COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-5602 DATE: 20241122

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – SHAN LATIF Defendant

Counsel: Javier Arvizu, for the Crown Allison Craig, for the Defendant

HEARD: April 3, 2024

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION Pursuant to s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify any person described in these Reasons as the complainant may not be published, broadcast or transmitted in any manner.

REASONS FOR DECISION

DE SA J.:

Overview

[1] The Crown has proceeded against the accused, Shan Latif (Mr. Latif, Shan, or the accused), on a number of charges.

[2] The allegations relate to Mr. Latif’s dealings with S.B. and K.B. between January of 2020 and January of 2021.

[3] The matter proceeded before me in April with submissions in August regarding the outstanding charges.

[4] The matter was remanded to today’s date to render a decision. These are my reasons.

Summary of Evidence

Evidence of S.B.

[5] S.B. is 25 years old. Her date of birth is [redacted for publication].

[6] In January of 2020, both S.B. and K.B. had been living together at S.B.’s godmother’s place. S.B. had been working at No Frills. She had been struggling to pay her bills. S.B. noticed that K.B. was able to pay her rent and make good money. She knew that K.B. was working in the sex trade. S.B. asked K.B. to help her to get into the business.

[7] On January 15, 2020, K.B. took S.B. to 9471 Yonge St. It was a commercial location/residential building. She believes it was on either the 5th or 7th floor. She met with J. They talked about pricing and her restrictions. J. and K.B. suggested S.B. use the name of Briana Blue. They took photos of S.B. and posted the ads. They also dealt with texting clients. She thought K.B. and J. were her pimps. S.B. saw two clients on the first day.

[8] She met the accused, Shan (Kush), the next day (January 16). S.B. initially thought he was a paying client. He gave her $120. They were making out, drinking Hennessy, and making dirty talk. He was whispering in her ear.

[9] As they talked, Shan explained that he was the “money maker” and she would be making him a lot of money. He said he would be making the appointments from now on. He mentioned the money they would make, the trips they would take. He said he would take her to Dubai. She believed he was a pimp.

[10] After meeting Shan, he would usually be the one to handle the ads, texts, pricing, messaging, etc. When he would get tired of texting clients, J. would take over. With J., she used Snapchat to communicate. With Shan, she used “WhatsApp” and her cellphone to communicate with him. Shan would also drop off condoms, lube and weed.

[11] Shan would screenshot the text conversations with clients and send them to her so she knew what to do. Usually, the clients paid by cash, but sometimes e-transfer. They would usually pay cash, 20s, 50s, 100s. Shan would pick up the money at the end of the shift or sometimes at the end of the week. She would do overnights on occasion. She once did a weekend at St-Anne’s for 6k. Shan wanted her to do it.

[12] She and Shan would socialize after work. They would talk about taking vacations together, and he talked about putting her in designer clothes. He kept mentioning Dubai. She had feelings for Shan and saw him as more than a pimp. She cared about him. He helped her get out of an abusive relationship.

[13] As they worked together, he taught her how to use Leolist. He taught her how to make the ads punchier. How to make the ads stand out.

[14] She initially worked at the Richmond Hill Condo but then started working and staying at the Yorkville Apartment. Shan told her she could stay in the Yorkville Condo (January 2020 to June 2020). She wanted to pay rent. The rent was $3,200. She would pay $1,500-$1,700 when she could. After the lease in Yorkville was up, she worked at a different unit in Richmond Hill in June or July. S.B. identified Richmond Hill, Unit 703 as the second Unit (Exhibit 5).

[15] With the second Richmond Hill unit, Shan told her she could live there as long as she was making money. The Lease to the Richmond Hill unit was for a year. She was initially there alone, but B. moved in after.

[16] Initially, she was working 5-6 days a week, 10:00 a.m. into the next morning. It depended when clients were available. Shan would try and fill the day.

[17] In Yorkville, Shan could not stay in the condo when she worked, as she did not have a separate room for him to stay. He would wait downstairs and she would bring him the money. When she started working in Richmond Hill again, Shan would often be waiting in another room as the apartment was bigger.

[18] She was working longer hours to start but she began finding it more difficult as time went on.

[19] Shan would text clients pretending to be her. He would sometimes offer services she did not want to do. For example, one client had poor hygiene and she had told him she would only give him oral sex with a condom on. But Shan agreed to oral without a condom in the texts, so she had to do it.

[20] Shan would always push her to take more clients and remind her about the rent having to be paid. When things slowed down during COVID, Shan was always stressed about rent, and things getting paid.

[21] While she saw Shan every other day in January, she did not see him as frequently as time went on. He was working with other girls as well. He would just drop off supplies.

[22] As time went on, she began feeling used. He kept pushing for the money. She had romantic feelings for him. But he was coming around less often. She wanted Shan to move in. She was lonely. She didn’t have friends in Yorkville or in Richmond Hill. She felt pressured to keep working as the rent had to be paid.

[23] While working for Shan, she started taking anti-depressants and cocaine. Shan was against her using drugs so she would get her drugs from clients or the other girls. She has not used cocaine since she stopped working with Shan.

[24] At some point, S.B. and K.B. had a falling out. According to S.B., K.B.’s boyfriend came on to her. K.B. posted S.B.’s ad on Facebook to get back at her. S.B. then posted K.B.’s ad on Facebook. K.B.’s friends then started posting S.B.’s ads to other sites.

