Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NOS.: CR-22-50000068-0000 & CR-21-10000392-0000 DATE: 20241112 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – RAMON WILLIAMS

Counsel: Paul Leishman, for the Crown Charn Gill, for Mr. Williams

Heard: October 24, 2022; January 11, March 3, April 14, April 25, May 1, June 7, July 21, August 14, and September 21, 2023; January 3, January 11, February 1, May 15, June 21, October 1, and October 4, 2024

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION TO STRIKE GUILTY PLEAS

R.F. GOLDSTEIN J.

[1] On October 24, 2022, Mr. Williams has pleaded guilty to multiple counts of human trafficking, procuring a person for sexual services, receiving a material benefit in relation to sexual services, and assault. After a significant delay of almost two years, I heard the application on October 1, 2024. I dismissed the application on October 4, 2024. I stated:

Mr. Williams brought an application to withdraw his guilty pleas to a total of seven counts on two indictments related to human trafficking and receiving a material benefit from the sexual services of others. He also pleaded guilty to a count of assault. He now seeks to withdraw those pleas on the basis that they were not fully informed. I find that the pleas were fully informed and voluntary. Mr. Williams received sound legal advice from competent, experienced counsel. In my view, he simply has buyer’s remorse. Buyer’s remorse is not a basis upon which a plea can be withdrawn. Accordingly, for reasons to be released in due course, the application is dismissed, and this matter will proceed to sentencing.

[2] What follows are my reasons for dismissing the application.

1. BACKGROUND

[3] Mr. Williams pleaded guilty before me to offences on two different indictments. He pleaded guilty to the following offences on an indictment in relation to S.B.:

• One count of human trafficking contrary to s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code;
• One count of obtaining a material benefit from human trafficking contrary to s. 278.02(1) of the Criminal Code; and,
• One count of exercising control, direction or influence (commonly called “procuring”) of a person for the purpose of facilitating sexual services contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

[4] S.B. met Mr. Williams in August 2019. She was 19 years old. She was living in a group home. She connected on a dating app with someone she believed to be a woman. She was hoping to meet another woman for a same-sex relationship. In fact, Mr. Williams was pretending to be someone else. S.B. explained that she was broke and needed money. In the guise of “Aliyah”, whose name was Z.A., he offered to let her live at a condo. Mr. Williams encouraged her to believe that she could make money by escorting. S.B. did not understand at first that escorting meant prostitution. She agreed to meet at the condo and bring lingerie. She met Mr. Williams and Z.A. at that point. Z.A. took sexualized photographs of S.B. and discussed the costs for her services. She began to see clients. Z.A. had been an escort for Mr. Williams. She explained to S.B. what kind of services she would perform and explained that she had no choice about some things. She saw 5-10 clients per day for Z.A. and Mr. Williams for about three weeks. One customer demanded anal sex. She refused and the customer anally raped her. At the end she returned to the group home. Mr. Williams and Z.A. tried to stop her from leaving. Eventually counsellors at the group home called the police. S.B. was supposed to receive half of the earnings from her work as an escort, but Mr. Williams and Z.A. kept virtually all the money. The police arrested Mr. Williams in September 2019.

[5] Mr. Williams pleaded guilty to the following offences on an indictment in relation to Z.A.:

• Two counts of human trafficking contrary to s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code;
• One count of obtaining a material benefit from human trafficking contrary to s. 278.02(1) of the Criminal Code; and,
• Choking contrary to s. 267 (c) of the Criminal Code.

[6] Z.A. has been the target of human trafficking investigations, where she is co-accused with Mr. Williams. She also was on bail conditions to have no communication with Mr. Williams but appears to have breached that bail. In the course of being arrested for one of the other human trafficking investigations, Z.A. told investigators that she was a victim of human trafficking by Mr. Williams. She indicated that they met in summer 2017 when she was staying at Covenant House. He offered to let her stay in his condo in North York when she was kicked out or disobeying the curfew. She met up with him again in November or December 2017 when she was homeless. She agreed to escort for him and to split her earnings 50/50. They went to North York. Z.A. saw customers in Toronto and Niagara Falls. She saw 4-5 customers per day on weekdays and 7-10 customers per day on the weekends. Mr. Williams made all the arrangements. She made about $8000 during one trip to Niagara, but the total amount over the course of four years was much larger. All her earnings were turned over to Mr. Williams. He paid for food, clothing, other necessities, and the hotel rooms. He also held on to her documents and debit card. Mr. Williams assaulted Z.A. during the years she was with him. Mr. Williams met other young women online and had Z.A. introduce them into the sex trade. One of them was S.B. Z.A. also felt that Mr. Williams did not protect her, as he did nothing when a customer robbed her.

2. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[7] On September 8, 2022 Mr. Williams commenced a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket before Justice Dwyer on human trafficking-related chares. Those charges are separate from the charges he faced in Toronto. On September 30, 2022, Justice Dwyer convicted Mr. Williams of the following charges:

• procuring another person to provide sexual services for consideration;
• exercising control or direction of another person in relation to sexual services;
• advertising the sexual services of another person;
• receiving a material benefit in relation to the sexual services of another person;
• assault;
• forcible confinement;
• uttering threats.

[8] Royland Moriah represented Mr. Williams on both the Newmarket and the Toronto charges. According to the affidavit filed by Mr. Moriah’s legal assistant, Mr. Williams gave Mr. Moriah instructions to pursue a global resolution of the Toronto and Newmarket charges.

[9] As noted, Mr. Williams entered pleas on October 24, 2022, before me. Mr. Moriah, his counsel, indicated that he went through the plea inquiry with Mr. Williams. I then indicated that I would ask some questions before accepting the plea. The transcript reads, in part:

THE COURT: okay, so the last question I’m going to as you is – and I ask everyone this question, are you a Canadian citizen?

RAMON WILLIAMS: No, I’m not, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Okay. So – and you don’t have to tell me what advice you got or if you got any advice, but you understand that by pleading guilty there might be some immigration consequences. Do you understand that?

RAMON WILLIAMS: Yes, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Okay. I don’t know what those consequences are. I don’t know if there will be for sure, but there could be. And, and have you been informed that might be the case?

RAMON WILLIAMS: Yes, Your Honour, I’ll be deported.

[10] The plea proceeded. Mr. Williams was arraigned. The facts were read in. He agreed that they were correct. Findings of guilt were entered. The sentencing hearing was adjourned.

[11] On January 11, 2023, Mr. Moriah indicated in court that there had been a breakdown in communications, and he would apply to be removed from the record. On March 3, 2023, Mr. Moriah indicated that Mr. Williams would be seeking new counsel to bring an application to withdraw his pleas of guilty. I agreed to remove Mr. Moriah. Mr. Williams subsequently applied for a new legal aid certificate to retain Mr. Gill to represent him on the application. Legal Aid turned him down. Throughout 2023 he went through the Legal Aid appeal process. He eventually applied for “Rowbotham” funding (state-funded counsel) through a pilot project. That was approved. Mr. Gill then brought the application on behalf of Mr. Williams to strike the guilty pleas.

3. EVIDENCE

(a) Evidence of Ramon Williams

[12] Mr. Williams swore an affidavit on April 30, 2024. He also testified on the application. He is a permanent resident of Canada. There are deportation proceedings against him by the immigration authorities. His appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration And Refugee Board has been adjourned pending the outcome of his criminal matters.

[13] In his affidavit, Mr. Williams stated that he had been advised that Mr. Moriah would not be available to conduct his Newmarket trial as scheduled. Mr. Moriah was representing a client in a Superior Court matter that had been going longer than expected. The Superior Court matter would overlap with the Newmarket trial. Mr. Moriah gave Mr. Williams several choices, including seeking an adjournment of the Newmarket matter. Mr. Williams preferred to proceed. Mr. Moriah recommended that his trial be conducted by George Gray, another criminal defence counsel. Mr. Williams agreed. Mr. Williams stated in his affidavit that he was unhappy about Mr. Gray’s representation. He felt that Mr. Gray could have done a better job. He did not discuss appealing with Mr. Gray or Mr. Moriah. (Mr. Gray filed an affidavit indicating that he had no communications with Mr. Williams after the convictions.) Mr. Moriah, he stated in his affidavit, indicated that his best course of action would be to globally resolve his matters for the shortest possible sentence. In contrast, in his viva voce evidence on the application, he stated that he discussed appealing the Newmarket convictions from a criminal point of view. He did not discuss the immigration consequences of not appealing his Newmarket convictions with Mr. Moriah or anyone else. He testified that he believed that he would be automatically deported. He testified that he learned that if he appealed the Newmarket convictions and won then he would not be deported and could be successful in his immigration appeal.

[14] Mr. Williams has been assisted by the Legal Aid Ontario Refugee Law Office. In his affidavit, Mr. Williams indicated that on August 29, 2022, prior to his Newmarket trial, counsel at the Refugee Law Office informed him that if he were convicted in Newmarket that would result in his deportation without the right of an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division.

