CITATION: R. v. A.F., 2026 ONSC 1806
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
A.F.
Defendant
K. Dowling, for the Crown
J. Miglin, for the Defendant
HEARD: February 27, 2026 by videoconference
MCCARTHY J.
1A.F. (“the Defendant”) appears before me today for sentencing.
The Convictions
2On December 16, 2025, the Defendant was found guilty of the following offences in line with the verdict of the jury:
Count
Offence
Criminal Code section
1
Human trafficking (over 18)
279.01(1)
2
Receiving a benefit knowing that it was derived from human trafficking (over 18)
279.02(1)
3
Procuring, aiding or exercising control, direction or influence over someone providing sexual services (over 18)
286.3(1)
4
Receiving a benefit knowing that it was derived from sexual services (over 18)
286.2(1)
5
Advertising sexual services
286.4
7
Assault
266
3The Defendant was found not guilty of Counts 6 and 8: choking (s. 267(c)) and uttering threats (s. 264.1(1)(a)).
4The victim in question was T.J.D. (“the victim”). The facts underlying the jury verdict were that the Defendant first encountered the victim in the early spring of 2023. The Defendant aided with the victim’s entry into the sex trade, helping her to book hotel rooms, post ads and photos, set rates, and to both attract, arrange, and marshal client visits.
5The pair kept in contact by phone and by text. After several months of coordination in the sex trade, the pair had a dispute and a falling out, prompting the victim to contact police. This led to the Defendant’s arrest and the seizure of both his vehicle and his cell phone. The contents of the Defendant’s cell phone were extracted revealing a plethora of messages which clearly established that the Defendant was coercing, encouraging, and even intimidating the victim into continuing in the sex trade while providing him with an increasing share of the proceeds gained from clients.
6The victim’s testimony at trial recounted verbal, emotional, and physical abuse at the hands of the Defendant. By its verdict, the jury accepted that the victim was physically assaulted by the Defendant on at least one occasion.
The Crown’s Position
7The Crown cites the established range for human trafficking offences of 4 to 8 years incarceration. The Crown seeks a global penitentiary sentence of 8 years less appropriate credits for time served and any credits for pre-trial custody.
The Defendant’s Position
8The Defence acknowledges the established range for the offences but suggests a sentence in the lower end of that range. Moreover, the combination of Duncan and Summers credits should serve to reduce the sentence to time served. The remnant sentence should be one day plus a period of probation with appropriate conditions.
Kienapple and Ancillary Orders
9The opposing sides agree that the Kienapple rule against multiple convictions for the same crimes should serve to stay the convictions on procuring and deriving material benefit. The convictions entered in respect of counts 3 and 4 are accordingly stayed.
10The opposing sides also agree that the sentence should include a non-contact with the victim order, a weapons prohibition for life, a forfeiture order, and an order for the taking of a DNA sample.
Principles of Sentencing
11The objectives of sentencing as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, are: the protection of society and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society through the denunciation of unlawful conduct; deterrence, both general and specific; the separation of the offender from society where necessary; rehabilitation; reparation for harm done to the victims or the community; promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done.
12Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code mandates that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
13Section 718.2 provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances.
Case Law
14In R. v. McEwan, 2023 ONSC 1608 (“McEwan”), the defendant was convicted of human trafficking, material benefit, procuring, and withholding documents. The defendant took advantage of an 18-year-old homeless sex worker, and withheld her documents, identification and passport. The court found the following aggravating factors: the complainant was 18 at the time the offences began; the accused was motivated by greed and took most of the money; the accused took advantage of a very vulnerable homeless female; the accused had an unrelated criminal record; and the accused was not youthful. As for mitigating factors: the accused had employment; had experienced harsh pre-sentence custody conditions; had witnessed domestic violence during his upbringing; and had strong family support. The court sentenced the defendant to 5 years incarceration.
15In McEwan, my brother Di Luca J. canvassed a series of related human trafficking cases and determined that the range established by them was 4 to 8 years with a “cluster” of cases between five and six years. Cases at the lower end often involved the mitigation of a guilty plea and other significant mitigation factors while cases at the higher end usually involve individuals with related criminal records and/or fact scenarios involving violence: McEwan, at para. 80.
16Di Luca J. also explained that the offence under s. 279.01 is a more aggravated or serious offence than an offence under s. 286.3. There is an additional requisite mental element of an exploitative purpose, which must be reflected in the sentence imposed for an offence under s. 279.01. The same applies between offences under s. 279.02 and s. 286.2 which deal with receiving material benefits.
Discussion
17The difficulty that I have with the Defendant’s position is that it downplays the exploitative nature of the Defendant’s conduct and the violence inflicted upon the victim on at least one occasion and possibly more. That position also minimizes the length of time that the exploitation and trafficking persisted. Four months of exploitation and humiliation, even intermittently, represents a significant length of time in a young victim’s life.
18The age difference between the Defendant and the victim was significant: 15 years. So too was the contrast between their socio-economic status: the Defendant had a family, a home and full-time employment. The victim was isolated and without resources to maintain herself. In addition, the victim was a substance abuser, of whose habits and dependencies the Defendant was aware.
19The evidence from the text message exchanges and the victim herself suggests that the Defendant exercised close control over the rates charged for the sexual services and both the nature of those services and the frequency with which the victim was expected to provide them. The evidence establishes as well that the Defendant exercised a large measure of control over the revenue derived from the sexual services. His text message exchanges with the victim featured disturbing, demeaning, and dehumanizing content.
