CITATION: R. v. Lahens, 2026 ONSC 1554

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-40000471-0000

DATE: 20260330

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

• and -

Tommy Lahens

B. McCallum, for the Crown

S. Chung-Alvares and E. Hilzenrat, for Mr. Lahens

HEARD: October 15, 2025 and February 9, 2026

WARNING

An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:

486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences;

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant’s sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(iii) REPEALED: S.C. 2014, c. 25, s. 22(2), effective December 6, 2014 (Act, s. 49).

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order.

(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community.

486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order.

KELLY J.

reasons for Sentence

A. Overview

1Mr. Tommy Lahens was originally charged with seven offences, including trafficking in persons and procuring to provide sexual services. The complainant in all offences was N.C. Just prior to trial, Mr. Lahens pleaded guilty and was convicted of the following offences:

i. receiving a material benefit from sexual services performed by N.C. between March 1, 2018, and March 10, 2021, contrary to s. 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code; and,

ii. assault causing bodily harm to N.C. in April 2020, contrary to s. 267(b) of the Criminal Code.¹

2Mr. Lahens now appears before me for sentencing. Crown counsel seeks a global sentence of nine years. Counsel for Mr. Lahens submits that a global sentence of two years is appropriate.

3Counsel agree on the imposition of the following ancillary orders: DNA; a s. 109 weapons prohibition; and a non-communication order with N.C., pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code.

4For the reasons set out below, I impose a global sentence of two years’ imprisonment, less 13 months, for a remaining sentence of 11 months to be served. The ancillary orders are imposed.

B. Factual Overview

5An Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) supported the two findings of guilt. Three sets of text messages exchanged between the parties covering three short periods of time in 2020 and 2021 were filed.² Lastly, some recordings from Mr. Lahens’ phone were filed.

6The facts giving rise to the two convictions were set out in the ASF, as follows:

Background

a. In early March of 2018, N.C. and Mr. Lahens met over social media through a mutual friend. Both are from the Montreal area.

b. In March of 2018, N.C. was being trafficked by a violent trafficker (not Mr. Lahens), who forced her to use drugs and reach certain quotas. N.C. reached out to Mr. Lahens for help in getting away from him. Mr. Lahens did so. N.C. had no identification, cash, or cards when he picked her up. He booked a hotel room at the Chelsea Eaton Centre, from March 22-24, 2018, so that N.C. could sober up and get rest.

c. The relationship between N.C. and Mr. Lahens turned romantic. They often referred to each other as girlfriend and boyfriend.

d. Mr. Lahens offered N.C. condo accommodation, a pet, and a better life. Mr. Lahens and N.C. moved into a condo together. He gave her a pet dog.

e. At the beginning of the relationship, Mr. Lahens asked N.C. to delete her Instagram and Snapchat accounts, after he discovered she was speaking with an ex-boyfriend. However, sometime later, N.C. reopened these accounts because she did not want to be without social media.

Sexual Services

f. N.C. provided sexual services for consideration from March 2018 to February 2021. Generally, she would charge between $300 an hour and $200 per half hour. She would see up to 10 clients per day. She provided sexual services in Toronto, the Niagara region, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Vancouver. Mr. Lahens was not involved in determining her restrictions or the number of clients N.C. saw.

g. On March 10, 2021, N.C. advised police that she did the ads for sexual services by herself. On March 11, 2021, N.C. advised that there was involvement by both parties in creating the ads.

h. N.C. provided earnings made through sexual services to Mr. Lahens.

The Assaults

i. On April 6, 2020, Mr. Lahens and N.C. had an argument. N.C. does not recall what the argument was about. During this argument, Mr. Lahens slammed N.C. against the patio window, causing a cut to the back of her head. She attended at Princess Margaret Hospital for medical attention, receiving one staple to close the wound.

j. On August 2, 2020, Mr. Lahens and N.C. were again in an argument. Mr. Lahens was angry with N.C., because she was intoxicated having consumed cocaine and alcohol. He struck her in the back of the head, around the area of her previous injury, causing the wound to re-open. She attended at Toronto General Hospital for medical attention, and this time she received two staples.

Fraudulent Activities

k. Mr. Lahens instructed N.C. on how to assist him with fraudulent activities. Monies transferred to Mr. Lahens originated from sexual services and from fraudulent activity. The monies were transferred into a TD Canada Trust account under "Tommy LAHENS" (legitimate account) and "Philippe CARON" (alias, a fraudulent name).

l. On March 10-11, 2021, while Mr. Lahens was in Vancouver, N.C. reported the frauds to Toronto Police Service. She was worried about the consequences for herself. She also shared information about the circumstances of her work in the sex trade. Investigators later obtained medical records, the contents of her cell phone (photos and text messages), and ads posted during the relevant period.

m. On Friday, October 15, 2021, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Mr. Lahens was located and arrested in Montreal by members of the Quebec Human Trafficking Team. He was held in custody on the strength of the warrant.

C. Analysis

General Principles

7In determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Lahens, regard must be had to the sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code.

