Annex B: Sentencing chart — Trafficking in persons

This Annex is intended to provide prosecutors with guidance on the appropriate range of sentences for human-trafficking offences and reflect sentencing decisions published prior to December 1, 2023. Unless otherwise stated, the sentence indicated in the top right represents the global sentence that would have been imposed without credit for pre-trial or pre-sentence custody. Breakdown of the sentence by offence is noted where that information is provided by the sentencing court.

R v Reid, 2023 ONSC 4452

6 years

Reid received a global sentence of 6 years imprisonment: 2190 days for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); 365 days for assault causing bodily harm (s 267(b)); 180 days for unlawful confinement (s 279(2)); 180 days for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons; and 365 days for attempted procurement (s 463).

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; weapon prohibition order (s 109); non-communication order for the surviving victim and female accused (s 743.21).

Summary: The offender pled guilty to five offences perpetrated against two victims, SR and SW. SR was an Indigenous woman and addicted to drugs. The offender and a female accused exploited SR for two weeks. The offender supplied SR with alcohol, posted advertisements for SR’s sexual services, booked the hotels, communicated with and scheduled clients, and retained all the proceeds. The offender used significant physical violence and left SR in the middle of the road, not fully clothed and either unconscious or barely alert. The offender attempted to recruit SW into participating in the sex trade. He tried to arrange for SW to accompany SR on an overnight call.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factor: the guilty plea.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the “sheer cruelty of the [offender’s] exploitation and abuse of the SR”, the very high degree of coercion and control, the money received, the violence, the use of drugs or alcohol, the victim impact and the vulnerability of the victims, especially with respect to SR.

R v Downey, 2023 ONSC 3776

15 years

Downey received a global sentence of 15 years imprisonment: 4 years consecutive for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); 3 years concurrent for procuring (s 286.3(1)); 6 months concurrent for assault (s 266); 4 years consecutive for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); 3 years concurrent for procuring (s 286.3(1)); 4 years consecutive for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); 3 years concurrent for procuring (s 286.3(1)); 3 years consecutive for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); 2 years concurrent for procuring (s 286.3(1)); 3 years concurrent for advertising sexual services (286.4); and 3 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02).

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; weapons prohibition order for 10 years (s 109); non‑communication order (s 743.21); forfeiture order of funds seized.

Summary: The offender was convicted of 16 counts of human trafficking-related offences involving four victims. The four victims, PC, MM, ST and PG, were financially and emotionally vulnerable when recruited by the offender. He operated an agency whereby he recruited women and they would provide him 100% of their earnings from engaging in the sex trade in exchange for accommodation and the promise of future riches. He also received portions of the victims’ savings, family income or child tax credit. The offender engaged in sexual relationship with PC, MM and ST for the duration of their exploitation, requiring unprotected sex whenever he desired it, which resulted in the three victims becoming extremely sick with gonorrhea and vaginitis. The offender required the victims to continue providing sexual services when they were extremely sick. While the offender did not engage in physical violence, the offender exercised a high degree of emotional and psychological control such that the victims had to seek his permission to purchase supplies for themselves or the home, including food or basic necessities, to obtain medical attention, to engage in any non-work-related activities, and to take time off work.

Mitigating factors: The Court did not find any mitigating factors except perhaps that the condition under which the victims were trafficked did not involve the level or frequency of violence that are often prevalent in sex trafficking cases.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender’s prior criminal record, which includes a human trafficking conviction; there were multiple victims who were all young adults and highly vulnerable; the presence of violence and intimidation; the size and sophistication of the offender’s operation, including the profits he made over the lengthy offence period; and the financial and psychological impact on the victims.

R v Dolman-Kencher, 2023 ONSC 2752

5 years and 3 months

Dolman-Kencher received a global sentence of 6 years, which was reduced to 5 years and 3 months imprisonment: 2 years less 2 days for trafficking a person under the age of eighteen years (s 279.011) and six months concurrent for breach of probation (s 733.1(1)) (offender was given credit for pre-trial custody).

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; SOIRA order for 20 years (s 490.012); lifetime weapon prohibition order (s 109); non-communication order (s 743.21).

Summary: The victim and offender met through social media in 2018 and made personal contact in February 2020. At this time the offender was on probation, which included a condition not to engage in any activity related to the sex trade. They corresponded through social media during the ensuing months, which resulted in the victim trusting the offender. She disclosed her drug use, family issues and that she was making money through a “sugar daddy” website sending photos of herself to clients in exchange for payment. The victim and offender began a romantic relationship. The offender told her that he was in debt and needed her assistance to pay it off or he would be killed. The offender convinced her to engage in the sex trade, using his position of trust and the victim’s feelings for him to manipulate her.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the guilty plea at a relatively early stage of the proceedings; the offender’s youth; his remorse and willingness to take responsibility for his actions; and the difficult conditions he experienced while in custody.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender breached a relationship of trust; provided the victim with cocaine, knowing that she was addicted to the drug; repeatedly put the victim in harm’s way; and was placed on probation three months prior to the commission of this offence; the significant impact on the victim; and the fact that the offence constituted abuse of a person under the age of 18.

R v McEwan, 2023 ONSC 1608

5 years

McEwan received a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment: 5 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); 30 months concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (279.02); 12 months concurrent for withholding travel or identity documents (s 279.03); and 12 months concurrent for fraud under $5,000 (s 380). The charges for procuring (s 286.3) and receiving a material benefit from sexual services (s 286.2) were stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; non-communication order (s 743.21).

Summary: The victim was an 18-year-old female at the time of the offence, had a difficult and traumatic upbringing, was isolated and did not have a stable residence. She grew up with her mother and had very limited contact with her father. At age 16, she left home because of conflict with her mother. She quit high school after the first semester of grade 12. She lost all of her identification when she was approximately 16 years old. When she met the offender, she was providing sexual services at a spa and wanted a more stable life. The offender portrayed himself as a successful businessperson and convinced the victim that he could provide her with a way out, suggesting a joint venture with shared profit in a condo purchase, which was a deception used to take the victim’s money. The offender did not use physical violence, but abused the victim’s vulnerabilities to traffic her, using the promise of an exit from the victim’s disadvantaged and vulnerable state as a means of ensuring her continued participation in the sex trade. The offender took the majority or all of the profits and, after assisting the victim to get identification, withheld it.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender’s difficult upbringing; his supportive family and friend group; his desire to be present for his children; his potential for rehabilitation; and the conditions of pre-sentence custody and the time spent on restrictive bail conditions.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender was motivated by greed; the extreme vulnerability of the victim; the impact on the victim; and the offender knew of and exploited the victim’s vulnerability by employing a scheme involving the false hope of a secure and stable future.

