COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-0004-0000
DATE: 2024 02 07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
Ms. A. Stevenson, counsel for the Crown
– and –
Loic Aurel Simeu and Kevin Rodriguez-Hidalgo
Mr. M. Forte, counsel for Loic Aurel Simeu
Mr. P. Mergler, counsel for Kevin Rodriguez-Hidalgo
HEARD: November 28, 29, 30, December 1, December 2, December 5, December 6, December 7, December 8, 2022, February 21, February 22, February 23, February 24, February 27, February 28, March 1, March 2, April 19, April 20, April 21, April 24, April 25, April 26, July 17, October 18, October 19, October 20, November 6, November 14, November 15, November 23, and December 13, 2023
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Conlan j.
I. The Charges
[1] Loic Aurel Simeu (“Simeu”) and Kevin Rodriguez-Hidalgo (“Rodriguez-Hidalgo”) pleaded not guilty to and were tried before this Court, sitting without a jury, on the following charges.
Simeu
Count 1 – that he, between March 1, 2020 and March 16, 2021, both dates inclusive, at Burlington or elsewhere in Ontario, did recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold, conceal or harbour a person, or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of a person, N.C., for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person, contrary to section 279.01 of the Criminal Code.
Count 5 – that he, between April 1, 2021 and May 31, 2021, both dates inclusive, at Milton and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did without lawful excuse disobey a court order made by the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to section 515(12) of the Criminal Code, contrary to section 127(1) of the Criminal Code.
Count 8 – that he, between July 1, 2020 and March 16, 2021, both dates inclusive, at Burlington and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did receive a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it resulted from the commission of an offence under subsection 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code, contrary to section 279.02(1) of the Criminal Code.
Count 9 – that he, between July 1, 2020 and March 16, 2021, both dates inclusive, at Burlington and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did receive a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it resulted from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1) of the Criminal Code, contrary to section 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code.
Count 10 – that he, between July 1, 2020 and March 16, 2021, both dates inclusive, at Burlington and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did sexually assault N.C., contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.
Count 11 – that he, between March 12, 2021 and March 16, 2021, both dates inclusive, at Oakville and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did assault N.C., contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.
Count 12 – that he, between March 12, 2021 and March 16, 2021, both dates inclusive, at Oakville and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did unlawfully confine N.C., contrary to section 279(2) of the Criminal Code.
Count 13 – that he, on or about February 12, 2021, at Burlington and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did while being at large on a release order entered into before a justice and being bound to comply with conditions of that order, fail without lawful excuse to comply with a condition of that order, to wit: do not contact, directly or indirectly, anyone from the Leolist website or utilize the Leolist website, contrary to section 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.
On day five of the trial, December 5, 2022, counts 5 and 13 were withdrawn by the Crown as against Simeu, leaving six charges left to be tried.
Also, on day five of the trial, December 5, 2022, at the request of the Crown, and unopposed, counts 11 and 12 were amended with regard to the alleged offence period. The wording above reflects the amendments.
On November 15, 2023, during his oral closing submissions delivered on behalf of Simeu, Mr. Forte conceded that Simeu ought to be found guilty on count 9, on the basis of Simeu’s own admission at trial that he received half of what the complainant earned as a sex trade worker.
On that same date, Mr. Forte conceded, further, that a finding of guilt against Simeu on count 1, if made, would necessarily result in a finding of guilt on count 8.
In addition, on that same date, Mr. Forte conceded, further, that the conduct element of count 1 had been made out in that Simeu did, at a minimum, exercise direction or influence over the movements of the complainant. The issue on count 1, Mr. Forte explained, is that of intent – whether Simeu did what he did for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of the complainant.
Rodriguez-Hidalgo
Count 1 - that he, between March 1, 2020 and March 16, 2021, both dates inclusive, at Burlington or elsewhere in Ontario, did recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold, conceal or harbour a person, or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of a person, N.C., for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person, contrary to section 279.01 of the Criminal Code.
Count 2 - that he, between March 1, 2020 and March 16, 2021, both dates inclusive, at Burlington and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did procure N.C. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, or for the purpose of facilitating an offence under section 286.1, did recruit, hold, conceal or harbour a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of that person, contrary to section 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.
Count 4 – that he, between March 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020, both dates inclusive, at Burlington and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did knowingly advertise an offer to provide sexual services for consideration, contrary to section 286.4(a) of the Criminal Code.
Count 6 – that he, between March 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020, both dates inclusive, at Burlington and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did receive a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it resulted from the commission of an offence under subsection 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code, contrary to section 279.02(1) of the Criminal Code.
Count 7 – that he, between March 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020, both dates inclusive, at Burlington and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did receive a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it resulted from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1) of the Criminal Code, contrary to section 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code.
On November 23, 2023, during the oral closing submissions delivered by Mr. Mergler, counsel for Rodriguez-Hidalgo, the Crown invited the Court to acquit Rodriguez-Hidalgo on counts 1 and 6, leaving just counts 2, 4, and 7 for consideration.
[2] Though he pleaded not guilty to the charges noted above, Simeu, at the time of his arraignment, entered guilty pleas to three counts on the Indictment, as follows.
Count 2 – that he, between March 1, 2020 and March 16, 2021, both dates inclusive, at Burlington and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did procure N.C. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, or for the purpose of facilitating an offence under section 286.1, did recruit, hold, conceal or harbour a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of that person, contrary to section 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.
Count 3 – that he, between July 1, 2020 and March 16, 2021, both dates inclusive, at Burlington and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did knowingly advertise an offer to provide sexual services for consideration, contrary to section 286.4(a) of the Criminal Code.
Count 14 – that he, on or about February 12, 2021, at Burlington and/or elsewhere in Ontario, did while being at large on a release order entered into before a justice and being bound to comply with conditions of that order, fail without lawful excuse to comply with a condition of that order, to wit: do not contact, directly or indirectly, anyone from the Leolist website or utilize the Leolist website, contrary to section 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.
[3] This Court will enter findings of guilt on those three offences that Simeu pleaded guilty to. The evidence at trial demonstrates, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simeu did, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under section 286.1 of the Criminal Code – the obtaining of N.C.’s sexual services for consideration, exercise direction or influence over the movements of N.C. (count 2); and that Simeu did knowingly advertise N.C.’s sexual services for consideration (count 3); and that Simeu did, without lawful excuse, breach his release order by utilizing the Leolist website (count 14).
II. The Trial
[4] In summary, the Court must render verdicts on six remaining charges as against Simeu:
-human trafficking;
-receipt of a material benefit from human trafficking;
-receipt of a material benefit from sexual services (the verdict here will be guilty, as per the defence concession noted above);
-sexual assault;
-assault; and
-unlawful confinement.
[5] The Court must render verdicts on five charges as against Rodriguez-Hidalgo:
-human trafficking (the verdict here will be not guilty, as per the Crown’s concession noted above);
-procuring;
-advertising sexual services;
-receipt of a material benefit from human trafficking (the verdict here will be not guilty, as per the Crown’s concession noted above); and
-receipt of a material benefit from sexual services.
[6] The trial, all in-person, commenced on November 28, 2022 and concluded on December 13, 2023. Unfortunately, it was conducted over multiple time periods. For the benefit of the accused and N.C., French-language interpreters were assisting throughout the trial.
[7] Unfortunately, the trial was plagued with problems, through the fault of none of the trial participants. There were incessant technical issues from start to finish. On day 7 of the trial, December 7, 2022, during the cross-examination of the complainant by counsel for Simeu, it became clear that there were significant errors in the French-language transcript of the complainant’s initial audio-video statement provided to the police in Quebec and errors in the English translation of that transcript. These errors included material items that counsel was attempting to use to impeach the credibility of the complainant, such as whether she had been inconsistent about Simeu having allegedly put his hands around her throat and Simeu having allegedly beaten her.
[8] Because of those significant errors, on day 8 of the trial, December 8, 2022, at the request of Mr. Forte, counsel for Simeu, and without opposition from counsel for Rodriguez-Hidalgo or from counsel for the Crown, the trial had to be adjourned, and the cross-examination of the complainant suspended, so that a new transcript of that police statement could be prepared along with an English translation thereof. This Court gave oral reasons for granting the request advanced on behalf of Simeu, but the bottom line is that the said errors were prejudicial to Simeu, and it would have been unfair to both accused, and quite frankly to the witness as well, to force the trial on without the benefit of more accurate transcripts, in both French and English.
[9] That is why the trial was on a hiatus after December 8, 2022 and a significant contributing factor to why the trial lasted some 13 months, in fits and starts.
[10] The Crown called several witnesses at trial, beginning with the complainant, N.C. Simeu called one witness at trial – himself. Rodriguez-Hidalgo called no evidence at trial. The Crown presented no reply evidence at trial.
[11] N.C.’s oral evidence was delivered as follows. She was asked the questions by all counsel in English, and those questions were interpreted into French (with consecutive interpretation), and then she answered in French, which answers were interpreted into English (again, with consecutive interpretation).
[12] It was evident throughout her testimony that N.C. has the capacity to understand and to speak English, as she was not shy to correct what she thought was inaccurate or incomplete interpretation and, in doing so, she occasionally, though infrequently, spoke English.
III.The Presumption of Innocence and the Burden and the Standard of Proof
[13] Each of these accused is presumed to be innocent of the charges. Neither accused had any burden to testify or to tender any evidence at trial or to prove anything at all.
[14] The burden of proof lies exclusively with the prosecution. And the standard of proof is a high one. It is not proof to an absolute certainty, but it is a standard of proof that is much closer to that than it is to proof of probable or likely guilt.
[15] The Crown must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; in fact, the Crown must prove each and every essential element of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything short of that must result in an acquittal on the offence in question.
[16] Proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires that this Court be sure of the guilt of the accused before finding him so.
IV. Multiple Counts and Multiple Accused
[17] For either accused, the verdicts need not be the same across the various counts. Simeu may be found guilty of one offence that he was tried on but not guilty of the others, for example. The same applies to Rodriguez-Hidalgo.
[18] Put another way, where the evidence on one count against either accused is not admissible on another count against that accused, the evidence on each count against that accused must be assessed separately.
[19] Further, on any charge that the accused are both facing, receipt of a material benefit from sexual services for example, the verdicts need not be the same for both accused. One could be found guilty of that count, for example (in fact, Simeu will be found guilty of it as per the defence concession noted above), and the other acquitted. As we tell juries, guilt or innocence is personal and individual. Each accused is entitled to separate consideration and decision. This Court must consider and decide the case of each accused separately and individually, and only on the evidence that applies to that individual accused, whether Simeu or Rodriguez-Hidalgo.
V. The Issues
[20] This Court had the benefit of having the case presented by three very experienced counsel. Their questioning of the witnesses and their closing submissions reveal the following key issues.
Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simeu intended to exploit or to facilitate the exploitation of N.C.? If yes, he should be found guilty of human trafficking and guilty of receiving a material benefit from human trafficking. If not, he should be acquitted on both of those charges.
Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simeu sexually assaulted N.C.? More specifically, that he had non-consensual anal intercourse with N.C. and/or that he forced N.C. to give him oral sex, whether once or more than once. If yes, he should be found guilty of sexual assault. If not, he should be acquitted on that count.
Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simeu assaulted N.C.? More specifically, in terms of alleged incidents that occurred within or in close proximity to the offence period as framed in the Indictment, that is in March 2021, that he grabbed N.C., lifted her up, and/or threw her against a mirror, among other things. If yes, he should be found guilty of assault. If not, he should be acquitted on that count.
Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simeu unlawfully confined N.C.? More specifically, that he locked or kept N.C. in the bathroom and/or somehow prevented her from leaving the bathroom or the residence during that same incident that gave rise to the assault allegation described immediately above. If yes, he should be found guilty of unlawful confinement. If not, he should be acquitted on that count.
Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rodriguez-Hidalgo procured N.C. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, or for the purpose of facilitating an offence under section 286.1 of the Criminal Code – the obtaining of N.C.’s sexual services for consideration, recruited N.C. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration? If yes, he should be found guilty of the procuring offence. If not, he should be acquitted on that count.
Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rodriguez-Hidalgo knowingly advertised N.C.’s sexual services for consideration? If yes, he should be found guilty of the advertising offence. If not, he should be acquitted on that count.
Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rodriguez-Hidalgo received a material benefit from N.C.’s sexual services? If yes, he should be found guilty of that offence. If not, he should be acquitted on that count.
VI. A Summary of the Evidence at Trial
The Evidence of the Complainant, N.C.
[21] N.C. was born and raised in Quebec. Her first language is French. She testified in French. At the time of the trial, she was 22 years old.
A. The Evidence of N.C. regarding Rodriguez-Hidalgo
[22] N.C. testified that she first met Rodriguez-Hidalgo in 2019, in Quebec. Later, she met him again at a party. At that party, he mentioned the possibility of her working in the sex trade. He said that she and another female who was also at the same party, Sasa, would work and get about 50% of the money, and he would get the other 50%. She and Sasa agreed to the 50-50 arrangement.
[23] I pause here to note that, during the trial, “Sasa” was sometimes referred to as “Sasha”. I will call her “Sasa”, and everyone will know who I am referring to.
[24] In cross-examination by Mr. Mergler, N.C. testified that Rodriguez-Hidalgo did not talk about sex trade work or prostitution at the said party.
[25] N.C. testified that she came from Quebec to Ontario in a motor vehicle, with Rodriguez-Hidalgo, Sasa, and two others. Those two others she never saw again after they were dropped off at a hotel. N.C. arrived in Ontario on July 1, 2020. At that time, she was 19 years old.
[26] In cross-examination by Mr. Mergler, N.C. testified that, while driving from Quebec to Ontario, there was no talk by anyone about sex trade work or prostitution.
[27] N.C. testified that Rodriguez-Hidalgo drove her and Sasa to Simeu’s apartment in Burlington. Simeu was not there, but they stayed overnight. The next day, Rodriguez-Hidalgo drove them to a hotel. They stayed at that hotel for three or four nights. He took photos of her and Sasa wearing lingerie. Clients came, and sexual services were provided to them by N.C. and by Sasa. Rodriguez-Hidalgo said that he was publishing their photos on an escort website, Leolist.
[28] According to N.C., Rodriguez-Hidalgo would text her if she had a client. He would tell her what to charge the client and for how long. She gave all the money received from clients to him. The last time she saw Rodriguez-Hidalgo, he gave her $400.00.
[29] N.C. testified that Rodriguez-Hidalgo took her and Sasa back to Simeu’s apartment. Rodriguez-Hidalgo said that they were not making enough money at the hotel and that they needed Simeu’s experience to help them.
[30] According to N.C., at Simeu’s apartment, Simeu and Rodriguez-Hidalgo argued. That was on July 5, 2020. Simeu suggested that he would manage N.C., and Rodriguez-Hidalgo would manage Sasa. Rodriguez-Hidalgo asked N.C. to delete Simeu from Snapchat or he would return her to Quebec. She refused to do so. She decided to stay with Simeu because he was attractive physically and was intelligent. Rodriguez-Hidalgo gave her $400.00 and left. N.C. stayed with Simeu. She never saw Rodriguez-Hidalgo or Sasa again.
[31] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. stated that, while she worked with Rodriguez-Hidalgo, she communicated directly with clients by text messaging.
[32] In cross-examination by Mr. Mergler, N.C. admitted that she told the police that she spent only 1-2 days, total, with Rodriguez-Hidalgo, which evidence she adopted as being true when questioned by Mr. Mergler. During that time, she texted with clients directly. She also told the police in her May 12, 2021 statement, and she adopted the following at trial as being true when questioned by Mr. Mergler, that she is not sure who posted the ads for her, and Sasa told her that Sasa put N.C. on Sasa’s ad.
[33] N.C. admitted to Mr. Mergler that there are no texts that have been produced between her and Rodriguez-Hidalgo, and that she is not sure if Rodriguez-Hidalgo talked with clients even after she did herself initially, and that the hotel reservation (for three nights) was in her name, and that she did not work on one of those nights because she went to a party, and that she never considered that she had ever worked for Rodriguez-Hidalgo, and that it was her choice to come to Ontario and to work in the sex trade industry.
[34] In re-examination by the Crown, N.C. stated that she only presumed that Rodriguez-Hidalgo put her telephone number in an ad, but she never had access to his cellular telephone.
B. The Evidence of N.C regarding Simeu
The Offences of Human Trafficking and Receiving a Material Benefit Therefrom
[35] N.C. testified that she and Simeu agreed to a 50-50 split. She was with Simeu for about nine months. During that time, she received money from him once, $500.00 total. Plus, she was allowed to keep five-dollar bills that she received from clients. She managed to save about $500.00 to $700.00 in five-dollar bills. Despite what money they made, she never had any or had very little money in her bank account.
[36] N.C. testified that Simeu took the photos of her that were used for advertising on Leolist. He decided the content of the ads. He wrote the ads. He decided the poses for the photos.
[37] N.C.’s sex trade work with Simeu began on July 6, 2020 at a hotel in London, Ontario.
[38] Generally, throughout their time together, according to N.C., Simeu would tell her when the client would arrive, how long the client would be there, and how much the client would be paying. Simeu communicated with the clients. Clients paid her cash or paid by e-transfers that went into Simeu’s bank account. It was Simeu who rented the hotel rooms. He decided the hotels. He decided the cities where she worked. He provided her with a fake identification card to use at hotels and a fake credit card in the same name, “Marjorie Clitus”.
[39] In direct examination, N.C. stated that she provided sexual services to maybe 500 customers in July 2020, alone. Simeu decided what sexual service would be provided, although she only wanted to have protected sex with clients. Simeu would agree to virtually anything requested by a client. When a client asked for something that she did not want to do, like anal sex, she would try to make excuses to avoid it. She often felt afraid. Clients sometimes got angry, violent, and physical with her. There were times that she was injured by a client.
[40] N.C. testified that, as time went on, she lost weight. She went from about 145 pounds in July 2020 to about 100 pounds in March 2021.
[41] During their time together, N.C. would occasionally return to Quebec to visit family. But she would always return to Simeu in Ontario.
[42] N.C. testified that she trusted Simeu. She had romantic feelings for him. She had an attachment to him.
[43] By the end of October 2020, according to N.C., she was having doubts about the work. She was not feeling good. But she continued to return to Ontario each time after visiting Quebec. She stated that she did not want to lose her money, and Simeu had told her that he loved her.
[44] There was more than one time, in fact many instances, that N.C. encountered the police after she started working with Simeu. For example, in November 2020, a suspected client turned out to be a York Regional Police officer. She made no complaint about Simeu to that officer or to any officer on any of those occasions.
[45] In direct examination, N.C. stated that she never went anywhere without Simeu’s permission.
[46] N.C. testified that she took prescribed medication for anxiety, but Simeu wanted her to use speed instead because the medication made her sleepy and unable to service more clients. She did take speed that was given to her by Simeu.
[47] N.C. testified that she would not have continued working with Simeu, and she would not have returned to Ontario after visiting Quebec, if she had known that he had a female partner sometimes sleeping at his place.
[48] According to N.C., by the end of November 2020, she considered that she and Simeu were a couple and not just dating.
[49] N.C. testified that Simeu invented something called Gwapster. She described it as a kind of robot machine, a tablet, that made some of the sex trade work automatic in terms of communications with clients. It made the work more efficient. She was getting more and more clients. He instructed her on how to download her part of Gwapster on her cellular telephone. Only Simeu could turn Gwapster off. He would often refuse her request to close Gwapster. She had clients knocking on her hotel room door at all times, even when she was sleeping. When she would ask Simeu to turn Gwapster off, he would get angry. There was a quota each week that she had to meet. She was not allowed to rest until she met the quota. Sometimes, Simeu would yell and scream at her to open the hotel room door and service the client. If she did not answer the door, he would get mad and accuse her of not being serious about the work.
[50] I pause here to note that Gwapster is a real thing. There is no dispute about that in the evidence at trial. From what this Court could see from the Exhibit evidence, I would describe Gwapster as something that looks like a video game, with buttons and lights. It is quite remarkable that Simeu has the talent to have created, invented, Gwapster. I only wish that such an invention could be put to use in a different industry.
[51] According to N.C., by mid-December 2020, she was having doubts that she was the only girl in Simeu’s life. But he reassured her that no other woman was at his place.
[52] In terms of the quota, N.C. stated that it was $10,000.00 per week. Simeu told her that the money was needed for them to buy a house together. If the quota was not met, there were no breaks for her and no permission for her to leave the hotel room. If the quota was met, she could spend some time at his apartment, and that was what she wanted to do. Simeu would threaten her that she would have to stay at the hotel if she did not make enough money. He would sometimes increase the quota just to punish her for not opening up the hotel room door for a client.
[53] According to N.C., Simeu would always put money above her well-being. She did not even receive food, usually through SkipTheDishes, when she asked for it. There was nothing more important to Simeu than money. She even had to work while she was having her “period” – she would place a sponge up inside her vagina to control bleeding.
[54] On December 17, 2020, N.C. texted Simeu that she was going to end up in a grave. She testified that she thought that every day was going to be her last day on earth.
[55] N.C. testified that she used weed and speed to keep working.
[56] N.C. stated that her texts with Simeu on December 19, 2020 are an example of her asking him for permission for her to sleep for an hour and him saying no. Around that time, according to N.C., she felt trapped. She had no friends, no family, no life, and she was stuck in a hotel room with four walls and nothing to do except provide sexual services to clients.
[57] N.C. testified that Simeu once told her that he had a firearm under his pillow at his old apartment, but that was not necessary at his new place because it was safer there.
[58] N.C. stated that there were times that she “finessed” the client, meaning that she got the money even though she did not do what the client wanted in terms of sexual services.
[59] In January 2021, according to N.C., Simeu told her to go to Ottawa for work. She did not want to go, but she went. She was not allowed to say no, she testified.
[60] By mid-January 2021, she felt less than human, N.C. testified. She desperately needed company besides clients.
[61] N.C. testified that she sought Simeu’s permission for the simplest of things, such as to get a drink from a hotel vending machine (see the texts between N.C. and Simeu on January 14, 2021).
[62] Throughout her examination-in-chief, N.C. pointed to many other texts between her and Simeu as examples of him controlling her – January 16, 2021, about whether she had to stay at the hotel in order to make $200.00 more; January 17, 2021, about whether she could sleep at home instead of the hotel; February 3, 2021, about whether she could go to sleep; February 23, 2021, about whether she had to “hit done” on Gwapster; and so on.
[63] N.C. testified that she was sometimes afraid of Simeu. He had a bad temper, as illustrated in late January 2021 during the incident involving Tony and whether she had slept well with Simeu the night before.
[64] By February 2021, according to N.C., she was not eating well. She was forcing herself to eat. She had “hit bottom”. She was extremely thin, her bones about to pierce through her skin. When she visited her family in Montreal, her parents tried to persuade her to stay, but she returned to Ontario because she felt obligated to do so, for Simeu. She loved him, and she thought that he loved her, and Valentine’s Day was coming up.