8The sentencing judge must also have regard to the following: any aggravating and mitigating factors, including those listed in ss. 718.2(a)(i) to (vii); the principle that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b)); the principle that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh (s. 718.2(c)); and the principle that courts should exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment (ss. 718.2(d) and (e)).³

9In this case, it is statutorily aggravating that the offences were committed against an intimate partner (s. 718.2(a)(ii)) and that they had a significant impact on the victim considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation (s. 718.2(a)(iii.i)).

10The Criminal Code provides that Mr. Lahens is liable to a term of imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years for the offence of receiving a material benefit, pursuant to s. 286.2(1). Section 267 of the Criminal Code provides that Mr. Lahens is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years for the offence of assault causing bodily harm.

The Gravity of the Offences

11There is no question that Mr. Lahens took N.C.’s earnings from sex work, which demonstrates an inherently exploitive relationship with N.C. However, Crown counsel also submits that Mr. Lahens was controlling and that the facts support the criminal acts of procuring (s. 286.3) and advertising sexual services (s. 286.4). With all due respect, I do not agree.

12The ASF provides that Mr. Lahens helped N.C. escape a violent trafficker in 2018. When their relationship turned romantic, they moved in together. They got a condominium and a dog.

13There is little in the ASF that deals with the circumstances of Mr. Lahens’ role in the sex trade. Any details about the sex trade are found in paras. 4 and 7 of the ASF, which bear repeating here and provide as follows:

N.C. provided sexual services for consideration from March 2018 to February 2021. Generally, she would charge between $300 an hour and $200 per half an hour. She would see up to 10 clients a day. She provided sexual services in Toronto, the Niagara region, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Vancouver. Mr. Lahens was not involved in determining her restrictions or the number of clients she saw. On March 10, 2021, N.C. advised police that she did the ads for sexual services by herself. On March 11, 2021, N.C. advised that there was involvement by both parties with the ads.

Paragraph 7 states that “N.C. provided earnings made through sexual services to Mr. Lahens.” There is nothing in the ASF that suggests that Mr. Lahens procured N.C. to provide sexual services. There is little in the ASF that supports the submission that Mr. Lahens was “coercive and controlling” above and beyond the obvious exploitive nature of receiving a material benefit from sex trade work.

14Crown counsel submits that she relies on the entirety of the text exchanges to support aggravating factors on sentencing. I begin by observing that there are no text messages from the first two years of their relationship and only small extracts provided thereafter.

15Crown counsel asks that I draw inferences from the text messages to support her position that Mr. Lahens procured N.C. and was controlling and coercive to an extent “constituting a form of slavery”. I am unable to do so. A review of the text messages leads to other reasonable inferences inconsistent with the Crown’s submissions. The text messages are illustrative of several issues, including the following: jealousy; Mr. Lahens’ concerns with N.C.’s addictions; forgiveness; and how to earn money from fraudulent activity (in which both participated).

16I will address Crown counsel’s submissions in consideration of the aggravating factors, known as the Tang-Miller factors. These factors are set out below alphabetically, in italics and in bold.

a. The degree of coercion or control imposed by the pimp on the complainant’s activities.

17Crown counsel submits that Mr. Lahens used promises and emotional manipulation to exert control, direction and influence over a broad spectrum of N.C.’s activities. That included Mr. Lahens’ control over N.C.’s earnings, the frequency of sex work, her advertisements, who she worked with, her social media, her relationship with family and friends, her access to money and spending, shelter, and the use of intoxicating substances. I do not entirely agree for the following reasons:

Earnings: The ASF states that N.C. was earning approximately $8,000 per week and that she provided her earnings to Mr. Lahens. Text messages support that monies were used to pay for, amongst other things, condominium rent, groceries, and dog care.

The text messages also support that both N.C. and Mr. Lahens were committing frauds that led to monies being available to them. There is reference about co-mingling their funds and to N.C. having her own bank account and monies. On one occasion, Mr. Lahens asks N.C. what she did with her “15 grand” and suggests that he wants to teach her how to manage her money.⁴ Although there is no question that Mr. Lahens received earnings from N.C.’s sex trade work, it is questionable as to how much control Mr. Lahens had over N.C.’s earnings.

The frequence of sex work: Paragraph 4 of the ASF provides that Mr. Lahens did not control the number of clients seen by N.C. Further, on several occasions, Mr. Lahens told N.C., via text message, that he did not want N.C. to perform sex work, suggesting that she could make more money committing frauds with him.

Advertisements: Paragraph 4 of the ASF is contradictory. On March 10, 2021, N.C. advised police that she did the ads for sexual services by herself. The next day, she advised that both participated in posting the ads. A text exchange dated August 6, 2020, shows that N.C. demanded that Mr. Lahens post an ad for her to increase her business while she was out of town. He did so, at her request.⁵

Who she worked with: Again, para. 4 of the ASF states that N.C. would see up to 10 clients per day in various places. Mr. Lahens was not involved in determining her restrictions or the number of clients she saw.

