Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-50000453 Date: 2026-01-16 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: HIS MAJESTY THE KING -- and -- TEMIDAYO OLASUSI, Defendant

Counsel: Brigid McCallum, for the Crown Dragi Zekavica, for the Defendant/Temidayo Olasusi

Heard: December 2-5, 8, 2025

Reasons for Judgment

SPIES J. (Orally)

Overview

[1] The defendant, Temidayo Olasusi stands charged with five counts of human trafficking and sexual services offences contrary to ss. 279.01(1), 279.02(1), 286.3(1), 286.2(1) and 286.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. In addition, he is facing charges of uttering threats, assault, and assault by choking, contrary to ss. 264.1(1), 266, and 267(c) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Olasusi re-elected trial by judge alone and pleaded not guilty to all charges.

[2] All the charges are in relation to the complainant ("K.B."). The conduct at issue is alleged to have occurred between April 20, 2023, and May 15, 2023.

[3] At the opening of trial, the Crown brought an application to have certain evidence admitted that could be considered discreditable conduct evidence of Mr. Olasusi. I granted that application: see R. v. Olasusi, 2025 ONSC 6805.

[4] It is alleged that Mr. Olasusi violently trafficked the complainant, K.B. into the sex trade. In April 2023, K.B met Mr. Olasusi, known to her as "Troubles," on Snapchat. After meeting in person, it is alleged that Mr. Olasusi threatened and assaulted K.B. and coerced her into sex work, directing her to post online advertisements and arranging for her to provide sexual services at various hotels across the GTA and Barrie. It is alleged that he controlled her movements, finances, and communications, and used threats and physically assaulted her when she did not comply. K.B. ultimately fled and disclosed the trafficking to police.

[5] The Crown called the complainant, K.B., and Detective Constable ("DC") Matthew Wilson to testify. In addition, an agreed statement of facts ("ASF") was filed which included a number of business records. The ASF states that Mr. Olasusi admits the contents of the records. I commend both counsel for their cooperation in preparing the ASF. The Crown relies on the ASF and in particular the hotel and Uber records, surveillance footage, K.B.'s bank records and images from her cell phone to corroborate K.B.'s evidence. Mr. Olasusi elected not to testify or call any Defence evidence.

[6] There is really no issue that K.B. was an escort selling sexual services in the GTA and Barrie for a short period of time. The Defence position is that the Crown has not proven that Troubles is in fact the defendant charged and before this court. The Defence submits in the alternative that K.B. independently offered sexual services with no encouragement or participation by Mr. Olasusi. For both defence positions, particularly the second, the main issue is the credibility and reliability of K.B.'s evidence.

The Evidence

Findings of Fact Independent of the Evidence of K.B.

[7] I am able to make a number of findings of fact that do not depend on the contested evidence of K.B. In particular based on the ASF, the admitted business records and the uncontested evidence of DC Wilson I make the following findings of fact:

a) Temidayo Olasusi is 35 years of age. It is admitted that between February 19, 2023, and September 28, 2023, Mr. Olasusi resided in unit 314 at 30 Samuel Wood Way (the "condominium") in the City of Toronto. The condominium was rented under the name of Danielle Casullo.

b) The scenes of crime officer's ("SOCO") photographs taken during the search of the condominium on September 28, 2023 include photographs of a red couch with black trim, women's clothing and makeup, a Mastercard in the name of Mr. Olasusi, a Mercedes-Benz key, a Scotiabank bank card with a number that matches K.B.'s bank records produced by Scotiabank (K.B.'s "bank card"), a document relating to Mr. Olasusi's outstanding charges in Milton (the "Milton Charges"), four TD Canada Trust bank slips for cash deposits made on May 10, 2023, totaling $2,100, and a large number of $100, $50, $20 and $5 bills that were in a plain envelope. The Crown does not suggest that the cash is from any earnings made by K.B.

c) It is admitted that between April 20, 2023, and May 15, 2023, Mr. Olasusi used Uber as a mode of transport. The Uber records produced start at April 25, 2023, and end on May 12, 2023. I will refer to these records in finding that Troubles used Uber to assist K.B. in travelling to and from certain hotels as set out below.

d) At the time of these alleged offences Mr. Olasusi had two sets of outstanding charges: i) the Milton Charges: on November 20, 2022, he was arrested for driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg; and ii) on February 19, 2023, he was arrested for uttering a threat to cause bodily harm.

e) As set out below, DC Wilson explained how to set up a profile on LeoList to permit the posting of advertisements for sexual services. The LeoList records produced to DC Wilson show that the account that was used to advertise K.B.'s sexual services was signed up to on Saturday April 22, 2023, at about 9:25 a.m. with K.B.'s email address and three related phone numbers.

f) DC Wilson explained that when creating a LeoList account, an internet protocol ("IP") address is tagged to that account at the time the account is created. For the LeoList account created using K.B.'s cell phone, LeoList provided DC Wilson with account data in response to a production order which included the IP address for the user for the account when it was created, namely 142.198.35.109 (the "IP address").

g) A production order to Bell Canada provided records for this IP address for the period April 21 to May 15, 2023, showing it was registered to the condominium's address.[^1] DC Wilson advised that the IP address is unique to the modem and that was the modem used to access the internet during this period. The name on the account was Jermaine Jackson. There is no evidence about who Jermaine Jackson is nor any suggestion that he might be Troubles.

h) I find that K.B.'s account on LeoList was created using internet accessed from a modem at the condominium, relying on the uncontested evidence from DC Wilson and the records produced to him.

i) The production of records from LeoList show three phone numbers linked to K.B.'s account. DC Wilson could not advise if they were actual cell phone numbers provided by a cell phone provider or a voice over internet (or voice over IP) ("VoIP") generated phone number, as he explained in his evidence.

j) DC Wilson also obtained all of the advertisements related to K.B.'s account on LeoList. They start on April 23, 2023, for services in Mississauga and end on May 8, 2023. The advertisements showed different phone numbers.

k) DC Wilson explained how the records produced to him by Localcoin allowed him to determine that all of the five purchases of Litecoin that the Crown relies upon were made at a Localcoin ATM inside the Hasty Market, Unit 2 at 280 Dunlop Street West in Barrie (the "Hasty Market") on May 7, 8, 9 and 10, 2023. Each purchase of Litecoin cost $20. DC Wilson also explained how he concluded that K.B.'s cell phone was used to make these purchases, based on emails to K.B.'s cell phone which showed that the purchases of cryptocurrency, in this case Litecoin, were made using a VoIP generated phone number, on her cell phone.

l) The images from this ATM produced by Localcoin ("Terminal Images") show the person using the ATM for each of the five transactions including the time of the transaction. Only one terminal image is relatively clear, but they are definitely all of a black male and not K.B. K.B. identified this male as Troubles.

m) DC Wilson explained that in order to complete the purchase of Litecoin you have to input a phone number, and the ATM sends a text message with a verification code to that phone number, which in this case was a phone number on K.B.'s cell phone. That verification code then has to be inputted into the ATM machine. In light of this evidence, I find it likely that the black male purchasing the Litecoin had K.B.'s cell phone with him.

n) DC Wilson explained that after the verification code was inputted into the ATM, the purchase of Litecoin happened and the cryptocurrency was sent to the wallet address, which is the account address one provides and is the recipient of the Litecoin. The receipt for the transaction was then sent to K.B.'s cell phone.

o) Based on Google Maps, the Hasty Market is a two-minute drive or a seven-minute walk from the Quality Inn in Barrie located at 55 Hart Street where K.B. was staying at the time. DC Wilson estimated the distance between them at 500 metres.

[8] In addition, I have set out a detailed chronology based on the admitted documents in Schedule A, attached. In summary, based on this chronology I made the following additional findings of fact:

a) K.B. created an account and profile on LeoList for the provision of her sexual services on April 22, 2023, while she was in the condominium. The initial pictures posted by K.B. were of other women.

b) On April 23, 2023, while at a Scotiabank ATM, Troubles gave K.B. cash which she deposited to her account. This covered the cost of checking into the Monte Carlo Inn in Mississauga later that day. She stayed at this hotel for two nights, checking out on April 25, 2023.

c) K.B. took an Uber from the condominium and checked into the Quality Inn in Barrie on April 25, 2023. She stayed for three nights and checked out on April 28, 2023. On April 28th K.B. returned by Uber to the condominium. I find that Troubles arranged for these Uber trips.

d) K.B. checked back into the Quality Inn in Barrie on April 29, 2023.

e) Mr. Olasusi took an Uber to the Milton courthouse on May 1, 2023, for an in-person appearance on his Milton Charges.

f) K.B. checked out of the Quality Inn in Barrie on May 2, 2023, and returned by Uber to the condominium where she stayed overnight until May 3, 2023. I find that Troubles arranged for this Uber trip.

g) On May 3, 2023, K.B. took an Uber to the Monte Carlo Inn in Markham where she stayed for two nights, checking out on May 5, 2023. I find that Troubles arranged for this Uber trip. When she checked out, K.B. must have returned to the condominium where she stayed until May 7, 2023.

h) On May 7, 2023, K.B. and Troubles drove in a brown vehicle to the Quality Inn in Barrie where K.B. checked into the hotel, staying until May 15, 2023.

i) While K.B. was at the Quality Inn in Barrie, Troubles purchased Litecoin at the Hasty Market nearby on five occasions, using K.B.'s cell phone.

j) On May 8, 2023, K.B. withdrew $2,000 from her Scotiabank account and used some of that money to purchase lingerie and makeup. As of that date the photographs on her LeoList profile were verified to be of her.

k) On May 15, 2023, shortly after about 3:00 a.m., K.B. left the Quality Inn in Barrie, arriving at the Pearson Airport sometime before 4:00 a.m. By 3:56 a.m. she reported Troubles to police at the airport.

l) K.B. did not have her Scotiabank card at the airport as it was found in the condominium at the time of the police search.

The Evidence of K.B.

[9] As a result of an order granting a Crown application to allow K.B. to testify remotely pursuant to s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code, K.B. testified via Zoom. She lives outside of the province of Ontario.

[10] K.B. is now 30 years old. She testified that she does not know Toronto at all and that she has not been to Toronto very much. In the late winter/spring of 2023 K.B. met someone on Snapchat with the username "Tooshisty". She could not recall how they met online but she added him to her account and they started chatting. He told her that she could call him "Troubles".[^2] She never learned Troubles' real name. When asked what Troubles looked like she said he was a tall black man with dreads and that he had scars on his face. She did not remember him having any other marks or any tattoos. K.B. testified that she knew what Troubles looked like because Tooshisty posted a picture of himself on his story on Snapchat.

[11] K.B. found Troubles good to talk to and they talked on and off via Snapchat about random things. She told him that she had a child, and he knew that in the past she had done escorting.

[12] K.B. testified that she came to Toronto for the birthday party of a friend in April 2023 and only intended to stay in Toronto for a "few days max". She did not remember exactly when she arrived in Toronto or the date when she met Troubles in person. In her evidence in chief K.B. testified that she ended up meeting Troubles after she got to Toronto and he picked her up and they went to his condominium. She was impeached on how she met Troubles in Toronto which I will come to when I consider K.B.'s credibility and reliability as a witness.

[13] K.B. did not know where Troubles' condominium was except that it started with an "E". She described the condominium as a tall building near two fast-food restaurants. One of them was a Burger King and she recalled that they walked there. She did not remember the floor of the condominium until her memory was refreshed. She then testified that it was on the third floor and she then gave specific directions as to how to get to the unit once off the elevator. That evidence was never challenged. K.B. testified that inside she saw a red and black couch and women's belongings. K.B. testified that when she was with Troubles, she saw him with house and car keys. She needed to be refreshed on the type of car key but then testified it was a Mercedes key.

[14] K.B. was shown a screenshot from Snapchat taken on April 22, 2023, at 7:46 p.m. K.B. testified that this photo was taken when she was at Troubles' condominium. She was not sure about when she took this photograph relative to when she first met Troubles K.B. testified that the first time she met Troubles she stayed exactly one night in the condominium.