R v Greaves, 2 023 ONSC 5474

4 years

Greaves received a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment: 4 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); 3 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (279.02); 3 years concurrent for procuring (s 286.3); 4 years concurrent for trafficking of a person under the age of eighteen (s 279.011); and 4 years concurrent for procuring (s 286.3).

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; SOIRA order for 20 years (s 490.012); non-communication order with the victims (s 743.21).

Summary: The offender was convicted of three offences perpetrated against one victim, LF, and pled guilty to two offences perpetrated against a second victim, HT, after being convicted for the offence against LF. The offender trafficked the two victims at different time periods. The offender met HT on a dating website in January 2018 and told HT that he wanted a relationship with her and that they could build a life together. LT met the offender in December 2018. The offender convinced both victims to engage in the sex trade, supplied the victims with alcohol and drugs, posted advertisements, set the rates, arranged for the clients, and confiscated at least 60% of LF’s proceeds and all of HT’s proceeds. With respect to HT, the offender brought her to an unfamiliar location with no monetary means to leave and was continuously present during the five days of exploitation.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender’s age, lack a criminal record, supportive family, acknowledgement of responsibility and remorse, potential for rehabilitation, and guilty plea for offences related to HT.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender was motivated by greed; the fact that there were two victims and one of the victims was 17 years old; both victims were introduced to the sex trade by the offender; the offences were part of an organized scheme; and the offender exploited the victims’ addictions to control them.

R v Gonzalez-Valbuena, 2023 ONCJ 537

8 years

Gonzalez-Valbuena received a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment: ten counts of trafficking in persons (s 279.01); a global count of receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02); and eight counts of withholding travel or identity documents (s 279.03).

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; lifetime weapon prohibition order (s 109); non-communication order with the 21 individuals listed in the plea package (s 743.21).

Summary: Over four years, the offender housed approximately 60 Mexican foreign nationals in five different homes. She recruited Mexican foreign nationals to come to Canada for work and a better life, promising them jobs and housing through a fake employment agency. Some victims fled Mexico due to persecution for reasons that include their sexual orientation, while other fled due to safety concerns. All of the victims were vulnerable once in Canada as they did not have authorization to work and were not able to speak English. The offender took their passports as "deposits" and controlled their work, often paying them less than minimum wage if she paid them at all. The offender charged illegal rent, made arbitrary deductions and the living conditions were abysmal. The offender exploited the victims’ unfamiliarity with the laws in Canada, convincing the victims that she had the police and judges “in her pocket”. The offender verbally abused victims, including threatening to call immigration and making repeated derogatory comments about their nationality or sexual orientation, to create an environment of fear and insecurity. She profited from their labour, making them provide services like childcare and housekeeping. She withheld passports for control and trafficking purposes. The elaborate regime she established was only interrupted by the execution of a search warrant at two of her homes. During the course of the search, the police found 26 Mexican passports in the offender's purse, none of which were in her name. Upon her arrest, she provided an inculpatory statement admitting to many of the allegations, except for those related to threatening behaviour.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender’s guilty plea; her desire to take responsibility for her conduct; her difficult life experiences; the harsh circumstances of her time in presentence custody; the potential immigration consequences and the psychological threat of those consequences.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender’s age and prior criminal record; the duration of the exploitation; her exploitation of each victim’s specific vulnerabilities; the fact that there was no meaningful gap between her prior involvement with the criminal justice system and when she began trafficking (she had previously been convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, assault with a weapon and failing to comply with a probation order); the fact that she expertly took advantage of the vulnerabilities associated with working illegally in a foreign country; her threats of deportation; her systemic violations of the Employment Standards Act; the victims’ living conditions; the cruel, sophisticated and carefully executed regime of human trafficking; and the significant impact on the victims.

R v PO, 2023 ABKB 656

20 years

PO received a global sentence of 20 years imprisonment: 6 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01) consecutive to all other convictions; 21 months concurrent for assault with a weapon (s 267(a)); 1 year consecutive for using a firearm in commission of offence (uttering threats) (s 85(1)(a)); 6 years consecutive for sexual assault with a weapon (s 272(2)(a)); 2 years concurrent for aggravated assault (s 268); 3 years and 6 months consecutive for sexual assault (s 271); 3 months consecutive for possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized (s 92(1)); 3 months consecutive for possession contrary to order (s 117.01(1)); 15 months concurrent for disobeying order of court (s 127(1)); 15 months concurrent for disobeying order of court (s 127(1)); 3 years consecutive to all other charges, but concurrently with breach of no-contact prohibition, for obstruction of justice (s 139(2)). After the convictions were entered for the above counts, the Crown withdrew the charges for receiving material benefit from sexual services (s 286.2(1)), procuring (s 286.3(1)), and advertising sexual services (s 286.4).

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; SOIRA order for 20 years (s 490.012); lifetime weapon prohibition order (s 109); non-communication order (s 743.21).

Summary: The offender was in a romantic relationship with the victim, which the court found to be a relationship of trust that the offender exploited. The offender used sexual violence against the victim, made threats against her family and moved her around western Canada. During interviews with the police and court proceedings, the victim provided contradictory exculpatory and inculpatory evidence. The court found that the victim’s statements were inconsistent when she was under the offender’s influence. When she was less concerned about preserving her relationship with him, her statements were both internally consistent and consistent with corroborating evidence (e.g., cellphone records, photos, other witness testimony). The court also found that PO willfully attempted to dissuade the victim from testifying and tried to influence her testimony during the trial.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender’s treatment while incarcerated; COVID-19 restrictions; and the offender’s remorse.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the fact that the offender was the victim’s intimate partner; the damage to the victim’s health and financial situation; and the victim’s vulnerability, including her youthfulness and naivete.

R v Taylor, 2023 ONSC 5334

15 years

Taylor received a global sentence of 15 years imprisonment: 4 years for trafficking in person (s 279.01(1)); 3 years concurrent for sexual assault (s 271); 6 months concurrent for obtaining sexual services for consideration (s 286.1(1)); 1 year consecutive for trafficking in persons (279.01(1)); 1 year concurrent for sexual assault (s 271); 6 months concurrent for obtaining sexual services for consideration (s 286.1(1)); 2 years consecutive for procuring (s 286.3(1)); 6 months concurrent for obtaining sexual services for consideration (s 286.1(1)); 2 years consecutive for procuring (s 286.3(1)); 6 months concurrent for obtaining sexual services for consideration (s 286.1(1)); 4 years consecutive for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); 2 years consecutive for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02(1)); 2 years concurrent to receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons for receiving a material benefit from sexual services (s 286.2(1)); 1 year concurrent for advertising sexual services (286.4) and 6 months concurrent for breach of recognizance (145(5)(a)). Three charges for procuring (s 286.3(1)) were stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; SOIRA order for 20 years (s 490.012); forfeiture order; weapon prohibition order for 10 years (s 109); non-communication order for the victims and another individual (s 743.21).