Her social media: As set out in para. 3 of the ASF, Mr. Lahens “asked” N.C. to delete Instagram and Snapchat at the beginning of their relationship because of jealousy. He discovered that she was communicating with an ex-boyfriend. Sometime later, N.C. reopened those accounts.

Her relationship with family and friends: Crown counsel submits that approximately one month after having been assaulted and suffering the first injury to her head, N.C. went to Montreal to escape Mr. Lahens and spend time with her family. Crown counsel submits that the text messages from that time support the inference that he “keeps drawing her back in”. While they may do so, a review of the text messages also leads to the inference that Mr. Lahens did not want N.C. to leave because she was his partner. More importantly, at no time does he say that she cannot visit family. Mr. Lahens tells N.C. to do what she wants: come back or don’t.⁶

Her access to money and spending: According to the text messages, and as stated above, N.C. had money in a bank account that included deposits from a government cheque, a refund from an Airbnb, etc. As I have stated, there is evidence that they co-mingled their funds. Mr. Lahens did not think this bothered her, “since we always put our money together”.⁷ On another occasion, he is encouraging her to spend more money on groceries.⁸ There does not appear to be a pattern of N.C. suggesting that she does not have access to money that she needs.

Shelter: A review of para. 3 of the ASF does support that Mr. Lahens offered N.C. a better life by moving her into a condo after she asked for his help to escape a violent trafficker. They did so after their relationship turned romantic. It appears that both were contributing to the expenses of their condo. While Mr. Lahens may have told her to leave, on occasion, it was more in the nature of a breakup, suggesting she move out of their shared accommodation. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that Mr. Lahens threatened to leave N.C. homeless if she did not perform sex work.

The use of intoxicating substances: As stated in para. 2 of the ASF, N.C. was forced to use drugs when being trafficked by a violent trafficker. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Mr. Lahens did the same or that he provided any substances to her. In fact, the text messages demonstrate that Mr. Lahens wanted N.C. to stop using intoxicating substances. There is a text in which Mr. Lahens stated, “You’ve become like before, you were hiding clients from me to put money in your pockets” which leads to an inference that Mr. Lahens was annoyed that N.C. was not giving him the proceeds from her sex work. However, it appears that addiction also played a part in this exchange. N.C. said that she was doing “speed” when she hid things from him.⁹ Later, when Mr. Lahens expressed frustration that N.C. was still doing drugs, he asked her what she wanted him to do and said, “I can’t go with you to the client’s place in order to prevent you from doing drugs”. The texts suggest that he tried to help her with her drug addiction, but she did not make the effort.¹⁰

b. The amount of money received by the pimp and the extent to which the pimp allowed the complainant to retain their earnings.

18Crown counsel submits that Mr. Lahens took N.C.’s earnings ($8,000 per week). As I have stated, it is difficult to determine the amount of money received by Mr. Lahens from the sex trade work because monies were being earned from N.C.’s sex trade work and fraud. Further, there are periods of time that N.C. did not work. For example, when she went away to see her family or because of COVID.

19There are text messages which suggest that N.C. kept some of her own money. For example, in the May text exchange, Mr. Lahens refers to monies in her own possession: a refund from an Airbnb, a government cheque, and monies she has in her own account (i.e., “15 grand”.¹¹

c. The age of the complainant.

20While N.C. was 18 years of age when they met, Mr. Lahens was 21. Both were young. There is no large age differential to suggest an imbalance of power.

d. Any special vulnerability on the part of the complainant.

21It is admitted that Mr. Lahens knew that N.C. was trying to escape a violent trafficker when he met her. He also knew that she struggled with addiction, anxiety and suicidal ideation. Crown counsel suggests that Mr. Lahens used this knowledge to control N.C. Counsel submits that he threw her addiction “in her face”. I do not agree. For the reasons I have set out above, Mr. Lahens was encouraging N.C. to stop using substances that contributed to her addiction. He did not use her addiction as a lure. For example, there is no evidence that he offered or provided substances to N.C. in return for her performance in the sex trade.

22There are text messages in which N.C. suggests that she is totally devoted to him. The tattoo of Mr. Lahens’ name on her chest supports this. However, it is also consistent with a romantic relationship where she tells him that he is the only “one” for her. However, he does the same, expressing an interest in continuing their romantic relationship at various times.

e. The degree of planning and sophistication, including whether the pimp was working in concert with others.

23Crown counsel submits that, psychologically, there was “incredibly sophisticated manipulation” used by Mr. Lahens to keep N.C. in his control. The manipulation involved multiple parties, schemes, and multiple provinces. However, there is little evidence to support this submission, other than the fact that N.C. worked in several provinces.

24It is clear that N.C. was concerned that she was not the “main” sex worker, suggesting that others were working with Mr. Lahens, but I cannot be sure based on the evidence presented. Mr. Lahens was largely unresponsive to many of the messages from N.C. on this topic. For example, there were 42 messages sent and received in a portion of the May 2020 text sequence. Only five were from Mr. Lahens. Mr. Lahens gave no response to the accusations made by N.C. that he has others working for him. In fact, he asks N.C. to leave him alone during this exchange.¹²

f. The duration of the pimp’s conduct.