[65] According to N.C., although outside the alleged offence period for the assault charge, and thus this Court is outlining the following evidence here as it relates to the human trafficking offence, on or about February 17, 2021, after she visited the emergency department at the hospital for vaginal and abdominal pain, she was assaulted by Simeu. He flipped over a table in the living room, strangled her with his hands around her throat, shook her, caused her head to hit the wall, picked her up from the neck while strangling her such that her feet were not touching the floor, threw her onto the bed, called her names like “bitch”, and then eventually let her go. She received no physical injuries, she stated.
[66] In late February 2021, N.C. was arrested by the police for something to do with the fake identification that she was using. On March 5, 2021, the charges were withdrawn by the Crown. At that time, she never complained to the police or to the Crown about Simeu.
[67] By early March 2021, according to N.C., she felt like she was dead. She had suicidal feelings. She felt like she was a robot under the control of Simeu. She was so weak and exhausted. Yet he was still demanding that she answer the hotel room door for clients, and he texted her, “you didn’t do the custy [client] so get ready to do more time”.
[68] N.C. testified that, on March 4, 2021, she told Simeu on the telephone that it was over. He got very mad and sent her angry texts. Ultimately, she left the hotel on that day and never worked in the sex trade industry again. She stayed at Simeu’s place for a while. She returned to Montreal, for good, on March 16, 2021.
[69] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. testified that her “finessing” of clients began after September 2020. The finessing of clients meant, essentially, stealing from them by taking their money without providing any sexual services or at least not what the clients expected. To do that, N.C. had a set of tricks and strategies that she employed, such as pretending to be sick. The finessing of clients was her idea, not Simeu’s. N.C. acknowledged to Mr. Forte that, near the end of her working relationship with Simeu, she was robbing most of the clients.
[70] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. agreed that Simeu never “forced her” or “commanded her” to perform any sexual service.
The Offence of Sexual Assault
[71] Near the conclusion of her direct examination, N.C. described multiple incidents of sexual assault at the hands of Simeu.
[72] She stated that, on the last day that they were together, after he returned to the apartment drunk, he touched her sexually. She said to him that it was perhaps not the right time. He continued. They had sex.
[73] During an earlier incident, according to N.C., they had anal sex even though she did not want to. It was painful for her. He penetrated her anus for 4-5 minutes despite her saying to him that she did not want to have anal sex and that it hurt.
[74] N.C. testified that, another time, she gave Simeu oral sex even though she did not want to. She vomited during the incident.
The Offence of Assault
[75] According to N.C., in mid-March 2021, when she was about to leave Simeu’s place for good and return to Montreal, he grabbed her phone as she was exiting the apartment. He grabbed her bag, and it broke. She fell to the floor. He grabbed her by the throat. Her head hit the wall and also hit a mirror. She banged her head many times, including against the fridge and against a wall. As he held her throat, he picked her up such that her feet were not touching the floor. He took her to the bathroom and pushed her hard into the shower curtain, causing the rod to collapse. He left the bathroom and shut the door.
[76] He eventually let her out of the bathroom, and he left the apartment. When he returned several hours later, he was drunk. They talked and had sex.
[77] Later that morning, he destroyed her tablet with a hammer. He told her to take her stuff and get out. She ran out and went to another unit in the building. She got assistance from the lady in that unit. She made her way to Union Station in Toronto and then by train to Montreal.
[78] N.C. testified that she sustained facial injuries, scratches, during the physical assault that occurred before she went to the neighbour’s door. In cross-examination, she described the scratches as one on her chin and one below her right eye.
The Offence of Unlawful Confinement
[79] According to N.C., on that same occasion in mid-March 2021, she was huddled in the corner of the bathroom. She did not think that she could leave the bathroom. He had shut the door. About 15 minutes later, he returned to the bathroom with her phone and told her to answer it because her mother was calling her. He left the phone with her and went somewhere else in the apartment. After speaking briefly with her mother, N.C. left the bathroom.
Other Crown Evidence at Trial
[80] A.M.Q.-K. (“Ann”) testified for the Crown. She is the neighbour that gave assistance to N.C. on the last day that she was with Simeu, after she fled from his apartment.
[81] Ann testified that she opened her unit door after hearing a knock. The female who was standing there, who we know to be N.C., was distraught. She asked for help. She used Ann’s phone to call someone that Ann thought was a parent. Soon afterwards, Simeu came down. The female broke her necklace off and gave it to him.
[82] Ann stated that she saw bruises on the girl. And she saw marks on her left chin/cheek area.
[83] Ann testified that she saw the female give something else to Simeu, believed to be a watch. She saw Simeu give to the female a phone. Ann asked the female if she wanted her to call the police, but the female declined.
[84] Ann stated that, after the female left, Simeu told Ann that Ann was an angel and had done a nice thing.
[85] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, Ann stated that it did not appear to her that Simeu had followed the female out from wherever the female came from because a few minutes had passed between the knock on Ann’s door and when Ann first saw Simeu.
[86] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, Ann described further the injuries that the female had. She had a scrape on the left side of her jaw line. It was not a scratch. It was a fresh wound and was bleeding. It was like a “skinned-knee”. The female did not want the police contacted. The female did not say that she had been assaulted in any way.
[87] Jennifer McGuire (“McGuire”), an experienced Detective Constable with the human trafficking unit of the Halton Regional Police Service and also with the Ontario Provincial Police (on secondment), testified for the Crown.
[88] The vast majority of McGuire’s evidence is uncontroversial. Much of it is relevant only in terms of the background of the investigation and the investigative steps that were taken by the police.
[89] McGuire testified that there were frequent texts exchanged between Simeu and the real Marjorie Clitus (“Clitus”), texts that demonstrate (i) that the two of them were in a romantic relationship while N.C. was working with Simeu, and (ii) that Clitus knew about N.C. and her work with Simeu as a sex trade worker, and (iii) that Clitus had some involvement in assisting, behind the scenes, with that sex trade work by N.C., such as Clitus answering enquiries from clients both online and by telephone.
[90] McGuire gave evidence about some of the tools of the trade used by Simeu to assist with his work with N.C., such as Gwapster and something referred to as “fishtracker” – a kind of electronic ranking system for the best places in Ontario to advertise sexual services.
[91] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, McGuire stated that the police had no access to N.C.’s cellular telephone and, thus, no extraction from that device was possible. As well, no electronic device used by Clitus was ever seized by the police.
[92] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, McGuire testified that N.C. never disclosed to her any alleged sexual assault that occurred on any date in December 2020.
[93] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, McGuire agreed that there is no independent evidence to support certain aspects of N.C.’s testimony related to the alleged oppressive working conditions and/or alleged exploitative quality of the relationship between N.C. and Simeu, such as the weekly quota spoken about by N.C. and her evidence that she almost never got paid any money by Simeu. On the latter, McGuire agreed that the police never conducted any search for N.C.’s bank accounts, similar to the search that they did for Simeu’s bank accounts.
[94] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, McGuire agreed that it would have been important for the police to try to confirm N.C.’s evidence about what happened on her final day with Simeu in Ontario by interviewing N.C.’s mother and/or by obtaining the Uber records, but the police did not do either of those things.
[95] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, McGuire agreed that the police never asked for or received N.C.’s old cellular telephone, the one that she had throughout most of her working relationship with Simeu.
[96] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, McGuire acknowledged that there were several police encounters with N.C., and N.C. was first identified by police as a sex trade worker on October 15, 2020, and N.C. was permitted by the police to continue her work in the sex trade, and, generally speaking, someone like N.C., who is an adult, is permitted to continue working if there is no evidence of exploitation.
[97] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, McGuire confirmed that the fraud charge(s) against N.C. was/were withdrawn by the Crown before N.C. gave her statement to the police on May 12, 2021.
[98] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, McGuire agreed that she did not see any evidence that Simeu ever demanded or forced N.C. to return to Ontario from Quebec after visiting her family, in order that she continue working in the sex trade.
[99] In cross-examination by Mr. Mergler, McGuire agreed that Exhibit 25, believed to be text messages between Rodriguez-Hidalgo and Simeu, has limitations (my word) to it. There are no time references to what was discussed in those texts. No names given. No subscriber information for the telephone number believed to be that of Rodriguez-Hidalgo. No link between that telephone number and N.C. And the said texts are primarily in English, while Rodriguez-Hidalgo is a Francophone and had the assistance of French-language interpreters throughout the trial.
[100] Dino Serafini (“Serafini”), an experienced Detective Constable with the human trafficking unit of the Halton Regional Police Service, testified at trial. He was called as a witness by counsel for Simeu, and he testified after Simeu.
[101] Serafini testified that he was told by N.C. that she dealt with more than 1000 clients while working with Simeu, and his impression was that she was referring to clients that she actually performed sexual services for.
[102] Serafini testified that it was on November 27, 2022, during a witness trial preparation meeting, that N.C. disclosed for the first time the incident of forced oral sex that occurred on December 20, 2020. At that time, she provided no further details including the location of where it allegedly happened, even though Serafini specifically asked her about the location.
[103] Serafini testified that, at a witness trial preparation meeting on November 28, 2022, N.C. stated that Simeu had choked her on February 17, 2021. At that time, she did not say anything about them having had sex on February 17, 2021, never mind forced sex.
The Evidence of the Accused, Simeu
[104] Simeu was 31 years old when he testified at trial, commencing on April 25, 2023. He is a Canadian citizen. His first language is French. He has a criminal record (Exhibit 31), and he testified that he pleaded guilty to each of those convictions. He graduated high school and also obtained a sound engineering certificate from the Recording Arts Academy in Montreal. His family is in Ottawa and in the Province of Quebec.
[105] Simeu agreed in his testimony that he and N.C. made a deal to split the money 50-50. She had prior experience in the sex trade. So did he. She knew how to finesse clients. It was a business relationship, although it also included sexual relations between the two of them and some romantic feelings shared between them. He did develop romantic feelings for N.C. He did become attached, emotionally, to her.
[106] Simeu testified that N.C. performed the sexual services and/or finessed clients to get the money, and he did other things like communicate with clients, book the hotels, and advertise the sexual services.
[107] In cross-examination by the Crown, Simeu testified that the plan was always to finesse, to rob, clients. That N.C. actually performed sexual services was entirely her choice, he stated.
[108] He never deprived N.C. of her share of the money, Simeu testified. She had her own bank account. He would e-transfer money to that account. She also had access to and used his CIBC and his Tangerine bank cards to get money for herself.
[109] In cross-examination by the Crown, Simeu insisted that N.C. was always an equal partner and that she received the money that was owing to her.
[110] N.C. knew about Clitus from early on in the working relationship, Simeu stated.
[111] There was no “quota”, Simeu stated initially in his direct examination at trial. There was a mutual goal of earning $5000.00 per week.
[112] On October 18, 2023, in the morning session, in cross-examination by the Crown, Simeu testified that the quota, and N.C.’s failure to meet the quota, was one reason why he did not allow N.C. to return to his apartment.
[113] In cross-examination by the Crown, on October 18, 2023, in the context of text messages between Simeu and N.C. exchanged on January 18, 2021, Simeu agreed with the Crown that he had “prevented” N.C. from coming to his apartment because her work shift at the hotel was not yet over.
[114] On November 6, 2023, near the very end of the day, in cross-examination by the Crown, Simeu testified that N.C. was allowed to return to the apartment if she met the quota.
[115] On October 20, 2023, Simeu stated to the Crown that it was possible that N.C. spent between 11 and 14 days straight in a hotel room.
[116] “I never forced her to do nothing”, Simeu stated in direct examination, including staying in a hotel room and including returning to Ontario from Quebec. “I had never had to convince her to work”, he said.
[117] Simeu testified that he never threatened N.C. and never raised a hand to her. He never assaulted her in any way, whether as described by N.C. in her trial evidence or otherwise.