[25] At the end of March, Shan heard from one of the girls that K.B. was thinking of going to Crimestoppers. Shan was so angry that he took a gun out and said he was going to kick K.B.’s door down. The gun looked real to S.B. It looked like it had weight to it.

[26] S.B. blocked Shan to prevent him from leaving the condo. Shan told her if she didn’t move, he would shoot her. Shan pushed her out of the way into a closet. She found the experience traumatizing. That was the only time he got physical with her. It was also the only time she saw him with a gun. He had told her he had been charged with firearm offences in the past, but she never saw him with a gun before.

[27] She stopped working in September and moved into a basement apartment with a friend. There were other girls staying at the apartment in Richmond Hill during this period. She returned to work for a short while in December. The last time she saw Shan was in December when he came to pick up money.

[28] After the search warrant, Shan got her to take the Leolist ads down. They communicated by Wicker. She felt bad that Shan got arrested.

[29] In cross-examination, S.B. acknowledged that she had been trying to work on her own through a website called “Seeking Arrangements” prior to ever working with Shan. She never mentioned this to the police.

[30] In cross-examination, S.B. acknowledged that she was asked for the texts and her communications with Shan, but never provided them to police/the Crown. According to S.B., she didn’t think the court case was going anywhere.

Evidence of K.B.

[31] K.B. is 24 years old (DOB – [redacted for publication]). In January 2020 she was working as an escort (sex trade) in Richmond Hill at 9471 Yonge St. by the Hillcrest Mall. She cannot remember the exact unit number.

[32] In December, she was living in Brampton with her boyfriend and child. They moved into S.B.’s godmother’s subsidized apartment. She stayed in S.B.’s godmother’s apartment from January 2020 - June 2020. Contrary to S.B.’s suggestion, she did not move out before that.

[33] She met Shan (Batman) online. It was in November/December 2019. He was pretending to be a Sugar Daddy. He mentioned that he ran a high-end escort service. She was going through a lot at the time. She had financial issues, and an abusive boyfriend. So she decided to meet up with him.

[34] They met up at Kelsey’s in Brampton. She could tell that Batman dressed like a pimp. She could not describe his exact clothing, but he would dress like a pimp (eg. bubble jacket, designer jewelry, hat).

[35] They talked for a while. While they were together, she could see he was posting ads for other girls on his phone. Batman offered to put her in the Richmond Hill Condo for work. Batman said he had a guy who could get her a good credit score and help her get a better place. K.B. had been living in low-income housing. Her son was 2 years old at the time. He promised to help her get a place of her own. She wanted a better place for her family. They hung out for about an hour and she agreed to do it. She needed money. She knew she would be offering sexual services.

[36] She started working about 2 weeks later. The first time she met J. is when K.B. and Shan picked her up. Batman and J. took her to the condo. Batman told K.B. it was J.’s condo. He helped her get it, but she did not want to live there anymore. He helped her get a new penthouse.

[37] They talked prices, photos. He told her what to do. K.B. gave them her restrictions. They would post the ads, deal with the clients, and then message her when someone was there.

[38] She started working with them in December. With Shan, she always worked out of the Richmond Hill condo. She preferred to deal with J. for photos and ads. She didn’t want Batman to see her naked, or to get into any romance with him. She saw he was in romances with a number of the girls. She did not want to be “Romeo-pimped”.

[39] Clients would come in. They would put the money on the counter. She would tell them to freshen up. She would put the money away and get on the bed.

[40] K.B. would work 4 or 5 days and took weekends off. At the end of the day, they would do the split. Either J. or Batman would pick up the money. J. would pick up the smaller amounts. Batman would only come to pick up the larger amounts. Batman would usually drive her home at the end of the day.

[41] She did not do really late shifts. She would stop at midnight. Some of the girls would work until 5:00 a.m.

[42] She did not have keys to the Richmond Hill unit. It was always open or J. would let her in.

[43] K.B. made up the name “Batman”. She initially called him Bossman but did not want to feel subordinate, so she changed it to Batman. She believed from her dealings with him that Batman was in charge. She thought J. was a “bottom girl”. She thought of J. as a friend.

[44] Shan made it clear it was his business, not J.’s business. She remembered one time Batman and J. had a fight. He called her and told her to hide the money because J. was coming to get it. J. took her to a gas station and Batman showed up. They were fighting over who she would work for. They were screaming at each other. K.B. just took an Uber home and left them there.

[45] As time went on, she noticed that S.B. and Batman were always together. First they were just working. But after that, they started hanging out. It was like S.B., J. and Batman were in a love triangle. When S.B. and Batman were together, J. would leave. S.B. even started helping out like J. would do. She was taking photos of the new girls, and doing the texts.

[46] In May of 2020, K.B. was gradually trying to ghost Batman. K.B. would act like she was getting out of the business. She wanted to work for herself. She was afraid of Shan coming after her if she did. She started using the name Vanessa in a new account to get work on her own. She changed the colour of her hair to blond so he would not find her and started working on Stewart Street. She had to rent an Airbnb for 6k a month.

[47] She started working for herself after June 8. She left because of all the drama. The threats, throwing girls out of the car. Shan made promises he did not keep. She knew he was not going to help her get a place.