25These offences occurred over a duration of three years (not five years as submitted by Crown counsel).

g. The degree of violence, if any, apart from that inherent in the pimp’s parasitic activities.

26There is no question that Mr. Lahens assaulted N.C. twice, causing her bodily harm. The cause of the first assault was not identified. The cause of the second assault was N.C.’s continued drug use, which Mr. Lahens found distressing (which does not justify his conduct). Both required hospital visits and staples to close the wounds (one staple on the first occasion and two on the second). N.C. was concerned, describing Mr. Lahens as “dangerous” and that she does not “feel safe” despite his assurances.¹³ She expressed concern that he was going to kill her.¹⁴

27There is no question that Mr. Lahens caused N.C. bodily harm on two occasions. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Lahens resorted to violence to force N.C. to engage in sex trade work.

h. The effect on the complainant of the pimp’s exploitation.

28There is no question that N.C. suffers from severe emotional distress. That was obvious during the sentencing hearing by her appearance in the courtroom. It was also obvious from the despair contained in the words of her victim impact statement and that of her mother, which may be summarized as follows:

N.C.: Mr. Lahens injured her body and destroyed a part of her that she is still trying to rebuild. She has lived in fear. Mr. Lahens’ controlling nature and violence stole her safety and confidence. She had to shrink herself to survive. She continues to have nightmares and anxiety attacks. She panics around men. N.C. takes medication to deal with sleep, anxiety and depression. She is rebuilding herself slowly with help and courage, but she is broken.

Nadia Scraire: She lived in fear when Mr. Lahens controlled her daughter. She was terrified that she would be awakened by a call from police that her daughter was dead. It was overwhelming. She watched her daughter slowly deteriorate. She became weaker, distant and less like the person who she knew. Witnessing this caused her “deep emotional pain and distress”. She felt powerless. Mr. Lahens repeatedly made promises that he would change, but he did not. She and her daughter were “kept in a cycle of manipulation and control”. Not only did Mr. Lahens damage her daughter, but the family as well. He created fear, confusion, and emotional suffering. As she so eloquently explained, “This experience has permanently affected my sense of safety, my peace of mind and my trust.”

i. Attempts by the accused to prevent the complainant from leaving his control.

29Crown counsel submits that Mr. Lahens prevented N.C. from leaving his control. It is true that Mr. Lahens made certain representations in May of 2020 to N.C., when she went to Montreal after the first assault. When she did not agree to see him, he suggested that she should live in the street like a “whore” and that she was a “waste”. However, there is more to this exchange. Mr. Lahens says, “Do what you want, gee, you want to come back, come back, you don’t want to come back, then don’t, I’m not going to stop doing what I need though”.¹⁵ Eventually, Mr. Lahens asks her to leave him alone and wishes her “continued success”.¹⁶

30The last series of text messages exchanged shows that Mr. Lahens is upset that N.C. has returned to sex trade work. That is when he asks her to remove her things from their home. N.C.’s response? “You’re going to pay for this.”¹⁷

31While the language used by both parties in the text exchanges was not always considerate, this was a relationship fraught with disagreement, hurt feelings, jealousy and immaturity. There are many inferences that can be drawn from these exchanges and not solely that Mr. Lahen’s took N.C.’s earnings from sex work in a way that demonstrates a “coercive and controlling relationship that constitutes a form of slavery whereby a pimp lives parasitically off the earnings of a sex worker”, as suggested by Crown counsel.

Procurement

32There is nothing in the ASF nor the text messages to support the inference that Mr. Lahens procured N.C. to participate in the sex trade as submitted by Crown counsel. As the ASF provides, N.C. was involved in the sex trade before Mr. Lahens helped her to escape a violent trafficker.

33While N.C. continued her work when involved with Mr. Lahens, he encouraged her to stop. For example, in August 2021 Mr. Lahens proposed that N.C. discontinue working as a sex trade worker and help him with the fraudulent activities they were conducting together. Specifically, he said, “we can make a lot more money if you come here and simply help me but you’re telling me you want to do sex work, what’s the point”. He offered to pay her from the “cash outs”. She would have her own money without having to work in the sex trade. She could save it and set it aside in her own account.¹⁸ Despite this offer, N.C. insisted that she would continue in the sex trade business. That, ultimately, led to the breakup of their relationship.

The Circumstances of the Offender

34The background of Mr. Lahens was provided by counsel and in various letters of support which may be summarized as follows:

i. Mr. Lahens is currently 29 years of age. He lives in Montreal with his uncle.

ii. He was a youthful offender at the time of the offences: ages 21-24. He has a limited and dated criminal record for failure to attend (nine years ago).

iii. Mr. Lahens grew up in Montreal in a single parent family with his mother and younger brother. He has a younger sister who is 14 years of age.

iv. His father was absent from his life through no fault of his own. His father is Métis. He has had minimal contact with his paternal family.

v. Mr. Lahens was diagnosed with ADHD. This led to various forms of disciplinary action in the three elementary schools he attended, including the use of physical force. This impacted his self-confidence.