[118] Simeu testified that he may have inadvertently scratched N.C. on the final day that she was in Ontario. He explained that N.C. had been violent with him and attacked him, and he defended himself. It should be noted that this Court is unsure whether, in giving that evidence, Simeu was referring to that final day specifically or speaking generally about the nature of his relationship with N.C.
[119] Later in his direct examination, it became clearer that Simeu was alleging that he was physically attacked by N.C. on that final day that they were together in Ontario. Unfortunately, the details of what Simeu alleged happened were never put to N.C. when she testified at trial. There was a clear violation of the rule in Browne v. Dunn. Simeu testified that N.C. attacked him, threw things at him, broke her own tablet, threw her cellular telephone at him which caused the SIM card to get ejected from the device, and then she left the apartment and went to the neighbour’s place.
[120] “I never assaulted her”, Simeu testified. Regarding any alleged sexual assault, he stated that “it never happened”, regardless of the date. They never had anal sex, and in fact he finds that “disgusting”. They never had sexual relations of any kind without her consent.
[121] In summary, Simeu’s trial evidence amounted to clear and unequivocal denials of the assault, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement allegations, and a denial that he intended to exploit or to facilitate the exploitation of, or did in fact exploit, N.C.
[122] On the human trafficking charge, the crux of Simeu’s evidence came during cross-examination by the Crown on October 20, 2023, shortly before the lunch recess, when he stated, twice, “I never forced her [N.C.] to do any of this, she actually came to me about this”.
VII. Analysis
Self-Instruction on the Evidence of Simeu
[123] This Court may accept all, some, or none of the evidence of any particular witness.
[124] Simeu testified at trial. This Court is to assess his evidence in the same way, and in accordance with the same principles, that the Court assesses the evidence of any other witness.
[125] Simeu has denied in his evidence that he intended to exploit or to facilitate the exploitation of N.C. He has denied in his testimony that he ever had non-consensual sexual activity with N.C. He has denied in his evidence that he ever assaulted N.C., and he has denied in his testimony that he ever confined N.C.
[126] If this Court believes Simeu’s evidence that he did not commit the offence in question, then he must be found not guilty of that offence.
[127] With regard to some of the charges, Simeu and N.C. have given evidence that amounts to demonstrably opposed versions of the events. If, after considering all of the evidence at trial, this Court is unable to decide whom to believe, then Simeu must be found not guilty of the offence in question.
[128] Even if this Court does not believe the evidence of Simeu, if that evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt about his guilt, then Simeu must be found not guilty of the offence in question.
[129] Even if Simeu’s evidence does not leave this Court with a reasonable doubt about his guilt, he may be found guilty only if the rest of the evidence that the Court does accept proves his guilt of the offence in question beyond a reasonable doubt.
[130] The principle of reasonable doubt applies to credibility. This judgment is not an exercise in the Court choosing its preference between the evidence of N.C. and the evidence of Simeu. On any contested issue, it is not necessary that the Court accept the evidence of Simeu. Rather, for an acquittal, it is enough that, in the context of all of the evidence adduced at trial, the conflicting evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt about Simeu’s guilt on the offence in question.
The Credibility and Reliability of the Witnesses
[131] The focus below is on the credibility and reliability of the two main witnesses at trial, N.C. and Simeu. Frankly, there are no serious complaints by either side about the veracity of the evidence of any other trial witness, including Ann, whose evidence this Court accepts.
[132] I agree with Mr. Forte and Mr. Mergler that there were some significant difficulties with the evidence of N.C., things that adversely impact on her overall credibility and reliability. What follows are some examples.
[133] Near the commencement of Mr. Forte’s cross-examination of N.C., he asked her if she, at trial, “recovered an erased memory” of the alleged first assault of her by Simeu in November 2020. She answered in the affirmative. That makes me wonder whether there were other parts of N.C.’s trial testimony that were the result of “recovered memories” that, before she was in the witness box at trial, were not things that she remembered.
[134] There were several material inconsistencies in the evidence of N.C., both within the trial and between the trial and her earlier statements to the authorities, including the following items.
[135] N.C. acknowledged to Mr. Forte that she never mentioned the alleged November 2020 assault in her first police statement, and she also never mentioned it in her second police statement. Only at trial did she mention that incident, during which Simeu allegedly strangled her and smacked her head against the wall.
[136] N.C. acknowledged to Mr. Forte that she told the police in Quebec that she and Simeu discussed the alleged forced anal intercourse that occurred at Burlington after the incident took place (page 68 of the March 23, 2021 statement), yet she testified at trial, in both direct examination and in cross-examination, that no such discussion took place.
[137] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, when describing the alleged physical assault of her by Simeu in February 2021, N.C. added something to her account of the incident that was not mentioned in her direct examination. She added that Simeu dragged her on the floor, with his two hands around her neck and choking her, his arms extended.
[138] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, when discussing that alleged assault in February 2021, N.C. changed her evidence with regard to whether her feet were touching the floor when Simeu was sort of lifting her up and strangling her. In cross-examination, N.C. stated that her feet may have touched the floor, but she could not actually walk.
[139] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, in discussing the February 2021 alleged assault, N.C. suddenly stated that Simeu “raped” her that day, also. That evidence is inconsistent with N.C.’s direct evidence at trial and also inconsistent with her March 23, 2021 police statement (see page 20, in particular, where there is no mention of any rape or sexual assault or attempted rape or attempted sexual assault in the context of the alleged February 2021 incident).
[140] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, when discussing the alleged assault in mid-March 2021, N.C. stated that her head was pushed so violently against the fridge and other surfaces that, when she got to Montreal, she asked for a CAT scan of her brain. When Mr. Forte suggested to N.C. that she had never mentioned the CAT scan before, she agreed.
[141] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. was asked whether Simeu stopped her from speaking to “anybody”. She answered in the affirmative, meaning that he stopped her from speaking to anyone. She then admitted, however, that she talked with her friend Meghan and with her family. Later in cross-examination, she also admitted to talking with her male friend Bernard and with another male, “RB”.
[142] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. changed her evidence about how many men she serviced in July 2020. Instead of maybe 500 men, she stated that it was about 400 men.
[143] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. stated that she never lied to the police after she started working with Simeu. “I did not lie to the police”, she said. She then admitted, however, that she lied to the police on November 11, 2020 when she stated that she was not working for anyone. She explained that she said that at the time in order to protect Simeu.
[144] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. stated that she would sometimes watch videos or play video games in the hotel room, when a client was not there. When Mr. Forte pointed out to N.C. that she told the police in Quebec that she could not watch or listen to anything (page 15 of the March 23, 2021 statement), N.C. denied that the said comment to the police was a lie or an exaggeration. Clearly, in the opinion of this Court, it was an exaggeration.
[145] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. stated that she provided sexual services to about 400 men in July 2020 and about 300 men in August 2020 and possibly more than 1000 men between July and December 2020, yet, in her police statement dated March 23, 2021, N.C. told the officer that there were “at least a hundred” men serviced by her. Those two descriptions, I would observe, are not in direct conflict with each other, but they are markedly different.
[146] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, late in the day on February 24, 2023, N.C. stated that she was able to keep all the five and ten-dollar bills, which evidence was different than her trial testimony up to that point in time.
[147] In cross-examination by Mr. Mergler, N.C. gave evidence that was different than her direct evidence at trial about how she met Rodriguez-Hidalgo (she said, in cross-examination, that it was at a double-date), and about when she first met him (she said, in cross-examination, that it was in March 2020 rather than in 2019 as she stated to the Crown).
[148] In cross-examination by Mr. Mergler, N.C. admitted that her trial evidence that Rodriguez-Hidalgo did talk about sex trade work at the party is different than what she told the police in her May 12, 2021 statement, where she said expressly that he did not talk about sex trade work or prostitution at that party.
[149] Although this Court can certainly understand why N.C. would have found the trial experience to be a highly traumatic one, I would be remiss if I did not observe that N.C. was at times, especially during the cross-examination by Mr. Forte, an unnecessarily difficult witness. The following are some examples.
[150] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. was very hesitant to acknowledge that she ever had time for “relaxing” while working with Simeu. When shown her texts with Simeu from February 27, 2021, around line 8184, where she said to Simeu that she was “relaxing”, N.C. remained quite equivocal and never really admitted to Mr. Forte that she ever relaxed, even once, over the course of the entire working relationship with Simeu.
[151] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. was shown her texts with Simeu from February 27, 2021, around line 8204. Clearly, those texts include a comment by N.C. that said “no” to Simeu’s direction that she take more clients. Notwithstanding that, N.C. repeatedly refused to admit to Mr. Forte that the said exchange was one example of her saying “no” to Simeu.
[152] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. was shown her texts with Simeu from December 16, 2020, around line 1431. In an effort to soften N.C.’s earlier evidence that she always had to ask for and receive Simeu’s permission to sleep while in a hotel room, except only for the odd occasion where he would simply ignore her message altogether, Mr. Forte was establishing one example of where she did fall asleep without asking for Simeu’s permission. The texts clearly demonstrated Mr. Forte’s point. Still, N.C. insisted that her earlier evidence was correct, explaining that her earlier evidence did not include instances where she accidentally fell asleep. With respect, I did not find the explanation to be compelling.
[153] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, on February 23, 2023, not long before the lunch recess, Mr. Forte suggested to N.C. that a specific text message that was on the screen was the first one that he had shown to her that day where Simeu had refused her request to go to sleep. N.C. answered that the suggestion was not correct because the Crown had shown to her some other messages to that effect. Mr. Forte politely indicated that he was asking about messages that he had shown her that day, and she continued to refuse to admit to his suggestion, saying instead that he was unfairly picking and choosing what he wanted to show to her.
[154] By the time that Mr. Forte had been cross-examining N.C. for a few days, it seemed obvious to the Court that it would have been even more offensive and demeaning for N.C. to actually have sexual relations with clients than it was for her to finesse them. For some reason, however, which I still cannot understand, N.C. was very resistant to admitting that to Mr. Forte. He had to cross-examine her at length, asking repeated questions, before she finally, just prior to the morning recess on February 24, 2023, acknowledged that to be forced to have sex with a stranger was even more challenging than trying to finesse the client.
[155] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, in the context of whether N.C. ever got physical with a client without that client first getting physical with her, N.C. was shown her March 23, 2021 police statement (page 62 in the French version and page 59 in the English version). The reference seemed to suggest that she had, but N.C. testified that she had not. N.C. stated to Mr. Forte that “saisir” does not mean “to grab” or something similar. With respect, I disagree. The French verb “saisir” can be used in both a literal and in a figurative way, but, regardless, it means to seize/to grasp/to take/to take hold of/to grab. In the more figurative sense, it could be interpreted to mean to grasp mentally or to understand or to compute something. In any event, when one looks at the statement, and when one watches the audio-visual clip (which was played in court), one more reasonably concludes, and this Court concludes, that what N.C. said to the police officer is different than her evidence at trial on whether she ever used force against a client without that client having already gotten violent with her.
[156] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. was asked whether she had the ability to accept e-transfers, given that she had an email address and a bank account. The emphasis was on the word “ability”, and the question was very clear that it did not suggest that she had in fact ever received an e-transfer from Simeu or from anyone. The answer was an obvious “yes”. But that was not the answer that N.C. gave. She gave a lengthy, convoluted, indirect, and unresponsive answer.
[157] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. was asked a very simple question about whether there were some good times with Simeu, like playing chess with him on the phone. When shown some texts between them that mention “chess”, N.C., instead of simply answering the question, asked Mr. Forte where he was going with his questions. Then she balked at admitting to Mr. Forte that she thought that Simeu would be successful, eventually admitting that she did think that.