Summary: The offender ran an “escort service” out of his home for 13 years. The offender exercised his authority and power over the victims, controlling almost every aspect of the agency. This included the advertising, rates charged, rank received in the agency, and how much they would receive for their services. The victims were forbidden to see the clients of the agency on their own. Prior to 2013, the offender sold drugs to those who were in the agency.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender came from a “pro-social” family that experienced some hardships, the offender’s short, dated, and unrelated criminal record, that the offender demonstrated remorse for being intimate with the complainants and has prospects for rehabilitation; and limited support in the community. The Court also noted the fact that the victims were able to keep a portion of their profits was marginally mitigating.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the significant degree of control and coercion; the extent of control the offender exercised over the victims; the age, number, and vulnerability of the victims; the working conditions; the degree of planning and sophistication of the offender’s operation; the size and duration of the operation; the impact on the victims; the offender’s encouragement of the use of drugs and alcohol and demands for personal favours; the steps taken to avoid detection; the techniques used to prevent the victims from leaving; the use of a firearm to threaten a victim into delivering drugs; and the fact that the offender abused his position of power over the victims.

R v Myers, 2023 ONSC 1015

6 years and 8 months

Myers received a global sentence of 6 years and 8 months: five years and two months for trafficking in persons; three years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons; two years concurrent for advertising sexual services; six months concurrent for uttering threats; and one year and six months consecutive for possession of a firearm. The charges for receiving a material benefit from sexual services and procuring were stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; weapon prohibition order (s 109).

Summary: The victim was sexually assaulted by seven men while severely intoxicated at a party. A man, Musara, invited her into his room after the assaults, and allegedly sexually assaulted her. The victim and Musara met two weeks after the party and did cocaine together. Myers showed up at Musara’s apartment and recruited the victim into engaging in the sex trade. Myers exerted significant control, especially at the beginning, including by posting the ads, setting the prices, buying her lingerie, speaking with the clients and arranging the hotels.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender had strong family and friend support; there was prospect of rehabilitation; the offender and his family have encountered anti-Black racism; the offender is working towards becoming an electrician, completed several courses while in custody, and complied with strict bail conditions.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the victim was a vulnerable, self-harming 18-year-old; the offender was considerably older at 27, was experienced in the illegal ways of the world, dealt drugs, knew how the sex trade worked, had access to illegal weapons, introduced the victim to and recruited her into the sex trade, lured her with the promise of money and a lifestyle she could only dream of, exerted significant control, got the victim addicted to cocaine to ensure control over the victim; manipulated the victim’s emotions; had a firearm and got the victim to assist in getting rid of the gun, placing the victim in legal jeopardy, retained significant money from the victims sexual services, threatened to kill the victim if she left and demanded she find a substitute if she did; the working conditions placed the victim at risk; the significant impact on the victim; and, the offender’s prior criminal record.

R v Gordon, 2023 ONSC 1036

7 years

Gordon received a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment: 6 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); 1 year consecutive for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (279.02(1)); 1 year consecutive for pointing a firearm (s 87(1)); 1 year consecutive for unlawful confinement (s 279(2)); and 1 year consecutive for assault causing bodily harm (s 267(b)).

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; weapons prohibition order (s 109), non-communication order (s 743.21).

Summary: The victim was employed as a dancer at an adult entertainment club and a co-worker introduced her to the offender. They became friends and started what she believed to be an exclusive romantic relationship. The offender looked after the victim’s rent, transport, food, and security and, in exchange, the victim provided him with all her earnings. The offender manipulated the victim into a romantic relationship to exploit her financially. The offender had significant control over the victim, using manipulation, physical violence and threats of violence. The offender took control of her earnings and used them to support his lifestyle and inflicted significant injuries on her.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the guilty plea; and harsh conditions of custody.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the age and vulnerability of the victim; the offender engaged in “classic pimping behaviour”, exercised control over the victim using manipulation, threats of violence, and actual violence for a significant period of time, took control of her earnings and used them to support his lifestyle, respected no boundaries regarding her living arrangements or her person, inflicted significant injuries on her, had a significant criminal record, had limited prospects for rehabilitation, took steps to present the victim from leaving, including telling the victim that she must pay an exit fee, and assaulted the victim and confined her in a vehicle.

R v H-O, 2022 ONSC 4900

8 years and 6 months*

H-O received a global sentence of 8 years and 6 months reduced due to the “disgraceful occupancy conditions” to 7 years and 3 months imprisonment: 4 years and 3 months for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); 4 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02(1)); 18 months concurrent for assault causing bodily harm (s 267(b)); 3 years consecutive for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); 2 years concurrent for advertising sexual services (s 286.4); 12 months concurrent for assault (s 266).

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; weapon prohibition order (s 109); non-communication order for both victims (s 743.21); restitution order for $48,000 for HS.

Summary: The offender pled guilty to six offences perpetrated against two victims, HS and EL, who were 21 and 18 years old at the time the offence was committed, and went to trial on offences related to a minor complainant. The offender convinced HS to engage in the sex trade with promises of protection and a better life, and began an intimate relationship with her. EL knew the offender though Instagram for a few years and the offender convinced her to meet in person. The offender considered EL to be his girlfriend. Both victims provided sexual services for consideration from hotel rooms. The offender exploited HS for a period of one year and EL for a period of two to three months by: controlling their engagement in the sex trade, including advertising their sexual services; determining what sexual services would be provided; confiscating their earnings; and, exercising a high degree of control through physical and sexual violence, threats, providing drugs and requiring the victims to be tattooed with his name.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender was a youthful first-time offender with no prior criminal record, pled guilty, accepted responsibility, was remorseful, had family and community support, completed programming to address anger management and to develop life skills, was working to complete his high school education, sought help for managing his mental health issues and family trauma; and, he was subjected to harsh jail conditions.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender’s demand of sexual favours from the victims; his efforts to prevent the victims from leaving; his capitalizing on the victims’ vulnerabilities; his use of control, manipulation, violence and threats; the length of his exploitation as well as the exploitation the victims continue to endure by his posting of their nude photos posted online; the retention of the victims’ earnings; the degradation and humiliation experienced by the victims; the age of the victims; and, the lasting physical, emotional, and mental effects on them.

R v Augustin, 2022 ONSC 5901

8 year (Augustin); 5 years (St. Armand)

Augustin received a global sentence of 8 years: trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02(1)); and advertising sexual services (s 286.4). The convictions for procuring and receiving a financial benefit from procuring were stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

St. Armand received a global sentence of 5 years: trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); advertising sexual services (s 286.4). The conviction for procuring was stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary Orders for Augustin: DNA order (s 487.051); weapon prohibition order for 25 years (s 109); non-communication order for the period of imprisonment (s 743.21.

