CITATION: R v. Antoine et al., 2026 ONSC 3377

COURT FILE NO.: CR 25-120

DATE: 2026-06-08

G. Hendry, counsel for the Crown

Respondent

and -

M. Macchia, for Francis Antoine, A.

Sobcuff for Jeffery Cheddesingh, C.

Hurley for H.K

and

H.K

Applicants

HEARD: June 8, 2026

Overview

1The Crown brings an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for an order that two complainants be permitted to give their testimony remotely from Sudbury. In the alternative, the Crown asks for an order that pursuant to s. 486.2(2), the two complainants be permitted to give their testimony outside of the courtroom. The defence for Mr. Cheddesingh opposes both applications. The other two co-accused take no position as the witnesses do not concern them.

BACKGROUND

Background

2Both complainants were young women when it is alleged that they were trafficked by the defendant Mr. Cheddesingh. Both have asserted that they have moved on with their lives in Sudbury and that returning to this jurisdiction would be extremely hard for them.

3The first complainant, JL, has a young child who apparently is autistic. If JL were to come and testify, she would have to take the child out of school and put her in the hands of strangers in this region. She asserts that this would be a real hardship on her child. She is a single parent, her child is only seven years old, and she has no personal support that could help her with childcare. On the evidence before me she has been diagnosed with PTSD, allegedly in response to the events which underlie the criminal charges which are before me. She asserts that traveling to this region would be very triggering for her PTSD for that reason. A victim services worker testified before me and asserted that JL became very emotional and frantic at the notion of testifying in this case in this region.

4The second complainant, KZ, also lives in the Sudbury area and there is evidence before me that she has struggled with drug dependency issues for a number of years. There is evidence that she is currently clean and has not used drugs for almost seven months. She advised that it would be very difficult for her to come to Brampton to testify because she has no one who could support her while in this jurisdiction and she is concerned that she may relapse in those circumstances. She advised that she has stayed out of this region since the time of the allegations because of her trauma, and given that the offences occurred in hotels, she now cannot stay in hotels because of her past experiences. She expressed fear of the accused and did not even want to see them on video if she was permitted to testify in that manner. She felt that she would be much better able to testify if she did not have to be in a room with the accused.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Law and Analysis

5There are two different principles which need to be kept firmly in mind while deciding matters of this nature.

6Firstly, sex workers who have been exploited are a particularly vulnerable segment of society. They may well have become embroiled in a parasitic relationship where their ability to choose was eradicated. They are often reluctant to come forward to the authorities, reluctant to disclose their allegations, and hesitant to testify against the person who has exploited them and whom they fear. This type of fear can extend to psychological harm. It is not unusual for complainants of these alleged crimes to be suffering from complex trauma. It is understandable that they often require significant support to be able to engage with the justice system in a full and candid manner. See R. v. Downey, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10, at pp. 16-17, 34-35; R v. A.A., 2015 ONCA 558, at para. 71.

7Secondly, however, the presumption of innocence also needs to be in the forefront when considering such matters. The accused has not been convicted, and the complainants are not yet found to be victims. I must be vigilant to ensure that both the rights of the complainants and the rights of the accused are considered.

8 Section 714.1 of the Criminal Code states that a court may order that a witness in Canada give evidence by audio conference or video conference if the court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances, including:

a) the location and personal circumstances of the witness;

b) the cost that would be incurred if the witness were to appear in person;

c) the nature of the witness’ anticipated evidence;

d) the suitability of the location from where the witnesses will give evidence;

e) the accused’s right to a fair and public hearing;

f) the nature and seriousness of the offence; and

g) any potential prejudice to the parties caused by the fact that the witnesses would not be seen by them if the court were to order the evidence to be given by audioconference.

9There are somewhat competing authorities in this area. Some cases make the point that there is no right of confrontation that is improperly infringed by the video testimony process. They assert that the right to face one’s accusers is not to be taken in the literal sense in this day and age. It is simply the right of an accused to be present in court, to hear the evidence against them and to make full answer and defence to it. See R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475, at pp. 492-93; R. v. Allen et al., 2007 ONCJ 209, at paras. 27-29; R. v. MacKinnon, 2021 ONSC 2749, at para. 81; R. v. Schertzer, 2010 ONSC 6686, at paras. 1, 39.

10On the other side of the spectrum is the decision of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in R. v. S.D.L., 2017 NSCA 58, at para. 32, which set forth a number of guiding principles for Nova Scotia trial judges, including that where credibility is an issue the court should authorize video testimony via s. 714.1 only in the face of exceptional circumstances that personally impact the proposed witness. Mere inconvenience should not suffice. They also said that where the credibility of the complainant is at stake, the requisite exceptional circumstances described must be even more compelling. The more significant or complex the proposed remote video evidence, the more guarded the court should be.