[48] After she left, Batman would reach out with fake calls trying to locate her. He came to her Airbnb. She heard a bang, and she took off. She thought he was going to break the door in.

[49] K.B. was shown various texts which have been filed as Exhibits 7, 8, 9 and 10. K.B. confirmed them to be from Batman. According to K.B., these texts were from Batman’s personal phone. This was not the same phone they would use to post ads or text clients.

[50] In cross-examination, K.B. acknowledged that she only brought up “Batman” to police after she had been arrested on unrelated charges in Peel in August of 2020.

[51] She also acknowledged that J. did the majority of the texting for her. According to K.B., Batman would do S.B.’s texting because J. and S.B. did not get along after the love triangle.

[52] She acknowledged in cross-examination that there was no quota set by Batman and she doesn’t know for sure who posted the ads.

[53] According to K.B., Batman was intimidating. J. was more aggressive in tone but would not make threats. Batman would threaten to tie people up or hurt them.

[54] While she wasn’t being forced to work, in many cases, she chose to stay longer to prove herself. She believed that working hard for Batman would be the best way for her to get her condo.

[55] Working with Batman, she believes she made around $200,000.

Surveillance and Search Warrants

[56] On November 26, 2020, police conducted surveillance on Mr. Latif’s home at 10 Ladner Drive in North York.

[57] At 12:14, his vehicle went to gas station, and was observed attending at a Shoppers. The vehicle then went in front of 9471 Yonge St. A female in the passenger side of the vehicle gave two other females what looked to be supplies.

[58] At 13:27, Mr. Latif was observed leaving the address in a grey Mercedes, CCXK 580. The vehicle attended at 9471 Yonge St. A female approached the vehicle and boarded it. Photos were tendered of the surveillance at Exhibit 1.

[59] On December 15, 2020, police executed a warrant at 10 Ladner Drive. Karithar Khidir was inside the home. Photos taken at address were tendered at Exhibit 3.

[60] A Warrant was also executed at 9471 Yonge St., Apartment 703. Three females were located inside the residence.

Evidence of Shan Latif

[61] Mr. Latif is 41 years old. He has a brother and a sister. He currently lives with his parents and brother. He has a record for possession of a firearm dating back to February 2013. He was sentenced to 2 years jail and spent about 8 months in custody.

[62] He has been working for Rogers since April 2011 in customer retention. At the time of the charges, he was a trainer.

[63] He went into custody in December 2016 and was in custody for about 8 months. He was released in July of 2017. When he was released, he was living at his parents’ home.

[64] In 2019, he took a leave of absence. His girlfriend broke up with him in 2019 and he was very depressed. He was dealing with low self-esteem. He went on Seeking Arrangements to find companionship. He did see a few girls from Leolist in 2019.

[65] He met J. in the summer of 2019. He met her through the website “Seeking Arrangements”. She would call him her “Splenda Daddy” because he was cheap. She was living at 9471 Yonge St. in Richmond Hill.

[66] When he met J., she was not looking for a relationship. She was looking for something transactional. He was not interested in that.

[67] He met K.B. in November 2019. He also met her on Seeking Arrangements. She was living in Brampton. They were messaging each other. She was looking for something transactional as well. He was looking to travel and for companionship. Neither K.B. nor J. wanted that. K.B. had a child. J. was not looking to travel. She didn’t like going out. J. was about 26 and K.B. was about 21. He was about 37 at the time.

[68] When he met K.B., she was looking for a place. He suggested that she stay at J.’s condo. J. was subletting her place. He connected them on Snapchat. K.B. moved into J.’s place in Richmond Hill. J. moved to a penthouse near Fairview Mall.

[69] When J. moved, he loaned her $7,000 for her first and last month’s rent. He was trying to help K.B. with work so she could pay J. and he could get his money back. She started paying in March. He was paid by May.

[70] He denies that he was involved in their business or received money from it. He just wanted to hang around the girls. He had self-esteem issues. He was happy to have people see him with pretty girls after the break-up. He did not get them into escorting. They had been doing it before. He was just their errand boy, getting supplies, picking up money, dropping them home.

[71] According to Shan, he texted on occasion when they asked him to. He did not set the schedules or tell the girls what to do. He would not make the ads or take the photographs. He was not otherwise involved in the girls’ work.

[72] He left for Dubai in December of 2019 and came back at the end of January 2020 (after about 3 weeks). He got back from Dubai January 16, 2020. He was sick, and he met S.B. for the first time about 2 weeks after coming back. S.B. had already been working with K.B. and J. when he came back.

[73] When he met her the first time, they had sex. He never paid her. He and S.B. had become very close and she showed him a lot of affection. He fell for her. He thought she looked like Meghan Fox.

[74] S.B. moved into Shan’s Yorkville condo near the end of January/early February. He had the Yorkville lease from September 2019 - August 31, 2020. She would pay for the rent from her earnings.

[75] He had leased out the condo at Yorkville. He had initially planned to live there during the week and live at home on the weekends and rent out the condo. It was close to a job he was expecting to get downtown, but the job did not work out as it required a criminal record check. As he did not require the apartment, he let S.B. stay there.

[76] In Yorkville, S.B. was working a lot. She was working throughout the day with 2-7 clients a day. He was living with both J. and S.B. over that period. When S.B. was working, he would stay with J.

