Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-24-83 and CR-24-221
Date: 2025-01-27
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King – and – Patrick Boyd Park

Appearances:
Amy Stevenson, for the Crown
Alexander Karapancev, for Mr. Park

Heard: January 23, 2025

Conlan J.

I. The Circumstances of the Offences

[1] Patrick Boyd Park (“Park”) is to be sentenced on a total of ten criminal offences that he pleaded guilty to and was found guilty and convicted of.

[2] On the four-count Indictment dated November 20, 2023, he committed a sexual assault on M.K., contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, and further, he committed a sexual assault against another female victim, L.D., contrary to the same offence section.

[3] M.K. was a dancer at a strip club where Park was employed as the nighttime manager and a supervisor. M.K. was 18 years old, homeless, and she needed money. Park, who was much older than M.K., provided M.K. with cocaine and alcohol. Shortly after M.K. started working at the establishment, Park had sexual intercourse with her against her will. It happened at the strip club. It happened when M.K. was drunk. It happened despite her protestations otherwise. She was crying, but he continued his sexual advances and penetrated her vagina with his penis from behind. It was not the only time that he had sexual contact with M.K. without her consent. On one occasion, he did not wear a condom, and on another occasion he offered her $500.00 to have sex with him.

[4] L.D. was also a dancer at the strip club. There was an incident where, at the workplace, Park took out his penis from his jeans and demanded that she suck it. After she performed fellatio for a short time, he bent her over a chair and penetrated her vagina with his penis from behind. He smacked L.D.’s buttocks, leaving a red mark. He ejaculated into the condom that he was wearing at the time. Although Park thought that L.D. was consenting to the sexual activity, she did not consent, and it is agreed that Park failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain that she was consenting.

[5] All of the above is taken from Exhibit 1, the agreed statement of facts on the four-count Indictment.

[6] On the fourteen-count Indictment dated February 12, 2024, Park committed the criminal offences of human trafficking of O.S, contrary to section 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code; and knowingly distributing an intimate image of O.S. without her consent, contrary to section 162.1 of the Criminal Code; and two counts of unlawful confinement of O.S., contrary to section 279(2) of the Criminal Code; and two counts of sexual assault against O.S., contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code; and uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm to O.S., contrary to section 264.1 of the Criminal Code; and assault against another victim, M.B., contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.

[7] O.S. was 18 years old. Park was 40 years old. They met when O.S. was a waitress at a strip club where Park was the manager. O.S. had a boyfriend, M.B., who was the same age as her – 18 years old.

[8] After O.S. was fired from the strip club, she met up with Park. He supplied her with cocaine. He suggested that she come to work for him as a dancer in strip clubs. He promised her transportation, personal protection, and large amounts of money. He promised her $50,000.00 and her own condominium in Toronto by the end of the year. Park told O.S. that he had a violent history, and that made her afraid of him.

[9] On one occasion, Park sexually assaulted O.S. in his motor vehicle, and then he bragged about it in an electronic message that he sent to his friend. As he told his friend in the message, O.S. would not have sexual intercourse with him, but he still wondered whether she wanted him to rape her. She kept saying that she had a boyfriend, but he continued to sexually molest her in the car. She resisted and fought with him. Still, he thought that she wanted him to dominate her and to rape her.

[10] On another occasion, after O.S. got out of Park’s car because he told her to walk home after she turned down his sexual advances, Park physically picked O.S. up and brought her to his car. He threatened to take her somewhere and leave all of her stuff in the parking lot. After going to a motel, Park forced O.S. to have sexual intercourse with him. He also took intimate photographs of her, exposing her genitals and buttocks.

[11] Concerned about her safety, M.B. tracked his girlfriend’s location to that motel. M.B. went to the motel. Park was angry about that and shoved M.B. to the ground. He also struck M.B. Then Park told M.B. that if O.S. was not at work when she was supposed to be “there’s gonna be consequences”. M.B. was very afraid that he might die that night.

[12] After that incident at the motel, Park, without the knowledge or consent of O.S., sent to an online group chat the intimate image that he had taken of the buttocks and genitals of O.S. He boasted to others on the group chat about “18yo pussy” and him pimping the girl, among other disgusting remarks.

[13] Shortly after the incident at the motel, M.B. picked up O.S. after she had been with Park. Her face was swollen. Her nose was injured. Her pants were ripped. She told M.B. that Park had raped her and had smashed her head off the dashboard of his car. She was crying and appeared to be in shock. A photograph of the injury to the nose of O.S. was marked Exhibit 4 on sentencing.

[14] In the ensuing days, Park repeatedly tried to contact O.S. At one point, he stated to O.S. that he will “get out and hunt for her” if the cops try to get him.