[158] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. declined the suggestion by counsel that it was an exaggeration to say that Simeu did not want her to talk to anyone, yet in their March 1, 2021 texts, around line 8571, he specifically encouraged her to talk to a friend.
[159] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. was unreasonably unwilling to admit that anything was an example of Simeu not controlling her movements at a particular time. When shown their texts from February 12, 2021, around line 7119, where Simeu asked N.C. if she wanted to stay at her parents’ place longer and she replied that she wanted to return to Ontario the next day, N.C. disagreed with Mr. Forte that the said exchange was one example of Simeu not controlling where she was.
[160] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, on the basis of the texts from February 25, 2021, around line 8022, it was suggested to N.C. that it was N.C.’s father who told her to shut her mouth and to not answer the police questions after she was arrested by the police on that same date. Although the texts clearly support the suggestion made by counsel, N.C. answered that it was Simeu who told her what to say or not to say to the police.
[161] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, when shown texts from November 19, 2020, around line 751, N.C. testified that the said texts are an example of Simeu not wanting her to take her prescription medication but instead wanting her to take speed. With respect, I have read and re-read the said texts several times. They do not support that interpretation, at all.
[162] In cross-examination by Mr. Forte, N.C. stated that the police in Quebec never asked to see her old cellular telephone, the one that she had for almost all of the time that she worked with Simeu, and the one expressly discussed in her March 23, 2021 police statement. N.C. explained at trial that nothing could be recovered from that phone because the SIM card had been removed from it. With respect, I do not accept that evidence as it relates to the conduct of the police in Quebec, as I find it to be contrary to common sense. While it may be true that nothing could have ultimately been discovered in the device, to suggest that the police in Quebec would not even ask to see the phone, given its crucial importance to the case against Simeu, makes no sense. That is especially so when one considers that N.C. herself, at page 87 of the March 23, 2021 police statement, told the officer that she planned to recover the Snapchat account on that same phone in order to provide proof of her allegations against Simeu.
[163] On March 1, 2023, before the morning recess, this Court had to tell N.C. to just answer the questions posed by Mr. Forte and leave the conclusions up to the Court. I must confess that I had delayed that intervention as long as I reasonably could, but what provoked it was a very lengthy diatribe by N.C. about how Simeu met the definition of a “pimp”, which commentary was not at all responsive to the question that had been posed by Mr. Forte and was quite inappropriate.
[164] On that same date, March 1, 2023, N.C. appeared to be unreasonably confrontational with Mr. Forte, saying at one point, “for the third or fourth time I tell you that’s not true”. There had been no objection by Crown counsel, a very experienced counsel, and there was nothing improper about the question or the tone of Mr. Forte.
[165] As is evident from the above, this Court has concerns about the credibility and reliability of N.C.’s evidence. Corroboration of her allegations is not required. In fact, we should refrain from using that term, “corroboration”, altogether. It is more accurate to simply refer to other evidence adduced at trial that tends to strengthen or weaken the Crown’s case; other trial evidence that tends to confirm, or to not confirm, the material allegations made by N.C.
[166] Confirmatory evidence is not necessary to find either accused guilty of any of the offences charged. They may be found guilty based on the evidence of N.C., alone.
[167] In my view, however, given the many significant difficulties with her evidence summarized above, it would be unsafe to rely on N.C.’s evidence where it is not supported by other evidence adduced at trial, including the text messages between N.C. and Simeu.
[168] The said statement, immediately above, is particularly relevant to this Court’s adjudication of the assault, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement charges that Simeu is facing.
[169] At the same time, there is good reason for this Court to not believe the evidence of Simeu, particularly as it relates to the human trafficking offence and the key consideration of whether Simeu intended to exploit or to facilitate the exploitation of N.C. Why do I say that? Because, like N.C., Simeu’s evidence suffers from some significant frailties.
[170] First, Simeu was materially inconsistent in some of his trial evidence.
[171] In cross-examination by the Crown, Simeu first stated that he took the photo number 176, Exhibit 4, a photo of N.C., but he later testified that the said photo was taken by N.C. herself.
[172] In direct examination, Simeu initially resisted the term “quota”, however, in cross-examination by the Crown he referred to the “quota” many times, although he stated that it was something that he did not arrive at unilaterally.
[173] Simeu changed his evidence at trial about whether he was involved in the sex trade industry when he first met N.C. He told Mr. Forte and first told Ms. Stevenson that he was not. He later admitted that he was, as evident from texts between him and Clitus on July 2, 2020 (Exhibit 27).
[174] Simeu, in cross-examination by the Crown on October 18, 2023, stated two things that cannot be reconciled with each other. He testified that N.C. not meeting the quota was one reason why he would not permit her to return to his apartment, yet he also said that he did not “restrict N.C.’s access to the apartment”.
[175] Also on October 18, 2023, on another point, Simeu said two things that are irreconcilable with each other. He said that it never happened that N.C. vomited or gagged while giving him oral sex (that statement was not qualified in terms of whether the gagging was reflexive or deliberate), but he then stated that she did gag, and he may have even told her that he liked it when she gagged, but that the said gagging was intentional.
[176] Simeu said two different things at trial about why N.C. did not want to perform sexual services for Black men. He first stated that it was because of the stereotypical notion about the size of Black men’s penises, but he later stated that it was because Black men tend to cause a lot of problems, generally.
[177] On October 20, 2023, Simeu, having previously testified that he was “indifferent” about N.C. leaving on that final day that they were together, admitted to the Crown that his text messages to N.C. (Exhibit 5, around line 8845) are not at all illustrative of him being “indifferent” about her leaving.
[178] On October 20, 2023, near the end of the day, Simeu agreed with the Crown that N.C. was his “bitch”, meaning his sex trade worker, however, earlier in his evidence he had denied that he was N.C.’s boss or pimp. In my view, those two pieces of evidence are conflictual.
[179] In cross-examination by the Crown, Simeu was inconsistent on whether he and Clitus were “business partners”. He first agreed with that expression as used by the Crown, but he later resiled from that position.
[180] Second, the uncontroverted trial evidence before this Court is inconsistent with Simeu’s sworn testimony before Harris J. of the Ontario Court of Justice, in a related proceeding, on October 19, 2021. At page 36 of the transcript of that proceeding, Simeu testified that “I haven’t had contact with him”, meaning Anthony Badibanga Mukendi. But Simeu testified in our trial that he did have contact with that person after that person was released from jail, and that was before Simeu testified before Justice Harris.
[181] Simeu explained the plain contradiction by saying that he never meant to testify before Harris J. that he had no contact with that person generally, but instead he meant to convey that he had no contact with that person about that person coming back to Simeu’s place. With respect, that explanation makes no common sense. The transcript of the lower court proceeding speaks for itself.
[182] Further, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that Simeu was not completely truthful when he testified before Harris J. that (i) he had one cellular telephone in December 2020 (page 22 of the transcript from October 19, 2021 – Simeu, we know, had more than one cellular telephone in December 2020), and that (ii) he merely had access to the telephone number 514-716-7926 (pages 26-27 of the transcript from October 19, 2021 – Simeu, we know, had much more than access to that number; it was his number, and he was using it), and that (iii) he had lived at a specific residence for about a year before December 4th (page 100 of the transcript from October 18, 2021 – Simeu, we know, did not live at that residence for anywhere close to a year before the date in question).
[183] Simeu explained the third item by saying that he meant to tell Justice Harris that he lived in Ontario, not at that specific residence, for a year before December 4th. That makes no sense at all; the clear wording of the transcript defies that explanation. Simeu explained the second item by saying that he meant to tell Justice Harris that he was using that telephone number but not “constantly”. Again, that is simply nonsensical when one reads the plain wording of the transcript. Simeu explained the first item by saying that he intended to tell Justice Harris that he had one new cellular telephone but may still have the old one. Similarly, the transcript speaks for itself – that explanation is simply not credible.
[184] Third, the uncontroverted evidence at trial demonstrates that Simeu either failed to tell the whole truth or made a serious mistake in his sworn affidavit dated June 3, 2022, at paragraph 13, where he completely omitted any mention of him having ever lived in Burlington.
[185] Further, regarding that same affidavit, at paragraph 11, there is no mention of Simeu working in and making money in the music industry. One would have thought that such a reference would be there given Simeu’s trial evidence that he was working in the music industry and earning money from that work throughout his time with N.C.
[186] Fourth, some of Simeu’s trial evidence was unreasonably stilted. There were things that he clearly should have admitted but refused to admit. For example, he told Ms. Stevenson that he had a yelling problem when he was with N.C., which she may have found to be “intimidating”. But not “scary”, he steadfastly maintained. With respect, the two are virtually synonymous when one considers the admitted significant size difference between Simeu and N.C. and the degree of his acknowledged yelling problem. Another example is the tattoo on Clitus’ buttock. From a review of Exhibit 27, around lines 6334, 6372, 6374, 6390, and 8620, it is obvious that Simeu’s name, or a version of it, is indeed tattooed on Clitus’ buttock, in Arabic. Notwithstanding those text messages between Simeu and Clitus, however, in cross-examination by the Crown, Simeu continually denied that obvious fact. Eventually, on October 20, 2023, Simeu testified that the said tattoo does symbolize him, whatever that means, but it is not his actual name.
[187] Fifth, Simeu was prone to carelessness in some of his trial evidence. The clearest example of that came on October 20, 2023, in the afternoon session, when he told the Crown that N.C. may have worked in the sex trade industry for someone else between March 4th and March 16, 2021. That, with respect, was not a responsible thing for Simeu to have said, and I am sure that he knows that. It was unfair to N.C. It was entirely speculative, as he himself admitted when he stated that he had no evidence whatsoever to support that statement, whether texts or anything else.
[188] Sixth and finally, Simeu was, at times, unreasonably hostile with Ms. Stevenson during cross-examination. This Court understands that the cross-examination by the Crown was lengthy, thorough, and tenacious. It was entirely professional and appropriate throughout, however, and there was no legitimate reason for Simeu to have become so frustrated with the questions being asked of him.
Summary of the Assessment of the Credibility and Reliability of the Witnesses and How that Assessment Informs the Verdicts
[189] This Court accepts the evidence of Ann, McGuire, and Serafini.
[190] Because of the significant difficulties with the evidence of both N.C. and Simeu, summarized above, where their evidence conflicts and there is no other reliable evidence adduced at trial that tends to strengthen the Crown’s case on the offence in question, this Court is unable to determine who should be believed. That statement applies to each of the assault, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement charges.
[191] Put another way, on each of those three charges, the evidence of Simeu, although not believed by this Court, in conjunction with all of the other evidence at trial, leaves this Court with a reasonable doubt. In actuality, even if this Court concluded that the evidence of Simeu does not leave me with a reasonable doubt that he sexually assaulted, assaulted, and/or unlawfully confined N.C., in other words even if this Court entirely rejected the evidence of Simeu as being simply unworthy of belief, on the rest of the evidence at trial that the Court does accept, I would have a reasonable doubt on those three charges – the sexual assault, the assault, and the unlawful confinement.
[192] On the human trafficking offence, because of the significant difficulties with the evidence of Simeu, highlighted above, this Court does not believe the evidence of Simeu that he did not intend to exploit or to facilitate the exploitation of N.C. Nor does the evidence of Simeu, whether alone or in conjunction with all of the other trial evidence, leave me with a reasonable doubt about whether he intended to exploit or to facilitate the exploitation of N.C. Finally, unlike the situation with the charges of assault, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement, regarding the offence of human trafficking, on the key issue of an intention to exploit N.C., there is other reliable evidence adduced at trial that tends to strengthen the Crown’s case and to confirm the allegations made by N.C. That other reliable evidence comes in the form of Exhibit 5, the texts between N.C. and Simeu. Those are crucial to the verdict on the human trafficking offence. That evidence fills the vacuum left by the frailties associated with the evidence of N.C., summarized above.
