(i) respect what was essentially a joint position that the starting point for the N.C. Indictment was 7 years’ imprisonment;

(ii) respect the joint submission on sentence that Simeu receive 15 months’ imprisonment (or 450 days in jail), consecutive, on the C.R. Indictment;

(iii) treat the overly harsh conditions that Simeu was subjected to in presentence custody as a very significant mitigating factor on sentence, effectively taking the 7 years’ imprisonment down to 1735 days (about 4.75 years), when viewed in the context of all of the mitigating and aggravating factors at play;

(iv) grant to Simeu the maximum Summers credit permitted by law by treating the 1280 real days in presentence custody as the equivalent of 1920 days (1280 multiplied by 1.5 is 1920);

(v) deduct the 1920 days from 1735 days; and

(vi) apply the remaining “credit” of 185 days to the C.R. Indictment, leaving a net sentence of imprisonment on the C.R. Indictment of 265 days (450 days less 185 days).

VI. Simeu’s Time in Presentence Custody was Overly Harsh

[18] From the evidence adduced at the sentencing hearing, which hearing was lengthy (multiple days) and included, among other things, viva voce evidence from Simeu, affidavit evidence from staff at Maplehurst Correctional Complex (“MCC”), records from MCC, and video evidence from MCC, this Court would describe Simeu’s experience at MCC, overall, as being disgraceful.

[19] Remember, the vast majority of this presentence custody was served while Simeu was presumed to be innocent of all of the charges. That is not to suggest that we should treat convicted prisoners overly harshly, but the point is that Simeu, for most of the time that he was housed at MCC, could have been any one of us who happened to have been charged with criminal offences but found guilty of not one of them.

[20] The evidence at the sentencing hearing leads this Court to make these findings of fact (I should add that none of these findings depends on the Court accepting the evidence of Simeu, alone, but rather all of these findings are based on MCC records and video evidence from MCC that was played in the courtroom, all marked exhibits at the sentencing hearing):

(i) nearly half of Simeu’s time in presentence custody at MCC was in lockdown – 621 lockdown days (out of 1280 actual days served), including 523 full lockdown days;

(ii) as Simeu was first admitted to MCC on March 31, 2021, a significant amount of his time in presentence custody included severe restrictions because of COVID-19;

(iii) Simeu was triple-bunked at MCC, in a regular-sized cell (meant for no more than two prisoners), for a minimum of 47 days;

(iv) on July 16, 2023, Simeu was assaulted by another inmate at MCC;

(v) on December 23, 2023, as the result of nothing that Simeu had allegedly said or done himself, Simeu was extracted from his cell at MCC, with zip-ties on his wrists and wearing only boxer shorts, and then taken to a hallway with other prisoners and forced to sit on the floor and face the wall, while guards wearing full tactical gear were standing in and walking along the hallway behind the prisoners;

(vi) on December 26, 2023, while in a common area at MCC with other inmates, Simeu was jumped and attacked by several other inmates and punched and kicked repeatedly while he was crouched down on the floor;

(vii) on December 31, 2023, Simeu received a similar beating by other inmates at MCC to what occurred on December 26th;

(viii) on April 23, 2024, while in a holding cell before being transported to the courthouse, Simeu was sitting on the floor with some papers in his hands when a guard entered the cell and spoke to Simeu, after which the guard, totally unprovoked by anything that Simeu did, grabbed Simeu, pushed him against the wall, twisted his arm, grabbed him around the head and neck, and then forcefully took Simeu to the floor;

(ix) on May 4, 2024, Simeu was the victim of an assault on unit 8E when he was attacked and beaten by 8 other inmates; and

(x) Simeu has been seriously injured and hospitalized as the result of more than one of these incidents, including an injury to his right eye that has resulted in long-term blurred vision.

[21] There were other circumstances testified to by Simeu, not supported by evidence obtained from MCC, but also not contradicted by anything obtained from MCC, which this Court accepts:

(i) Simeu was diagnosed with depression by the psychologist at MCC; and

(ii) Simeu was prescribed medication at MCC to aid in sleeping and to treat his depression, medication that he never took previously.

[22] That Simeu has a criminal record and was the subject of several misconducts while at MCC does not sanitize what can only be described as overly harsh conditions and downright terrible circumstances experienced by Simeu throughout his time in presentence custody at MCC.

[23] Despite these intolerable conditions, Simeu managed to complete four courses while at MCC, with grades of 100, 99, 97, and 96.

[24] I have no hesitation concluding that Simeu was subjected to “exceptionally punitive conditions which go well beyond the normal restrictions associated with pretrial custody”, and that explains why this Court treated the matter as a very significant mitigating factor on sentence, effectively reducing what would have otherwise been a fit sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment on the N.C. Indictment to a more appropriate sentence of 4.75 years, before deduction of the Summers credit. Remember, there is a clear distinction between the two. While Duncan credit is a mitigating factor on sentence and need not necessarily be quantified by the sentencing judge, Summers credit, statutorily capped at 1.5 to 1, ought to be quantified and then deducted from the appropriate sentence. Marshall, supra, at paragraphs 50-51.

[25] Of course, a sentencing judge must be careful not to treat the Duncan credit in isolation – it is just one factor, among all of the aggravating and mitigating factors at play, in determining the appropriate sentence. I have tried to respect that here.

[26] The end result was something in between the two positions advanced by counsel. Not time served for everything, as that would have placed too much weight on the presentence custody and its conditions (in other words, it would have given too much Duncan credit). Not 15 months in jail from the date of sentence, as that would have placed too little weight on the presentence custody and its circumstances (in other words, it would have given too little Duncan credit). Rather, something in between, and that something resulted in a global net sentence yet to be served of 265 days in jail.

Conlan J.

Released: October 11, 2024

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-0004-0000

DATE: 2024 10 11

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

His Majesty the King

– and –

Loic Aurel Simeu

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Conlan J.

Released: October 11, 2024