[15] O.S. eventually told Park that she simply wanted to pay him back for a dancer’s outfit that he had bought for her and be done with him and be done with the whole thing. She told him that she was afraid of him and did not trust him and did not want to work for him. Park did not accept that. He continued to try to pressure O.S. to work for him by, for example, sending her continuous text messages. He was relentless. He promised her things but also reminded her about his temper and his anger. He made threatening comments to her like “if you try to avoid me then it’s gonna be a whole new level”. O.S. was very afraid for herself, for M.B., and for her family.

[16] When the police became involved through the intervention of the mother of O.S., Park made threatening comments to M.B. that he would “fuck his girl” and would “cut up” or “chop up” M.B.

[17] In electronic messages exchanged between O.S. and her friend, O.S. told her friend that Park would not let her leave and return home, so she had to work even though that was not her choice.

[18] It is not alleged that O.S. ever provided sexual services to clients or ever saw any potential clients. Further, it is not alleged that O.S. ever actually worked as a dancer at any strip club.

[19] All of the above is taken from Exhibit 2, the agreed statement of facts on the fourteen-count Indictment.

[20] To understand the overall timeline, the two sexual assaults that Park committed against M.K. and L.D. (in the four-count Indictment) occurred between August and October 2021. All of the eight criminal offences that Park committed against O.S. and M.B. (in the fourteen-count Indictment) occurred over a relatively short period of time – between August 16, 2022 and September 10, 2022.

[21] In summary, Park pleaded guilty to and was found guilty and convicted of having committed ten serious criminal offences against four different victims – M.K., L.D., O.S., and M.B.

II. The Circumstances of the Offender

[22] The following information about Park was provided during the sentencing hearing:

• Park is currently 43 years of age;
• he has a son who is 9 years old;
• he was a drug user at the material time of these offences – cocaine and steroids;
• he had a very difficult upbringing with an absent father, an emotionally abusive stepfather and mother, and another family member who sexually assaulted Park on more than one occasion;
• he was the victim of bullying in elementary and high school;
• he has a high school diploma;
• he obtained his security guard licence in 2008 and worked in that industry from 2008 until 2014;
• in 2017, he was hired as a bouncer at a strip club;
• in 2019, he became a manager at a strip club;
• in 2020, after separating from his partner, he went on a downward spiral that involved heavy drug use and, ultimately, to these offences that he committed;
• he was on a strict house-arrest bail with an ankle monitor and tight terms for 23 months and 2 days (which this Court can confirm from a review of the release paperwork);
• in October 2023, while on bail, Park attempted to kill himself and nearly died; he was on a ventilator and in a hospital for one week;
• on June 25, 2024, he completed a six-week program about post-traumatic stress disorder and trauma healing, as confirmed by Exhibit 8 – the letter from The Indigenous Network dated December 5, 2024;
• he spent 19 days in lockdown and 25 days in segregation at Niagara Detention Centre and 26 days in lockdown and 68 days in segregation at Maplehurst Correctional Complex (verified by jail records, Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12, filed at the sentencing hearing and by the oral evidence of a witness who testified from Maplehurst Correctional Complex), the segregation periods being because of Park’s suicidal ideation; and
• Park has a relatively minimal criminal record (confirmed by Exhibit 3) which includes three prior convictions – simple or common assault in 2001 (30 days in jail and probation for 12 months), impaired driving in 2014 – a $1000.00 fine and a driving prohibition order for 12 months, and simple or common assault in 2017 – probation for 2 years and a firearms and weapons prohibition order for 3 years.

[23] In his allocution to the Court, Park apologized to the victims of his offences and professed to be a changed man presently, with a recently discovered Christian philosophy that drives him.

III. The Sentencing Positions of the Crown and the Defence

[24] All of the ancillary orders sought by the Crown are on consent and were imposed by the Court on the date of the sentencing hearing (this Court imposed the sentence, with written reasons to follow), and thus, there is no need to address those aspects of the respective sentencing positions here.

[25] The Crown requested a global sentence of imprisonment of 9 years, less the mitigating circumstances and appropriate credits that this Court finds/applies for strict bail conditions (Downes), and for overly harsh conditions at the correctional facilities (Duncan and Marshall), and for presentence custody according to Summers.

[26] The defence recommended a global sentence of imprisonment of 6 years, less those same mitigating circumstances and appropriate credits.

[27] Both sides agreed, and this Court also agrees, that the paramount sentencing principles here are denunciation and deterrence (both specific and general).

IV. Documents Filed by the Crown and Objected to by the Defence

[28] There were some additional documents that the Crown filed under objection by the defence. They were not marked exhibits on the sentencing in order to permit this Court to rule on the objections.