Ancillary Orders for St. Armand: DNA order (s 487.051); weapon prohibition order for 10 years (s 109); non-communication order for the period of imprisonment (s 743.21.

Summary: Augustin, twenty-eight years old, and St. Armand, twenty-four years old, procured the twenty-two year old victim to engage in the sex trade. They exercised control, direction, and influence over the victim 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, over the course of several weeks. The offenders exploited her by exercising significant control over all aspects of her life and activities, including by renting the hotel room where she provided sexual services, determining when she would work, which clients she would see, what sexual services would be provided and the rates charged. They manipulated her, used violence, threats of violence and controlled her social media use, her food intake, her sleep and shower schedule, and exploited her addiction to cigarettes and ‘speed’ drugs.

Mitigating factors for Augustin: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender’s experience of traumatic events; his remorse and the insights he offered the Court into his circumstances, the offences and their consequences.

Mitigating factors for St. Armand: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender’s difficult background and youthful age; absence of a criminal record; and, potential for rehabilitation.

Aggravating factors: The court noted the following aggravating factors for both offenders, including: the inhumane working conditions they imposed; their exploitation of the victim’s addictions; the level of planning and deliberation; the duration of the exploitative conduct; their control of the victim through intimidation, violence, threats of violence; their control over her working conditions; their emotional manipulation; the use of photos of another woman to advertise the victim’s sexual services, which placed the victim at risk of violence from clients; and, the impact of the exploitation on the victim.

R c Casanova, 2022 QCCQ 938

10 years

Casanova received a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment: 6 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)(b)); 4 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02(1)); 2 years concurrent for advertising sexual services; (286.4(a)); 2 years concurrent for assault (s 266(a)); 2 years concurrent for assault with a weapon (s 267(a)); 6 months concurrent for uttering threats (s 264.1(1)(a)); 6 months concurrent for assault (s 266(a)); 1 year consecutive for using a firearm while committing assault or uttering threats (s 85(1)(a)); 2 years consecutive for assault with a weapon (s. 267(a)); 6 months concurrent for uttering threats (s 246.1(1)(a)); 2 years concurrent for assault causing bodily harm (s 267(b)); 1 year consecutive for using a firearm while committing assault or uttering threats (s 85(1)(a)); 2 years concurrent for sexual assault (s 271(a)); 1 year concurrent for assault (s 266(a)); 2 years concurrent for assault causing bodily harm (s 267(b)); 2 years consecutive for sexual assault (s 271(a)); 1 year assault causing bodily harm (s 267(b)); 6 months concurrent for uttering threats (s 246.1(1)(a)); 2 months concurrent for failure to comply with a non‑communication condition (s 145(3)(a)); 3 months concurrent for failure to comply with a non-communication condition (s 145(3)(a)); and 3 months concurrent for failure to comply with a non-communication condition (s 145(3)(a)). Charges of receiving material benefit from sexual services (s 286.2(1)) and procuring (s 286.3(1)) were stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary Orders: DNA order (s 487.051); SOIRA order for life (s 490.012); weapon prohibition order for 10 years after imprisonment and restricted weapon prohibition for life (ss 109(2) and 109(2)(b)); non-communication order (s 743.21).

Summary: The victim met the offender when her friend purchased drugs from him while visiting Toronto. He brought the two women to an apartment where the victim understood that she and her friend would provide sexual services until they earned enough money to pay for their way home, which was in a different city. The offender transported the victim to her first “out-call” and she handed over all of the proceeds of that transaction. The victim and her friend established an escape plan where her friend would be able to leave and come back to rescue her. Her friend successfully escaped, but did not return.

The offender instilled fear in the victim through violence and threats of violence. He retained all her money, ensuring her dependency on him and isolation from others. The victim was estranged from her family and had no money, no home and no support system. The offender conditioned her to believe that she was his object, that she could not refuse him and, if she did, that she would suffer physical and psychological harm. As their relationship evolved, he exploited her emotions, increasing her dependency and maintaining control and influence over her, including while living in different cities. The offender required the victim to strip naked for inspections to see if anyone had touched or “damaged” her while they were apart. He controlled her work schedule and required her to seek permission before purchasing items, including food.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the age of the offender; his absence of a criminal record; and support from his mother and sister.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the degree of coercion and control; inducement by providing drugs at the beginning of the exploitative conduct; the retention of earnings; the age and vulnerability of the victim; the lasting impact on the victim; the poor working conditions of the victim; the duration of exploitation; the level of planning for the operation; the degree of violence; and, the high risk of the offender reoffending.

R v McIntosh, 2022 ONSC 6437

6 years and 2 months

McIntosh received a global sentence of 6 years and 2 months imprisonment: 6 years and 2 months for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); and, 3 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02)). The section 212 charge was conditionally stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary Orders: DNA order (s 487.051); weapon prohibition order for 10 years after imprisonment and restricted weapon prohibition for life (ss 109(2)(a) and 109(2)(b)); and non-communication order (s 743.21).

Summary: The twenty-three-year-old offender was a drug dealer when he met the twenty-year old victim, who wanted to buy marijuana from him. The victim was a single mother of a one-year old. The offender and victim entered an intimate relationship and the victim expressed interest in engaging in the sex trade. The offender controlled her engagement in the sex trade by booking hotel rooms and taking and posting pictures to use for online ads. He confiscated her earnings. The offender provided the victim with alcohol and marijuana, and required her to keep him updated at all times. When the victim expressed unwillingness to participate in the sex trade, the offender would always persuade her to continue.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the relatively young age of the offender; his support from this family; his difficult time in custody; his absence of any criminal convictions since 2019; his difficult upbringing and experience of racism; his remorse; and the fact that he did not recruit the victim into the sex trade.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the lengthy criminal record of the offender; the retention of earnings; the duration of exploitation, the capitalization of the victim’s vulnerabilities; the control that forced the victim to keep working and prevented her from leaving; the profound impact on the victim, her age and vulnerability; the fact that the offender insisted that the victim have an abortion and then forced her to continue working shortly after, despite the fact that she suffered with ongoing medical complications from the procedure.

R v TT, 2022 ONSC 722

8 years

TT received a global sentence of 8 years: 5 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); 2 years concurrent for advertising sexual services (s 286.4); 4 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02); 1 year concurrent for possessing child pornography for publication (s 163.1(3)); 1 year concurrent for making child pornography (s 163.1(2)); and 3 years consecutive for sexual assault (s 271(1)). Charges of receiving material benefit from sexual services (s 286.2(1)), procuring (s 286.3(1)), possessing child pornography (s 163.1(4)) were stayed pursuant to pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; SOIRA order for life; weapon prohibition order for life (s 109); non-communication order (s 743.21).