[77] J. and S.B. had an arrangement as did J. and K.B. He knew it was 50/50. He would hold S.B.’s money for her. She had a spending problem and she asked him to hold it for her.

[78] When he and S.B. got close, it created some tension with J. S.B. and K.B. also had a falling out because S.B. slept with her boyfriend. The falling out with K.B. and S.B. was in March/April 2020. J. ended up working with K.B., and S.B. was working more on her own, but Shan would help S.B. out.

[79] He would help out S.B. with texting. S.B. did not want J. doing it. According to Shan, he texted on occasion, but it was still usually J. doing the texting. She did not tell S.B. it was her. Before June 2020, he was rarely texting for S.B. J. would get him to text for K.B. on occasion. He would text when J. was tired.

[80] After the falling out, S.B. asked him to get the phone (the “List”) from J. While they were together, he wanted S.B. to get out of it. He told her she didn’t have to work. He was trying to convince her to stop.

[81] Ultimately, S.B. went back with her boyfriend in October 2020.

[82] In cross-examination, various texts were shown to Mr. Latif (Batman) which were referenced by K.B. in her evidence. These were texts from “Batman” to K.B.

[83] According to Mr. Latif the texts were from S.B. and not him. K.B. would not text S.B. back, so she had to pretend to be him. Later on, he testified that he could not say with certainty which texts in May were from him, and which were S.B. as the phone was a shared one.

[84] According to Mr. Latif, the Iphone was not his. It had all the clients on it. He would only use it for a few minutes a week to help with some texts.

[85] Mr. Latif testified that the Mercedes and Lamborghini were both in his mother’s name. Their family intended to open a rental car company but things did not work out. He would rent the vehicles on occasion for videos, or to rappers.

[86] S.B. and he stayed friends even after his arrest. After his arrest, he gave her $3k-4k for rent. She asked for more money for her breast job, but he did not have any more funds. She was mad about that.

[87] Mr. Latif denied pointing a gun at S.B. He did push her towards the closet once when he was trying to leave the apartment. But he never had a gun when he was with S.B.

[88] Mr. Latif also denied going to K.B.’s Airbnb. He also denied threatening K.B. with “sticks”.

[89] In cross-examination, Mr. Latif testified that he did not know who the white Iphone belonged to, but it did not belong to him.

[90] He acknowledged that he bought the La Senza gift cards in his room at the Ladner address. He would buy them as gifts for the girls.

Analysis

[91] The Crown is seeking findings of guilt on the following charges:

• Count 1 – Human Trafficking (K.B.) (s. 279.01)
• Count 2 – Receiving a Material Benefit (s. 286.1) (K.B.)
• Count 3 – Advertise Sexual Services (advertisement s. 286.4)
• Count 4 – Procuring Sexual Services (K.B.) (procuring s. 286.3)
• Count 5 – Utter Threat (K.B.)
• Count 8 – Human Trafficking (S.B.)
• Count 9 – Human Trafficking – Material Benefit (S.B.)
• Count 10 – Point Firearm (S.B.)

Human Trafficking and Commodification of Sexual Activity - Count 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9

The Offences

Human Trafficking: Counts 1, 8 and 9

[92] Section 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code provides:

Trafficking in persons

279.01 (1) Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person, for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence…

[Emphasis added.]

[93] This offence provision requires proof of two main elements; the conduct and the purpose; see R. v. A.A., 2015 ONCA 558, at para. 79 and R. v. Gallone, 2019 ONCA 663, at para. 17; R. v. McEwan, 2022 ONSC 4298.

[94] The purpose element requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of the person trafficked. As explained in R. v. A.A., it “extends beyond the intentional conduct that is the actus reus of the offence to what could be described as the object an accused seeks to attain”: R. v. A.A., at para. 82.

[95] In order for the offence to be established, it is not necessary that the defendant’s conduct actually result in exploitation, see Gallone, at para. 54. It is sufficient if exploitation or the facilitation of exploitation is the purpose of the conduct: see R. v. A.A., at para. 85; McEwan, at para. 91. As explained in R. v. A.A., at para. 88:

The language of s. 279.011(1) is clear in that it only requires that the accused perform a certain act with the purpose of exploiting a person or facilitating their exploitation. This interpretation is also consistent with the object of the legislative provisions, which was to criminalize a wide range of intentional conduct that has, as its purpose, the exploitation of vulnerable persons. This is achieved by enjoining preliminary or preparatory conduct, such as recruitment, and by prohibiting the destruction or withholding of documents that facilitate control over others and the profiting from exploitative behaviour. [Emphasis added.]

[96] In R. v. Sinclair, 2020 ONCA 61, at paras. 10 to 14, the Court of Appeal helpfully summarized the elements of ss. 279.01 and 279.04 into four distinct requirements:

i) An “action” by the accused, i.e., recruit; exercised control, direction, or influence over another person.

ii) The action is for the purpose of exploitation. Actual exploitation is not required. The focus is on the accused’s state of mind.

iii) The accused caused the complainant to provide or offer to provide the service, meaning the action resulted in the labour actually being provided or offered.

iv) In causing the complainant to provide a labour (or offer to provide a labour), the accused engaged “in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.” [Emphasis added.]