[15] K.B. testified that initially when she met Troubles, he was nice and laughing and there was not anything "bad" about him. She testified that things changed the following morning when they were sitting in the living room having a conversation. Troubles started talking about "work" and where she was going to go to work. By work he meant escorting. When asked whose idea it was that she would be doing escorting work while she was in Toronto, K.B. testified that it was Troubles' idea.

[16] K.B. testified that during this conversation it felt like Troubles' tone was "demanding". She saw a gun on a table in the living room while she and Troubles were having a conversation about her working as an escort. Initially when she was asked to describe it in her evidence in chief, she simply said that it was black and that it was a handgun but that she did not know the type as she does not know guns well. In cross-examination K.B. testified that the gun was the size of her hand, with her fingers outstretched, and that it was not small. She did see a trigger but not a barrel. She testified that she knows what a handgun is. She did not look to see if it was real. When asked why she did not give these details in her evidence in, K.B. testified that she did not know she had to go into detail. I accept that explanation as she was not asked for further details by the Crown. She denied the suggestion that all she saw was something black and that she was "guessing" that it was a gun.

[17] K.B. testified that she was scared seeing the gun and felt intimidated. K.B. testified that Troubles also told her about a "previous girl", and he told her that he put "money on her head so now she can't walk around Toronto anymore because people are looking for her". This also scared and intimidated her because, she testified, obviously that could be her.

[18] K.B. testified that she remembered Troubles talking about locations where they would go. She believes that they talked about Barrie, Markham and Mississauga. She did not know any of these locations before being with Troubles at his condominium because she was not from Toronto. They also talked about the money she would make. She was not sure which topic came up first.

[19] During this conversation Troubles explained to her that he was going to jail or had court. He also told her that he could be going to jail "for a very long time". She was not asked how she reacted to this comment. In cross-examination she added that Troubles told her that he needed money for a lawyer.

[20] When asked how she felt about escorting, K.B. testified that because she had done escorting work before she thought she would get money from it. However, she did not think that she would have to make a certain amount of money a day and go to certain locations. She testified that she was not used to someone telling her that she had to get "this type of money a day" and she did not think Troubles would be there when she was doing a call and come back after a call. She was used to being alone when she was escorting.

[21] K.B. testified that she had an identification card in her wallet as well as a bank card and that Troubles took a picture of it after they had the conversation about her working as an escort. The identification card showed her name, address, birth date, eye colour and height. When Troubles took the picture of her card, she felt intimidated by him and scared for herself and for the people that she knows. Mr. Zekavica argued that there is no evidence of this photograph being found on Troubles' phone when it was searched but there is in fact no evidence before me that the police obtained a warrant to search Troubles' phone or any of the phones shown in the SOCO photos taken inside the condominium. Furthermore, cellphones can be lost and there is no way of knowing if Troubles still had the phone K.B. alleges he used to take the photograph of her identification card.

[22] K.B. testified that she also saw Troubles being violent with a friend, although she admitted she was not sure if it was serious or not. In cross-examination, she admitted it could have been "playfighting" and arguing about something. In her evidence in chief K.B. testified that she is not sure what day it was but in cross-examination she went along with the suggestion that it was the morning after she went to Troubles' condominium and they had the conversation about work. When asked to describe this incident K.B. testified that they were in Troubles' condominium and when she woke up, she found that Troubles' friend had come over and they were having a conversation. During that conversation Troubles pushed his friend up against a sliding glass door and he held something towards him. She did not know what it was. She testified that Troubles seemed like a scary and very mean person to her. Afterwards, Troubles and his friend continued to smoke and talk and then the friend left.

[23] In cross-examination K.B. testified that when Troubles talked to her about escorting her first response was "ok" and that she agreed to do the work, but this was based on intimidation after what Troubles said. She was thinking about Troubles' comment about what he did to the other girl and this scared and intimidated her because she thought that it could be her if she did not do the work. She admitted that she did not say "no" and did not say that she would not do this. When asked in cross-examination why she did not say "no", she responded by asking why she would and added that she was in his house alone with him and she was scared and she did not know what Troubles was going to do after what he "just showed me". It is likely she was referring to the gun that she saw but that was not clarified. K.B. denied she could leave and said she did not think that the man who came in the afternoon would help her leave as he was Troubles' friend. She added that she saw what Troubles did to his friend and did not think Troubles was a very good person. Although at this point she had her purse and her bank card she did not think she could leave as she did not want to put herself in danger or have Troubles attack her. K.B. admitted that Troubles did not say he would hurt her, but his body language and the way he looked at her and talked to her and what he did to his friend and what he had said about the girl he put money on her head had her thinking she did not want to risk leaving him and possibly have that happen to her. She had her own family and things to live for, and she did not want to have someone intimidate and possibly kill her or hurt her. She denied the suggestion that she was not in fact afraid of Troubles at the time.

[24] K.B. denied the suggestion in cross-examination that she agreed with Troubles to do escorting work or that she was a willing party throughout. She strongly disagreed with the suggestion that she kept all the money she made from providing sexual services or that Troubles gave her money.

[25] K.B. was asked if Troubles ever touched her and she described two incidents. K.B. testified that the first time it happened in his condominium, and she believes the second time they were in the hotel in Barrie. She said: "those are the major ones I remember", implying there were more, but she was not asked to clarify that answer.

[26] The first incident was at the condominium either before or after the conversation they had about her providing sexual services. K.B. did not remember the context or why there was a disagreement. K.B. testified that Troubles was facing her and he put one hand on her neck and "choked her from the front". When asked about the degree of force she answered that it was "pretty strong" and that she did not know how to explain it but that it was not enough to make her pass out.

[27] With respect to earnings K.B. testified that Troubles was talking to her about trying to make $1,000 a day at least. This money would be earned from K.B. providing sexual services to clients. They discussed advertising for sexual services. K.B. testified that it was Troubles' idea to post ads on LeoList. K.B. identified a picture taken of her phone that shows her registration with LeoList with a sign-up date of April 22, 2023. She used her email address to log in to LeoList.

[28] K.B. did not recall who wrote the description that was on the advertisements but K.B. admitted that she did decide what restrictions on the sex work she would require that were stated in the advertisements on LeoList. She wanted to feel safe and did not want to do things that were unsafe or unprotected. K.B. testified that in the beginning she used fake pictures of other women for advertisements on LeoList. She did not want her face or anything like that to be shown in the pictures that were posted on LeoList. They did not discuss her hours of work. Once K.B. had a LeoList account she testified that Troubles purchased Bitcoin which was needed to post advertisements on LeoList. When K.B. testified about "Bitcoin" I understood her to be referring to cryptocurrency. K.B. testified that she was not with Troubles when he bought the cryptocurrency. K.B. admitted that after Troubles bought the cryptocurrency, she posted the advertisements for her sexual services.

[29] K.B. ended up escorting and providing sexual services to customers. She did not recall which hotel she went to first or the specific order of locations, but she remembered the process of booking hotels. Troubles put money on her bank card, and she would book the room. To get to the hotels K.B. testified that the majority of the time Troubles would book an Uber to get there and back. There was one time that they took his "brown vehicle".[^3] She identified the vehicle in the surveillance video from the Quality Inn in Barrie as the vehicle she was referring to, which I will come to.

[30] When asked about the Monte Carlo Inn, K.B. remembered going there. She testified that Troubles wanted her to pay for some of the hotel and they got into an argument while at the ATM they stopped at on the way to the hotel. Eventually he gave her enough money to pay the full amount for the hotel which she deposited into her account. K.B. denied the suggestion that Troubles gave her $1,000 in cash and repeated that he gave her only enough to pay for the damage deposit and one night at the hotel. This interaction is reflected in a video from the ATM which is set out in the Chronology. K.B. was not sure how long she was at the Monte Carlo Inn, but she confirmed that she provided sexual services while she was at that hotel.

[31] When asked what happened to her earnings at the Monte Carlo Inn, K.B. testified that it was slow and she was not getting a lot of calls. Troubles came to see her on one of the days she was there and they talked for a bit. When he left, he took the money that she had made. It was not a lot -- it was perhaps money from one call. K.B. testified that Troubles took all of the money she made while at the Monte Carlo Inn. In cross-examination K.B. admitted that she was at the Monte Carlo Inn alone the first day and that Troubles came the second day when he took the money and that after two nights, when she checked out, she was also alone.

[32] In cross-examination K.B. admitted that at times when she was in a hotel alone, she had the opportunity to contact police. Each time it was suggested to her in cross-examination K.B. agreed but explained that she was in a city that she did not know, that she did not know where she was and did not know anyone and Troubles was expecting money and she was not in the mindset to call police or 911. She also did not think to contact her friend as she did not think she was reliable and she could not rely on her financially. Later in cross-examination she added that she did not want to tell her friend what she was going through and did not "want to share". In re-examination she explained that her friend lived with her parents, did not drive and depended on her parents.

[33] When K.B. was asked where she went after the Monte Carlo Inn, she answered that she did not remember as it was so long ago. In cross-examination she admitted that she went back to Troubles' condominium first after he called an Uber for her. She testified that he always booked the Uber as she did not have money to do so. When asked if she went to other hotels, she testified that she remembered a hotel in Markham and one in Barrie.

[34] When K.B. was asked if at any time she did not want to stay at hotels anymore, she testified that she did not like the hotel in Barrie as the clients there were scaring her, and she felt really uncomfortable there. The hotel was not in a good area, and she did not feel safe in the room. She did not tell Troubles this, but she did speak to her cousin about it.

[35] K.B. testified that she could not recall exactly what Troubles said but that he told her not to talk to her cousin anymore. He did not give her a reason. She agreed that she would not talk to her cousin anymore because she was scared in the moment and she wanted to make Troubles believe she would stop talking to her cousin. However, she continued to talk to her cousin about certain things because her cousin was the only person she had that she could talk to. K.B. testified that she was scared because "what if he [Troubles] catches me".

[36] K.B. testified that she never asked Troubles if she could leave because she was intimidated and scared and she did not know where she was and how she would get home. K.B. testified that she did not even try to leave because she was worried about what would happen if Troubles caught her leaving, as from "what I have seen he's a violent person". K.B. testified that Troubles had a short temper and he was not scared to argue with her and go up to her and "get in my face". Troubles would not sit down with her and have a discussion. He would just get loud, come in her face and intimidate her.

[37] K.B. testified about the second incident with Troubles that she alleges occurred at the hotel in Barrie. K.B. testified that Troubles went behind her, put his hand on the back of her neck and threw her on the bed. K.B. believes they were drinking wine at the time. She did not know if Troubles was drunk or not. It ended there. She recalled that after that happened a friend came to pick up Troubles from the hotel. When asked about the degree of force K.B. testified it was not enough for her to pass out but it hurt. She felt scared but she did not scream because "what if that gets him more mad" and then maybe she would get hurt. She did not want to be hurt in any type of way.

[38] K.B. identified a photograph of a screen on her phone which she said was from when you buy "Btc" (a reference to Bitcoin) and that "it comes to your phone". She said sometimes you have to enter a code like if you are at an ATM and if Troubles needed a code she would give him the code. She said this photograph was like a receipt in a way. She only recalled one ATM used to buy Bitcoin and that was at a Hasty Market near the hotel in Barrie. She identified a photograph of the Hasty Market where they went to get Bitcoin. I assume since she said she was not with Troubles when he got the Bitcoin that she just meant she did not go into the Hasty Market. This was not clarified in evidence but there is no evidence of K.B. leaving the hotel when Troubles is seen leaving and going to the Hasty Market.

[39] Localcoin also produced the Terminal Images taken by a camera on the terminals showing a black male at the time of the five transactions. K.B. was shown the Terminal Images and testified that they each showed Troubles making the purchase of Bitcoin. I note as well that although the black male K.B. identified as Troubles appears to be wearing different T-shirts, he always appears to be wearing the same dark blue hoody at both the Quality Inn hotel and at the Hasty Market.