Summary: The forty-year old offender met the victim at the mall. The victim was seventeen-years old and living in a group home. The offender and his friend persuaded the victim to go to the friend’s home where the offender sexually assaulted her. The offender and his friend took photos to post as online ads for the victim’s sexual services. The offender controlled the victim’s movements and participation in the sex trade, confiscated all her earnings and provided her with alcohol and narcotics.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender’s minimal criminal record; his prospects for rehabilitation; family support; his intelligence and that he could be a contributing member of society; his difficult upbringing; extreme remorse; and, possible deportation.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the profound impact on the victim; the age of the victims and age difference between the victim and offender; the victim’s inability to leave; the fact that the offender took steps to avoid detention; the victim’s vulnerability and re-victimization from the online ads; the offender’s intent to earn a profit; the sexual assault on the victim; and the fact that the offender supplied cocaine and alcohol to the victim.

R v MED, 2022 ONSC 1899

6 years

MED received a global sentence of 6 years imprisonment: 4 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); 4 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02(1)); 4 years concurrent for procuring (s 286.3(1)); 4 years concurrent for procuring (s 286.3(1)); 2 years concurrent for advertising sexual services (s 286.4); and 2 years consecutive for sexual assault (s 271). A charge of receiving material benefit obtained from sexual services (s 286.2(1)) was stayed.

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; SOIRA order for 20 years (s 490.012); weapon prohibition order for life (s 109); non-communication order (s 743.21); restitution order of $10 000.

Summary: The offender met the 22 year-old victim while she was studying at York University and was living in a rooming house, after being kicked out of her mother’s house. The offender and victim soon began living together. The offender persuaded the victim to engage in the sex trade after she anticipated that she would not have enough money for the school year. The offender and victim moved to different hotels and her sexual services were advertised online. The offender controlled and managed the victim’s engagement in the sex trade. He confiscated her earnings and, during this time, sexually assaulted her and used violence when she refused to perform fellatio on him. The victim was required to pay the offender for her freedom from him and from the sex trade.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender’s age at sentencing; difficult upbringing; mental health issues; minimal criminal record; and the support from his father; the fact that he showed some insight and suffered due to the conditions of his presentence incarceration and his bail conditions; and, the fact that COVID-19 may make his incarceration difficult because of his health issues.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the profound impact on the victim; her re-victimization from having online photos of her posted; the offender’s intent to earn a profit; retention of earnings; depleting of the victim’s credit and savings account; the duration of the control; the sexual assault on the victim; and requiring the victim to purchase her freedom.

R c SV, 2021 QCCQ 7297

18 years

SV received a global sentence of 18 years imprisonment: 10 years for sexual interference (s 151); 10 years concurrent for an invitation to sexual touching (s 152); 8 years consecutive for trafficking of a person under the age of 18 years (s 279.011); 3 ears concurrent for distributing child pornography (s 163.1(3)); 20 months concurrent for accessing child pornography (s 163.1(4.1)); and 2 years concurrent for possessing child pornography (s 163.1(4)).

Ancillary Orders: DNA order (s 487.051); SOIRA order for life (s 490.012); 10 years after imprisonment and restricted weapon prohibition for life (s 109); prohibition order (s 161); non-communication order (s 743.21).

Summary: The victim’s mother, who was dating the offender, sent her eight-year-old daughter from the Ivory Coast to stay with the offender in Montreal so that the victim could obtain a better education. The offender sexually exploited the victim for three years, during which time he had complete control over her. He created a contract outlining that she had to submit to him at all times..

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: his plea on four of the six charges; and, the fact that he had no criminal record.

Aggravating factors: The court found that the offender did not show remorse or understand the severity of his action and had a high risk of recidivism.

R v Clayton, 2021 CarswellOnt 18367; [2021] OJ No 6732

8 years

Clayton received a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment after being convicted of several offences, including human trafficking, unlawful confinement and assault causing bodily harm.

Ancillary Orders: DNA order; SOIRA order for life; and weapon prohibition order for life (s 109).

Summary: The offender enticed the twenty-five-year-old victim, who was engaged in the sex trade, to meet him by exploiting her severe addiction to crack cocaine. He exploited her over a period of 5 months by: controlling the victim’s activities, including when she worked and the types of advertisements posted; confiscating the majority or all of the profits from the sale of the victim’s sexual services; and, exercising a high degree of control through violence, providing drugs, confining the victim and failing to provide her with food..

The victim, before passing away from a drug overdose, recorded a Victim Impact Statement. The court noted the victim’s significant vulnerabilities: she had a severe addiction, a predominant speech impediment and was young. The offences had significant physical and psychological effects on her.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: that the offender was relatively young and had family support.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender’s criminal record; the high degree of control over the victim; the use of violence; the retention of earnings; the duration of exploitation; the exploitive nature of their relationship; the victim’s significant vulnerabilities, including her severe addiction, a predominant speech impediment and her age; and, the offences’ significant physical and psychological effects.

R c Losse, 2021 QCCQ 13745

9 years

Losse received a total sentence of 9 years imprisonment: 4 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)(b)); 2 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02(1)); 1 year concurrent for advertising sexual services (s 286.4(a)); 1 year concurrent for encouraging a person to commit suicide (s 241); 1 year concurrent for assault (s 266(a)); 2 years concurrent for assault with a weapon (s 267(a)); 18 months concurrent for forcible seizure (s 279(2)(a)); 1 year concurrent for uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm (s 264.1(1)(a))); 1 year concurrent for receiving a material benefit from sexual services by persons under eighteen years (s 286.2(2)); 5 years consecutive for procuring a person under eighteen years (s 286.3(2)); 1 year concurrent for advertising sexual services (s 286.4(a)); 2 years concurrent for sexually touching a part of the body of a person under the age of 16 years (s 151(a)); and 2 years concurrent for inviting a person under the age of 16 years to sexually touch him (s 152(a)). Charges of receiving material benefit obtained from sexual services (s 286.2(1)) and procuring (s 286.3(1)) were stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary Orders: DNA order (s 487.051); SOIRA order for life (s 490.012); non‑communication order (s 743.21); 10-year firearm and weapon prohibition (s 109(1)); unspecified surcharge.

Summary: The offender began a relationship with each victim during two different time periods. With each victim, the offender proposed engagement in the sex trade as a solution to their financial difficulties. He instructed both victims on how to engage in the sex trade and controlled their engagement in the sex trade. The offender was twenty-five years old when he began a relationship with X, a fifteen-year old, after meeting on social media. The accused took photos to post as online ads for her sexual services. He took X to a motel to perform sexual services for consideration, and confiscated half of her earnings. The offender later began a relationship with KL, a twenty-one-year-old, after meeting through a mutual friend. KL provided sexual services for consideration from hotel rooms and the offender initially confiscated half of her earnings but later confiscated all of it. The offender used sexual and physical violence, violence with a weapon, and threats of violence to keep her complicit, and uttered death threats towards her. The offender controlled KL’s engagement in the sex trade, her food consumption, and her movements. He gave KL methamphetamines to keep her awake to provide sexual service for long hours.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender had no previous convictions.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors with respect to both victims: the high degree of control over the victims and their engagement in the sex trade; the use of manipulation under the appearance of a relationship; the duration of exploitation; and, the lasting negative effect the crimes had on the victims.