[15] Mr. Williams stated in his affidavit that he was unaware that if he successfully appealed the Newmarket convictions, he would have been able to continue his appeal before the Immigration Appeal Division. He stated that Mr. Moriah did not make him aware of that. He was proceeding on the basis that his status in Canada was a “lost cause”. He entered the pleas before me believing that his immigration status was a foregone conclusion. He agrees that during my plea inquiry he acknowledged that he knew he would be deported. He stated in his affidavit that had any of this been properly explained, he would not have entered a plea on the Toronto indictments. He says that he would have appealed his Newmarket convictions and gone to trial on the Toronto indictments.

[16] In his examination in chief, Mr. Williams testified that he came to Canada at age 7. He had been living with his grandmother in Jamaica. His father was living in Toronto. He lived with his father from age 7 to age 9. He became a Crown ward in the care of the Children’s Aid Society until he was 21 years old.

[17] Mr. Williams’ criminal record was put to him in cross-examination. It is a significant one. Between 2006 and 2010 he accumulated multiple youth convictions. In 2006 he was convicted of assault as a youth and put on probation for 12 months. In 2007 he was convicted of fail to appear court and again put on probation for 12 months. That year he was also convicted of robbery, obstruct peace officer, and fail to attend court again. On the robbery he received his first custodial sentence – 20 days in addition to 25 days in pre-sentence custody, and more probation. In 2008 he received convictions for uttering threats, escape lawful custody, fail to comply with a disposition, and obstructing a peace officer. That year he was also convicted three times for assault. He received multiple custodial sentences. In 2009 he was convicted of breaking and entering, for which he received 8 months in custody, 4 months community supervision, and probation. In 2010 Mr. Williams was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order, fail to comply with a recognizance, and carrying a concealed weapon. He was sentenced to 117 days in custody and 49 days community supervision, in light of 228 days of pre-sentence custody. He was also sentenced to more probation.

[18] In 2011 Mr. Williams began accumulating adult convictions. In 2011 he was convicted of possession of a schedule 1 substance for the purpose of trafficking. He received 9 months and 18 months probation in light of 6 months and 18 days pre-sentence custody. In 2011 Mr. Williams was convicted of failure to comply with a probation order. In 2012 Mr. Williams was convicted, again, for two counts of failure to comply with a probation officer, two counts of obstruct peace officer, fail to comply with recognizance, assault, assault with intent to resist arrest, and disarming a peace officer.

[19] And, of course, Mr Williams was convicted of human-trafficking related offences in 2022 by Justice Dwyer, as I have mentioned.

[20] Section 36(1) of the Immigration And Refugee Protection Act states that a permanent resident is inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality after having been convicted in Canada of an offence punishable by ten years or more in prison, or for an offence for which more than six months has been imposed. Mr. Williams met those conditions when he was convicted of drug trafficking in 2011.

[21] In cross-examination, Mr. Williams agreed that he had a lot of experience in the criminal justice system. He testified that he went to trial sometimes, and pleaded guilty sometimes, but – except for the trial before Justice Dwyer – he always felt that the outcomes were the right outcomes. If he went to trial, it was because he wanted the Crown to prove the charges. He could not remember which convictions were the result of pleas and which came after trial. He testified that he went to trial at least 80% of the time.

[22] Mr. Williams further agreed in cross-examination that he knew many times that he could have appealed. He did not because he thought the outcome was fair. He did appreciate, from a criminal standpoint, that if he appealed and another court said the judge was wrong that any orders made by the sentencing judge would no longer apply. He also agreed that he understood from 2016 on that if he was convicted of some offences there would be immigration consequences, including deportation. He knew that because from 2016 on he was subject to a removal order. He also knew that there would be a difference between being convicted on a minor offence, such as theft, and being convicted of a serious offence, such as human trafficking. He also agreed that he understood that if he successful appealed the Newmarket and Toronto cases that he could stay in Canada. Mr. Williams then denied that he did understand that.

[23] Mr. Williams also agreed in cross-examination that he discussed his immigration situation many times with two immigration lawyers, Ms. Bitton and Mr. Kim. He pleaded to the Toronto charges because he figured it did not matter. He knew that if he were convicted in relation to either the Toronto or the Newmarket cases that he would be deported.