[40] K.B. testified that after a while Troubles asked her to take real pictures of herself because the fake advertisements were not making as much money as advertisements with real photographs of her could. K.B. testified that she did not want to do this and wanted to continue to use the fake pictures, which she felt were safer. However, she did take real pictures of herself and posted them on LeoList.

[41] When asked generally about her earnings from providing sexual services K.B. testified that she was paid either in cash up front or by e-Transfer to her email before providing sexual services. She felt like she had to have money go to her email. If Troubles wanted her to do something K.B. testified that she would just do it. She did not want to ask questions because she was scared to upset him. She went on to say that if it seemed to Troubles that she was trying not to do it or did not want to do it, she did not want him to get mad or upset him. K.B. identified ten pictures from her phone that are all screen shots that show her receiving money from clients via e-Transfer. K.B. testified that they all related to client payments for sexual services.

[42] K.B. testified that when she was paid in cash, she left the cash on top of the TV and Troubles would take the cash. With respect to e-Transfers K.B. testified that Troubles had her bank card and she gave him the PIN to her bank card. When asked why, she said that it was because he had her card, and she testified that she felt he would ask for the PIN anyway. Later in cross-examination K.B. added that to give a false PIN would cause trouble. As soon as the money was in her account, Troubles would take out the money. He never told her what he was going to do with the money, and he never asked her if she needed any money. K.B. did not know of any other source of income that Troubles had and did not ask any questions.

[43] The deposits to K.B.'s bank account by e-Transfer from clients that K.B. identified are as follows:

May 10, 2023, in the amount of $140,

May 11, 2023, in the amount of $300,

May 13, 2023, in the amount of $200, and

May 15, 2023, in the amount of $200.

[44] In the case of each of these deposits, K.B.'s bank records show withdrawals in the same amount immediately under the posting of the deposit.

[45] As I will come to, DC Wilson took photographs of emails on K.B.'s phone confirming e-Transfers to K.B.'s Scotiabank account that were included in the records that are part of the ASF. There is no doubt that K.B. was receiving some of the payments for the sexual services she was providing by e-Transfer.

[46] When questioned about her bank card in cross-examination it was suggested that K.B. had testified that she always had her bank card, but she was never asked about that in her evidence in chief. K.B. testified in cross-examination that sometimes Troubles had her bank card and other times she had it. As I will come to, in cross-examination K.B. admitted that she had her bank card at the Barrie mall when she withdrew $2,000 to buy lingerie and makeup. I note it was never suggested to her that she had more than one bank card at the relevant time and there is no evidence that she did.

[47] K.B. testified that Troubles decided how often she would work and the rates to be charged for her services. When it was slow he wanted her to keep trying to make as much money as she could. When asked how she communicated with clients K.B. testified that it was by text. She did not remember which app but said that there were apps you can buy and she remembered communicating with clients that way. She was not a hundred percent sure if Troubles communicated with clients as well and in examination in chief she said she could not remember. In cross-examination K.B. testified that she was not a hundred percent sure who had the app and that she knows that she had one or two apps on her phone and that she is sure that Troubles also had one. She denied doing all of the texting to clients. She is sure Troubles was texting clients too and testified that there were multiple advertisements posted with multiple phone numbers. She had two phone numbers. She admitted that she did not actually see text exchanges with clients on Troubles' phone but testified that sometimes Troubles would say a "call was here" and that there were some cases when two clients showed up for the same time and she would have to ask one to wait.

[48] When asked how often she was in the company of Troubles after she started working K.B. testified that "pretty much the whole time I was there". As I will come to her evidence on this point depended on which hotel she was at. K.B. said that in the beginning he would stay there for the night and after that pretty much every single day. Troubles never said anything about the gun but did say that if she had a problem he would shoot right through the door. She never saw him having the gun around the hotels. He did not tell her how often he had the gun with him.

[49] With respect to the hotel in Markham, K.B. did not remember how long she stayed there. She testified that when she was in Markham she went alone to the hotel and checked in alone because Troubles told her that he was not allowed to "show his face there". Troubles had given her money for the hotel, and she was not sure if she paid cash or used her bank card to pay for the hotel. K.B. also could not recall how long she was there. She denied that she in fact stayed with a friend in Markham although admitted that she saw her friend. She admitted that she could have contacted the police while she was alone in Markham. She denied not contacting the police because she had an agreement with Troubles. She testified that she had no money to go home, did not know where she was and she was scared of Troubles.

[50] K.B. did not remember if after the hotel in Markham she went back to Troubles' condominium, but she testified that the last hotel she was at was the hotel in Barrie. K.B. added that after what she went through she was trying to forget about "all of this" and that she did not have the best memory. Later she testified that she and Troubles drove to the hotel in Barrie in his brown vehicle and so she must have gone back to the condominium before going to the hotel in Barrie.

[51] K.B. testified that it was Troubles' idea that they go to Barrie because she had never heard of a city or town called Barrie before as she is not from Toronto. She denied she was the one who suggested Barrie and testified that to this day she does not know where it is or what side of Toronto it is.

[52] As for the Quality Inn in Barrie, Troubles came with her and she testified that he stayed with her. She denied that she wanted Troubles there and testified that she felt very uncomfortable with him there. When she had a call, he would leave the room and then come back. She believed he would go out for a smoke. She thought that Troubles was with her the majority of the time and only left once or twice. When he left, she did not know where he was going.

[53] When she was alone in Barrie, K.B. denied that she had an opportunity to call police because Troubles could come in at any time as he had a key to the room. She repeated that she was scared of him catching her. She denied the suggestion that there was a police officer in the lobby of the hotel in Barrie. She only remembered a receptionist. When DC Wilson attended this hotel to obtain the surveillance video, he did not see any police officer in the lobby.

[54] K.B. testified that she never got to see any of the money she earned and that she did not keep any of her earnings. She strongly denied the suggestion that she kept some or all of the money. K.B. testified that she did not have a lot of money when she came to Toronto and that the only time she got to spend money on herself was when she received a personal deposit to her bank account while she was in Barrie. When K.B. was shown her bank records for May 8, 2023, she was shown a deposit of $2,000 which was then withdrawn. K.B. testified that that time she went shopping at the mall in Barrie because Troubles told her that she needed to take pictures that were actually of her. K.B. explained that she had to use her own money to go shopping for things she needed, namely lingerie and makeup for the pictures, because she had not brought any "work attire" with her.

[55] The advertisements posted on LeoList for K.B. initially used verified photographs of other women. The first photograph that was verified to be K.B. was posted on May 8, 2023, although it does not show her face. Although K.B. did not verify this, it appears from the Traffic Jam search that DC Wilson did, that I refer to below, that photographs of her that included part of her face were only posted as of May 10, 2023.

[56] Because she was not making enough money, K.B. also testified that she took out an amount to give to Troubles. She did not want him to be mad or say she was not making enough. She was not sure of the amount she gave Troubles when she was questioned in evidence in chief, but she recalled taking money out to give to Troubles and using some to do some shopping in Barrie, a reference to her withdrawal of $2,000. Later, in cross-examination, K.B. was asked how much she spent on her personal items and she said she could not recall the exact amount, but it was a "couple hundred" and that when she got back from shopping, she gave Troubles $1,000 of her own money because she felt like she was not making enough money.

[57] When K.B. was asked if she remembered any of Troubles' court dates, she answered that they were some time in May. Her memory was refreshed and she responded that they were the 28th or 29th of May. She remembered Troubles leaving for court but did not testify as to when that was or for that matter where she was or where he left from.

[58] When asked how she left Toronto, K.B. responded that she did not remember what led up to her leaving or what the problem was that caused her to "get up and leave". When the Crown refreshed her memory, K.B. testified that she was feeling sick, and Troubles was asking her why she was not working. She felt scared because he was asking where his money was and "things like that". In cross-examination K.B. testified that she remembers Troubles getting picked up from the hotel in Barrie by a friend. She could not remember if she worked that night or not, but she recalled that she got sick and that she left the hotel because Troubles still wanted her to work even though she was sick. They got into an argument about this.

[59] K.B. recalled texting her cousin to get an Uber for her to the airport because she did not want to be there anymore. K.B. testified that she did not have Uber on her phone, that her cousin did get her an Uber to the airport and that when she arrived at the airport she was sitting for a little bit. She did not have money to go home. She did not have any resources or other people to help her, like her mother or family, because she did not want her mother or family to know what she was doing there or what she was going through. She did not want to call anyone to help her other than her cousin.

[60] In cross-examination K.B. did not remember if she took the Uber to the airport from the hotel in Barrie or Troubles' condominium. I find it likely that she went straight to the airport as she testified that when she was first at the airport, Troubles was still in Barrie trying to find her in the hotel. Furthermore, her Scotiabank bank card was left at the condominium.

[61] K.B. testified that she would rather sit at the airport and struggle to get home with nothing than continue to do what she was doing. K.B. remembered when she was sitting in the airport that Troubles did not contact her at first but then called her asking her where she was. He told her he was at the hotel trying to get in the room and could not get in and she was not there. Mr. Zekavica argued that this evidence means that Troubles did not have a key to the room and that in fact K.B. had control of the room, not Troubles. The problem with this submission is that K.B.'s evidence in chief that Troubles had a key to the room was not challenged. Although we know that the hotel record shows K.B.'s checked out at 6:08 am she clearly left the hotel earlier. It may be that when K.B. left the hotel that the person at reception deactivated the keys to the room.

[62] K.B. testified that she told Troubles that she was at the airport and was leaving and he threatened her by saying "wait till I find you". She testified she was scared and said "oh shit what if he comes here. I told him where I was and would he come and find me?" She saw a police station at the airport and went to the desk and told them she was scared that Troubles was going to find her and that she did not know what was going to happen to her. They took her to a room, and she told them what had happened. A screenshot from a body worn camera of one of the Peel police officers who spoke to K.B. shows that she was at the airport at 3:56 a.m. the morning of May 15, 2023.

[63] K.B. was cross-examined on how she got home from the airport, she testified that she did not remember how she got money to go home. It was put to her that in her evidence in chief she testified that her mother gave her money to get home. I do not believe that K.B. gave that evidence and she continued to say that she did not remember. In re-examination the Crown attempted to refresh her memory and K.B. testified that she still did not have a memory of how she got home.

[64] In cross-examination Mr. Zekavica asked K.B. repeatedly why she did not contact police when at different times she was alone. In cross-examination of DC Wilson he also confirmed, based on the surveillance video from the Quality Inn in Barrie, that there would have been times when Troubles was not with K.B. K.B. candidly admitted that she was alone at times. To answer questions about why she did not contact police at those times K.B. testified that she had a little bit of money for food but not enough to get a flight to go home and that the train does not go where she was living at the time. K.B. admitted that her mother would have helped her get home but she did not want her mother to know what she was going through and that someone was forcing her to make a certain about of money a day. K.B. also said that she was not being threatened like she was at the time she left. K.B. testified that she did not contact her mother until she was at the airport, and she was being threatened by Troubles. Later in her cross-examination K.B. testified that she was just going to leave Toronto and that she would not have gone to the police about Troubles until he contacted her at the airport and started threatening her. This scared her.

The Evidence of DC Matthew Wilson

[65] DC Wilson had spent two and one half years working in the human trafficking department of the Toronto Police Service prior to his current work with the Ontario Provincial Police. DC Wilson was not called as an expert witness. He was only asked factual questions about his work when he was in the human trafficking department. That evidence was not challenged in cross-examination.

[66] DC Wilson testified that in the human trafficking department he became familiar with the LeoList website which in his experience was the primary website where he saw advertisements for sexual services for the GTA. In the period from 2022 to 2024, DC Wilson testified that he was regularly using LeoList as an investigative aid. In that time frame, in order to post advertisements on LeoList, it was necessary to create a profile that required certain user information, namely a name, an advertisement with photographs, an email address and a phone number to verify the account. LeoList would send an email to that email address to verify that you were the holder of that email address.