The Court noted the following aggravating factors with respect to X: her introduction to the sex trade; her ill treatment (718.2(ii.1)); and, the offender’s recklessness in engaging in unprotected sexual relations leading to pregnancy and the possibility of an STI.

The Court noted the following aggravating factors with respect to KL: the confinement to unsanitary rooms; the deprivation of food; the offender’s use of severe violence; his retention of her earnings; and the fact that he drugged the victim.

R v Gardner, 2020 ONSC 5954

5 years

Gardner received a global sentence of 5 years: 4 years for sexual assault (s 271); 5 years consecutive for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); 3 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02(1)); 2 years concurrent for advertising sexual services (s 286.4), 6 months concurrent for assault; and 90 days concurrent for breach of recognizance on new indictment (s 145). A charge of receiving a material benefit from sexual services (s 286.2(1)) was stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary orders: DNA order, SOIRA order for life, weapons prohibition order for 10 years (s 109), and non-communication order (s 743.21).

Summary: The victim engaged in the sex trade of her own volition. The offender then used pressure, psychological game playing, criticism, and manipulation to keep the victim engaged in the sex trade and generating revenue. He imposed quotas, confiscated all earnings, and arranged her travel and her engagement in the sex trade. When the victim did not want to engage in the sex trade anymore, he forced the victim to do so, giving her drugs (ecstasy) to facilitate her engagement. When the victim spoke to another “pimp”, the offender required her to perform fellatio on him. When she did not do so to his satisfaction, he bound her hands and feet and sexually assaulted her in front of his other girlfriend. The offender violently assaulted the victim when she tried to leave in the presence of hotel staff..

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender’s age; he demonstrated initiative and discipline; completed high school; had no criminal record at the time of the offence; had some employment history; pled guilty to the assault charge; was involved in sports and his church; has a good relationship with his child and the mother of his child; has family support; and his potential for rehabilitation.

Aggravating factors:.

The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the denigration and humiliation of the sexual assault, which was designed as a punishment and was conducted in the presence of another person; the significant degree and control exerted over the victim; the duration of exploitation; the degree of violence; retention of money; the inducement of drugs and the victim’s subsequent dependency on the drugs provided; and, the lasting negative effect on the victim’s health and financial situation.

R v Eftekhar, 2020 ONSC 1386

4 years

Eftekhar received a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment: 4 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); 2 years concurrent for procuring (s 286.3(1)); 3 months concurrent for obtaining sexual services for consideration (s 286.1(1)); and 6 months concurrent for common assault (s 266).

Ancillary orders: DNA order; lifetime weapons prohibition (s 109); and a non‑communication order (s 743.21).

Summary: The victim, an Inuit teenage, was unemployed, out of school and extremely vulnerable. She reported that she was sexually abused as a child and ran away from home. The offender, who was in his mid-50s, exposed the victim to the sex trade, was domineering and controlling throughout the duration of the activities, and threatened the victim’s safety if she did not continue to engage in the sex trade from his apartment. The difference in age, maturity and relative economic status, which provided the offender with authority and influence over the victim, created a drastic power imbalance.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: The offender’s short and unrelated criminal record; the fact that he demonstrated remorse and had good rehabilitative prospects; his son still supported him; his consistent employment history, which indicated that he has the ability to contribute to society through lawful employment; and the fact that he did not receive a material benefit from the victim’s engagement in the sex trade.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the victim’s significant vulnerability; the fact that she was from a marginalized community; the threatened and real violence used; and, the duration of the offence.

R v Antoine, 2020 ONSC 181

8 years

Antoine received a global sentence of eight years imprisonment: 3 years for trafficking in persons (s. 279.01(1)); 6 years consecutive for trafficking in persons (279.01); and 4 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 79.02(1)). Two charges of procuring a person under 18 years (s 286.3(1)) were stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary order: DNA order (s 487.04).

Summary: There were two separate victims whom the offender had involved in the sex trade during two separate time periods, one for less than two weeks and one for many months over two separate calendar years. One victim had been previously engaged in the sex trade. The offender approached young women who had few family supports, were vulnerable, and had significant problems with drug usage. The offender supplied both victims with drugs. He made promises to the victims, exploiting their desire for a better life.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender had a supportive relationship with his family and his children; participated in a number of rehabilitation programs in jail; and suffered abuse from his father.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender’s very significant criminal record, which includes numerous offences of greed and dishonesty undertaken for personal gain; the young age and vulnerability of the victims due to their struggles with addiction; and, with respect to one of the victims, the duration of the offence.

R v Reginald Louis Jean, 2020 ONSC 624

8 years

Reginald Louis Jean received a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment: 4 years consecutive for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); 659 days consecutive for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); 3 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02(1)); 30 days concurrent for breach of recognizance (conviction); and another 30 days concurrent for breach of recognizance (conviction).

Ancillary orders: DNA order (s 487.051(2)), firearms restriction for ten years (s 109), and a non-communication order (s 743.21(1)).

Summary: One of the victims was 18 at the time of the offence and was trafficked for six to seven months. The offender trafficked the second victim for about two and a half years, when she was between 19 and 21 years of age. She believed she was in a romantic relationship with him. The offender used coercion, manipulation, and deception to control and exploit the victims, and confiscated much of their earnings.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender was 30 years old; had no prior criminal record; had family support and a normal upbringing; had a partner and a young child; plead guilty to assaulting one of the victims and received a conditional discharge; established a delivery business while on bail, demonstrating that he had leadership abilities; received a positive pre-sentence report,; and expressed remorse in his statement to the court at his sentencing hearing.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the significant degree of control exerted over the victims; the retention of money; the duration of exploitation; the verbal, emotional, and physical abuse directed at the victims; the lasting negative effect on the victims; the young age of the victims and the fact that there were two of them; the victims’ emotional vulnerability; the fact that the offender prevented the victims from leaving and took steps to avoid the authorities.

R v Leduc, 2019 ONSC 6794

12 years

Leduc received a global sentence of 12 years imprisonment: 4 years concurrent for four counts of conspiracy to possess a firearm (s 465(1)(c)); 3 years consecutive for instructing a person to traffic a firearm for the benefit of a criminal organization (s 67.13); 3 years concurrent to the s 467.13 count, but consecutive to the s 465(1)(c) count for conspiracy to possess firearms (s 467.12); 2 years concurrent to the s 467.13 count and s 467.12 counts, but consecutive to the s 465(1)(c) count for recruiting another person to join a criminal organization (s 467.111); 5 years to be served consecutively to all other counts for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); and 2 years concurrent to the s. 279.01 count and consecutive to other counts for assault causing bodily harm (s 267(b)).