[29] The documents consisted of: a shirtless photograph of Park showing his muscular build at the material time of these offences; a document containing a smaller shirtless photograph of Park showing his muscular build, together with some postings that he made on his Instagram account at the material time of these offences; a document showing something that Park wrote online at the material time of these offences, announcing he will be staying in the strip club industry and boasting about how many successful changes he brought to his former club; an excerpt from the extraction report of Park’s cellular telephone which speaks about his goals at the material time of these offences, including to make a lot of money and become a pimp and coke dealer; and another document where, in August 2022, somebody was text messaging about whores and cocaine at a strip club where Park worked.

[30] This Court rules that all of those items are admissible and shall be marked the next numbered exhibits on the sentencing, except for the last document described immediately above. Without more information, I cannot determine the relevance and probative value of that document where someone (I am not sure who) was referring to whores and cocaine at the strip club.

[31] All of the remaining documents are relevant, have significant probative value, and are not prejudicial. They do not run afoul of the comments of Justice Ewaschuk at paragraph 13 in the decision in R. v. Pauze, [1990] O.J. No. 553 (Ont. S.C. – H.C.J.), para 13, set out below.

The Crown is not permitted to treat a sentencing hearing as a dumping ground to prove all sorts of discrete and unrelated crimes of which the accused has not been convicted in an attempt to blacken the accused’s character. A sentencing hearing must not be transformed into a general inquiry into the accused’s past conduct: R v. Pelletier, 52 C.C.C. (3d) 340 (Que. C.A.). In this sense, the character evidence rule applies with limited exceptions even at a sentencing hearing. The first exception is the accused’s prior criminal record. In this case, the Crown has tendered and the accused has admitted his criminal record.

[32] The defence relies upon that case, and the decision of Justice Hermiston in R. v. Lizotte, [1994] O.J. No. 2542 (Gen. Div.), para 11 which, at paragraph 11, applies the Pauze, supra decision, but the documents ruled admissible in our case are simply not “evidence of criminal acts for which there were no judicial findings” or general bad character evidence, and thus, those cases are distinguishable from ours.

V. The Range of Sentencing on the Most Serious Offences in Our Case

[33] There is no real dispute between counsel on both sides that the range of sentence for these types of sexual assaults is 3-5 years’ imprisonment, even for first offenders. I agree. Among other cases, the following decisions, all of them binding on this Court from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, support that range of sentence: R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, paras 68, 74-75, 77; R. v. R.S., 2023 ONCA 608, paras 4, 22, 28-29, 33, 39; R. v. S.W., 2024 ONCA 173, paras 30-32, 39-40, 45-46, 49; and R. v. Bradley, 2008 ONCA 179, para 18.

[34] Further, there is no real dispute between counsel on both sides that the range of sentence for this type of human trafficking is 4-8 years’ imprisonment, even for first offenders. Again, I agree. The following decisions, two of them from the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the other two from the Superior Court of Justice including one from this Court, support that range of sentence: R. v. S.M., 2023 ONCA 417, para 28; R. v. Deiaco, 2019 ONCA 12, paras 5-6; R. v. Swaby, 2024 ONSC 6141, paras 25, 34-35, 66; and R. v. G.R., 2023 ONSC 4452, para 30.

VI. The Major Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Our Case

[35] Having regard to the overall facts of our case, and considering the guidance from Justice Casey Hill in R. v. Miller, [1997] O.J. No. 3911 (Gen. Div.), para 38, referring to the decision in R. v. Tang, 1997 ABCA 174, [1997] A.J. No. 460 (C.A.), in terms of sentencing considerations relevant to the human trafficking offence specifically, I think that the main aggravating factors here are:

• the number of victims;
• the young ages of the victims;
• that Park was in a position of authority to some of the victims;
• that Park clearly groomed these young female victims;
• that Park has demonstrated a gross and callous disrespect for females, generally;
• that Park exhibited a significant degree of violence against his victims; and
• that Park exhibited a significant degree of coercion, threatening conduct, and inducements towards his victims, especially O.S.

[36] This Court has no victim impact statements, but one can only imagine the level of trauma, loss of self-worth, and humiliation suffered by these victims at the hands of Park.

[37] The main mitigating factors present here are the guilty pleas, Park’s mental health issues, his rehabilitative efforts post-offences, and the overly harsh conditions that he experienced in presentence custody including the lockdowns and the substantial periods in segregation.