[67] DC Wilson explained that in order to post advertisements for sexual services on LeoList, you have to pay with Litecoin. The same process was used to boost an advertisement back to the top of the listing, so it showed up on an initial search. When posting advertisements for sexual services, DC Wilson testified that you could use an actual cell phone number or a phone number generated by a free application using Voice over IP. DC Wilson had experience with two of those applications, Text Now and Text+, and testified that after you download the application, you can create an account, pick a geographic area where you want a phone number and then you get a phone number associated to that profile that you can use to make calls or send texts. You can easily change phone numbers by changing settings by choosing different geographic areas. Based on photographs taken by DC Wilson of screen captures on K.B.'s cell phone I find that she was using the Text Now application.

[68] DC Wilson testified that he frequently saw unverified advertisements on LeoList that had not gone through the process to verify the photographs in which case those photographs could be of any person. To verify a photograph the LeoList process included the provision of a photograph of a person holding a piece of paper with the word LeoList and a date. A person could go on the LeoList website without logging in and search a geographic area and see photographs of persons offering sexual services. If those photographs were verified the user would see a symbol with the advertisement confirming that they were. DC Wilson identified the first verified photograph of K.B. on LeoList on May 8, 2023.

[69] DC Wilson also testified about the 103 photographs he took of screen captures from K.B.'s cell phone. He was looking for dates, times, locations and conversations he believed were sex trade related because they were conversations with people not in K.B.'s contact list. There is no need to review this evidence in any detail, but it confirms the evidence of K.B. that she was providing sexual services when she was in one of the three hotels she stayed at in this period of time and that she was receiving some of the payments by e-Transfer. These photographs also included the information DC Wilson used to obtain the LeoList and Localcoin records referred to above.

[70] DC Wilson also used an online app called Traffic Jam to search the internet for advertisements of sexual services with K.B. in them between May 6-15, 2023. Traffic Jam links advertisements together if photographs or other information is the same, such as the name used by the sexual services provided. The identified the records he found as a result of this search.

The Credibility and Reliability of K.B.'s evidence

[71] I found K.B. to be a candid and forthright witness. She was responsive to all of the questions asked, including those asked by Mr. Zekavica.

[72] The Crown argued that the complainant gave her evidence in a balanced way. I agree. She was very fair in her evidence. For example, with respect to K.B.'s evidence about the assaults she alleges Troubles committed, she gave her evidence frankly and in a manner which did not suggest she was shaping her evidence to put Troubles in the worst possible light. She acknowledged facts which potentially assisted Mr. Olasusi in that she did not claim to have felt being suffocated and this provided some support for a legal argument Mr. Zekavica made that Troubles did not choke her.

[73] I found K.B.'s evidence was internally consistent. Mr. Zekavica argued otherwise. He also made a number of submissions attacking the credibility of K.B., but as the Crown submitted, in some cases he argued that K.B. gave certain evidence when it was not the case. I have considered the following submissions:

a) Mr. Zekavica argued that K.B.'s memory about what she said was a handgun could have been impacted by the fact that she was smoking weed but there was no evidence that she smoked weed with Troubles or for that matter that she used any drugs. She did say in cross-examination that when Troubles' friend came over, he and his friend were "smoking, talking and chilling" but she was never asked what they were smoking.

b) On the issue of the gun, Mr. Zekavica submitted that based on K.B.'s description of the gun as the size of her hand, it would have to be a derringer if it was in fact a gun. However, when K.B. was asked to describe the size of the gun, she opened her fingers suggesting the gun was the length of her open hand. Furthermore, there is no evidence about what a derringer would look like. In the same vein, Mr. Zekavica submitted K.B. only saw a black object because she did not volunteer that she saw a trigger until after Mr. Zekavica asked her and because she admitted she did not see a barrel. I do not accept those submissions as I would not expect a witness to volunteer more details unless she was asked. K.B. testified that she did not know a lot about guns, but she was firm that what she saw was a black handgun. I note that no gun was found when the condominium was searched but K.B. did not testify that she saw this handgun later when she was with Troubles. Furthermore, the fact no handgun was found sometime later only proves one was not there at the time of the search.

c) Mr. Zekavica argued that it was K.B.'s idea to go to Markham because she had a friend there. He also submitted that she must have picked the hotel in Markham because Troubles would not have picked this hotel because he was banned from it. K.B. was not asked if she was the one who chose Markam as a place to go. She was not asked if she chose this hotel or for that matter how any particular hotel she went to was chosen.

[74] K.B. admitted on a number of occasions that she did not have a good memory of some aspects of what occurred when she was with Troubles. She said this in both her evidence in chief and in cross-examination. I find that K.B. did not respond that she did not recall to avoid answering a question. By the time K.B. testified a little over two and a half years had elapsed and so some issues with K.B.'s memory are not surprising. I find however that when it was necessary for K.B. to refresh her memory, she was fair in what she actually recalled as a result of having an opportunity to review her statements to police.[^4] For example I was struck by the fact that even when K.B. was shown her prior statement when she explained to police how she got home from the airport she testified that she still did not recall how. It would have been very easy for her to provide an answer based on what she told police as there was no reason for her not to adopt this earlier statement.

[75] At one point in her evidence in cross-examination, when K.B. could not remember certain dates, she stated that given what she went through she was "trying to forget about all of this". The fact that based on K.B.'s evidence she had experienced a traumatic event, some issue with memory would be expected. The issue is whether her memory gaps were about peripheral details or the core facts. As the court said in R. v. A.A., 2023 ONCA 174, [2023] W.C.B. 372, at para. 17:

[i]t is well accepted that peripheral details of a traumatic event can be difficult to recall and accurately describe at a later date: see, for example, R. v. G.M.C., 2022 ONCA 2, at para. 38. The trial judge was clearly alive to the complainant's inability to recall certain specific details of the events. However, as the trier of fact, it was open to him to accept the core of the complainant's testimony, which proved the elements of the offences, while acknowledging that she could not explain all the precise details of how she escaped. The impact of this inability, to the extent that it existed, on both the complainant's overall reliability and credibility was entirely for the trial judge to assess. ...

[76] Mr. Zekavica argued that K.B. evidence was sometimes inconsistent with the documents, for example how long she stayed at a particular hotel or the fact that she did not remember going to the hotel in Barrie twice. In fact, neither counsel asked K.B. whether she went to the hotel in Barrie more than once. In any event, in my view, the types of details Mr. Zekavica relies on are the types of details that it is understandable that K.B. would fail to remember. She did not know Toronto but did remember the names of the three cities where she went to provide sexual services. She admitted she could not remember the order and the fact she could not remember the order or the details of how long she was in each hotel does not, in my view, impact her reliability on key aspects of her evidence. As the Court of Appeal said in GMC, at para. 38: "a witness cannot be expected to have a faithful memory of minor incidents that occurred during a traumatic event and the inability to recall a minor or insignificant event does not detract from the witness's overall reliability or credibility".

[77] I also do not find it surprising that K.B. did not remember how she got home from the airport as she became afraid enough at that time to go to police. I find that the times K.B. answered a question that she could not recall something, that it related to a peripheral detail and not the core of her allegations.

[78] There was only one significant inconsistency raised with K.B. in her cross-examination between her statements to police and her evidence at court. K.B. admitted that when she gave her statement to DC Wilson and another officer on May 16, 2023, she told the officers that she came to Toronto for a friend's birthday party in Vaughan and that they went to an after party which is where she met a man who she knew as Troubles from previous conversations on Snapchat. She then went to his house to "hook-up". When asked about this prior statement, K.B. testified that the part of meeting Troubles at an afterparty was not correct. She denied meeting Troubles at an after party and insisted her evidence in chief was true. She gave more detail in response to the questions about how she met Troubles in person. K.B. testified that she went by Via Rail to where Troubles picked her up. She said she was waiting outside of a train station downtown that was a big building, clearly a reference to Union Station. Troubles picked her up in a cab and they went in that cab to his condominium. When it was suggested to K.B. that she went with Troubles on the subway to the Via Rail station K.B. testified that she never took a subway anywhere with Troubles. K.B. does admit that she called Troubles on Snapchat to meet.

[79] With respect to this inconsistency, I do not believe that K.B. deliberately lied to police or in this court about how she got to Troubles' condominium. In my view she told police what she recalled at the time, and she told the court what she remembers now. K.B. testified that she has no recall of ever being on the subway with Troubles. As the Crown submitted, this detail is peripheral to K.B.'s core allegations. When I consider this inconsistency in the context of K.B.'s evidence overall I find that how K.B. met up with Troubles once she was in Toronto, someone who she had previously met on Snapchat, is more likely something she has forgotten, like some of the other details of these events that she has forgotten. For this reason, I do not find that this inconsistency undermines K.B.'s credibility or reliability on her core evidence.

[80] Although I accept that I must consider K.B.'s evidence with caution and in particular the reliability of her evidence, she was consistent on the main aspects of her evidence with respect to her core allegations and her interactions with Troubles. For these reasons I found K.B.'s evidence about the core of her allegations to be credible and reliable. Furthermore, there is ample evidence, including the admitted facts, the admitted documents and the surveillance evidence that corroborates her evidence on the core of her allegations and this evidence provides the details of what K.B. could not remember like the order of the hotels she went to and the dates of when she was in different hotels. I recognize that it is not enough that I believe K.B. I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that her evidence and all the other evidence proves the guilt of Mr. Olasusi on the charges in the Indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. I also recognize that an absence of evidence can also raise a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, save to the extent the evidence overlaps, a finding of guilt on one count does not mean Mr. Olasusi should be found guilty of another. Each count must be considered on the basis of the evidence relevant to that count.

Has the Crown proven that Troubles is Mr. Olasusi?

[81] Before considering the charges, I must consider the first issue: namely, has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Troubles is Mr. Olasusi?

Did K.B. spend time with Troubles in the condominium?

[82] I am satisfied that K.B. spent time with Troubles in the condominium for the following reasons:

(a) Although K.B. did not know the address of the condominium where she met Troubles, save that it was in a place that started with an "e", the Uber records show the address as being in Etobicoke. Furthermore, she recalled the condominium was on the third floor and her detailed evidence about how to get to the condominium after coming off the elevator was not challenged.

(b) The Uber records showing trips from the condominium to the hotels where it is clear that K.B. checked into, usually minutes after the arrival of the Uber, and Uber records from those hotels to the condominium satisfy me that K.B. must have been in the Uber coming from the condominium or returning to the condominium and corroborates her evidence that Troubles was arranging these Uber trips.

(c) The Leolist advertisements for K.B.'s sexual services were posted from an IP address from a modem registered to the address of the condominium.

(d) The SOCO photos from the search of the condominium show a red and black couch, woman's belongings and a Mercedez-Benz key. They confirm K.B.'s observations are accurate and consistent with the contents of the condominium.

(e) The fact that K.B.'s bank card was found in the condominium does not definitely prove K.B. was ever there, as it could have been brought there by Troubles, but it is strong evidence that this was the condominium where K.B. spent time with Troubles. The odds of that being a coincidence are extremely remote, particularly given K.B.'s description of the condominium being on the third floor and having a black and red couch and woman's belongings inside.

Is Troubles Mr. Olasusi?

[83] It was not suggested by the Defence that the person arrested and before the court is not Temidayo Olasusi. The real issue is, has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the black male K.B. knew as Troubles is Mr. Olasusi, the man charged with these offences?

[84] In addition to the admission that Mr. Olasusi resided in the condominium, there are the SOCO photographs taken during the search that include a number of Mr. Olasusi's belongings. There is however no evidence that Mr. Olasusi was the only black male to reside there. I have for example no evidence as to who Jermaine Jackson was or what he looks like.