Ancillary orders: Order to serve half of global sentence for counts regarding ss 467.13 and 467.12 and half of totals for counts regarding s 465(1)(c) before eligible for parole (ss 743.6(1.2) and 743.6(1.1) respectively), order to pay $45,000 in lieu of forfeiture (s 462.37(3)) with 2 years to pay or 18 months incarceration in default (s 462.37(4)(iii)), forfeiture order for the money seized payable to the victim, non-communication order, DNA order (s 487.051), and a firearm prohibition for life (s 109).

Summary: The offender met the victim through Facebook. After a number of interactions online and in Montreal, the offender paid for the victim to fly to Toronto, where she began dancing at a strip club. He became aggressive about the victim providing “extras” (i.e., sexual services). The offender maintained financial control over the victim by: renting a condo in the victim’s name; requiring her to pay all rent and other expenses; amassing significant credit card debt in the victim’s name; and, confiscating all of her earnings. He engaged in violence, threats of violence, and “discipline” to exploit the victim. After her family helped her return to Montreal, the offender contacted the victim apologizing and professing his love, manipulating her to return to Toronto where he continued to exploit the victim.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted no mitigating factors. Additionally, the Court noted that the offender’s display of remorse in his statement rang hollow and fell far short of providing mitigation.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender’s previous criminal record, which includes violent crimes; the physical and psychological control used to exploit the victim; evidence establishing the offender’s character, reputation and risk of re-offending; and the effect on the victim’s psychological and physical well-being as described in her victim impact statement.

R v Strickland-Prescod, 2019 ONCJ 755

21 months

Strickland-Prescod received a global sentence of 21 months: 21 months for trafficking in persons (s 279.01).

Ancillary orders: DNA order, SOIRA order for 20 years and mandatory weapons prohibition order for life (s 109).

Summary: The victim, who struggled with addiction, contacted the offender for illicit drugs. The offender agreed to provide her with drugs but required her to engage in the sex trade. Although she did not want to engage in the sex trade, she agreed in order to obtain the drugs. The offender took pictures of the victim dressed in lingerie, advertised her sexual services, determined what to charge, the services she would provide, arranged for clients and confiscated all profits. The offender took control of the victim’s vehicle by keeping the keys and prohibiting her from driving it. When they were pulled over by police at a traffic stop, the offender threw a bag of marijuana at her and both parties were arrested. The victim told police she did not believe she could leave the situation, as she had no money, no phone, no family or friends in town, and the offender was in possession of her car and her ID.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the incident was of short duration; no violence or threats were used; the offender pled guilty; the offender was young; had significant family support, an underlying drug addiction, a home, and a job waiting for him.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the degree of control over the victim; the fact that it appeared to be a longer-term plan; the exploitation of the victim’s drug addiction; the slight degree of sophistication involved by taking photos, placing ads, and attempting to find someone else to work with; the fact that the victim was alone in Guelph without friends or family; and the offender’s criminal record.

R v Ahmed et al, 2019 ONSC 4822

18 months (Ahmed); 11 months (Ngoto)

Ahmed received a global sentence of 18 months: 14 months for each of the two counts of trafficking in persons under the age of eighteen years (s 279.011); and 6 months concurrent for advertising sexual services (s 286.4).

Ngoto receive a global sentence of 11 months for ten months for each of the two counts of trafficking in persons under the age of eighteen years (s 279.011).

Ancillary orders for Ahmed: Ahmed received a mandatory 20-year SOIRA order (s 490.013(2.1)), a DNA order (s 487.051(1)) and an order of prohibition for life (s 161(1)(a.1)).

Ancillary orders for Ngoto: Ngoto received a mandatory 20-year SOIRA (s 490.013(2.1)), a DNA order (s 487.051 (1)), and an order of prohibition for 10 years (s 161).

Summary: The two offenders, both women in their thirties, met the two teenage “runaway” victims, early in the morning while the victims were consuming alcohol. The two offenders accompanied the victims to a hotel room and gave them additional alcohol and speed. The victims were brought to an apartment, and photographs were taken of them by the offenders and posted on Backpage, advertising the victims’ sexual services without the victims knowing about the advertisement. The offenders brought the victims to meet a number of males, who touched the victims in a sexual manner. The offenders advised the victims they must rest because they have to work later that evening. The court found that offenders were preparing the victims for “escorting”.

Mitigating factors for Ahmed: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender received counselling; attended some Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings while in custody; showed some remorse; previously worked in the sex trade; participated in the “escort” business in an effort to cope with her past trauma of being sexually assaulted while working as an “escort”; demonstrated an intention to return to school; and had some supports.

Aggravating factors for Ahmed: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the fact that there were two underage victims who were runaways; providing alcohol and drugs to the victims; deceiving the victims; the commencement of grooming; and the offender’s criminal record.

Mitigating factors for Ngoto: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: Ngoto took significant steps to receive counselling and other supports; attended some Narcotics Anonymous meetings; provided evidence that she is a victim of the sex trade; demonstrated an active desire to parent her four children; secured accommodations for her family; reached out and participated in supports at Harmony House; expressed regret for her actions while taking some accountability; and her drug and alcohol addiction.

Aggravating factors (Ngoto): The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the fact that there were two underage victims who were runaways; providing alcohol to the victims; deceiving the victims; the commencement of grooming; and the offender’s criminal record.

R v NC, 2019 ONCA 484

5 years and 6 month

*Appeal decision: ONCA dismissed the appellant’s appeal of his convictions; trial decision unrecorded.

NC received a global sentence of 5 years and 6 months incarceration: 11 human‑trafficking, sexual, and violent offences in relation to his former girlfriend: robbery (s 343); assault causing bodily harm (s 267(b)); procuring (s 286.3(1)); financial benefit from sexual services (s 286.2(1)); proceeds of indictable offence (s 355(a)); sexual assault causing bodily harm (s 272(2)); assault (s 266); and procuring (s 212(1)(a)).

Summary: The appellant was arrested following a violent incident in the parking lot of an apartment building, during which several witnesses heard the victim scream and saw her being dragged out of the offender’s car. Screenshots taken by police of over 400 iPhone text messages between the offender and the victim were admitted at trial with the consent of the offender. The text messages were “highly cogent evidence of the offender’s control over the victim’s sexual, physical, and financial autonomy”.

Mitigating factors: Not mentioned in the case by the judge.

Aggravating factors: Not mentioned in the case by the judge.