vi. His grandparents provided a guiding role in his upbringing as his mother pursued an education and tried to take care of her two sons. He grew up with limited financial means. His grandfather died when he was ten years old.

vii. In high school, Mr. Lahens met with some success. The educators supported him, encouraging his growth and development. This improved his self-confidence.

viii. His mother re-partnered when Mr. Lahens was in high school. His stepfather became the much-needed paternal support that was missing since his grandfather died. He gained a sense of calm with his guidance and with the help of ADHD medication. He completed high school.

ix. While in high school, Mr. Lahens was employed, part-time, to supplement his family’s income.

x. Mr. Lahens’ brother became drug addicted, something that weighed heavily on Mr. Lahens and his family. Mr. Lahens provided support, encouraging him to get clean. He was successful in doing so.

xi. After high school, Mr. Lahens was trained in heavy vehicle mechanics. He worked part-time, as well. He secured a full-time job thereafter but continued to struggle financially.

xii. In 2017, Mr. Lahens moved to Toronto to pursue other opportunities. That is when he met N.C. and their relationship began.

xiii. Mr. Lahens was arrested in 2021. He spent 15 days in custody, which was extremely difficult due to the conditions. He experienced “isolation” and “dehumanization”. This created a turning point in his life.

xiv. Since his arrest and while on bail, Mr. Lahens has established two businesses. He operates a jet-ski rental business at a marina in Boucherville. He has invested time and energy into growing the business. He also takes on jobs as a mechanic.

xv. Mr. Lahens is in a committed and healthy relationship. Together, they have opened an ice cream shop at the same marina where Mr. Lahens operates his jet-ski business.

xvi. Mr. Lahens describes that his businesses “represent a source of stability, pride, and meaning”. They “form the foundation of the life [he is] trying to build in an honest and responsible manner”.

xvii. Mr. Lahens has also enrolled at the École des métiers de la construction de Montréal. It is a program that may be deferred, but upon completion, he hopes to open a construction company in collaboration with his brother-in-law.

xviii. Mr. Lahens remains exceptionally close to his family, who remain supportive.

35Various letters were filed during the sentencing proceeding in support of Mr. Lahens. They may be summarized as follows:

Ms. Julie St.-Pierre and Mr. Bobby Branchaud are Mr. Lahens’ mother and stepfather. They describe Mr. Lahens as “sensitive, generous and compassionate”. He has moved forward constructively since his arrest. They have “witnessed a genuine, sincere, and profound acknowledgment of responsibility along with a true desire for change”. He has had the “capacity for self-reflection”. He has a “willingness to put in the necessary effort to build a more stable and healthier future”. They have observed “a clear and positive evolution in his daily behavior, including more thoughtful communication, a more responsible attitude, and sustained commitment, even in the face of his challenges.

Mr. William Lahens is Mr. Lahens’ brother. He describes that Mr. Lahens was a supportive older brother. Mr. Lahens assisted him with substance abuse problems. He observes that Mr. Lahens is committed to his professional projects, including his personal watercraft business and an ice cream parlour. He describes Mr. Lahens as a determined and focused person who is committed to building a positive future and as someone who has accepted responsibility for his actions.

Ms. Rachel Lafleur is Mr. Lahens’ girlfriend who works in real estate and the marina businesses. Mr. Lahens has supported her during difficult times. He has never minimized his past and has recognized his faults. When discussing the charges before the court, she described that Mr. Lahens was frank but that the discussions were always marked by “respect” and “responsibility”. She describes that their relationship is built on “communication, listening, and mutual respect”. His work has been a “pillar of stability” for him. She concluded by stating that Mr. Lahens “does not deny his past, but he refuses to remain imprisoned by it. He demonstrates real and consistent efforts to move forward in the right direction”.

Mr. Yves St. Pierre is an uncle. He has witnessed his nephew’s personal development since his arrest. He has observed “regret, self-reflection, and a genuine understanding of the harm he caused”. He has taken responsibility to create change. He did not minimize his involvement in the offences. He has watched his nephew “work with discipline, consistency, and seriousness”. His businesses are more than a job. They symbolize his desire to improve and contribute to society. Mr. St. Pierre is committed to ensuring that Mr. Lahens remains on this path of progress.

Ms. Geneviève Proteau is a family friend who is also a police officer. She watched Mr. Lahens grow up and has observed his personal growth since his arrest. She describes him as being “sensitive” and “kind”. She has not heard him speak negatively about N.C. He has neither minimized nor glorified his criminal conduct. She has observed insight into his actions and believes that Mr. Lahens currently lives in an “environment conducive to rehabilitation and personal accountability”.

David Demeules is the marina operator where Mr. Lahens runs his businesses. Like the others, he describes Mr. Lahens as “motivated” and “eager” to improve. He is hardworking and committed. Marina users appreciate his “kindness, respect, and availability”. Mr. Lahens has expressed remorse for his actions.

Gabriel Grenier-Cadieux is a high school friend. He has worked directly with Mr. Lahens witnessing his work ethic, respectful attitude, and skills. Since his arrest, he has observed a sincere desire to correct his behaviour. He sees that Mr. Lahens wants to move forward and is taking concrete steps to do so.