[85] Mr. Zekavica argued that when K.B. testified, there was "no physical pointing out" in that she was not asked to see if she could identify Mr. Olasusi as Troubles in the courtroom. He submitted that this could have been difficult on Zoom but stated that a photograph could have been forwarded to K.B. for the purposed of identification.

[86] Mr. Zekavica conceded in his closing argument that looking at the video surveillance and photographic evidence from the ATM in the Scotiabank on April 23, 2023, that it is fairly clear that that the black male shown "may very well be" Mr. Olasusi but he submitted that is not the real issue. He argued that the real issue is whether that person is Troubles because K.B. only knows the black male as Troubles. I do not accept that submission as K.B. was repeatedly asked in her evidence to identify the black male shown in the various video surveillance and photographs and in each case, she identified that person as Troubles.

[87] As for K.B. identifying Mr. Olasusi in the courtroom as Troubles, I do not know why she was not asked this question save that she did not see him while she testified due to the position of the Zoom camera. I find that it could have been possible with K.B. on Zoom, but given that Mr. Olasusi was seated at counsel table, was the only black male in the court room and was in casual clothing, her identification of him as Troubles would have had no or very little probative value. No value would have been added if she identified a single photograph of Mr. Olasusi as Troubles. In my view I cannot draw an adverse inference that K.B. could not have identified Mr. Olasusi as Troubles or that the Crown's case is impacted in any way because she was not asked to do so.

[88] I agree with Mr. Zekavica however that the real issue is whether or not the person K.B. identified as Troubles is Mr. Olasusi. Considering all of the evidence before me I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Troubles is Mr. Olasusi and that Mr. Olasusi is the person K.B. knew as Troubles and the person she alleges committed these offences. I rely not only on the fact that Mr. Olasusi resided in the condominium and that K.B. spent time in that condominium for the reasons already stated, but also on the following evidence:

(a) Based on my observations of Mr. Olasusi as he appeared in court, he is a tall, slim black male with hair in dreadlocks, some facial hair around his mouth and when he turned his head, I was able to see a scar or marks on the left side of his face.

(b) Mr. Olasusi's appearance in court is consistent with K.B.'s description of Troubles and the black male that she identified as Troubles that can be seen in the Scotiabank ATM video on April 23, 2023,[^5] the Scotia Bank ATM photos of Troubles standing in front of an ATM on April 23, 2023 and April 28, 2023, the Localcoin Terminal Images, particularly the one on May 7, 2023 and the surveillance videos from the Quality Inn in Barrie from May 7 to May 9, 2023, when Troubles is seen exiting from the brown car in the parking lot behind the hotel and when he is walking in the lobby area of the hotel.

(c) The photograph on K.B.'s phone that K.B. testified was of Troubles which was taken at some time when she was with him in his condominium shows the side profile of a black male with dreadlocks and a mustache or goatee. The appearance of the black male in this photograph is consistent with my observations of Mr. Olasusi in court.

(d) Mr. Zekavica argued that Mr. Olasusi has tattoos and Mr. Olasusi attempted to show me tattoos on his neck and hands while he was seated at counsel table. This is not evidence and, in any event, there is no evidence that Mr. Olasusi had those tattoos at the time at issue. Accordingly, the fact K.B. did not recall Troubles having tattoos does not detract from her evidence. Furthermore, she was not cross-examined on this point.

(e) In addition, I find it significant that K.B. testified that Troubles left one time for court and that he had another court appearance on May 28 or 29th, 2023. Based on the Information for Mr. Olasusi's Milton Charges, he appeared in court on May 1, 2023, and his return date was May 29, 2023. The Uber records show that someone travelled from the condominium to the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton on May 1, 2023, and I have found that person must have been Mr. Olasusi. K.B. could not remember the date Mr. Olasusi went to court but the possibility that it was some other male K.B. spent time at the condominium with other than Mr. Olasusi -- who told her about a specific return date to court which was either the same or within one day of Mr. Olasusi's actual return date -- is some other male who spent time in the condominium with K.B. is extremely remote.

[89] Mr. Zekavica argued that Mr. Olasusi could not have made his trip to the Milton court and his return trip in two hours, and he submitted that K.B.'s recollection that Troubles returned after two hours must be wrong. The first difficulty with this submission is that K.B. did not give evidence in this trial that Troubles was gone for two hours. In her evidence in chief, she was asked if she remembered any of Troubles court dates and she could only recall that they were sometime in May. She then refreshed her memory and when asked if she remembered any court dates she testified to May 28th or 29th. The next question asked by the Crown was if she remembered any times when Trouble left for court. K.B. answered that she did recall Troubles leaving but she could not recall what day that was. She was not asked how she knew of these dates or where she was.

[90] Although I noticed that there was a reference to "two hours" in K.B.'s statement to police that she read to refresh her memory she did not mention that when she answered the Crown's questions and she was never asked about this as part of her evidence either in chief or in cross-examination, so this is not part of her evidence. Even if it were, without K.B. being asked questions about this we have no idea why she gave this time estimate or how sure she was of it. It was not a detail she would have considered important at the time. Furthermore, she did not suggest she was with Troubles when he left for court and this information could have come to her through a conversation with him. The fact remains that the chance that the male K.B. knew as Troubles, who told her he had certain court dates is not Mr. Olasusi who had to go to court in May, left from the condominium and had this return date, given the other evidence I have referred to, persuades me beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Olasusi is Troubles.

[91] For these reasons I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Olasusi was Troubles and the male that K.B. referred to throughout her evidence.

Determination of the Charges

[92] I have found K.B.'s core evidence to be credible and reliable and to a large extent corroborated by my findings of fact based on the ASF, the admitted documents and the uncontested evidence of DC Willson, I will now turn to the charges Mr. Olasusi is facing and determine whether or not the Crown has proven the essential elements of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with the relevant law.

Has the Crown proven Count 1 -- Human Trafficking?

The Law

[93] In Count 1, Mr. Olasusi is charged with trafficking in a person contrary to s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons). The relevant portions of the offence read as follows:

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

(2) No consent to the activity that forms the subject-matter of a charge under subsection (1) is valid.

[94] Accordingly, whether or not a complainant factually consented to providing the labour or service in question is irrelevant, since such consent is not valid in law.

[95] Exploitation is defined in s. 279.04:

(1) 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 fail to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

(2) In determining whether an accused exploits another person under subsection (1), the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused

(a) used or threatened to use force or another form of coercion;

(b) used deception; or

(c) abused a position of trust, power or authority.

[96] The recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada of R. v. T.J.F., 2024 SCC 38, 497 D.L.R. (4th) 441 confirmed principles set out in several earlier decisions from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, including R. v. Sinclair, 2020 ONCA 61, 384 C.C.C. (3d) 484, R. v. Gallone, 2019 ONCA 663, 147 O.R. (3d) 225, and R. v. A.(A.), 2015 ONCA 558, 327 C.C.C. (3d) 377, setting out what the Crown must prove to convict Mr. Olasusi for trafficking K.B. The relevant principles given the evidence in this case are as follows:

a) the range of conduct captured under s. 279.01(1) is "broad" given that the language in the section is disjunctive given the use of the word "or". As a result, for the actus reus of the offence the Crown is only required to prove that Mr. Olasusi engaged in any one of the types of conduct; T.J.F. at para. 92, Gallone at para. 33 and A.(A.), at para. 80.

b) the actus reus does not require that actual exploitation occurred as exploitation is not an essential element of the offence, only the intention to exploit or facilitate exploitation. T.J.F. at para. 99.

c) the phrase "control, direction or influence" reflects a spectrum of power that the accused exerts over the victim's ability to move freely and their actual movements:

On one end of the spectrum, the accused will exercise 'control' over the victim's movements; [...] On the other end of the spectrum, the accused will exercise 'influence' over the victim's movement when they will, at a minimum, 'induce action or change decisions or acts of [the victim] about their movements. This means that the victim is free to move wherever they like, but that when they decide how to exercise their freedom, the accused 'alter[s], sway[s] or affect[s] their will' (T.J.F. at para. 65; citations omitted).

d) Direction means management, guidance, advice or instruction. Direction will often overlap with control or influence and can be found to have occurred even where the victim's movements have not been controlled or influenced. T.J.F. at para. 66.

e) It is not enough that the accused has acquired the power or the ability to control, direct, or influence the victim's movements; he must have actualized it in some way such that the victim's movements have been controlled, directed, or influenced by the accused. T.J.F. at para. 67.

f) By influence the court in Sinclair, held at para 11:

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.

g) With respect to the mens rea of the offence the Crown must prove that Mr. Olasusi acted with the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of K.B. The mens rea can sometimes be inferred from a finding that exploitation occurred because it is assumed that people are usually able to foresee the consequences of their actions. T.J.F. at paras. 100-101, A.(A.) at para 87, Gallone at para. 54.

h) We can extract from the definition of exploitation two requirements that must be satisfied for exploitation to occur. Exploitation involves conduct that both (i) causes the victim to provide (or offer to provide) labour or a service and (ii) a reasonable expectation that the victim could believe that their safety (or the safety of a person known to them) would be threatened if they failed to provide that labour or service. T.J.F. at para. 103. Because the focus is on the accused, the complainant need not subjectively have feared for their safety. A.A., at para. 74. Additionally, the complainant's safety need not have actually been threatened. A.A. at para. 70.

i) The definition of exploitation does not specify the term "conduct", which can take many forms, including regular violence and threats of violence towards a victim and, more generally, a violent relationship between the two. Section 279.01(1) lists factors that the courts may consider in determining whether an accused exploits another person: (a) used or threatened to use force or another form of coercion; (b) used deception; or (c) abused a position of trust, power or authority. T.J.F. at para. 104.

j) In determining whether the accused's conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the belief, the judge must have regard to all circumstances, which include the victim's personal characteristics and vulnerabilities, such as their lack of education, prior victimization, socio-economic disadvantage, and social and family isolation, among others. T.J.F. at para. 104.

k) The court at para. 105 approved the list of circumstances that might be relevant in the analysis from Sinclair (at para. 15) as follows:

• the presence or absence of violence or threats
• coercion, including physical, emotional or psychological
• deception
• abuse of trust, power, or authority
• vulnerability due to age or personal circumstances, such as social or economic disadvantage and victimization from other sources
• isolation of the complainant
• the nature of the relationship between the accused and the complainant
• directive behaviour
• influence exercised over the nature and location 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.

l) In sum, exploitation occurs when the accused engages in any conduct, including regular violence and threats of violence, that both causes the victim to provide (or offer to provide) labour or a service and could be reasonably expected to cause the victim to believe that their safety (or the safety of a person known to them) would be threatened if they failed to provide that labour or service. The latter must be assessed using an objective test, having regard to all the circumstances, including the victim's vulnerabilities. T.J.F. at para. 106.

m) Even where the trial judge accepts that actual exploitation occurred, the Crown must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused subjectively intended to exploit the complainant. T.J.F. at para. 108.

[97] I have also found the decision of Justice Nakatsuru, R. v. Musara, 2022 ONSC 2835, which has been relied upon by a number of my colleagues to be of assistance.

[98] Mr. Zekavica referred me to R. v. K.G.A. 2019 ONSC 275 in support of Mr. Olasusi's defence. That case in my view is clearly distinguishable for many reasons. First of all, the trial judge found that because the fact the complainant often answered questions by not remembering or knowing the answer that she was evasive and unresponsive and that it would be dangerous to convict the defendants based on her evidence. Secondly the facts and the position advanced by the Crown in that case are quite different than the case before me. Essentially the trial judge found that for various reasons the Crown had not proven its case.

Analysis of the Evidence

[99] Mr. Zekavica argued that K.B. came to Toronto already intending to do escorting work without any influence from Troubles. I do not accept that submission. I accept K.B.'s evidence that when she came to Toronto for her friend's birthday party, she only intended to stay a few days. Although she had worked as an escort before, she was very clear she did not intend to do that work while she was in Toronto and her evidence that she did not bring any "work clothes" was not challenged. Furthermore, that evidence is corroborated by the fact that on May 8, 2023, when K.B. posted advertisements on LeoList for the first time that were actually of her, she first went to purchase lingerie and makeup.

