In early February 2017 the first victim was introduced to the accused by one of her friends at Stardust Motel in Ottowa area. The purpose of the meeting was that she was interested to work as an escort. In this night the accused has offered to help the victim to find a job. One week after, the accused went to her home, picked her up and transported her to Toronto where she stayed at a condominium the accused has rented for her. Over the next week, the victim worked as a prostitute under the supervision of the accused, mostly at hotels, in exchange for drugs, specifically, cocaine which was provided to her by the accused. Upon discussing the issue with her grandmother, the victim went to the police and reported the incident.
The accused met the second victim in August 2015, when she was introduced to him by her boyfriend’s sister in Toronto, as she was into working as an escort. For the period of four months, she used to work in sex trade mostly out of a condominium the accused was renting and out of hotel rooms the accused was booking to her. Knowing that the victim was a drug addict and has a young child, the accused used to exploit the victim to keep working in sex trade by providing her with drugs in return to providing sexual services to customers. The accused used psychological pressure over the victim by promising her that money he receives from her work will be sent to her child and her mother who are financially disadvantaged.
The court in the case in hand has considered five main aggravating factors which are:
a) The offender has a very significant criminal record. Further, that record includes numerous offences of greed and dishonesty that were undertaken by the offender for personal gain.
b) The young age of the complainants.
c) The specific vulnerability of the complainants because of their addiction to narcotics.
d) The offender fed the addictions of both of the complainants.
e) With respect to the second victim, the duration of the crime is an aggravating factor
The first instance decision and the reasons for the decision can be found on the Canadian Legal Information Institute CanLII
The court has examined the Crown Counsel’s claim that both the victims have fall under psychological pressure from the accused and that such kind of pressure meets the conduct element of the trafficking in persons crime under section 279.01 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The court started by examining the drug dealer/user relationship as a position of trust, power and authority, and therefore falls within the context of exploitation. The court has accepted the claim depending on the Ontario Court of Appeal former decision in R v. A.H. ([2000] O.J. No. 3258) which has stated that “[t]he trial judge should have instructed the jury that they must be satisfied that because the appellant was a supplier of illicit drugs to the complainant, that this relationship created a relationship of dependency that could be exploited by the appellant to vitiate the complainant’s consent to engage in sexual activity.”
The court has also considered the previous decision of R v. Mohylov (2019 ONSC 1269) which states that “[a]t this stage, all that is required is some evidence that the relationship between the accused and the complainant involved a position of trust or power that was abused. More particularly, in the drug dealer- drug user context, an abuse of the trust relationship arises where there is an inference that a dependency was exploited to achieve a desired end.”
The court has reached the conclusion that the accused has used his influence as a drug dealer and had control, direction and influence over the movements of the victims who were both drug addicts in young age for the purpose of exploiting them to provide sexual services in exchange of drugs. The court has also found that both victims were under fear for their psychological and physical safety if their drug supply was cut off by the accused.
To reach the sentence the accused deserves, the court has followed the sentencing principles set in R. v. Tang (1997), 200 A.R. 70 (Alta. C.A.) by Alberta Court of Appeal, which sets a list of factors which might be considered by judges to determine the sentence of the accused in case he/she is a pimp in a human trafficking case. These factors include the following:
1. The degree of coercion or control imposed by the pimp on the prostitute's activities;
2. The amount of money received by the pimp and the extent to which the pimp allowed the prostitutes to retain their earnings;
3. The age of the prostitutes and their numbers;
4. Any special vulnerability on the part of the prostitutes;
5. The working conditions in which the prostitutes were expected or encouraged to operate, including their physical surroundings in terms of soliciting customers and servicing customers, and safety concerns, in addition to whether appropriate health safeguards were taken;
6. The degree of planning and sophistication, including whether the pimp was working in concert with others;
7. The size of the pimp's operations, including the numbers of customers the prostitutes were expected to service;
8. The duration of the pimp's exploitative conduct;
9. The degree of violence, if any, apart from that inherent in the pimp's parasitic activities;
10. The extent to which inducements such as drugs or alcohol were employed by the pimp;
11. The effect on the prostitutes of the pimp's exploitation;
12. The extent to which the pimp demanded or compelled sexual favours for himself from the child prostitutes.