[193] Stated differently, on the only disputed issue underlying the human trafficking offence, which also determines the result on the charge of receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, that is the mens rea of the offence – the intention to exploit, the evidence in its totality amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[194] With regard to Rodriguez-Hidalgo, the charges rest almost exclusively on the evidence of N.C. That evidence has many problems with it, as outlined above. As a result, the strength of the Crown’s case is not compelling.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions
The Charges Against Rodriguez-Hidalgo
[195] I repeat, here, the issues to be decided as they pertain to Rodriguez-Hidalgo.
- Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rodriguez-Hidalgo procured N.C. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, or for the purpose of facilitating an offence under section 286.1 of the Criminal Code – the obtaining of N.C.’s sexual services for consideration, recruited N.C. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration? If yes, he should be found guilty of the procuring offence. If not, he should be acquitted on that count.
This Court would answer that question in the negative. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodriguez-Hidalgo procured or recruited N.C.
- Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rodriguez-Hidalgo knowingly advertised N.C.’s sexual services for consideration? If yes, he should be found guilty of the advertising offence. If not, he should be acquitted on that count.
This Court would answer that question in the negative. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodriguez-Hidalgo advertised N.C.’s sexual services.
- Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rodriguez-Hidalgo received a material benefit from N.C.’s sexual services? If yes, he should be found guilty of that offence. If not, he should be acquitted on that count.
This Court would answer that question in the negative. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodriguez-Hidalgo received a material benefit from N.C.’s sexual services.
[196] I begin with this observation – the police cannot be faulted for having charged Rodriguez-Hidalgo, and the Crown cannot be criticized for having prosecuted him at trial. After all, if N.C. told the police anything similar to what she said at trial in direct examination, there was a reasonable prospect of conviction on all of the charges that were laid against Rodriguez-Hidalgo. Further, it would have seemed unfair for the police and the Crown to pursue only Simeu when, according to N.C.’s in-chief trial testimony (and likely, I suspect, in accordance with what she told the police), she would not have been a sex trade worker in Ontario if not for the involvement of Rodriguez-Hidalgo.
[197] Having said that, the following considerations drive the verdicts against Rodriguez-Hidalgo. First, this Court has concerns about the veracity of N.C.’s evidence, generally, for the reasons outlined above. Second, aside from N.C.’s assertions in direct examination at trial, there is no independent evidence that inculpates Rodriguez-Hidalgo except for the alleged text messages between Rodriguez-Hidalgo and Simeu, and that evidence, as outlined above, given the cross-examination of McGuire by Mr. Mergler, has serious limitations to it. Third, this Court may accept all, some, or none of N.C.’s evidence, and her evidence in cross-examination by Mr. Mergler, a very effective cross-examination I might add, led to a series of admissions that essentially gutted the Crown’s case against Rodriguez-Hidalgo. If I accept that evidence of N.C. in cross-examination by Mr. Mergler, acquittals would inevitably flow on all of the remaining charges against Rodriguez-Hidalgo. If I accept N.C.’s direct evidence at trial as it pertains to Rodriguez-Hidalgo and, in doing so, ignore the difficulties with her evidence generally, findings of guilt could result. I am not prepared to do that.
[198] In direct examination, N.C. testified that she first met Rodriguez-Hidalgo in 2019, in Quebec. Later, she met him again at a party. At that party, he mentioned the possibility of her working in the sex trade. He said that she and another female who was also at the same party, Sasa, would work and get about 50% of the money, and he would get the other 50%. She and Sasa agreed to the 50-50 arrangement.
[199] In cross-examination by Mr. Mergler, however, N.C. testified that Rodriguez-Hidalgo did not talk about sex trade work or prostitution at the said party.
[200] The above evidence is relevant to the procuring charge. I am unable to find as a fact that Rodriguez-Hidalgo said anything at all about sex trade work at the party.
[201] In direct examination, N.C. testified that she came from Quebec to Ontario in a motor vehicle, with Rodriguez-Hidalgo, Sasa, and two others. Those two others she never saw again after they were dropped off at a hotel. N.C. arrived in Ontario on July 1, 2020. At that time, she was 19 years old.
[202] In cross-examination by Mr. Mergler, N.C. testified that, while driving from Quebec to Ontario, there was no talk by anyone about sex trade work or prostitution.
[203] The above evidence is also relevant to the procuring charge. I am unable to find as a fact that Rodriguez-Hidalgo said anything at all about sex trade work during the said trip from Quebec to Ontario.
[204] N.C. testified that Rodriguez-Hidalgo drove her and Sasa to Simeu’s apartment in Burlington. Simeu was not there, but they stayed overnight. The next day, Rodriguez-Hidalgo drove them to a hotel. They stayed at that hotel for three or four nights. He took photos of her and Sasa wearing lingerie. Clients came, and sexual services were provided to them by N.C. and by Sasa. Rodriguez-Hidalgo said that he was publishing their photos on an escort website, Leolist.
[205] The above evidence is relevant to both the procuring and the advertising charges. I do not accept that evidence from N.C. She was far too contradictory in her trial evidence, direct and cross-examination, when it came to the alleged involvement of Rodriguez-Hidalgo, and her evidence, generally, standing alone, is suspect. Further, the other evidence at trial, most notably the alleged electronic communications between Rodriguez-Hidalgo and Simeu, does little to strengthen the Crown’s case against Rodriguez-Hidalgo.
[206] According to N.C., Rodriguez-Hidalgo would text her if she had a client. He would tell her what to charge the client and for how long. She gave all the money received from clients to him. The last time she saw Rodriguez-Hidalgo, he gave her $400.00.
[207] The above evidence is relevant to all three of the remaining charges against Rodriguez-Hidalgo – procuring, advertising, and receipt of a material benefit from N.C.’s sexual services. I do not accept that evidence from N.C., for the same reasons outlined immediately above. In addition to those reasons, N.C. contradicted herself when she told Mr. Forte in cross-examination that, while she was with Rodriguez-Hidalgo for the very brief time that they were together, she communicated directly with the clients.
[208] N.C. testified that Rodriguez-Hidalgo took her and Sasa back to Simeu’s apartment. Rodriguez-Hidalgo said that they were not making enough money at the hotel and that they needed Simeu’s experience to help them.
[209] The above evidence is relevant to both the procuring charge and the receipt of a material benefit from N.C.’s sexual services offence. Similarly, I do not accept that evidence.
[210] According to N.C., at Simeu’s apartment, Simeu and Rodriguez-Hidalgo argued. That was on July 5, 2020. Simeu suggested that he would manage N.C., and Rodriguez-Hidalgo would manage Sasa. Rodriguez-Hidalgo asked N.C. to delete Simeu from Snapchat or he would return her to Quebec. She refused to do so. She decided to stay with Simeu because he was attractive physically and was intelligent. Rodriguez-Hidalgo gave her $400.00 and left. N.C. stayed with Simeu. She never saw Rodriguez-Hidalgo or Sasa again.
[211] The above evidence is relevant to both the procuring charge and the receipt of a material benefit from N.C.’s sexual services offence. Again, I do not accept that evidence, except to the extent that Rodriguez-Hidalgo left Simeu’s apartment with Sasa, after some disagreement between him and Simeu, and N.C. stayed with Simeu. That accepted evidence is not enough to find Rodriguez-Hidalgo guilty of any of the three remaining charges, and the evidence at trial as a whole, including the testimony of Simeu, which touched very tangentially on Rodriguez-Hidalgo, and the alleged electronic communications between Simeu and Rodriguez-Hidalgo, does not change this Court’s view about the strength of the Crown’s case.
[212] Frankly, once the evidence of N.C. is discounted, which it is, it is an uphill climb for the Crown given the precious little else in the evidentiary record that inculpates Rodriguez-Hidalgo. The Crown has been unable to make it to the top of that climb.
[213] It must also be remembered that N.C. agreed with Mr. Mergler that she spent only 1-2 days, total, with Rodriguez-Hidalgo. An accused does not need even 1-2 days to commit any of the three criminal offences in question. That is not my point, and that evidence has nothing to do with de minimis either. My point is that it is not surprising that N.C.’s evidence as it pertains to Rodriguez-Hidalgo is contradictory, amorphous, and vague. She spent such little time with him, and so long ago, and her attention has always been on Simeu. Her evidence against Rodriguez-Hidalgo is unreliable, in part because of the brevity of their relationship.
[214] Of course, N.C. also told Mr. Mergler that she is not sure who posted the ads for her, which evidence weakens even further the advertising count against Rodriguez-Hidalgo.
[215] N.C. also admitted to Mr. Mergler all of the following: that there are no texts that have been produced between her and Rodriguez-Hidalgo, and that she is not sure if Rodriguez-Hidalgo talked with clients even after she did herself initially, and that the hotel reservation (for three nights) was in her name, and that she did not work on one of those nights because she went to a party, and that she never considered that she had ever worked for Rodriguez-Hidalgo, and that it was her choice to come to Ontario and to work in the sex trade industry. All of that evidence weakens even further all three of the charges remaining against Rodriguez-Hidalgo, especially the procuring count.
[216] On the procuring count, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rodriguez-Hidalgo procured N.C. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration. To “procure” means to cause or to induce or to persuade. By “persuade”, we mean to have a persuasive effect upon the conduct that is alleged. R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733, 394 C.C.C. (3d) 423, at paragraph 65. The Crown has failed to prove that. At most, Rodriguez-Hidalgo transported N.C. from Quebec to Ontario, was with her briefly, during that time she did some sex trade work, and then they parted company for good. That is not a criminal offence, and certainly not procuring.
[217] Alternatively, on the procuring count, the Crown could argue that Rodriguez-Hidalgo intended (had the purpose of) facilitating an offence under section 286.1(1) – the obtaining of N.C.’s sexual services for consideration, and to effect that intention or purpose he recruited, held, concealed, or harboured N.C., or exercised control, direction, or influence over her movements.
[218] In my view, the Crown has failed to prove that.
[219] Assuming, without deciding, that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodriguez-Hidalgo recruited N.C., or held N.C., or concealed N.C., or harboured N.C., or that he exercised control, direction, or influence over her movements, it has not been proven to the requisite standard of proof that he did so for the purpose of facilitating an offence under section 286.1(1).
[220] On the actus reus portion of this alternative route to liability on the procuring count, the closest call would be on whether Rodriguez-Hidalgo exercised direction or influence over N.C.’s movements. He was the driver. In that sense, he helped her move from one place to another. “Control”, “direction”, and “influence” do not all mean the same thing. “Control” connotes something that is more coercive than both “direction” and “influence”, and “influence” is something that is less coercive than even “direction”. “Influence” does not have to mean that the other person has no free will left. “Influence” means doing anything to affect the other person’s movements. R. v. Gallone, 2019 ONCA 663, at paragraphs 42-51.
[221] Thus, I am prepared to assume that Rodriguez-Hidalgo committed the criminal act of exercising influence over N.C.’s movements.
[222] I am not satisfied, however, that he did so for the purpose of facilitating the purchasing of N.C.’s sexual services. On that essential element of the offence, I have a reasonable doubt. Again, it boils down to this - Rodriguez-Hidalgo transported N.C. from Quebec to Ontario, was with her briefly, during that time she did some sex trade work, and then they parted company for good. That is not a criminal offence, and not, in my view, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodriguez-Hidalgo exercised influence over the movements of N.C. (drove her around) in order to facilitate the purchasing of her sexual services. The mens rea of the offence has not been made out, under this alternative route to liability on the procuring charge.