[100] I also accept K.B.'s evidence that it was Troubles, whom I have found to be Mr. Olasusi, who started talking to her about providing sexual services in Toronto. K.B. testified that Troubles knew she had been an escort based on their conversations on Snapchat. The fact Mr. Olasusi had outstanding criminal charges is consistent with K.B.'s evidence that he told her he needed money for legal fees. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Olasusi recruited K.B. for the purpose of her providing sexual services.

[101] Mr. Zekavica submitted that because there were photographs of women that were not K.B. in her advertisements on LeoList that had verification dates that predated K.B. meeting Troubles shows that K.B. was familiar with this type of advertising. He submitted that this meant that K.B. had already been using LeoList. I do not accept that submission because based on the evidence of DC Wilson, some women may choose to post their verified photograph which would show a date and clearly K.B. was able to find photographs of other women that she used for her advertisements before she took pictures of herself for that purpose. However, I do accept, because K.B. admitted that she had acted as an escort before, that she was likely familiar with how to post advertisements on a website like LeoList.

[102] Although K.B. signed up for a LeoList account using her email address, I find that she only did so because of direction from Troubles. She did not recall who prepared the advertisement description but did admit that she was able to insert the restrictions she felt were needed to keep her safe. At the beginning she was also able to use photographs of other women. It was on this basis that she posted advertisements on LeoList. However, I also accept her evidence that Troubles was putting pressure on her to make more money and that as of May 8, 2023, Troubles required her to take photographs of herself for the advertisements on LeoList so she would earn more money. I also accept her evidence that she was not comfortable posting her photographs as it made her feel unsafe. Clearly by this time Troubles still had control over her actions.

[103] There is no dispute that K.B. acted as an escort providing sexual services when she stayed at the three hotels referred to in her evidence and the Chronology. Mr. Zekavica argued that K.B. agreed and consented to doing escort work once in Toronto, relying on her evidence that in response to Mr. Olasusi's suggestion that she do escort work she said "ok" and essentially went along with it. There is also the evidence she gave about how she felt about escorting that I have summarized. Although I accept that some of that evidence might suggest K.B. was going along with Mr. Olasusi's suggestion because she would make money doing escorting work, even if she consented of her own free will, which I do not find, that would not be a defence.

[104] I reject any suggestion that K.B. agreed and consented to providing sexual services in the hotels she stayed in. The fact that she was familiar with escorting work from her prior experience is irrelevant. I have summarized K.B.'s evidence about why she agreed to set up a profile on LeoList on April 22, 2023, and provide sexual services at hotels. I accept her evidence that she felt intimidated by Mr. Olasusi when they had the first conversation about her providing escorting services for a number of reasons. She saw a gun in his living room, and even though he made no overt threats to use it against her, that would obviously have scared her. I also accept K.B.'s evidence that Troubles took a picture of her identification card. That Troubles now had her contact information and would know where to find her would naturally be of concern, as there was no legitimate reason for him to do this. I find the most significant factor in K.B.'s mind that intimidated her into agreeing to go ahead with escorting work was what Mr. Olasusi told her about a girl who could no longer walk around Toronto anymore because people were looking for her as Mr. Olasusi had put "money on her head". K.B.'s evidence that she believed that if she did not go along with Mr. Olasusi's idea to start escorting she could end up like that girl was reasonable and, although K.B. did not explain exactly what she feared, she made it clear in her evidence that her personal safety was imperative. Also K.B. did not see Mr. Olasusi later with the gun she explained why she was scared of this and these concerns about him having a copy of her identification card and what he said about this other girl would still have been concerns until she left him and got home.

[105] After April 22, 2023, there is no doubt that K.B. provided sexual services as a result of the advertisements on LeoList while she was at the three hotels identified in the Chronology. I have found that Mr. Olasusi gave money to K.B. to cover her cost for checking into the Monte Carlo Inn in Mississauga on April 23, 2023, and that he was with her when she was at the Quality Inn in Barrie at least for a period of time. I have also found that Mr. Olasusi used the Uber account he had access to, to have K.B. driven from the condominium to hotels or back to the condominium at different times while she was at one of the three hotels. Mr. Olasusi actually drove with her in a brown vehicle he had access to the Quality Inn in Barrie on May 7, 2023. K.B. also must have returned to the condominium in between some of the hotel check-ins as I have set out in the Chronology. Considering all of the evidence and K.B.'s lack of knowledge of Toronto and the other cities the hotels she went to were in, I also find that it was Mr. Olasusi who chose the cities where she would go to provide sexual services. Based on this evidence I find that Mr. Olasusi also transported and transferred K.B. to various hotels for the purpose of providing sexual services.

[106] Mr. Zekavica argued that K.B. was acting independently and that Troubles did not have any control over her because she was able to leave the hotel in Barrie without Troubles stopping her. He did not agree that Troubles was taking K.B.'s money but argued in any event that K.B. had some money that she could have used to leave Troubles earlier. Mr. Zekavica also submitted that if K.B. did not want to do this work she had many opportunities to stop and leave or go to police.

[107] I will come to the issue of whether or not Mr. Olasusi received a financial benefit from the sexual services provided by K.B. when I come to Count 2 but there is some evidence on this issue that is relevant to the issue of whether Mr. Olasusi had exercised control and direction over K.B. On the issue of K.B.'s Scotiabank card, I accept her evidence that Troubles had her card sometimes and other times she had it. She was able to use it from time to time at the hotels, as set out in more detail in the Chronology and she must have had it when she received and withdrew $2,000 from her bank account. Her explanation for why she gave Troubles her bank card and her pin is consistent with her fear of him. In fact, she was so concerned about meeting his expectations of the money she needed to earn for him that she gave him $1,000 of that amount. I accept that evidence and it is corroborated by the fact K.B. did not have enough money to get to the airport on May 15, 2023, without the help of her cousin or to fly home.

[108] There is no doubt that K.B. was alone at times in the hotels throughout her time in Toronto and she readily admitted to Mr. Zekavica that in that sense she had the opportunity to call police for help leaving Troubles. K.B. explained why she did not feel she could ask her friend for help and why she did not want to ask her mother for help. K.B. agreed with Mr. Zekavica when he put to her that she could have called police at different times, but she gave credible explanations for why she did not do so. She also explained why she never asked Troubles if she could leave. I have summarized her evidence in that regard but in summary she testified that she was intimidated and scared because she saw Troubles as a violent person, she was in a city that she did not know, and she did not know how she would get home. As I will come to, I also find that Mr. Olasusi assaulted K.B. It was only when Mr. Olasusi demanded that she continue to work when she was sick that K.B. had finally had enough and summoned up the courage to leave him. I accept K.B.'s evidence for why she did not do this sooner and her fear was certainly reasonable when I consider her evidence, which I accept, about Mr. Olasusi's efforts to intimidate her when she was at the airport. I also find that just as we do not judge women who have been sexually assaulted by the way they behave after the assault, considering for example a delay in reporting, we should not judge women like K.B. who are intimidated into agreeing to provide sexual services.

[109] I also accept K.B.'s evidence that Mr. Olasusi remained involved and was often present when she was in hotels. She suggested Troubles only came to visit her one time when she was at the Monte Carlo in Mississauga and that he was banned from the hotel in Markham, but I find that Troubles spent considerable time with K.B. when she was at the Quality Inn in Barrie. Mr. Zekavica argued that because Troubles was not also registered to K.B.'s room and did not have his own room that he was not staying with K.B. during her time in Barrie. I do not accept that submission given that the surveillance evidence shows Troubles arriving with K.B. and coming and going over the course of some of the time K.B. was at the hotel. K.B.'s evidence that Troubles also had a key was not challenged. I do not have any surveillance evidence after May 10th, but clearly K.B. was still at the hotel. She also testified that Troubles was looking for her at this hotel after she checked out on May 15, 2023. I accept K.B.'s evidence that Mr. Olasusi was with her and find he was at the Quality Inn in Barrie for a significant amount of time which is corroborated by the surveillance evidence of him walking around the hotel, the evidence of him leaving and returning to the hotel when he went out to buy cryptocurrency at the Hasty Market or went out with a friend and returned to the hotel. I also find that the few times K.B. returned to the condominium that Mr. Olasusi would have been there too. This evidence clearly shows that Mr. Olasusi was also harbouring K.B. and controlling and directing her movements and her work as an escort.

[110] Having found that Mr. Olasusi acted in many of the ways set out in s. 279.01(1), the next issue is to consider whether it was for the purpose of exploiting K.B. Considering the factors set out in the definition of exploitation and from Sinclair, I find that Mr. Olasusi exploited K.B. As I have already found, through intimidation and veiled threats Mr. Olasusi caused K.B. to agree to provide sexual services in the locations he chose. I have also explained my finding that I accept K.B.'s evidence of why she did not leave Mr. Olasusi earlier. K.B. was vulnerable because she did not know where she was as she was not familiar with Toronto and the other cities she was in. She also did not feel at least at first, that she could ask her mother for help. Mr. Olasusi forbade her from talking to her cousin and she was afraid he would find out that she had not stopped. As I will come to, I find Mr. Olasusi at least assisted in the advertising of K.B.'s sexual services on LeoList and he controlled her advertising to some extent in that he required her to post her actual photograph, and he received a substantial financial benefit from the sexual services K.B. provided.

[111] Considering all of the evidence I find that K.B. was actually fearful of her safety and there was also a reasonable expectation based on my findings that K.B. could believe her safety was threatened if she did not go along with what Mr. Olasusi wanted her to do.

[112] Having found that the Crown has proven the actus reus of the offence of human trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt I also find that it is clear that Mr. Olasusi had the requisite mens rea. He intentionally acted in the way he did towards K.B. to compel her to provide sexual services so that he would receive money to pay for his legal fees or whatever else he wanted money for.

[113] For these reasons I find Mr. Olasusi guilty of Count 1.

Has the Crown proven Count 2 -- Receiving a Financial Benefit from Human Trafficking?

[114] Count 2 alleges that Mr. Olasusi received a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of the offence of human trafficking, contrary to s. 279.02(1) of the Criminal Code. I have already found that the Crown has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Olasusi committed the offence of human trafficking under s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code.

[115] The guilty act is the receipt of a financial or other material benefit that is obtained directly or indirectly from the commission of the offence of human trafficking. The prohibited conduct of human trafficking, therefore, must have occurred. The guilty mind is the intention to receive the financial or other material benefit knowing that it is from the offence of human trafficking: R. v. Antoine, 2019 ONSC 3848, at para. 28; Musara, at para. 118.

[116] There is only evidence of Troubles giving K.B. money for the Monte Carlo Inn on April 23, 2023, and based on the hotel receipts K.B. did get cash refunds of her security deposit at times. In addition, she paid cash from time to time for a hotel room. She was never asked by either counsel if Troubles continued to give her cash for the hotels or where she obtained the cash she paid to hotels after her first check in, but I accept that she must have used some of the proceeds from her providing sexual services to pay for the hotel stays. However, apart from that, I accept K.B.'s evidence that Troubles took all of the cash she received from her work as an escort. I also accept K.B.'s evidence that at times Troubles used her bank card to take the money she was sent by e-Transfer from customers. This evidence is corroborated by the fact that K.B.'s bank records often show substantial amounts of money being deposited and the same amount being withdrawn as the next transaction and by the fact there was usually very little money in K.B.'s bank account. I also find that a particular transaction was proven by the Crown based on the evidence of K.B., her bank records and the video evidence of the black male K.B. identified as Troubles at an ATM withdrawing $740 from K.B.'s account, who I find was Mr. Olasusi.

[117] Mr. Zekavica argued that there is no evidence as to the amount of money Troubles received and submitted and that it could have been repayment for the money he gave K.B. This was never put to K.B. but her evidence was that Troubles took all of the money she earned. It is not necessary to determine exactly how much Mr. Olasusi took, only that he knowingly took cash from K.B. or money deposited to her account by e-Transfer that he knew had been obtained by her provision of sexual services which I find the Crown has proven.