36Mr. Lahens takes full responsibility for his actions. He expressed remorse to the court not only in a letter filed with the court, but also when addressing the court during the proceeding. His arrest led him to reflect on his actions and the harm that he caused N.C., both physically and emotionally. He is sorry. He says, “There is no excuse for the mistakes I have made. I take full responsibility. Over the past 4 years, I reassessed the person I want to be and committed to never repeating those poor choices.”

37Mr. Lahens concluded his letter to the court with the following:

I wish to sincerely apologize to [N.C.] for the harm I caused her. If I could go back in time, I would do so without hesitation. I regret my actions and feel ashamed. I understand this does not erase what she had gone through because of me, and what she must still be going through. I can state with confidence that I will never repeat those choices again. I will continue to make efforts to build a stable, respectful and responsible life.

38Mr. Lahens has shown remorse, which I accept as genuine.

Comparator Cases

a. Receive a Material Benefit from Sexual Services

39Crown counsel has provided cases in support of her position of nine years’ imprisonment. In all cases, the accused was found guilty of the more serious offences of trafficking and/or procuring in addition to receiving a material benefit, sometimes from human trafficking (as opposed to receiving the benefit from sex trade work). Most cases involved multiple victims, related criminal records, and convictions after trial.¹⁹ I begin by observing that Mr. Lahens has not been convicted of human trafficking or procuring, and the facts, as I have found them, do not support such findings.

40Crown counsel submits that R. v. Bedi, decided by Dunphy J., is very helpful in guiding my decision to the imposition of a sentence of nine years. That case involved a fifteen-count indictment with four complainants. The convictions, entered after a jury trial, included human trafficking, procuring, assault by choking, assault causing bodily harm, etc.

41Crown counsel submits the facts involving the first complainant in Bedi, N.M., are similar to the facts in our case. They are not. There was unequivocal evidence that N.M. was controlled by Mr. Bedi. He was involved in almost every facet of her sex trade work: pressure to work for him, setting prices, taking promotional photographs, arranging advertisements, making bookings, arranging hotel rooms, driving her to and from her out appointments, collecting the proceeds of her work, and leaving her with “as little or as much of the proceeds as he chose”. Mr. Bedi would confiscate money from N.M. and controlled her through actual violence or threats of violence, almost daily, for failing to follow his “rules”. Mr. Bedi followed N.M. when she walked her dog and, on one occasion, took the dog away to punish her. He locked her out of their shared apartment to compel her to obey him. He sent intimate pictures of N.M. to her mother to punish her. These facts do not resemble the case before me.

42Mr. Bedi’s personal circumstances do not compare to those of Mr. Lahens. Mr. Lahens is much younger than Mr. Bedi, who was 48 years of age at the time. Mr. Bedi had a prior record from the U.S., including a conviction for which he served an eight-year sentence. His convictions included assault with a deadly weapon (on two occasions), including an assault of his wife, leaving her with lacerations and bruises. He was also convicted of two offences of committing lewd acts on minors (rubbing them with his penis). Mr. Lahens has a dated record of one entry for failing to attend.

43In imposing the sentence, Dunphy J. considered that human trafficking was the most significant of the offences committed by Mr. Bedi. His review of the cases concluded that the range of sentence for human trafficking was evolving upwards to a range of 10 to 12 years. He sentenced Mr. Bedi to 10 years for human trafficking. All other sentences for offences concerning N.M. were concurrent. There was no sentence imposed for receiving a material benefit from sexual services because that charge was stayed. As such, this case is not helpful in determining the appropriate sentence for Mr. Lahens.

44Counsel for Mr. Lahens has provided cases in support of their position that a global sentence of two years is appropriate. Those cases show a range from a conditional discharge to a conditional sentence to 18 month’s imprisonment for receiving a material benefit from sexual services.²⁰

45The cases filed on behalf or Mr. Lahens deal with receiving a material benefit from sexual services and support the conclusion that there is little authority for such an offence because those convicted are usually convicted of more serious offences (i.e., human trafficking and procuring). In those cases, the offence of receiving a material benefit is considered concurrently to those more serious offences when a sentence is imposed.²¹

46In Joseph, Mr. Joseph was sentenced for several offences, including receiving a financial benefit for sexual services provided by a minor; making and possessing child pornography (ads for sexual services); advertising sexual services, and procuring. The trial judge concluded that Mr. Joseph was entitled to a credit of nine months for pre-sentence bail conditions and imposed a suspended sentence. The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the Crown’s sentence appeal and imposed a global sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment followed by 18 months of probation, concurrent on each charge.²²

47In Morgan, Baltman J. imposed a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, plus two years of probation for receiving a material benefit for sexual services, after trial. Mr. Morgan met the complainant at a strip club. She had been providing sexual services prior to their meeting. When Mr. Morgan became involved, he controlled her work and became aggressive, taking her identification and keys. He took approximately $5,000 per week from her earnings over a four-month period ($60,000 in total). He assaulted the complainant, which ended their relationship. He had no criminal record.