[223] There is another reason, though less important and certainly not determinative, as to why this Court is uncomfortable with the prospect of finding Rodriguez-Hidalgo guilty of procuring on the basis that he did something to facilitate an offence under section 286.1(1). That is the fact that it was not really the way in which the case was presented at the outset of trial and during the evidence of N.C. herself. I want to be clear – there is nothing improper or unfair or unprofessional about the Crown’s reliance on both routes to liability on the procuring offence. The facilitation argument is somewhat of an afterthought, however, because of how weak the straight procurement evidence became after the cross-examination of N.C. by Mr. Mergler.
[224] There will be a finding of not guilty on the procuring charge.
[225] The advertising charge is very weak given that, on her evidence as a whole, not even N.C. can say for sure whether Rodriguez-Hidalgo posted any of her ads. There is no other evidence at trial that does enough to compensate for that, including the evidence of Simeu (which hardly dealt with Rodriguez-Hidalgo at all) and the alleged electronic communications between Simeu and Rodriguez-Hidalgo.
[226] An acquittal must result on the advertising count. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
[227] A finding of not guilty must also result on the section 286.2(1) offence. Likewise, it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
[228] There is no allegation that Rodriguez-Hidalgo received any material benefit other than money. The evidence that he obtained money comes from N.C., and that evidence is not accepted by this Court, as explained above. There is no other reliable evidence at trial that moves the needle to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, including that of Simeu and the alleged texts between Simeu and Rodriguez-Hidalgo.
[229] In the result, Rodriguez-Hidalgo is found not guilty on all counts.
The Charges Against Simeu
[230] I repeat, here, the issues to be decided as they pertain to Simeu.
- Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simeu intended to exploit or to facilitate the exploitation of N.C.? If yes, he should be found guilty of human trafficking and guilty of receiving a material benefit from human trafficking. If not, he should be acquitted on both of those charges.
This Court would answer that question in the affirmative. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Simeu intended to exploit N.C.
- Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simeu sexually assaulted N.C.? More specifically, that he had non-consensual anal intercourse with N.C. and/or that he forced N.C. to give him oral sex, whether once or more than once. If yes, he should be found guilty of sexual assault. If not, he should be acquitted on that count.
This Court would answer that question in the negative. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Simeu sexually assaulted N.C.
- Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simeu assaulted N.C.? More specifically, in terms of alleged incidents that occurred within or in close proximity to the offence period as framed in the Indictment, that is in March 2021, that he grabbed N.C., lifted her up, and/or threw her against a mirror, among other things. If yes, he should be found guilty of assault. If not, he should be acquitted on that count.
This Court would answer that question in the negative. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Simeu assaulted N.C.
- Has the Crown proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simeu unlawfully confined N.C.? More specifically, that he locked or kept N.C. in the bathroom and/or somehow prevented her from leaving the bathroom or the residence during that same incident that gave rise to the assault allegation described immediately above. If yes, he should be found guilty of unlawful confinement. If not, he should be acquitted on that count.
This Court would answer that question in the negative. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Simeu confined N.C.
[231] On the human trafficking and receipt of a material benefit from human trafficking offences, and the key issue of an intention to exploit, this Court finds not only that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Simeu did intend to exploit N.C. but also that he did, in fact, exploit N.C.
[232] In looking at the offence under section 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code, in addition to the usual items of identity of the accused, date, and jurisdiction (none of which is an issue in our case), the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did one or more than one of the acts listed. Here, it is admitted by Simeu that he, at a minimum, exercised direction or influence over the movements of N.C., and the evidence, including Exhibit 5 – the texts between Simeu and N.C., clearly establishes that.
[233] Given that admission by the defence, this Court finds it strictly unnecessary to decide whether Simeu also exercised “control” over the movements of N.C. In the event that Simeu is found guilty of human trafficking, it will make little to no difference to the sentence that is imposed on him for that offence, particularly given the findings of the Court below in discussing the Sinclair factors as they relate to the question of whether Simeu’s conduct could reasonably be expected to have caused N.C. to fear for her safety.
[234] In addition to the actus reus of the offence, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the act was done for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of N.C. That is the issue in our case.
[235] In deciding that question, it must be remembered that no consent by N.C. to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the offence is valid – section 279.01(2). Further, in deciding the issue of whether the act was done for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of N.C., section 279.04 is important.
[236] Under section 279.04(1), a person exploits another if he causes them to provide or offer to provide a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety would be threatened if they failed to provide or offer to provide the service. The following factors may be considered: the accused’s use or threatened use of force or coercion, the accused’s use of deception, and whether the accused abused a position of trust, power or authority – section 279.04(2).
[237] The term “safety” in section 279.04(1) is not confined to physical security but also includes mental, psychological, and emotional safety. There is no dispute about that in our case. That principle is consistent with how courts have interpreted the term “safety” as it pertains to other offences, such as criminal harassment. R. v. Ryback, 1996 CanLII 1833, 105 C.C.C. (3d) 240 (B.C.C.A.), at paragraph 37.
[238] The expression “reasonably be expected” in section 279.04(1) connotes an objective measurement, from the perspective of a reasonable person, but taking into account the specific facts of the case at hand including the ages of the persons in question, their genders, their sizes, and their personal circumstances. Again, there is no dispute about any of this in our case, and again, this principle is consistent with how courts have interpreted that expression in the context of other criminal offences, such as criminal harassment. R. v. Sillipp, 1995 CanLII 5591, 99 C.C.C. (3d) 394 (AB QB).
[239] Generally speaking, a review of dictionary definitions of the term “exploitation”, including that found at www.oxfordreference.com, demonstrates that to exploit someone is to take make use of them for your own ends; to take advantage of some weakness or vulnerability in the other person.
[240] This Court is not suggesting that the adjudication of the question of whether an accused did something for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of another is as simple as having reference to a dictionary. My point is that there is nothing inconsistent between how we generally understand the term “exploitation” to mean and section 279.04 of the Criminal Code.
[241] As this Court observed in R. v. D’Souza, 2016 ONSC 2749, at paragraph 130, in the context of deciding a constitutional challenge to the human trafficking provisions, it is relevant but not necessary that the complainant felt exploited or that the complainant was, in fact, exploited. What is required is that the accused caused (not forced) the complainant to provide or offer to provide a service (here, sexual services to clients) by engaging in conduct that could reasonably be expected to (not did in fact) cause the complainant to believe that the complainant’s safety would be threatened if the complainant did not do so.
[242] This Court agrees with all counsel that the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Sinclair, 2020 ONCA 61, is instructive. Set out below are paragraphs 9 through 15 of that decision. This Court invites the reader to pay particular attention to the comments of Justice Pardu, for the Court, at paragraphs 12, 14, and 15.
[9] The appellant was charged under section 279.01(1) of Criminal Code, which reads as follows:
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…
Exploitation is defined under section 279.04(1) of the Criminal Code:
For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging 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.
[10] The first element of the offence is an action by the accused, who must be a person who “recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person”. This court explained the meaning of “influence” in this context in R. v. Gallone, 2019 ONCA 663, 147 O.R. (3d) 225, at para. 47:
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. [Footnote omitted.]
[11] There was no substantial dispute as to this element of the offence at trial. There can be no doubt the appellant exercised influence over the complainant by persuading her to live with him, by telling her how much to charge customers, and by posting ads for her to work as a sex trade worker, among other things.
[12] The second element is that the accused’s actions must be for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of the complainant. Actual exploitation is not required. The focus is on the accused’s state of mind. Where exploitation arises on the facts, “inferring that the accused’s purpose was to exploit the victim will usually be a relatively straightforward task”: Gallone, at para. 54; R. v. A.A., 2015 ONCA 558, 327 C.C.C. (3d) 377, at para. 87.
[13] The third element is met if the accused causes the complainant to provide or offer to provide a service. Again, there was no dispute that the complainant provided and offered to provide services as a sex trade worker.
[14] The fourth element is that the accused so causes the complainant to provide or offer a service by “engaging 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”. Actual exploitation is not necessary. The fourth element is assessed on an objective basis. Safety includes protection from psychological harm:A.A., at paras. 71-73; Gallone, at paras. 53-54.
[15] Circumstances that might be relevant when assessing whether conduct could reasonably be expected to cause a complainant to fear for their safety might include:
• 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 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.
For an example in which some of these factors are applied, see R. v. Crosdale, 2018 ONCJ 800, at paras. 139, 144, and 148-169.
[243] In applying those factors to our case, I agree with the Crown that almost all of them are present, and significantly so.
[244] The presence or absence of violence or threats – the evidence from both N.C. and Simeu is that Simeu, during his time with N.C., had a yelling problem; he had an anger problem; he was, at times, intimidating. Both N.C. and Simeu also agree that Simeu was like an enforcer who would, particularly during the earlier stage of their working relationship, physically intervene with aggressive clients in hotel rooms and get rid of them. As well, Exhibit 5 contains numerous texts from Simeu to N.C. that are not direct threats but which are certainly threatening in nature. Any message from Simeu to N.C. that is to the effect that N.C. better get ready to do more time in the hotel room because a client was not serviced, a door was not opened, and/or a quota was not met, that is, in my view, a threatening remark. In addition, there are many examples in Exhibit 5 of angry texts from Simeu to N.C. – those messages around line 6292 are just one illustration of Simeu’s anger coming through in his text messages to N.C. None of the evidence identified herein depends exclusively on the testimony of N.C. All of the evidence identified herein is uncontroverted.
[245] Coercion – the entire working relationship between N.C. and Simeu was built on coercion. Simeu would dispute that characterization, but he must understand that his own trial evidence supports it. The following facts are undisputed: it was N.C. who spent lengthy periods of time, alone, in hotel rooms, while Simeu was free to do whatever and be wherever he wanted; there was a quota that had to be met, and the meeting of that quota was tied to how long N.C. had to remain in the hotel room; and, by the very fact that it was N.C. who had to finesse or service the clients and obtain the money from them, the pressure fell mainly on her. The quota was a tool of coercion, regardless of whether it applied to Simeu as well as N.C. “Coercion” commonly refers to an element of persuasion through the employment of force or threats. The quota was exactly that. Meet the quota or else, and the “or else” was something that both parties knew was not what N.C. wanted – to be forced to stay longer, by herself, in a hotel room.
[246] Deception – Simeu himself admitted at trial that N.C. was not told everything about Clitus. There is no question that N.C. was deceived, in part, about the extent of the romantic relationship between Simeu and Clitus. I am not suggesting that N.C. knew nothing, but she certainly did not know that Clitus was visiting Simeu fairly regularly and that the two of them were in love with each other throughout all of N.C.’s involvement with Simeu. It was clear to me at trial that Simeu still has strong feelings for Clitus, and there is nothing wrong with that, but N.C. deserved to be told that she would never replace Clitus no matter how much she cared for Simeu and regardless of what romantic feelings Simeu started to have for N.C. as well.
[247] Abuse of trust, power, or authority – this was not an equal business partnership, as alleged by Simeu. How could it be? She was in hotel rooms. He was wherever he wanted to be. It was her who had to make the money to meet the quota. It was him that created Gwapster, the automatic pimping machine that only he could shut-off. Simeu worked hard at this enterprise as well – this Court would not suggest otherwise. But between the two of them, the balance of power rested in Simeu’s hands. Over time, he abused that power. The texts, Exhibit 5, clearly demonstrate that N.C. became more and more desperate for his company, more and more lonely, more and more sad. With the quota, however, the work had to continue. That is an abusive relationship.
[248] Vulnerability – it was known to Simeu that N.C. was considerably younger than him, from Quebec and in Ontario without any family or close friends nearby, without any assets to speak of, not at all fluent in English, and prone to anxiety for which she took medication. She was clearly vulnerable to coercion.