[118] Furthermore, the Crown is not required to show that Mr. Olasusi made a profit. The Crown need only prove that Mr. Olasusi received some form of financial or other material gain or advantage. I agree with the conclusion of Nakatsuru J. that even the repayment of a loan or of costs incurred is inherently a financial gain or advantage. It is the receipt of money: Musara, at paras. 240-242.

[119] For these reasons I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Olasusi received a financial benefit from the commission of the offence of human trafficking. Given my findings with respect to Count 1, I also find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Olasusi knew the money he was taking from K.B. had been paid to K.B. by her clients in payment of her providing sexual services to them.

[120] For these reasons I find Mr. Olasusi guilty of Count 2.

Has the Crown proven Count 3 -- Procuring?

[121] A person can be found guilty of procuring contrary to s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code in one of two ways: (1) by procuring a person "to offer or provide sexual services for consideration"; or (2) by recruiting, holding, concealing, or harbouring a person, who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, or exercising, controlling, directing, or influencing the movements of that person.

[122] Dealing with the first mode, the court in Gallone at para. 61 approved of the definition of procure as follows: "to cause, or to induce, or to have a persuasive effect upon the conduct that is alleged".

[123] To prove the guilty mind for the procuring offence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Olasusi intended to procure K.B. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration. Alternatively, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to do any one of the enumerated acts in relation to K.B., who offered or provided sexual services for consideration, and he acted with the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1).

[124] I find that the Crown has proven that Mr. Olasusi committed this offence in both ways beyond a reasonable doubt.

[125] I have already found that Mr. Olasusi was the one who initiated the conversation about K.B. providing sexual services in Toronto. I have also found that she had no intention of providing these services while in Toronto. But for the conduct of Mr. Olasusi, I find that K.B. would not have sold the sexual services that she provided. Thus, Mr. Olasusi intentionally caused K.B. to provide sexual services. I have also found in connection with Count 1 that Mr. Olasusi intentionally recruited, transported and harboured K.B. and engaged in other conduct so that she would provide sexual services and there is no doubt he did this intentionally.

[126] I find that the Crown has proven both the actus reus and the mens rea of this offence beyond a reasonable doubt. For these reasons I find Mr. Olasusi guilty of Count 3.

Has the Crown proven Count 4 -- Receiving a Material Benefit from Sexual Services

[127] Section 286.2(1) criminalizes the receipt of a financial or other material benefit knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of the offence of obtaining sexual services for consideration under s. 286.1(1). The Crown did not rely on the evidentiary presumption set out in s. 286.2(3) and the Defence did not rely on any of the exceptions set out in s. 286.2(4). In any event those exceptions would clearly not apply in light of s. 286.2(5) and my finding on Counts 1, 2 and 3.

[128] I have already found that Mr. Olasusi knew the money he was taking from K.B. had been paid to K.B. by her clients in payment of her providing sexual services to them. For these reasons I find Mr. Olasusi guilty of Count 4

Has the Crown proven Count 5 -- Advertising Sexual Services?

[129] Section 286.4 prohibits the advertising of an offer to provide sexual services for consideration. The actus reus of this offence is made out if Mr. Olasusi advertised an offer to provide sexual services for consideration. The mens rea is made out if: (i) Mr. Olasusi intended to advertise the offer; and (ii) he knew that the offer was one to provide sexual services for consideration: Gallone at para. 78.

[130] Section 286.5 of the Criminal Code provides immunity to a person like K.B. from prosecution under s. 286.4, for advertising her own sexual services. That immunity does not apply to Mr. Olasusi if the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly assisted K.B. in advertising her sexual services: Gallone at para. 99.

[131] I have already set out why I accept K.B.'s evidence that it was Troubles' idea that she post advertisements on LeoList, and that she set up the account and posted the advertisements because she felt forced to do escort work. I have also found that she did so in his condominium using the Internet from the modem there. I also find that Mr. Olasusi had some involvement in the content of those ads in terms of directing K.B. about the locations she would be at and directing her to use her actual photographs as of May 8, 2023. I also accept K.B.'s evidence that it was Troubles who set the rates for her services that appeared in the advertisements.

[132] As I have set out in the Chronology, Localcoin produced Terminal Images showing a black male at the time of the five ATM transactions when Litecoin was purchased at the Hasty Market near the Quality Hotel in Barrie. K.B. was shown those Terminal Images and testified that they each showed Troubles making the purchase of Bitcoin. I accept that evidence. The uncontested evidence of DC Wilson, which I accept, was that Litecoin was necessary to post advertisements on LeoList.

[133] Mr. Zekavica argued that there is no evidence that Troubles took the photographs of K.G., that after Troubles purchased Bitcoin there is no evidence where it went and that it had to go to an account first before going to LeoList. He submitted that I do not know where the Bitcoin Troubles purchased went and that there is no evidence of any direct link from that Bitcoin to LeoList.

[134] I have carefully reviewed the evidence of DC Wilson when he explained that after the purchase of Litecoin happens, the cryptocurrency is sent to the wallet address which is the account address provided and is the recipient of the Litecoin. I do not believe DC Wilson was asked to clarify if in this case by "recipient" he meant the money went to K.B.'s wallet or Litecoin. Since K.B. testified that she was the one who actually posted the advertisements I expect that the Litecoin when first to her account and then to LeoList. There are five records produced for the five transactions at the Hasty Market, and they all show the same destination address, but it is a series of letters and numbers. I therefore cannot find that the Bitcoin Troubles purchased went directly to LeoList to post the advertisements.

[135] However, in my view that does not matter. First of all, I have accepted the evidence of K.B. as to what Troubles was doing and I have already found that Mr. Olasusi needed K.B.'s phone in order to complete the Litecoin transactions on the Hasty Market ATM. It was never suggested to K.B. that she was purchasing Bitcoin for the posting of the advertisements or that she let Mr. Olasusi take her phone and that he was purchasing Bitcoin for some other purpose.

[136] The Crown relies on the fact that at least on a couple of occasions after Litecoin was purchased advertisements were posted on LeoList but that is consistent with K.B.'s evidence that she posted the advertisements. In my view even if Mr. Olasusi did not directly transfer the Litecoin to LeoList when he was at the Hasty Market ATM, he did plenty to assist in the advertising of K.B.'s sexual services, including telling K.B. to use LeoList and buying the Litecoin.

[137] There is also the question of the phone numbers in the advertisements and who was texting with the clients. I accept K.B.'s evidence that there were multiple advertisements posted with multiple phone numbers and that Troubles did some texting with clients as well. Although she did not actually see text exchanges with clients on Troubles' phone, the fact he told her about calls and that in some cases two clients showed up for the same time fits with her evidence.

[138] For these reasons I find that Mr. Olasusi knowingly intended to assist K.B. in advertising her sexual services. The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Olasusi is guilty of Count 5.

Has the Crown proven Count 6 -- Uttering a Threat to Cause Death or Bodily Harm?

[139] Mr. Olasusi is charged with the offence of uttering a threat contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. McRae, 2013 SCC 68, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 931 at para. 16 that the actus reus of this offence will be made out if a reasonable person fully aware of the circumstances in which the words were uttered or conveyed would have perceived them to be a threat of death or bodily harm.

[140] The Crown alleges certain threats were made to K.B. The Crown does not need to prove that K.B. was intimidated by a threat or took it seriously: McRae at para. 2.

[141] The mens rea of the offence is made out if the Crown proves that the words were uttered or conveyed to intimidate or to be taken seriously: McRae at para. 17.

[142] The Crown relies on two statements K.B. alleges Troubles made to her: 1) that Troubles told her about a "previous girl" and that he put "money on her head so now she can't walk around Toronto anymore because people are looking for her"; and 2) that when Troubles found out she was leaving and at the airport Troubles threatened her by saying "wait till I find you".

[143] First of all, I accept K.B.'s evidence that Mr. Olasusi made these two statements to her. She testified that the comment about the other girl scared and intimidated her "because obviously that could be her". With respect to the second comment K.B. testified she was scared and said "oh shit what if he comes here. I told him where I was and would he come and find me?" K.B. was not asked by either counsel what specifically she was scared of by these comments, but she clearly took them seriously. In fact, the statement Mr. Olasusi made to her while she was at the airport prompted her to go to police.

[144] With respect to the first statement, I find that a reasonable person fully aware of the circumstances in which the words were uttered or conveyed would have perceived them to be a threat of death or bodily harm. The words alone in my view are threatening because this other girl could not walk around in public and people were looking for her, clearly implying that if she was found she would be hurt. The fact this statement was made while a handgun was lying on a table in the living room and Mr. Olasusi had taken a picture of K.B.'s identification card enhances the threat. If this statement was made around the same time as Mr. Olasusi assaulted K.B., as alleged in Count 7, that enhances the seriousness of the threat even more.

[145] The same is true about the second statement. By this time K.B. had spent considerable time with Mr. Olasusi and she knew him to be a violent person with a temper. The words were clearly not meant to convey that Mr. Olasusi wanted to see her just to say a friendly goodbye. He clearly intended to punish her for leaving him and her work as an escort if he found her and this is why she went to police.

[146] As for intention, there could be no suggestion, given the context, that these statements were intended as a joke. I have no doubt that Mr. Olasusi intended these statements to be taken seriously and as threats of at least bodily harm.

[147] For these reasons I find that the Crown has proven Mr. Olasusi guilty of Count 6.

Has the Crown proven Count 7 -- assault?

[148] The Crown has charged Mr. Olasusi with an assault on K.B. contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code. I have summarized K.B.'s evidence of an incident with Troubles that she alleges occurred at the hotel in Barrie. Essentially it is her evidence that Troubles went behind her, put his hand on the back of her neck and threw her on the bed. It ended there. When asked about the degree of force K.B. testified it was not enough for her to pass out but it hurt.

[149] I accept K.B.'s evidence about what Mr. Olasusi did and it fits completely with the other evidence about Troubles intimidating her, that I have found to be true. The conduct K.B. described is clearly an assault by Mr. Olasusi that could not be accidental. I find that the Crown has proven the essential elements of assault and find Mr. Olasusi guilty of Count 7.

Has the Crown proven Count 8 -- assault by choking?

[150] The Crown has also charged Mr. Olasusi with an assault on K.B. by choking, suffocating or strangling her contrary to s. 267(c) of the Criminal Code.

[151] Although K.B. alleged this assault occurred either before or after the conversation she had with Troubles about her providing sexual services while they were in his condominium, I did not rely on this evidence in making my findings on Counts 1 or 3.

[152] I accept K.B.'s evidence that either before or after the conversation she had with Troubles about her providing sexual services they had a disagreement, that Troubles was facing her and he put one hand on her neck and "choked her from the front". His contact was, as she put it, "pretty strong", but it was not enough to make her pass out. K.B.'s evidence fits completely with the other evidence she gave about the conversation she had with Troubles and how he intimidated her, that I have found to be true.

[153] The issue is whether the assault K.B. described constituted choking within the meaning of s. 267(c). Mr. Zekavica submitted that what K.B. described was not choking which he submitted means strangulation by force and he relied on the fact that K.B. did not alleged that Troubles squeezed her neck.

[154] I do not accept Mr. Zekavica's submission that choking is the same as strangulation. The terms "chokes, suffocates or strangles" are not defined in the Criminal Code. The fact that three different terms are used disjunctively makes it clear that it is intended that each term have a different meaning. I do however accept that there could be some overlap in the meaning of these terms, as they are all a type of assault targeting a person's neck.