[97] Section 279.02 criminalizes receiving a financial or other material benefit knowing that it was obtained from the commission of an offence under s. 279.01 and/or 279.011. (Count 9). The elements of this offence are:

1. The accused received a financial or other material benefit;
2. The benefit was derived from the commission of a trafficking in persons offence and the accused knew that fact;
3. The prohibited conduct in section 279.01 occurred. [1]

Commodification of Sexual Activity: Counts 2, 3 and 4

[98] Section 286.2(1) criminalizes procuring the receipt of a financial or other material benefit knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1) (Count 2) - Obtaining sexual services for consideration.

[99] Section 286.4 makes it an offence to knowingly advertise or offer to provide sexual services for consideration. (Count 3)

[100] Finally, the prohibited act of the procuring offence in Count 4 (section 286.3(1)) can be committed in two ways:

a. Procuring a person to offer or to provide sexual services for consideration; or

b. Recruiting, holding, concealing or harbouring a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, or exercising, controlling, directing, or influencing the movements of that person.

[101] Dealing with the first mode, “procure” means “to cause, or to induce, or to have a persuasive effect upon the conduct that is alleged”: see Gallone, at para. 61.

[102] The second mode of committing the actus reus of procuring shares language with the human trafficking offence in s. 279.01(1): see Gallone, at para. 62.

[103] The mens rea for the offence requires that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to procure a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration. Alternatively, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to do any one of the enumerated acts in relation to a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, and the accused acted with the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1).

Application

[104] The defence submits that Mr. Latif should be acquitted on all charges. The defence maintains that Mr. Latif’s account was credible and should be accepted. Mr. Latif was nothing more than an errand boy for J. and S.B., getting supplies, picking up money and dropping them home. He wanted to be around the girls for their company. Mr. Latif did not set the schedules or tell the girls what to do. He would not make the ads or take the photographs. He was not otherwise involved in the girls’ work. He only texted on occasion when they asked him to do that. He did not assist them for money.

[105] The defence submits that J. was the main player in the operation. K.B. and S.B. both acknowledged that J. was actively involved in the listing, texting, and collection of money. To the extent that they have implicated Mr. Latif in their activities, the defence submits that their evidence should be disbelieved.

[106] Even if Mr. Latif’s evidence is not accepted, the defence submits that the Crown has not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

[107] The defence takes the position that the evidence of K.B. and S.B. is both internally and externally inconsistent.

[108] With respect to S.B., the defence submits that her evidence regarding Mr. Latif was not credible for a number of reasons, including:

• S.B. had a motive to lie given that she was upset at Mr. Latif for breaking her heart. She was also frustrated at Mr. Latif for not giving her money to have her breast surgery.
• S.B. had contradictory accounts of when she first met Mr. Latif. She initially said she met him January 16, however, previously she had told police that she only met Mr. Latif two weeks after meeting J. and K.B. (She met J. and K.B. on January 15).
• She had been trying to work in the sex trade before ever meeting Mr. Latif, both on her own and with J. and K.B. She never admitted this initially but only acknowledged it in cross-examination.
• She testified that she saw other clients the day she met Mr. Latif. However, at the preliminary hearing, she said Mr. Latif was the only person she saw that day.
• It was absurd that she suggested Mr. Latif was a client and paid her $120 while also stating he was not a paying customer. In her statement to police, she never mentioned that Mr. Latif gave her money.
• She contradicted herself by saying she only gave J. money on the first two days. She had acknowledged in previous statements/evidence that she had been giving J. money on an ongoing basis.
• S.B. acknowledged it was J. and K.B. taking the money at the outset and taking the photographs and doing the listings.
• She was inconsistent on how the money was divided between K.B. and S.B. prior to Mr. Latif being involved.
• She suggested she gave Mr. Latif 50% of her money, but also that she contributed to the rent despite not being asked to do that. This makes no sense. In a previous statement, she told police that Mr. Latif paid the rent.
• Her story with the firearm incident was inconsistent with her prior statement given to police.
• She never produced any of the text messages or records she claimed to have despite indicating that she would.

[109] Similarly, the defence submits that K.B.’s evidence regarding Mr. Latif should not be believed for various reasons including:

• It is only after being arrested on other charges that she brought up Mr. Latif and the claim of human trafficking. She clearly had a motive to lie. The charges were later withdrawn.
• She was combative and argumentative in her evidence.
• She had been working in the industry on her own prior to meeting Mr. Latif.
• She acknowledged that she did not have quotas and made her own hours.
• She acknowledged dealing primarily with J.
• She acknowledged that J. would be the one letting her in the condo and dealing with the money.
• While she claimed to have no knowledge of the industry, she claimed to believe J. was a “bottom girl” which would involve knowledge of the industry.
• It was an incredible coincidence that someone from the United States (someone other than Mr. Latif) also asked her if she wanted to be a high-end escort. This suggests she fabricated the story.
• In the initial meeting with Mr. Latif, she never previously mentioned seeing sexual texts on Mr. Latif’s phone. She also never mentioned that he offered her a condo in Richmond Hill.
• While she claimed Mr. Latif was dressed like a “pimp”, she could not describe a single article he was wearing.
• She claimed to be present for discussions about pricing between J. and Batman, yet could not remember a single thing that was said.
• She claims to have started working in December 2019 which contradicts S.B.’s account.
• She also claims to have moved into S.B.’s apartment in January 2020 contrary to S.B.’s account.
• She denied telling S.B. that she would take 50% contrary to S.B.’s account.
• She suggested that S.B. was more involved, and almost had taken over a lot of J.’s duties (photos, training, etc.).
• While she claimed Mr. Latif was the only one using the phone, this claim is not credible. She was also almost guessing at who was sending the texts. Her evidence regarding the text messages was unreliable at best.
• She had deleted various texts making it difficult to even know the context.