20Moreover, the trafficking and exploitation went on for several months in mid-2023. There were gaps in those months, and the activity went on intermittently at times; nonetheless, when the harsh control and exploitation by the Defendant resumed in the summer of 2023, it became relentless and oppressive right up until the victim’s 911 call to police in August 2023. To be sure, this was not some fleeting or short-lived arrangement.
21On the other hand, the term of incarceration sought by the Crown would be exceedingly harsh and disproportionate. The Defendant has a criminal record, but no antecedents of human trafficking. He expressed remorse which I found to be genuine. He directed an apology to the victim. He appears to have found some level of spirituality in pre-trial custody. He has participated in seminars for anger management, problem solving, and combatting stress. He previously held employment which appears to be available to him upon his release. Letters of support were filed leaving me with no doubt that he has the backing of both his family and his wider community.
22None of the mitigating factors should distract the court from the nature and seriousness of the offences. The Defendant’s crimes here featured: months-long trafficking of a much younger person for profit, exploitation for profit of an isolated and vulnerable individual, degrading and dehumanizing treatment of a female sex worker, at least one incident of gender-based violence against his victim, and a fair level of control and coercion over that victim. The Defendant’s level of blameworthiness and moral culpability is high. There is no doubt that his criminal conduct was sustained, intentional, profit-driven, and insensitive.
23There are here circumstances similar to those in McEwan except that the case at bar also includes at least one incident of violence, which was violence sufficient to leave bruises and marks on the victim’s body. This is a separate and distinct offence from the human trafficking and can only serve to push the matter into the middle of the range for human trafficking and associated offences.
24In all of the circumstances, I find that a global sentence of six years is fit and reasonable. This equates to 2,190 days.
25From this I deduct the allowable “Summers” credits for pre-trial custody: as of April 15, 2026, the Defendant has served 974 days which at the conventional 1.5:1 allowance equates to 1,461 days for credits. This leaves a remnant sentence of 729 days (2190-1461) before any consideration of “Duncan” credits, which a court may allow as a mitigating factor on sentence to address particularly harsh pre-sentence conditions, such as circumstances where lockdowns and overcrowding have been a feature of the pre-trial custody: see R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.
Duncan Credits
26The uncontradicted evidence at the sentencing hearing persuades me that the Defendant has endured deplorable conditions during his stay at Central East Correctional Centre. The chart compiled by the Defendant, which I accept as an accurate summary of the records received from the facility which has housed the Defendant, establishes 321 nights when the Defendant was triple bunked, and 627 days of lockdown. The Defendant was triple bunked for almost a full year and a third of his time in custody; at the same time, he was subject to a lockdown at the rate of one in every three days. The Defendant’s affidavit satisfies me that the conditions he has endured have been generally unacceptable and dehumanizing.
27There is no excuse for this type of treatment of people detained by the state. In my view, it amounts to a kind of extra-judicial punishment prior to conviction and distinct from sentence. While pre-trial custody typically translates into credits for time served, only enhanced credits can serve to not only recognize the unnecessarily harsh conditions endured by detainees but also to send a message to the governing authorities that the bench looks dimly upon the inhumane treatment of inmates.
28At the same time, the court must not lose sight of the fact that it owes a duty to the public to ensure that offenders are separated from the rest of society. The paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence, both specific and general, must be both respected and advanced. There is no evidence that the Defendant has been singled out for poor treatment or that he has endured any more than his fellow inmates. The court recognizes that sentencing must remain an individualized exercise. That said, an individual’s case cannot be viewed in isolation. It would be rare to find an adult member who has not experienced a level of disenchantment with some aspects of his or her interaction with, or treatment by, those in positions of authority.
29I am satisfied that the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody endured by the Defendant qualify as mitigating. In all the circumstances, I am prepared to award the Defendant an enhanced credit of 6 months’ reduction from his sentence. This strikes a fair balance between recognizing the gravity of the offence and upholding the principles of sentencing on the hand, and condemning the uncivilized conditions imposed on the Defendant.
Remnant Sentence
30Allowing this enhanced Duncan credit of 182 days from the 729 days remaining serves to reduce the net remnant sentence to one of 547 days left to serve.
31A.F., kindly stand.
32A.F., I sentence you to 6 years in the penitentiary globally for the convictions on the indictment.
33I would impose this sentence as follows:
a. Count 1 – 6 years in prison;
b. Count 2 – 30 months concurrent to count 1;
c. Count 3 – conditional stay;
d. Count 4 – conditional stay;
e. Count 5 – 12 months concurrent to count 1; and
f. Count 7 – 12 months concurrent to count 1.
34From this I would subtract the allowed credits, leaving a remnant sentence of 547 days left to serve.
35In addition, there shall be a s. 109 weapons prohibition for life.
36There shall be a s. 743.21 order prohibiting communication with the victim T.J.D. for the period of incarceration and for ten years thereafter.
37There shall be an order for forfeiture of your cell phone.
38You shall submit a sample of your DNA when called upon to do so, pursuant to s. 487.051.
39And that is the sentence of the court.
MCCARTHY J.
Released: April 15, 2026
NOTE: As noted in court, on the record, this written Ruling is to be considered the official version and takes precedence over the oral reasons read into the record. If any discrepancies between the oral and written versions, it is the official written Ruling that is to be relied upon.