(b) Evidence of Royland Moriah

[24] Mr. Moriah is an experienced criminal defence lawyer. He filed an affidavit on the application. Mr. Moriah stated that he was originally retained by Mr. Williams in relation to the human trafficking charges in Newmarket and in Toronto. He learned that Mr. Williams was not a Canadian citizen. He was also aware that Ms. Bitton from the Refugee Law Office represented Mr. Williams. When Ms. Bitton left the office, Mr. Kim took over Mr. Williams’ file. Mr. Moriah did not provide any advice to Mr. Williams on the impact of his criminal cases on his immigration status.

[25] Mr. Moriah explained how Mr. Gray came to represent Mr. Williams during the trial before Justice Dwyer. Mr. Moriah had been in a Superior Court trial that went beyond the time allotted in 2022 due to actions taken by the Crown in that case. That meant that Mr. Moriah would not be available for the Newmarket trial. They discussed various options. Mr. Williams was anxious for his trial to proceed and did not want to adjourn it on account of Mr. Moriah’s unforeseen availability. Mr. Moriah found that George Gray, another criminal defence lawyer, was available and willing to represent Mr. Williams on the Newmarket case before Justice Dwyer. Mr. Williams agreed.

[26] Mr. Moriah met with Mr. Williams after the trial. As noted, Justice Dwyer convicted Mr. Williams of several offences. The trial took place in April 2022. Prior to September 30, 2022 Mr. Williams had indicated to Mr. Moriah that he wished to appeal. Mr. Moriah did discuss the trial issues with Mr. Gray in contemplation of a possible appeal. On September 20, 2022, however, Mr. Williams changed his instructions and instructed Mr. Moriah to pursue a global resolution that included the Toronto charges. Mr. Williams did not want to spend any more time in custody than was necessary prior to his deportation. On subsequent days in September and October 2022, Mr. Moriah discussed a potential appeal with Mr. Williams. Mr. Moriah explained that much of the case depended on credibility findings by the trial judge, and that it was difficult to appeal such findings. He advised that Mr. Williams should discuss a potential appeal with appellate counsel. He offered to put Mr. Williams in touch with appellate counsel. He also informed Mr. Williams that he would be unable to proceed with a global resolution if he also appealed.

[27] Mr. Moriah indicated in his affidavit that in dealing with his immigration matters, his role was limited to keeping immigration counsel informed. Mr. Moriah provided his emails and they do indicate that he was in regular contact with immigration counsel. The emails indicate that Mr. Moriah kept immigration counsel informed of trial updates and the possibility of a global resolution. Mr. Moriah provided a copy of the unsigned instructions that he provided to Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams did sign them but the original signed copy was lost during an office move.

[28] In cross-examination, Mr. Moriah agreed that Mr. Williams was not shy about expressing his views. His notes capture some very candid discussions about the strength and weaknesses of the various charges against Mr. Williams. Mr. Moriah confirmed that if Mr. Williams wished to appeal there was no prospect of a global resolution. He never advised Mr. Williams not to appeal or advised him that there was no point in appealing. There was never any doubt in Mr. Moriah’s mind that Mr. Williams understood the immigration consequences of a conviction for serious criminality. Mr. Moriah was aware that Mr. Williams was subject to a removal order but that the order had been stayed pending the outcome of the trial. In Paragraph 11 of his affidavit, Mr. Williams asserted that:

I was told by Mr. Moriah that it would be best now to resolve all of my matters for the best possible sentence in light of my inability to appeal my immigration consequences.

[29] Mr. Moriah testified that he never told Mr. Williams that. He never told Mr. Williams that he could not appeal.

(c) Evidence of Joo Juen Kim

[30] Mr. Kim is a lawyer practicing at Legal Aid Ontario Refugee Law Office. He was assisting Mr. Williams at the time of the Newmarket convictions in September 2022. He reviewed all the file notes. He stated in his affidavit:

There are no notes with respect to him receiving legal advice with respect to the impact on his immigration status should he be successful in an appeal of his criminal convictions that he was convicted of in Newmarket, Ontario, on September 30, 2022.

[31] In cross-examination Mr. Kim agreed that Mr. Williams was aware that there were serious immigration consequences because of being found guilty. He understood that he was aware of his 2016 removal order. He also understood that he could be removed from Canada because of the convictions in Newmarket. Mr. Kim testified that if Mr. Williams appealed, it could hold up the lifting of the stay. Mr. Kim testified that it was the possession of a schedule 1 substance for the purpose of trafficking that triggered the removal order, but that when the Immigration Appeal Division makes a decision about whether to permit a person to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, they review the entire history.