[38] On the latter point, I adopt the following comments made by Justice Morgan in the decision in R. v. Roberts, 2018 ONSC 4566, paras 32-34:

[32] In a report by the Ontario Ombudsman entitled “Segregation: Not an Isolated Problem”, April 27, 2016, at para 40, the Ombudsman states that, “Segregation can have profoundly negative impacts on inmate health and welfare… In his three-year review of federal inmate suicides, the federal Correctional Investigator found that segregation is an independent risk variable for inmate suicide.” Likewise, the British Columbia Supreme Court in BCCLA v Canada, 2018 BCSC 62, para 249, has observed that the effects of long term segregation often manifest as an intolerance of social interaction and that this kind of treatment ultimately harms a person’s ability to readjust to general population or to the community when released. At para 328, the BC court went on to state that segregation breaks down a person’s ability to interact with other human beings and risks mentally healthy inmates descending into mental illness while exacerbating the symptoms of those with pre-existing mental health issues.

[33] Similar observations have been made in Ontario. In R v Burton, 2018 ONCJ 153, para 96, Green J. stated that, “There have now been numerous studies about the impact of long placements in segregation and new standards on how long an inmate may remain in segregation have been released in response to these studies.” This was confirmed by Associate Chief Justice Marrocco in CCLA v The Queen, 2017 ONSC 7491, para 254, where he held that, “…the practice of keeping an inmate in administrative segregation for a prolonged period is harmful and offside responsible medical opinion.” With these findings now widely published, the court in Burton, supra, at para 96, went on to state, “I am satisfied that I can take judicial notice of the harm this would cause.”

[34] I agree with that approach. In the record there is ample evidence from Mr. Roberts that the long term confining of him in segregation had serious psychological consequences for him. But even if he had not deposed to that fact, it could today be taken as a matter of judicial notice. One does not need an affidavit to say that a gunshot to the arm hurts the arm; likewise, one does not need an affidavit to say that over a year in segregation, with almost no yard or other recreational time and simply sitting alone in a small cell for up to 23 hours a day, will turn a person into himself and create anxiety in dealing with others. Of course Mr. Roberts was adversely impacted by spending 426 days in segregation.

[39] I also agree with the following comments made by Justice Gibson in the decision in R. v. R.D., 2024 ONSC 6549, para 67:

[67] The protracted continuation of lockdowns and overcrowding at MCC, now persisting past the exceptional circumstance of the COVID-19 pandemic, is no doubt a complex phenomenon with multiple causal factors not susceptible to a facile analysis or a quick fix, but the bottom line is this: it is inhumane and of grave concern to the Court. It infringes the dignity of prisoners. It is unworthy of us as a society. It derogates substantially from the appropriate standard of justice in Canada in 2024. There is a systemic problem, as illustrated by the large number of cases cited above in which courts have given Duncan credit arising from conditions at MCC. Measures to alleviate it are urgently required as a moral and legal imperative. In R. v. Simeu, 2024 ONSC 5958, para 18, Conlan J. stated: “this Court would describe Simeu’s experience at MCC, overall, as being disgraceful.” Regretfully, I must echo that comment in the circumstances of this case.

VII. The Sentence Imposed on Park

[40] For all of these reasons, this Court decided to impose upon Park a global sentence of imprisonment that was somewhere between the two positions advanced by the Crown and the defence but that was also within the ranges of sentence referred to above with regard to the sexual assaults and the human trafficking offences.

[41] As well, this Court reduced the global sentence of imprisonment that I would have otherwise imposed (7 years or 2,555 days) to one of 2,155 days (about 5.9 years) on account of the mitigating factors referred to as Downes credit and Duncan/Marshall credit. About 6 months of that reduction was attributed to the strict house arrest conditions, and the remaining 7 months or so to the overly harsh conditions at the correctional facilities, particularly Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

[42] Finally, this Court applied the maximum Summers credit permitted under our law – each actual day served was grossed up to 1.5 days.

[43] The following sentence was imposed on Park:

• all victim fine surcharges waived;
• primary DNA Order issued;
• SOIRA Order issued for life;
• section 109 Criminal Code Order issued for 10 years and life as per the two subsections;
• 743.21 Criminal Code Order issued for non-communication with the victims while serving the sentence of imprisonment;
• forfeiture Order for the cellular telephone seized by the police from Park; and
• 2,155 days in custody, less the equivalent of 232.5 days of presentence custody, for a global net sentence of imprisonment from the date of sentencing of 1922 days (about 5.25 years).

[44] The net custodial sentence was broken down as follows: 1922 days on the human trafficking conviction; 1922 days (concurrent) on each of the other convictions on the 14-count Indictment; and 1825 days on each of the sexual assault convictions on the four-count Indictment (concurrent and concurrent).

[45] This Court exercised its discretion to make all of the sentences run concurrent to one another because of the totality principle.

Conlan J.
Released: January 27, 2025