[110] The defence submits that any assistance Mr. Latif may have provided was not directed at obtaining compensation/material benefit. Even if Mr. Latif is found to have assisted S.B. and K.B. in the sale of sexual services to obtain consideration, the defence submits Mr. Latif’s purpose would not be exploitive.

[111] Both S.B. and K.B. were involved in the sex trade prior to meeting Mr. Latif and were involved in the sex trade voluntarily. Accordingly, even if the facilitation offences have been made out, the human trafficking offences have not been established.

[112] I have considered the concerns raised by the defence with the evidence of S.B. and K.B., including the inconsistencies alleged above. I have also considered the possible motives to lie which have been advanced by the defence.

[113] Despite the suggested weaknesses in their evidence, I am satisfied that the accounts provided by both S.B. and K.B. were truthful. Their testimony regarding Mr. Latif’s conduct was credible, and clearly supported by the text messages sent by Mr. Latif himself, the surveillance and the seizures.

[114] While there may have been issues regarding the chronology of the events, and some of the minor details, this is understandable given the passage of time. For example, I accept that S.B. was probably incorrect as to when she first met Mr. Latif. I also accept that K.B. may have been confused at times when being asked about the context of certain texts.

[115] That said, I do not view the alleged inconsistencies in each of their accounts as being significant when considering their evidence as a whole, nor are the alleged inconsistencies material to the issues that I must decide.

[116] To “recruit” someone is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “persuading or helping someone to do something”: See R. v. Lucas-Johnson, 2018 ONSC 3953, at para. 225.

[117] In R. v. Gallone, 2019 ONCA 663, 147 O.R. (3d) 225, at para. 47, the Ontario Court of Appeal explained the meaning of “exercising influence” in the following way:

Consistent with Perreault, I would define “exercises influence” over the movements of a person for the purposes of s. 279.01(1) as something less coercive than “exercises direction”. Exercising influence over a person’s movements means doing anything to affect the person’s movements. Influence can be exerted while still allowing scope for the person’s free will to operate. This would include anything done to induce, alter, sway, or affect the will of the complainant. Thus, if exercising control is like giving an order that the person has little choice but to obey, and exercising direction is like imposing a rule that the person should follow, then exercising influence is like proposing an idea and persuading the person to adopt it. [Emphasis added]

[118] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Latif persuaded both K.B. and S.B. to work with him and provide sexual services for money (recruitment), and also that he clearly exercised influence over the manner in which both K.B. and S.B. provided those services (exercised influence).

[119] I accept that S.B. likely dealt with J./K.B. at the outset for a couple of weeks prior to Mr. Latif’s return. However, I accept S.B.’s account that when Mr. Latif became involved, he presented himself as the person in charge.

[120] I accept the evidence of both K.B. and S.B. in terms of the working relationship each of them had with Mr. Latif. I find that Mr. Latif was a principal in the operation involving S.B. and K.B. I reject Mr. Latif’s explanation that he was merely an errand boy and exercised no direction or influence over the complainants.

[121] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Latif would routinely assist with the posting of ads, text clients and arrange for the services to be provided for both girls. He would also arrange and pay the rent for condos (Richmond Hill/Yorkville), locations from which they would provide the sexual services to clients. He would also receive a share of the funds when their work was complete (50%).

[122] J. dealt primarily with K.B. and Mr. Latif dealt primarily with S.B. once the girls had a falling out. However, Mr. Latif and J. still clearly continued to work together. And Mr. Latif clearly continued to work with K.B. The texts messages by Mr. Latif that were tendered at trial make this clear.

[123] In texts from February 26, 2020, “Batman”/Mr. Latif discusses money and the work arrangements with K.B. moving forward tendered as Exhibit 7(c):

Batman: What she took was the money we need to split right. Batman: Did the 60 you gave me come from that pile or was that your own cash. K.B.: Yeah what she took was what we needed to split and the 60 I gave you was my own emergency cash I keep on hand. Batman: I think it was 1200 but she still had it but she’s giving it back to me so I’ll have that for you. K.B.: Okk Batman: Sorry to involve you in this but I can’t have anyone fucking up my money no matter what… If she didn’t wanna text she should have communicated I would’ve done texting and then the buzzer became issue it’s between us and it’s semi fixed. As of end of March that place will be gone and we’ll have a convo in a couple weeks as to what I have planned. I’m hoping to keep you in the rhill condo until then bui’ll confirm that by tonight or tomm morning.