4. ANALYSIS

[32] A guilty plea cannot be accepted by a court unless it is voluntary, unequivocal, and informed: R. v. Wong, 2018 SCC 25 at para. 43. A plea may only be withdrawn if an accused demonstrates that:

• That they were not aware of a legally relevant collateral consequence; and,
• That there is a reasonable possibility that they would have proceeded differently if aware of that consequence.

[33] The test is “robust”. The burden is on the applicant: R. v. Francis, 2023 ONCA 760 at para. 28. In that case, Fairburn A.C.J.O. stated at para. 30:

To be informed, the accused must be aware of: (1) the nature of the allegation made against him; (2) the effect of entering the plea; and (3) the consequences of entering the plea: Wong, at para. 3, quoting R. v. T.(R.) (1992), 10 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), at p. 519. The accused must be aware of the criminal consequences that will flow from the plea, as well as the "legally relevant collateral consequences" of the plea, meaning those consequences that bear upon "sufficiently serious legal interests": Wong, at para. 4.

[34] The accused must demonstrate that not only were they unaware of the relevant consequence, but that he or she has also suffered subjective prejudice. The accused must therefore demonstrate that there is a reasonable possibility that they would not have pleaded guilty (or would have pleaded guilty with different conditions) had they known of the consequences: Francis, supra, at para. 31.

[35] Mr. Williams argues that his plea was not fully informed and that he therefore meets the Wong test. He states that he was not aware that he had the right to appeal his conviction. He was not, he says, aware that if he successfully appealed the convictions in his Newmarket case that he could have continued his Immigration appeal. Mr. Moriah, he says, did not make him aware of that. He pleaded guilty to the Toronto charges believing that his deportation was going to take place. He would have gone to trial and contested the Toronto charges.

[36] I do not accept Mr. Williams’ assertion that his plea was not fully informed. He was well aware that he had the right to appeal. He discussed a possible appeal extensively with Mr. Moriah. I reviewed Mr. Moriah’s notes of his conversations with Mr. Williams. The notes are detailed and thorough. It is clear from the notes Mr. Williams had a sound understanding of his predicament. I also do not accept Mr. Williams’ assertion that Mr. Moriah advised him that it would be best if he wrapped up all his charges in light of his likely deportation. I do not find that assertion credible.

[37] In contrast, Mr. Moriah was entirely credible. I accept his evidence without hesitation. Mr. Moriah’s advice was sound. His detailed notes and his extensive email correspondence with immigration counsel indicate that he conscientiously kept Mr. Williams informed of the criminal consequences of the convictions and that he was careful not to give immigration advice, which would have been beyond his expertise. I also accept Mr. Moriah’s evidence because it makes sense in the circumstances.

[38] Moreover, it is also clear that Mr. Williams did access advice from immigration counsel. It is true that Mr. Kim states that he has no note about advising Mr. Williams on the consequences of a successful appeal of the Newmarket charges. No doubt there is no note because no discussion was necessary. It would have been obvious – as Mr. Williams testified – that a successful appeal would have meant that the conviction was reversed. That is entirely the point of an appeal. It is not credible that Mr. Williams did not understand that.

[39] I thus do not accept that Mr. Williams did not understand that if he successfully appealed the Newmarket convictions that he would have kept his immigration appeal alive. Throughout his examination and cross-examination Mr. Williams demonstrated a reasonable understanding of how the justice system works. He agreed in cross-examination that a successful criminal appeal of the Newmarket convictions meant that Justice Dwyer’s orders and findings would no longer apply. Mr. Williams understood what an appeal meant. He discussed the pros and cons with Mr. Moriah.

[40] In other words, Mr. Williams understood he could have appealed the Newmarket convictions. Mr. Williams was also aware that if he did appeal successfully so his immigration appeal would have remained outstanding. Further, he understood he already had a removal order as a result of the 2011 drug conviction – and that he was deportable regardless of what happened on the Newmarket or Toronto human trafficking charges. He also clearly knew that if he was convicted of one set of human trafficking charges but acquitted of another set then he still would have been liable to deportation under s. 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[41] I accept Mr. Moriah’s evidence that Mr. Williams chose not to appeal because he wanted to minimize his time in custody before the deportation.

[42] I therefore find that Mr. Williams’ plea before me was fully informed. He understood that it was to be part of a global resolution. He made an informed choice to forgo an appeal of his Newmarket charges so he could preserve a global resolution and minimize his time in custody. Mr. Williams has not met his onus on this application.

5. DISPOSITION

[43] The application is dismissed. Mr. Williams will proceed to sentencing.

R.F. Goldstein J. Released: November 12, 2024