b. Assault Causing Bodily Harm

48Counsel for Mr. Lahens also filed cases in support of their range for assault causing bodily harm. Some of the more relevant ones may be summarized as follows:

R. v. Parisien: Mr. Parisien was convicted of two counts of assault and two counts of assault causing bodily harm after trial. He assaulted his domestic partner on four occasions. He injured her head and fractured her orbital bone. Glithero J. upheld the sentence of 60 days’ intermittent imposed.²³

R. v. J.B.: London-Weinstein J. imposed a sentence of 108 days after trial. The parties had been married for 15 years but were separated. J.B. flew into a fit of rage when he found out that the complainant was in love with another. Their son was present when J.B. held the complainant’s arms behind her back, struck her tailbone, and removed her from the apartment. She suffered significant injuries to her back.²⁴

49Crown counsel submitted cases dealing with intimate partner violence in general.²⁵ The cases recognize that the effects of intimate partner violence are “heinous”. General deterrence and denunciation are paramount factors for consideration. Offenders who commit such crimes abuse a position of trust.²⁶

50Although the cases provided by counsel assist me in determining the governing principles that must guide my decision, a careful review of them demonstrates that sentencing is not an exact science. It is instead a profoundly individualized process driven by the unique facts of every offence and the unique characteristics of every offender. As Chief Justice Lamer noted in R. v. M. (C.A.), “there is no such thing as a uniform sentence for a particular crime”.²⁷ The circumstances of any case, including this one, can be readily distinguished from any other case.

The Fit Sentence

51In considering the fit sentence, I find the following to be the aggravating factors:

i. The impact of these offences on N.C. has been profound. This was obvious from her appearance in court and by the words of her victim impact statement. This has affected her many years later. It will continue to affect her and her family, as indicated in her mother’s victim impact statement, as well as her own.

ii. N.C. was the intimate partner of Mr. Lahens at the material times. He abused her trust in committing these offences.

iii. Mr. Lahens exacted violence of N.C. not once, but twice, causing bodily harm. Both required hospital visits and staples to close the wounds.

iv. Mr. Lahens received money from the sex work of N.C. over a period of three years. During that time, Mr. Lahens profited. The fact that Mr. Lahens received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration is aggravating.

v. These were not impulsive crimes. Receiving the material benefit occurred over a three-year period.

52I consider the following to be the mitigating factors:

i. Mr. Lahens pleaded guilty (although it was on the eve of trial). That said, the plea permitted another matter to proceed.

ii. Mr. Lahens’ plea saved four weeks of trial time when judicial resources are under stress.

iii. Most importantly, the plea saved the necessity of N.C. having to testify. N.C. had great difficulty reading her victim impact statement so it is not hard to imagine the toll testifying would have had on her.

iv. The convictions for these offences will impact Mr. Lahen’s life going forward.

v. Mr. Lahens spent 15 days incarcerated in difficult conditions.

vi. Mr. Lahens has been on bail for over four years without incident. He was subject to a curfew from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., from October 29, 2021, to May 16, 2022; and from 11:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., from May 16, 2022, to October 31, 2022. He was required to always live with his surety (his uncle).

vii. Mr. Lahens has set up two businesses and is seeking to continue his education. He is currently a pro-social member of our community. I expect that that will continue.

viii. He has insight into his behaviour and has taken full responsibility for his actions.

ix. Mr. Lahens had a difficult upbringing due to the absence of his father and a male role model since the age of 10 when his grandfather died.

x. He suffered from ADHD and dealt with difficulties in his education as a result.

xi. Mr. Lahens has the support of his community, including a partner in his life. This bodes well for his rehabilitation.

53Mr. Lahens is being sentenced for two serious crimes. Specific deterrence need not be stressed in crafting the appropriate sentence for Mr. Lahens. I am satisfied that his participation in the criminal justice system has specifically deterred him. That said, general deterrence and denunciation remain paramount considerations, although rehabilitation is an important sentencing objective.

54While Mr. Lahens received a material benefit from N.C.’s sex work over a period of three years, I am unable to conclude that he was actively involved in arranging and facilitating N.C.’s sex work activities. It is my view that Mr. Lahen’s direct involvement in N.C.’s work does not seem especially high, although obviously exploitive. He did not use violence to coerce N.C. to participate in the sex trade. He asked her to stop. She was not underage. He has not been found guilty of the more serious offences of human trafficking and procuring, nor do the facts support such findings. However, N.C. was vulnerable. The crimes had a significant impact on N.C. and her family.

55The sentence for assault causing bodily harm is also serious. It must be consecutive to the sentence I impose for receiving a material benefit for N.C.’s involvement in the sex trade.

56Mr. Lahens is a youthful offender with a minimal and historical criminal record. His prospects for rehabilitation are significant. This is Mr. Lahens’ first sentence of incarceration. In coming to my conclusion about the appropriate sentence, I am cognizant of the principles where a custodial sentence is appropriate, as set out in R. v. Priest, at p. 296:²⁸

[I]t is a well-established principle of sentencing laid down by this court that a first sentence of imprisonment should be as short as possible and tailored to the individual circumstances of the accused rather than solely for the purpose of general deterrence.