11The British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. J.L.K., 2023 BCCA 87 adopted a more flexible approach than this, holding that there was no bar to invoking this section where credibility issues loomed large. They found that video conference technology is developed to the point where the parties in the courtroom, including the trier of fact and counsel, can generally see and hear the witness clearly, such that the witness’s testimony can properly be tested and assessed.

12I have also considered Justice Kenkel's decision of R. v. K.Z., 2021 ONCJ 321. In that case he declined to follow S.D.L. for several reasons including the fact that S.D.L. was considering an earlier version of s.714.1. He found that in the new iterations of that section, the legislature did not include any consideration of the caution expressed in S.D.L. and that as such it ought not to be imported into the section at common law. He noted as well that demeanor as a criterion for deciding criminal cases is less important and more prone to abuse than was previously imagined. He also found that technology as a whole, and video evidence in particular, is becoming more common, more reliable, and more well accepted. I accept his conclusions in this regard.

13I have reviewed affidavit evidence in this case in relation to both of the complainants and I have heard oral testimony and cross examination on that oral testimony before me. Carefully considering the presumption of innocence, I have nonetheless considered that the young women in question have circumstances which would make it difficult for them to come and give what is likely to be lengthy testimony in this jurisdiction. While residency itself is not a sufficient condition, it is still a relevant consideration.

14The first complainant has an autistic child and no support mechanisms to assist her or the child in the enterprise of coming five hours away to this jurisdiction. While considerations surrounding the children of witnesses are not explicitly set forth in s.714.1, the wording of that section allows for consideration of other criteria beyond those enumerated. In any event the witness is a mother, and it would be less than ideal for her to be heavily preoccupied about the welfare of her child while she is being called upon to testify before this court. There is also the question of her mental health condition which, while not being well-documented before me, is still a concern that I must take into account.

15The second complainant has issues surrounding addiction and the lack of support in this jurisdiction, fear of relapse into her addiction should she be in a high stress situation in this jurisdiction, and significant anxiety surrounding the process of testifying.

16I recognize that the charges that the accused face are serious and that the witnesses are central to a determination of guilt or innocence. I also consider that this is a judge alone trial and a jury need not be instructed to make nothing of the fact that the witnesses are testifying by video conference. Put another way, there is no lingering concern that the jury may misconstrue this video appearance in a manner that would be prejudicial to the interests of the accused. Video technology has come a long way, and it is normal for uninterrupted, high-quality video appearances to happen in our courts. They happen that way every day.

17The Crown urges that I first consider the application of s. 486.2. He asserts that this is a relatively low test and if it is met, then the complainants would be testifying outside of the courtroom. In that context, there is no reason in principle why they should not testify in their home city where they can otherwise avoid the other issues which may complicate their attendance in this jurisdiction. The Crown did not have any authority to support this manner of considering its primary application under s. 714.

18While I do not think that using s. 486.2 as a gateway to s. 714.1 is an entirely proper manner of interpreting the statute, there is room in s.714.1 for some of the considerations enunciated in s. 486.2. If there is good reason to believe that witnesses are fearful and may not give their evidence easily or at all in person, this is another relevant factor that can be considered by a court in deciding an application under section 714.1.

19Here I take into account that both witnesses have expressed their fear and anxiety about coming to this jurisdiction and testifying before the accused. I find on this evidence that they would be more likely to give their evidence in a calm and dispassionate manner by videoconference, and that doing so may assist them in giving a full and candid account of the acts complained of.

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

20In sum, I find no prejudice to the accused if the witnesses are allowed to testify by way of video conference and I find that the situation of the two complainants is such that it would be in the interests of justice to permit them to testify in that manner.

21While saying this, I wish to also assert that these applications cannot become rote or the norm. Each case must be assessed carefully on its own merits. No doubt every witness would like to testify at a place that is more convenient to them and that is certainly not the test under this section.

22I will also order that the testimony of both complainants take place on the premises of the courthouse in Sudbury, Ontario. The witnesses will be present at the courthouse and able to be sworn or affirmed and give video evidence from that location. Testimony from a specific courthouse is the best situation to ensure that the witnesses understand the importance of their testimony, the fact that it is a court proceeding, and that it must be taken very seriously. It also obviates any concern that the witnesses are using inappropriate material or are being coached by persons off camera.

Released: June 08, 2026

CITATION: R v. Antoine, et al., 2026 ONSC 3377

COURT FILE NO.: CR 25-120

DATE: 2026-06-08

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Respondent

- and –

FRANCIS ANTOINE, JEFFERY CHEDDESINGH

and H.K

Applicant

JUDGMENT

Derstine J.