[249] Isolation – the text messages between the parties, Exhibit 5, and Simeu’s own evidence at trial confirm that N.C. was isolated while in Ontario. Perhaps not to the degree alleged by N.C., given her regular trips back home to Quebec and her communications with friends while working here, but she was almost exclusively in the physical company of (i) strange clients or (ii) Simeu while she was in Ontario, for months on end. That, undoubtedly, was isolating for her.
[250] The nature of the relationship between Simeu and N.C. – it was an exploitative relationship. In doing what he admittedly did, including creating Gwapster and effectively preventing N.C. from coming to the apartment if the quota was not met, Simeu treated N.C. unfairly in order to benefit himself with more money earned from her sexual services. It was not an equal relationship. It was not a business partnership. As Simeu testified to, she was his “bitch”. I know that Simeu explained that he did not mean that in a derogatory way but, at minimum, it signals to this Court that there was a significant power imbalance between Simeu and N.C.
[251] Directive behaviour – there is no dispute in the evidence that Simeu was the major decision-maker in terms of where and in what hotels N.C. performed the sexual services. That, alone, is directive behaviour. But there was a lot more directive behaviour than that, including for example frequent texts from Simeu to N.C. to open the door for a client or telling her to stay awake.
[252] Influence over the nature of the sexual services provided and the location that the sexual services were provided – the locations, admitted by Simeu, were decided by him. The ads were written and posted by him, although with some input from N.C., and the communications with clients were done by him, all admitted by Simeu at trial.
[253] Control over the advertising – there is no dispute in the evidence that Simeu was responsible for all aspects of the advertising of N.C.’s sexual services, except that, according to Simeu, he may not have taken every single one of the photos for the ads and, further, N.C. had some input into the content of the ads, such as the prohibition on Black men. It is fair to say that he had much more control over the advertising than she did.
[254] Limitations on N.C.’s movements – the clearest example, evident from Exhibit 5 and Simeu’s own evidence at trial, is that Simeu would effectively prevent N.C. from returning to the apartment unless and until the quota was met. The quota was a serious restriction on N.C.’s liberty.
[255] Control of finances – the trial evidence is that N.C. got paid virtually nothing but could keep small bills received from clients (her evidence), or that N.C. received her fair share of the money by payments from Simeu (his evidence). Either way, however, he controlled the finances in the sense that she was simply a conduit for the money. He was the depository of the money. It was him that decided when, how, and how much money she received.
[256] Financial benefit to Simeu – Simeu admitted in cross-examination by the Crown that N.C. made him a lot of money.
[257] Use of social media to assert control or monitor communications with others – this is the only factor mentioned in Sinclair, supra, and in R. v. Crosdale, 2018 ONCJ 800, that is not directly relevant in our case. Outside of the online advertising of N.C.’s sexual services, this is not a case where Simeu used social media to control N.C. This is not a case where Simeu controlled or monitored N.C.’s electronic communications with others. He certainly used Gwapster as an automatic pimping machine for N.C.’s sexual services to clients, but that is a different matter.
[258] In our case, almost every factor outlined in Sinclair, supra is present. In our case, every factor enumerated in section 279.04(2) is present. In our case, there can be no reasonable debate that Simeu caused N.C. to provide sexual services to clients, within the meaning of section 279.04(1). For example, sending a text message to N.C. demanding that she open the door to service a client is causing her to provide sexual services to that client. In our case, there can be no reasonable debate that Simeu’s conduct could reasonably be expected to have caused N.C. to believe that her safety would be threatened if she failed to provide sexual services to clients. The quota, alone, and Simeu holding N.C. to the quota, could reasonably be expected to have caused N.C. to believe that she had to perform sexual services for clients or else she would suffer even further, psychologically and emotionally, by having to remain on her own in the hotel room.
[259] Examined both jurisprudentially and statutorily, that Simeu exploited N.C. has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It follows that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Simeu intended to exploit N.C., and that is the only issue that is disputed on the charge of human trafficking.
[260] There will be findings of guilt entered against Simeu on the two offences of human trafficking and receipt of a material benefit from human trafficking.
[261] This Court wants to close this section of the reasons for judgment with some further comments. Mr. Forte was very effective in cross-examining N.C. at trial and in lessening the weight that this Court could reasonably place on her evidence. What Mr. Forte could not change, however, is Exhibit 5, the text messages between Simeu and N.C. That evidence is formidable.
[262] Where the evidence of N.C. conflicts with that of Simeu, the verdict on the human trafficking count does not depend on this Court’s acceptance of N.C.’s evidence. Rather, as can be seen from the above analysis, the conclusion that the Crown has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, all essential elements of the section 279.01(1) offence is rooted in (i) Exhibit 5, the text communications between Simeu and N.C., and (ii) the admissions of Simeu himself while testifying at trial.
[263] This Court will now move on to discuss the other charges against Simeu. As the reader will note, the analysis of the sexual assault, assault, and unlawful confinement charges against Simeu is quite different than with regard to the human trafficking offence. Here, the Crown’s case is much more dependent on this Court’s acceptance of the evidence of N.C., including where it is in direct conflict with that of Simeu. Here, Exhibit 5 is not particularly helpful for the Crown. Here, Simeu’s evidence at trial was in no way inculpatory.
[264] Of course, by this point in the reasons for judgment, the verdicts on the remaining counts against Simeu will likely come as no surprise to counsel given that this Court, in discussing the Sinclair factors as they relate to the human trafficking offence, and specifically the factor of violence towards N.C., made no mention of any sexual assault, assault, or unlawful confinement.
[265] With regard to the charge of sexual assault, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of these essential elements of the offence: (i) that Simeu intentionally applied force to N.C., (ii) that N.C. did not consent to the force that Simeu intentionally applied, (iii) that Simeu knew that N.C. did not consent to the force that he intentionally applied, and (iv) that the force that Simeu intentionally applied took place in circumstances of a sexual nature.
[266] The trial evidence of N.C., if accepted by this Court, is capable of grounding a finding of guilt on the offence of sexual assault. There is no other evidence at trial that tends to strengthen the allegations made by N.C. that she had sexual relations with Simeu without her consent, whether vaginally, or anally, or orally. That is not surprising, as sexual activity is usually done in private, and there is no requirement, not even an expectation, that there be anything that confirms the evidence of N.C.
[267] Given the difficulties with her evidence outlined above, however, and in light of the firm denials by Simeu, this Court is unsure who to believe. I am unable to find as facts that the incidents happened as described by N.C. Specifically, I am not sure that N.C. and Simeu ever had anal sex, regardless of the consent issue. I am not sure that Simeu ever forced N.C. to perform oral sex on him when she did not want to do so, causing her to vomit. I am not sure that Simeu ever did anything sexual to N.C. without her consent.
[268] There must be a finding of not guilty on the sexual assault charge.
[269] With regard to the charge of assault, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of these essential elements of the offence: (i) that Simeu intentionally applied force to N.C., (ii) that N.C. did not consent to the force that Simeu intentionally applied, and (iii) that Simeu knew that N.C. did not consent to the force that he intentionally applied.
[270] N.C. and Simeu gave very different accounts of what happened at Simeu’s place on that final day that they were together. There are good reasons to be concerned about placing much weight on either account, as evident from this Court’s credibility and reliability assessment of the two main witnesses at trial.
[271] Again, this Court is unsure who to believe. That is not ameliorated by the evidence of Ann, whose evidence I accept. I am still left unsure about what happened on that final day.
[272] Based on Ann’s evidence, I find as facts that (i) N.C. was distraught when she was at Ann’s door, and (ii) N.C. asked for help from Ann, and (iii) N.C. had bruises and marks of some kind on her left chin/cheek area. Otherwise, on the totality of the evidence, no reliable findings of fact can be made.
[273] Ann’s evidence may or may not be seen as confirming N.C.’s account of what happened. The facial injuries were fresh and probably happened shortly before N.C. was at Ann’s door, although those injuries are not entirely consistent with how N.C. described them (N.C. testified that she had scratches on her chin and below her right eye, while Ann described the facial injuries as being something other than scratches and said nothing about an injury below N.C.’s right eye).
[274] How the facial injuries occurred, and why N.C. was distraught, I do not know. Perhaps because she had just been assaulted by Simeu in precisely the way that she described in her trial evidence, although I would have thought that such a severe physical attack by Simeu would have left her much more seriously injured than she was. Perhaps the facial injuries were accidental, as alluded to by Simeu, and N.C. was upset about having been treated badly by Simeu and the realization that the relationship was over, and she had nothing to show for it.
[275] I have a reasonable doubt. Even if this Court places little weight on the evidence of Simeu about what happened on that final day, in light of the fact that his version of events was admittedly not put to N.C. during her testimony at trial, and it should have been, and even if this Court concluded that the evidence of Simeu does not leave me with a reasonable doubt that he assaulted N.C., on the third branch of the W.(D.) analysis, I would still be left with a reasonable doubt. On the rest of the evidence at trial that this Court does accept, including that of Ann, I am not at all sure that Simeu assaulted N.C. on that final day that they were together.
[276] A finding of not guilty must result on the assault charge.
[277] With regard to the charge of unlawful confinement, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of these essential elements of the offence: (i) that Simeu intentionally confined N.C., and (ii) that the confinement was without lawful authority (which is not relevant in our case).
[278] Simply put, given this Court’s concerns about the veracity of N.C.’s evidence, generally, regardless of whether the Court believes or is left with a reasonable doubt on the basis of Simeu’s evidence, the charge of unlawful confinement has not been proven to the requisite standard. I cannot find as a fact that Simeu locked N.C. in the bathroom, or that he placed her inside the bathroom and closed the door, preventing her from leaving, or that he put her in the bathroom at all, or that he did anything on that final day to limit or restrict her ability to move freely within the apartment and to leave the apartment.
[279] I have a reasonable doubt. An acquittal must be entered on the unlawful confinement charge.
VIII. The Verdicts
[280] Ignoring those charges that have already been withdrawn by the Crown, but including those counts that Simeu pleaded guilty to, for all of the aforementioned reasons, the verdicts of the Court are as follows.
Simeu
Count 1, section 279.01, human trafficking – guilty
Count 2 – section 286.3(1), procuring – guilty
Count 3 – section 286.4(a), advertising sexual services – guilty
Count 8 – section 279.02(1), receipt of a material benefit from human trafficking – guilty
Count 9 – section 286.2(1), receipt of a material benefit from sexual services – guilty
Count 10 – section 271, sexual assault – not guilty
Count 11 – section 266, assault – not guilty
Count 12 – section 279(2), unlawful confinement – not guilty
Count 14 – section 145(5)(a), failure to comply with release order – guilty
Rodriguez-Hidalgo
Count 1, section 279.01, human trafficking – not guilty
Count 2, section 286.3(1), procuring – not guilty
Count 4, section 286.4(a), advertising sexual services – not guilty
Count 6, section 279.02(1), receipt of a material benefit from human trafficking – not guilty
Count 7, section 286.2(1), receipt of a material benefit from sexual services – not guilty
[281] This Court would like to thank all counsel, Ms. Stevenson, Mr. Forte, and Mr. Mergler, for their patience, for their professionalism, and for all of their hard work throughout a very lengthy and difficult trial.
[282] Finally, this Court would like to acknowledge the tremendous work of all of the interpreters who assisted throughout the trial.
Conlan J.
Released: February 7, 2024
COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-0004-0000
DATE: 2024 02 07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
– and –
Loic Aurel Simeu and Kevin Rodriguez-Hidalgo
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Conlan J.
Released: February 7, 2024