57I am not satisfied that Mr. Lahens requires a sentence of more than two years. Such a global sentence is supported by the facts and the principles outlined in the cases above, particularly Joseph and Morgan. The sentence proposed by Crown counsel is not supported by the circumstances of this case.

58I am imposing a global sentence of two years’ imprisonment. Mr. Lahens will be sentenced to 18 months for receiving a material benefit from the sex trade and six months consecutive for assault causing bodily harm.

59Mr. Lahens was arrested on October 15, 2021, and has spent 15 real days in custody. Enhanced at 1.5 days for each day spent in presentence custody (pursuant to Summers) and based on the harsh conditions of his incarceration (pursuant to Duncan²⁹), Mr. Lahens will be given credit for 30 days. ³⁰

60Mr. Lahens has been out on bail since October 30, 2021, for 4 years, 5 months. While being subject to the conditions of bail is not like being incarcerated, the conditions of bail that Mr. Lahens has been subject to are stringent enough to mitigate Mr. Lahens’ sentence. The conditions operated punitively and impacted his liberty (i.e., curfew and a requirement that he reside with his uncle). I fix credit at 12 months (pursuant. Downes³¹).

D. Conclusion

61Mr. Lahens is sentenced to a global one of two years’ imprisonment. Mr. Lahens will be given credit of 13 months, requiring him to serve a further 11 months in custody. His sentence will be reflected as follows:

Count 6: 18 months’ imprisonment less 13 months for a further five months to serve;

Count 7: 6 months consecutive.

62The following ancillary orders are imposed:

a. a DNA order under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code;

b. a weapons prohibition order for life under s. 109 of the Criminal Code; and

c. a non-communication order with N.C. pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code.

Kelly J.

Footnotes

1. 1R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46
2. 2The text messages covered the following periods of time: May 24-26, 2020, August 4-9, 2020, and January 2021 to March 2021. Digital Forensics Reports of the text messages were obtained from “Black Bag Technologies” and filed as part of Exhibit 2, “USB-Appendices to ASF”.
3. 3See R. v. Nur, 2011 ONSC 4874, 275 C.C.C. (3d) 330, aff’d 2013 ONCA 677, 117 O.R. (3d) 401, aff’d 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773.
4. 4January to March 2021 texts, pp. 118-119.
5. 5August text exchange, pp. 49-51.
6. 6May text exchange, p. 17.
7. 7August text exchange, pp. 35-36.
8. 8January to March 2021 texts, pp. 53, 79.
9. 9August text exchange, p. 47.
10. 10May text exchange, p. 29-31.
11. 11May text exchange, pp. 34-35.
12. 12May text exchange, pp. 14-16.
13. 13August text exchange, pp. 9-10.
14. 14August text exchange, p. 9.
15. 15May text exchange, p. 17.
16. 16May text exchange, pp. 15-16.
17. 17August text exchange, p. 16.
18. 18August text exchange, pp. 26-40.
19. 19See: R. v. Lopez, 2018 ONSC 4749; R. v. Taylor, 2023 ONSC 5334, R. v. Bedi, 2024 ONSC 5320; R. v. K.P., 2023 ONSC 6767; R. v. S.L., 2024 ONSC 2263; R. v. Antoine, 2020 ONSC 181, 459 C.R.R. (2d) 154; R. v. Senoubari Adedini, 2020 ONCA 520; R. v. Downey, 2023 ONSC 3776, R. v. Mascoe, 2020 ONCA 706; R. v. Wallace, 2009 ABCA 300; R. v. Kanyanga, 2023 ONSC 3426; R. v. Boodhoo, 2022 ONCA 895; R. v. Barrett, 2022 ONCJ 468.
20. 20See: R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733, 153 O.R. (3d) 145; R. v. Hawke, 2024 ONSC 7124; R. v. Beeransingh, 2022 ONSC 5905; R. v. Al-Hajj, 2025 ONSC 5270; R. v. Fodor, 2024 ONCJ 104; R. v. Neville, 2022 ONCJ 110; R. v. Green, [2022] O.J. No. 6249 (S.C); R. v. Morgan, 2018 ONSC 2007, aff’d 2019 ONCA 468.
21. 21R. v. Hawke, 2024 ONSC 7124, at para. 44.
22. 22Joseph, at paras. 140-142.
23. 232013 ONSC 3261.
24. 242018 ONSC 5555.
25. 25See: Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476, 167 O.R. (3d) 561, leave to appeal granted and appeal heard and reserved February 12, 2025, [2023] S.C.C.A. No. 529, and R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, 162 O.R. (3d) 721.
26. 26R. v. Cunningham, 2023 ONCA 36, 166 O.R. (3d) 147, at paras. 26-28.
27. 271996 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 92
28. 28(1996), 1996 1381 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.)
29. 292016 ONCA 754, 2016 CarswellOnt 15975.
30. 302014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575
31. 31(2006), 2006 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.)