[124] Similarly, texts from March 3, 2020 discuss splitting the funds (Exhibit 7(f)):

Batman: ok want me to come now to split it or can you count it and do the split. Batman: And hide it, lemm know K.B.: I can do it there 1710 Batman: 1710 for today Batman: or you including the bit from last night too K.B.: 1810* Batman: Cause after I left we got like 4 diff guys in yesterday remember 3 hh and 1 hour guy K.B.: yeah I know I added it in there Batman: Ok cool so just leave me 900 (big bills please) and take the 910 stash my half in the fridge in a cup if you can like befor Batman: You good? Lemme know when you left and where the cash is I’ll have to check what I got in today with J. did earlier but I trust you, today was good towards end and good job get some rest and enjoy the day off.

[125] Various phone messages taken between “Batman” and K.B. on April 4, 2020 - Exhibit 8(a) show Mr. Latif taking an active role in relation to both K.B. and S.B.:

Batman: Ok so I figured out the schedule I’m gunna out Brianna in rhill mon-wed and you’ll be downtown mon-wed then your in rhill thurs-sat and Brianna is back downtown Thursday-sat Batman: if you wanna try Sauga we can do today and tomm 2 nights in Sauga Batman: But can you call admiral inn and verify they can Batman: Give you room for 2 nights what cost is tell them you see 90/night rate online and then ask them what you need to book a room drivers license cash or visa debit deposit options you’ll have to put room in your name and put small deposit that’s how it worked when I got in few moths ago. Batman: But I’ll pay for the room outta my half of the 50/50 but you’ll need to put it down first and you’ll also need to get condoms lube etc since your in Sauga. Batman: If you wanna just wait and come Sunday night and start Monday early downtown cause you’ll be working all week then we can do that too just lemme know I’m good wothhh either just need to plan cause I’m putting the whack new girl in cheap hotel by Monday either way.

[126] Similarly, phone messages taken from K.B.’s phone (Exhibit 9(c)) from May 24, 2020:

Batman: So I’m gunno tell Brianna what I decided about the place it’ll be a 2 bedroom so you can work out of one room when you come back I’m thinking June you try downtown and then July onwards we can do 2 weeks here and 2 weeks there so you both stay busy. K.B.: ok Batman: What’s going on? Anyone coming. K.B.: She hasn’t told me anything yet Batman: Ask her K.B.: She said soon she’s just posting now. Batman: She’s lying she hasn’t posted in 3 weeks I do all the ads and posting.

[127] I accept K.B.’s evidence that it was Mr. Latif sending the texts. In context, it is clear that Mr. Latif (“Batman”) was the person sending the texts. I reject Mr. Latif’s claim that it was S.B. sending the texts pretending to be him.

[128] I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct at issue was for the purpose of exploitation. As set out in s. 279.04, a person exploits another if they cause that other person to provide labour by doing something that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide the labour: s. 279.04 (1): see R. v. A.A., para. 71.

[129] The factors that may be relevant in assessing whether the accused’s conduct could reasonably be expected to cause a complainant to fear for her safety are set out in R. v. Sinclair, 2020 ONCA 61, at para. 15 as follows:

• the presence or absence of violence or threats;
• coercion, including physical, emotional or psychological;
• deception;
• abuse of trust, power, or authority;
• vulnerability due to age or personal circumstances, such as social or economic disadvantage and victimization from other sources;
• isolation of the complainant;
• the nature of the relationship between the accused and the complainant;
• directive behaviour;
• influence exercised over the nature and location of services provided;
• control over advertising of services;
• limitations on the complainant’s movement;
• control of finances;
• financial benefit to the accused; and,
• use of social media to assert control or monitor communications with others.

See also R. v. Crosdale, 2018 ONCJ 800, at para. 149.

[130] As noted above, Mr. Latif clearly encouraged/influenced (caused) S.B. and K.B. to provide the services. Having regard to all the circumstances, Mr. Latif also clearly engaged in conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause both S.B. and K.B. to believe that their safety would be threatened if they failed to provide the services.

[131] K.B. and S.B. were both much younger than Mr. Latif. While Mr. Latif did not make direct threats to either of the girls during the working relationship, the evidence demonstrates that he exercised a measure of psychological control over both girls. He managed the ads, texting and clients together with J. He provided and controlled their place of work. In the case of S.B., he even controlled her living accommodations. By his directive behaviour, Mr. Latif let them know he was in control and that they were expected to work.

[132] Given their age, their financial circumstances and his control of their client base and accommodations, both girls were placed in a position of significant vulnerability: See R. v. Sinclair, 2020 ONCA 61, at para. 31; R. v. Crosdale, 2018 ONCJ 800.

[133] Various phone messages taken from K.B.’s phone from April 30 (Exhibit 8(j)) and June 8 (Exhibit 10 – produced below) also reflect the nature of the control exercised by Mr. Latif over the operation:

Batman: You don’t post anything about work what the fuck were you thinking Batman: Keep your personal issues about cats separate from my fucking money and work. K.B.: nah I am sick and tired of the disrespect, that post comes down now I’m not having it you let her walk over me more then I used to let her walk over me. Batman: I don’t care about anything about the cats and your drama Batman: But posting my fucking ad I respond to the texts you know that Batman: Go back and forth about cats and other issues all you want Batman: work doesn’t get exposed like that. Batman: I won’t have it from you or her at all zero tolerance Batman: Now she not working today. Batman: You just fucked with my money. Batman: And tell they C. bitch Batman: She doesn’t have no idea who I am and let’s keep it that way but if she ever posts an ad of mine again I’ll come for her.

