Base de données Jurisprudence

Traite des personnes

Infractions

• Traite de personnes (adultes)

Actes commis

• Hébergement

Moyen

• Abus d’autorité ou d’une situation de vulnérabilité

Fins d’exploitation

• Exploitation de la prostitution d’autrui ou autres formes d’exploitation sexuelle
• Travail ou services forcés

Mots-clefs

• Exploitation sexuelle à des fins commerciales
• Travail ou services forcés

R. v. Sinclair

Canada

Résumé des faits

The complainant was homeless and living in a shelter when she met the appellant. She was about 18 or 19 years old. She was working as a sex trade worker. Her two children were in custody of the Children’s Aid Society. The appellant offered her a place to live in his apartment. They lived together for approximately seven years. The complainant said the appellant led her to believe that she could have a better life and that he would adopt her children, if she worked hard. She testified that he psychologically abused and controlled her, including by keeping most of the money she earned. The appellant advertised her sexual services, took calls from her clients and told her what to charge clients. On some occasions, he punched her, pushed her out of her chair and sometimes hid in hotel rooms when she was with a customer. In her testimony, she said that she tolerated the way he treated her because she had nowhere to go, no money, no friends or family to turn to, and he was all she had. She also said that, despite not being in a romantic relationship with the appellant, she felt attached to and invested in him due to the time and money she had given him.

She had hundreds of clients over the years when she was with the appellant. During cross-examination, the complainant said that no one told her there would be consequences if she refused a client, however she felt she had no one to turn to and this was her only option. Sometimes ,she left the appellant and went to other cities, including Edmonton, although she still provided him with her earnings.
T
he appellant did not testify. At trial, his defence was that he was the complainant’s friend who helped her with various aspects of her involvement in the sex trade, at the complainant’s request. The appellant also took the position that the complainant chose to work in the sex trade of her own free will and denied any coercion or violence on his part.

Commentaire / Faits marquants

The Court discussed some of the elements of the Criminal Code of Canada’s trafficking in persons offence. First, it confirmed its explanation of the meaning of “exercising influence over a person’s movements” in the human trafficking context  as doing anything to affect the person’s movement (citing R. v. Gallone, 2019 ONCA 663, 147 O.R. (3d) 225, at para. 47). The Court  also noted that influence can be exerted while still allowing some scope for the person to exercise their free will.

It reiterated the legal test to prove exploitation in this context: whether the accused caused the complainant to provide or offer a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to do so.

Lastly, it laid down that the test for assessing ‘psychological safety’ or ‘coercion’ is whether you find the conduct of the accused in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the complainant to believe that her safety was threatened. 

It is also interesting to note that the judge chose to refer to the victim as a sex trade worker:  “I have chosen to refer to her in this decision as a “sex trade worker” rather than a “prostitute” because, in my view, the descriptor “prostitute” carries with it negative connotations that risk dehumanizing or demeaning a victim or complainant. Sex trade worker is a more neutral descriptor that lessens this risk”. The decision further cited R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33, 376 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at para. 230, per Abella and Karakatsanis JJ. (dissenting in part, but not on this point):
"Based on studies that found that “jurors were more likely to convict a defendant accused of raping a woman with a chaste reputation than an identical defendant charged with assaulting a prostitute”, this Court in Seaboyer expressly warned against the use of the word “prostitute” because the use of this term is intrinsically linked to “twin myths” reasoning and can lead to substantial prejudice in the way the jury assesses the evidence”.
Date de la peine:
2020-01-30
Auteur:
Laavanya Kaushik, as part of collaboration with Queen Mary University of London

Mots-clefs

Actes:
Hébergement
Moyens:
Abus d’autorité ou d’une situation de vulnérabilité
Fins d’exploitation:
Exploitation de la prostitution d’autrui ou d’autres formes d’exploitation sexuelle,
Travail ou les services forcés

Questions transversales

Responsabilité

Responsabilité pour

• Infraction consommée

Responsabilité fondée sur

• Intention criminelle

Responsabilité impliquant

• Auteur principal (d’une infraction)

Informations sur la procédure

Système juridique:
Droit commun
Décision judiciaire la plus récente:
Juridiction d’appel
Type d'Action Juridique:
Criminel / pénal
Les accusés ont été jugés:
ensemble (procès unique)
 
 
Procédure #1:
  • Étape:
    premier jugement
  • Numéro de dossier officiel:
    R. v. Sinclair, 2020 ONCA 61
    • Date de décisions:
    Wed May 17 00:00:00 CEST 2017

    Tribunal

    Titre

    Superior Court of Justice

     

    Location

  • Province:
    Ontario
    • • Criminel / pénal
    Procédure #2:
  • Étape:
    appel

    • Tribunal

    Titre

    Court of Appeal for Ontario

     
    • Criminel / pénal

    Description

    The present has been filed by the defendant on the grounds that the trial judge erred in her charge to the jury by providing misleading instructions on the meaning of exploitation and psychological safety as it relates to the definition of exploitation for the purposes of the trafficking in persons offence, as defined in s. 279.04(1) of the Criminal Code. Another ground for the appeal was that the trial judge did not adequately relate the Facebook messages between the victim and defendant to the principles governing prior inconsistent statements.
    The judge dismissed all three grounds stating that the trial judge had sufficiently instructed the jury and also explained the terms exploitation and psychological safety (further explained in the commentary). The judge also noted that sufficient context was given to the jury about the Facebook messages and a copy of the written communications was available to the jury during deliberations.
    The appellant was sentenced to 30 months incarceration. Before release on bail, he spent 14 days in pretrial custody. The  court conceded that the sentence should be varied to give 21 days credit for the pretrial custody.
     

    Défendeurs / Répondants de la première instance

    Prévenu:
    Marcus Sinclair
    Sexe:
    Homme
    Trafficking in persons

    Accusations / Demandes d’indemnité / Décisions

    Prévenu:
    Marcus Sinclair
    Législation/Code:

    Article 279.01 of the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminalization of Trafficking of Persons )

    279.01 (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 and liable

    (a) to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim during the commission of the offence; or

    (b) to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years in any other case.

    Verdict:
    Guilty

    Tribunal

    Court of Appeal for Ontario

    Sources / citations

    R. v. Sinclair, 2020 ONCA 61

    https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2020/2020onca61/2020onca61.html?autocompleteStr=R.%20v.%20Sinclair%2C%202020%20ONCA%2061&autocompletePos=1