[155] The Crown relies on two decisions of the Ontario Court of Justice: one from Justice Daviau, R. v. A.K., [2023] O.J. No. 5854 (C.J.), and an unreported decision from Justice Lipson, R. v. Powell dated January 5, 2024, which followed A.K. Justice Daviau in A.K. dealt with the definition of strangle and considered the case of R. v. Wilson, 2019 ONCA 564 at para. 14 where the court found to "strangle" simply meant to squeeze or constrict the neck, whether by manual strangulation, ligature or chokehold and that it simply means neck compression. Justice Daviau concluded that s. 267(c) does not require the constriction of an airway or interfering with the complainant's ability to breathe. It is enough if the defendant places their hand around a person's neck and applies force or strangles.

[156] I find the reasoning in A.K. persuasive. In my view the Crown need only prove that Mr. Olasusi placed his hand on K.B.'s neck with some force. K.B. did not testify that Mr. Olasusi put his hand or hands around her neck, but she was clear that he placed one hand on her neck and applied considerable force. As I have said, I accept the evidence of K.B. as to what happened. Clearly it was an intentional act by Mr. Olasusi that could not have been accidental. For these reasons I find that the Crown has proven Count 8 beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disposition

[157] Mr. Olasusi would you please stand.

[158] For the reasons I have given I find you guilty of Counts 1 through 8.

Spies J.

Released: January 16, 2026

SCHEDULE A - Detailed Chronology

April 22, 2023

[159] At 7:46 p.m. K.B. posted a photograph of herself on Snapchat which she testified was taken inside Troubles' condominium. She must have met up with Troubles in person by this time.

April 23, 2023

[160] At 7:27-7:34 p.m. the surveillance video from a Scotiabank ATM shows K.B. and a black male she identified as Troubles having an argument. K.B. could not recall what it was about but having watched the video carefully I am satisfied that Troubles put some cash including $100 bills on the ledge in front of the ATM that K.B. deposited to her account. She was accurate in her memory that she deposited these funds right before she checked into the Monte Carlo Inn in Mississauga. The Scotiabank banking records show a deposit to K.B.'s account of $455 and a withdrawal of $452.66, with transaction dates of April 24, 2023.[^6] I find this deposit is the cash K.B. received from Troubles.

[161] Based on the hotel receipt, K.B. checked into the Monte Carlo Inn in Mississauga at 7:56 p.m. K.B. paid $152.66 by debit using her bank card, for the room for one night, and a security deposit by debit of $300 for a total debit from her account of $452.66 which is the same amount reflected in her bank records.

[162] The hotel records show that K.B. checked out of the hotel the next day at 10:35 am but in fact she stayed a second night and checked out on April 25, 2023, at 8:40 a.m. She then paid $166 in cash for the room for the second night. When she checked out the $300 safety deposit was paid back to her in cash.

April 25, 2023

[163] There are no records of where or how K.B. travelled after she checked out of the Monte Carlo Inn on April 25th, but it seems likely that she returned to the condominium. The Uber records show that an Uber went from the condominium to 36-90 Hart Drive in Barrie, leaving at 8:19 p.m. and arriving at 9:22 p.m. Although the Uber records state this was the location of a Days Inn, given the receipt given to K.B., which is part of the records filed as exhibits, I find this was in fact a Quality Inn located at 55 Hart Drive in Barrie and that K.B. was in this Uber.

[164] Based on the hotel receipt, K.B. checked into the Quality Inn, at 9:32 p.m. She paid $316.88 in cash which included a deposit of $200.

[165] K.B. stayed at the Quality Inn in Barrie until April 28th. She paid an additional $116.88 for the room by debit on April 26, 2023.

April 28, 2023

[166] At 6:09 a.m., K.B. received an e-Transfer of $560 that was deposited into her Scotiabank account. She testified that this money was in payment of sexual services she provided. Her bank records show that the next transaction was the withdrawal of this amount but there is no ATM video of that withdrawal. K.B. was not asked about this specific withdrawal but she testified that Troubles would either take the cash or withdraw the money she earned from her account using her bank card.

[167] The next transaction in K.B.'s Scotiabank records show a deposit in the amount of $740. The following transaction is a withdrawal in the amount of $740. At 10:02-10:05 a.m., the surveillance video from a Scotiabank ATM shows a black male K.B. identified as Troubles at the ATM and this is when the $740 was withdrawn. This video does show what appears to be a scar or marks on the left side of the face of the black male, consistent with scarring.

[168] Based on the hotel receipt, at 12:07 p.m. K.B. checked out of the Quality Inn. She received a refund of $83.12 when she checked out.

[169] The Uber records show an Uber went from 55 Hart Drive, Barrie to 36-90 Samuel Wood Way, leaving at 12:14 p.m. and arriving at 1:25 p.m. I am not able to determine if Troubles was with K.B. but since there is no evidence of K.B. staying in any hotel the night of April 28th it is likely that she returned to the condominium in this Uber and spent the night there.

April 29, 2023

[170] Based on the hotel receipt, K.B. checked back into the Quality Inn in Barrie again at 4:21 p.m. She paid a total of $375.64 in cash which included a $200 security deposit. There are no Uber records for this date.

[171] K.B. stayed at this Quality Inn until May 2, 2023. In that period, she made two further cash payments of $116.88 to the hotel.

May 1, 2023

[172] Mr. Olasusi appeared in person in the Milton Court House on May 1, 2023, and his matter was set to return on May 29, 2023.

[173] The Uber records show that an Uber went from 20 Samuel Wood Way to the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton. Given the Information, for the Milton Charges and the reference to Samuel Wood Way, albeit the wrong street number, I find that Mr. Olasusi used Uber to get from the condominium to the Milton Court house on May 1, 2023.

May 2, 2023

[174] Based on the hotel receipt, at 11:15 a.m. K.B. checked out of the Quality Inn. She had paid $609.40 in total by cash to this hotel by the time of checkout. She received a refund of the $200 security deposit.

[175] Based on the Uber records I find that K.B. took an Uber from the hotel, leaving at 11:16 a.m. to the condominium, arriving at 12:41 p.m.

May 3, 2023

[176] The Uber records show an Uber went from the condominium to the Monte Carlo Inn in Markam, leaving at 5:01 p.m., and arriving at 5:41 p.m. I find this Uber brought K.B. to the hotel.

[177] Based on the hotel receipt, K.B. checked into the Monte Carlo Inn in Markam, at 5:44 p.m. K.B. stayed 2 nights, checking out on May 5th at 12:39 p.m. She paid $314.09 in total by cash and $50 by debit for this stay.

May 5, 2023

[178] There are no Uber records for how or where K.B. travelled after she checked out of the Monte Carlo Inn in Markham but since there are no hotel records for the night of May 5th, I find that she spent the rest of that day until May 7th at the condominium.

May 7, 2023

[179] Based on the surveillance video from the front entrance of the Quality Inn in Barrie, K.B and Troubles arrive together in what K.B. described as a brown car. K.B. can be seen on the surveillance video as coming out of the vehicle as the driver but she was not asked about this. She can be seen entering the main entrance of the hotel at 4:21 p.m. Mr. Zekavica submitted that the fact K.B. was driving proves she knew how to get to the hotel. K.B. was never even asked about the fact she was driving and of course Troubles could have been giving her directions as she drove.

[180] Based on the hotel receipt, K.B. checked into the Quality Inn at 4:26 p.m. She paid $316.88 in cash for the room which included a $200 deposit.

[181] Based on the surveillance video from the Quality Inn in Barrie, at 4:42 p.m., Troubles can be seen going back to the brown car and leaving the rear parking lot. K.B. is not with him. At 4:54 p.m., shortly after K.B. checked into the hotel, Localcoin records including an ATM screen shot, show a black male K.B. identified as Troubles purchasing cryptocurrency at 4:55 p.m.[^7] at the ATM terminal in the Hasty Market. A photograph of a message on K.B.'s phone thanks her for this Localcoin transaction. Troubles must have had K.B.'s phone with him to make this transaction as based on the evidence of DC Wilson he would have needed the code Localcoin sent for verification purposes.

[182] The hotel surveillance shows Troubles coming back to the hotel in the brown car just after 5:00 p.m. He walked toward the hotel and then came back to the brown car at 5:28 p.m. and he drove out of the parking lot.

[183] K.B. stayed at this hotel for five nights, checking out on May 12th at 6:51 a.m. for the first time before she checked back in on the same day as set out below.

May 8, 2023

[184] The Scotiabank surveillance shows K.B. attending at a Scotiabank at about 11:50 a.m. K.B. testified that she withdrew $2,000 from her account on this date. According to the Scotiabank records K.B.'s daily limit was $1,000 at that time so presumably she had to go into the bank, and this must be when she withdrew this money.

[185] Based on the surveillance video from the Quality Inn in Barrie, Troubles is seen exiting the hotel and leaving in a truck as a passenger around 9:00 p.m., returning at 9:23 p.m. and leaving the truck and walking towards the hotel at about 9:42 p.m. K.B. was not with him.

[186] Localcoin records including an ATM screen shot, show a black male K.B. identified as Troubles purchasing cryptocurrency at the Hasty Market at 9:20 p.m. A photograph of a message on K.B.'s phone thanks her for this Localcoin transaction.

[187] A verified photograph of K.B. is posted on Leo List on this date that does not show her face. Based on the evidence of DC Wilson, cryptocurrency was needed to post this advertisement.

May 9-10, 2023

[188] The records from Localcoin show that Troubles purchased cryptocurrency at 5:21 a.m. on May 9th and again on May 10th at 10:12 a.m. and 1:26 p.m. at the terminal in the Hasty Market.

[189] On both May 9th and 10th Troubles is seen on the surveillance video from the Quality Inn walking around in the reception area. Based on the surveillance video from the Quality Inn in Barrie, Troubles is walking around the reception area around 5:02 p.m. on May 9th, and 10:25 a.m. on May 10th

[190] On May 10th, as stated above, four separate cash deposits were made totaling $2,100.

[191] K.B. identified a photograph taken of an email from Scotiabank notifying her that a debit in the amount of $116.88 had be made from her account.

May 12, 2023

[192] The Uber records show that an Uber went from the condominium to the Quality Inn at 55 Hart Drive in Barrie, leaving at 3:09 a.m. and arriving at 4:06 a.m.

[193] K.B. checked out of the Quality Inn in Barrie on May 12th at 6:51 a.m. Over the time of her stay, the hotel receipt shows that she paid a total of $533.76 in cash and $250.64 by debit.

[194] Based on a different hotel receipt for the Quality Inn in Barrie, K.B. checked back into this hotel again at 11:24 a.m.

[195] The Uber records show that an Uber went from the Quality Inn in Barrie to the condominium leaving the hotel at 9:46 p.m. and arriving at the condominium at 11:39 p.m.

May 15, 2023

[196] Based on the hotel records K.B. checked out of the Quality Inn in Barrie at 6:08 a.m. However, by 3:56 a.m. she was at Pearson Airport speaking to police so she must have left the hotel earlier. The hotel receipt shows that over the time of her stay K.B. paid a total of $433.76 in cash.

[197] One of the e-Transfers K.B. identified from clients was sent to her at 2:38 a.m. in the amount. This suggests she was still at the hotel providing sexual services at this time. She must have left the hotel soon after. If she went straight to the airport or took an Uber from the condominium to the airport, K.B. did not have her bank card as it was in the condominium.

[^1]: Except the address is stated as Etobicoke, not Toronto.

[^2]: K.B. referred in her evidence to the black male she alleges committed these offence as Troubles and so that is how I will refer to this person in my review of the evidence since identity is in issue.

[^3]: This vehicle looks silver in some of the surveillance videos, but I will refer to it as a brown vehicle in keeping with the evidence of K.B.

[^4]: K.B. gave a statement to police at the airport on May 15, 2021. She gave another statement to DC Wilson in the presence of another DC on May 16, 2023.

[^5]: I should state here that I have specifically not relied on Mr. Zekavica's concession on this point.

[^6]: April 23, 2023, was a Sunday. It appears from the Scotiabank records that transactions are not posted on a Sundays.

[^7]: The times in the records produced by Localcoin are in UTC time which I have converted to EST.