[134] In making the assessment of the evidence, I have not lost sight of the fact that the burden always remains on the Crown to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

[135] Where there is defence evidence, including testimony from the accused as in this case, the court must not assume that its verdict can be based on a choice between the Crown’s evidence and the accused’s evidence. I must apply the rules set out in R. v. W.D., [1991] 1 SCR 742, as follows:

1. If I believe the evidence of the accused, I must acquit.
2. If I do not believe the evidence of the accused, but I am left with a reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit.
3. Even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, I must ask myself whether, on the basis of the evidence I accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence of the accused’s guilt.

[136] I reject the evidence of the accused. Nor am I left in doubt by it.

[137] On the basis of the evidence I accept, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence of human trafficking has been made out in relation to both S.B. and K.B. (Count 1 and Count 8). Given my findings above, I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Latif received a financial or other material benefit knowing it was from the provision of the services (Count 2 and Count 9). I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the offences listed in Count 3 (advertise sexual services) and Count 4 (procuring sexual services) have been made out.

[138] Accordingly, I find the accused guilty of the offences listed in counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 of the Indictment.

[139] I will hear submissions from counsel on the issue of Count 4, and whether it should be stayed pursuant to R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 SCR 729.

Point Firearm (Count 10)

[140] Mr. Latif is charged with pointing a firearm. For the offence to be made out, the Crown counsel must prove each of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

a. That Mr. Latif pointed a firearm; b. That Mr. Latif pointed the firearm at S.B.; c. That Mr. Latif had no lawful excuse for pointing the firearm.

[141] A firearm is a weapon with a barrel that can fire a shot, bullet or other projectile and can cause serious bodily injury or death to another person.

[142] To point a firearm means to direct or aim it, intentionally, not accidentally, absent-mindedly, or simply by chance. Pointing involves a choice, an intentional act of directing the weapon towards a person or object as a target. The firearm does not have to be loaded.

[143] In the circumstances here, I am not satisfied that the offence has been made out. While I accept that an item resembling a firearm may have been pointed at S.B., I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the item was an actual or operating firearm.

[144] Accordingly, I find Mr. Latif not guilty of the charge in Count 10.

Utter Threat (Count 5)

[145] To make out the offence, Crown counsel must prove:

i. That Mr. Latif made a threat; ii. that the threat was to cause death or bodily harm; and iii. that Mr. Latif made the threat knowingly.

[146] To decide whether the words used amount to a threat, they must be considered from the perspective of a reasonable person. A reasonable person is someone who is objective, fully informed of the circumstances, right-minded, dispassionate, practical and realistic.

[147] Words spoken in jest were not meant to be caught by the section. R. v. Clemente, [1994] 2 SCR 758.

[148] Would a reasonable person, fully aware of the circumstances in which the words were uttered or conveyed, have perceived them as a threat of death (or bodily harm) having regard to:

• the circumstances in which the words were used
• the manner in which the words were communicated
• the person to whom they were addressed
• the nature of any prior or existing relationship between the parties
• the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used.

[149] Cell phone screen shots taken from K.B.’s phone from WhatsApp were tendered by the Crown allegedly sent by Batman on June 8, 2020 (Exhibit 10) and form the basis for the Crown’s allegation:

Batman: New number K.B.? Can I come see your right now. Hh K.B.: Sure babe are you a previous client of mine? I apologize my last iphone Icd got disconnected and I don’t have any of my old contacts in this phone so I have no idea who anyone is right now haha! Batman: I see you before many times and you have a dog with you. Can I come now K.B.: Sure babe how long will it take you to be here Batman: 5 minutes. Same entry code? K.B.: Okay babe can’t wait to see you again and no babe it’s a house this time Airbnb 48 stewert st babe. I have a little side door on the right side of the house, down the little stairs use that one not front door. And message me when you’re here please. Batman: ? Same condo K.B.: No this ones downtown babe. Batman: I’m calling you please pick up. K.B.: Babe I have a lot of messages to go through right now I can’t answer my phone, I’m trying to get all you numbers back. Batman: Ok maybe later I come downtown for you 1am its’ ok. Lol K.B.: Yes babe 1s great Batman: It’s Batman I’m coming with my whole team 3 sticks hope your ready to fend that lol see you soon thanks for the addy Tell her I’m on way just rounding up the troops y’all think this a game y’all finna find out what’s good tonight no long talking. K.B.: Cool cops will be waiting. Batman: You think my youngins care. Lol Soon find out. K.B.: Threatening a little girl trying to feed her kid? Mans give you 0 rates right now this the same energy that makes me not wanna fuck with you. Batman: Keep that energy when I see you I have screen shots of you I’m coining from you should have let your girl post pics with you.

[150] In the circumstances here, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the requisite elements:

i. That Mr. Latif made a threat; ii. that the threat was to cause death or bodily harm; and iii. that Mr. Latif made the threat knowingly.

[151] A person, fully aware of the circumstances in which the words were uttered or conveyed, would have perceived them as a threat of death (or bodily harm).

[152] Accordingly, I also find Mr. Latif guilty on Count 5.

Justice C.F. de Sa

Released: November 22, 2024

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – SHAN LATIF Defendant REASONS FOR DECISION Justice C.F. de Sa

Released: November 22, 2024

[1] R. v. Antoine, 2019 ONSC 3843, at para. 28.