R v Crosdale, 2019 ONCJ 3

6 years

Crosdale received a global sentence of 6 years: 5 years for trafficking in persons under the age of eighteen years (s 279.011); 5 years concurrent for procuring a person under the age of eighteen years (s 286.3); 4 years concurrent for procuring a person under eighteen years (s 286.3(1)); 2 years concurrent for advertising sexual services (s 286.4); 1 year concurrent for possession of child pornography (s 163.1(4)); 1 year concurrent for accessing child pornography (s 163.1(4.1)); 1 year concurrent for making child pornography (s 163.1(2)); 1 year concurrent for distributing child pornography (s 163.1(3)); 6 years concurrent for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); 2 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from sexual services (s 286.2(1)); 2 years concurrent for advertising sexual services (s 286.4, conviction); 4 years concurrent for procuring (s 286.3(1)); 1 year concurrent for assault (s 266); and 1 year concurrent for withholding travel or identity documents (s 279.03(1)).

Ancillary orders: No contact condition (s 743.21); DNA order (ss 487.051(1), (2), (3)); firearms prohibition (s 109(1)(a)); SOIRA order (s 490.013(2.1)); forfeiture order of $860 to be released to the first victim (s 491.1(2)(a)).

Summary: The offender contacted the first victim after finding her information through her backpage.ca advertisement. They discussed her work with her current “pimp” and how things could be better with the offender. She decided to move to a hotel, as she had nowhere to live, and work with the offender after her previous “pimp” assaulted her. The offender collected all the money she earned and, over a period of time, took control of posting her advertisements. There was a period where the victim did not work for him and returned to her previous “pimp”. She returned to the offender after her previous “pimp” became abusive again. The offender selected the location she worked at, set the rates, took all her identification documents, controlled who she could associate with, and had his name tattooed on her neck. He used coercion and violence to keep the victim working.

The second victim followed the first victim on Instagram and added her on Snapchat. She presumed the first victim was an “escort” as she knew her previous “pimp”. She was introduced to the offender after a few exchanges with the first victim. The second victim was interested in engaging in the sex trade, but had no experience. The offender controlled whom the second victim could contact, both in person and over social media.

The offender facilitated transportation of both victims. He used psychological coercion and/or implied threats of violence that could reasonably be expected to cause the victims to believe their safety would be threatened if they refused to work for him. He controlled the money and both victims had to ask for permission before leaving the condominium.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender had no prior criminal record; the limited duration of exploitation for one victim and that she retained all the money from her engagement in the sex trade; and, the offender had the support of his friends, family, and church community.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offences were motivated by greed; the photos posted online remained available, causing an ongoing impact to both victims; the photos of one victim constitute child pornography; the victims were young and vulnerable with troubled backgrounds; one victim indicated that they had nowhere else to go or live; the offender used physical and sexual violence and threatened further violence and exploited one of the victims for four months; the exploitation was deliberate and planned as he actively recruited her and exercised significant control over her; the victim was dependent on him for the necessaries of life as he took all of her earnings; and, the offender recruited the second victim to engage in the sex trade for the first time.

R v Salmon, 2019 ONSC 1574

6 years

Salmon received a global sentence of 6 years imprisonment: 6 years for trafficking in person (s 279.01(1)); and, 2 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in person (s 279.02(1)). The convictions for procuring (s 286.3(1)) and receiving a material benefit from sexual services (s 286.2) were stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary orders: Non-communication order (s 743.21); DNA order (s 487.051); weapon prohibition order for life (s 109(1)(a)); forfeiture of any electronic devices seized by police during the investigation; a SOIRA order for 20 years.

Summary: The offender, a man in his mid-40s, exercised a significant degree of control and coercion over the victim, using threats of violence. He pressured her into offering sexual services that the victim did not want to provide, engaging in the sex trade during her menstrual cycle and updating her advertisements. The period of exploitation lasted for five and a half months.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted that there were a few mitigating factors, which did not affect the sentence in any appreciable way.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted that there were a few aggravating factors, which did not affect the sentence in any appreciable way.

R v Abedini, 2019 CarswellOnt 24260

8 years and 6 months

Abedini received a global sentence of 8 years and 6 months imprisonment: 8 years and six months for trafficking in persons; 8 years and 6 months concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons; 6 years concurrent for trafficking a person under the age of eighteen; 6 years concurrent for living on the avails of prostitution (under age eighteen) under aggravated circumstances; 6 years concurrent for procuring; and 2 years concurrent for procuring. Two sex trade offence charges were stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary orders: DNA order (s 467.051); a mandatory weapons prohibition order for 10 years after released from prison (s 109); non-communication order (s 743.21); SOIRA order for life (s 490.013(2.1)); forfeiture order for items seized during the investigation; restitution order in the amount of $955.00 (s 737.1 and 738); fine in lieu of forfeiture in the amount of $185,000 to be paid within 10 years following her release from custody (s 462.37(4)).

Summary: Over seven years, the offender operated as a “pimp” in the GTA and elsewhere in Ontario. The offender hired three underage victims. S.O. (nearly 16 years old) and S.L. (16 years old) were high school students with no experience working in the sex trade when they began working for the offender. M.W. (17 or 18 years old) was previously an “escort”. The victims worked for different periods of time ranging from twenty-four hours (S.L.), to four months (S.O.), to a number of years separated into two stints (M.W). The offender claimed that there would be a 50-50 split of the victims’ earning for providing sexual services, but the offender took nearly all the profits and gave the victims only a very small amount. The offender had full control of the operation; she made and posted ads, determined what the victims would wear, arranged meetings with clients, found locations to meet with clients, and determined the rates of pay and what sexual services were to be provided. The accused was imposing, domineering and demanding; she used intimidation, threats and verbal abuse to control the victims. She also used psychological pressure and physical violence.

Mitigating factors: The Court found the following mitigating factors: the offender’s lack of prior record, compliance with bail terms, family support, and rehabilitative efforts. The Court also noted that there was an absence of some aggravating features commonly seen in similar cases and that M.W. acknowledged that t for much of the time, the offender treated her reasonably well.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted numerous aggravating factors, including: the offender's decision to establish and operate her own “escort” service that exploited young and vulnerable victims was carefully considered, planned, and executed; some of the victims were under the age of 18; the offender instructed the victims to lie about their age and to tell the police that they were independent sex workers, falsely enticed the three victims with the promise of a 50-50 earnings split, demanded an exit fee of $10,000 from M.W., knowingly and recklessly took photos of her young victims to post as advertisements on Backpage.com, which contributed to a continuous re-victimization, used verbal abuse if the victims did not comply with her rules, intimidated, threatened, and exploited S.O. and M.W, and threatened to harm their families, ordered the victims to work gruelling schedules and to see multiple clients in a day, forced them to work while menstruating, forced M.W. to work right after having abortion, which conflicted with medical advice; for M.W., the offender set a quota of $1,000 earnings per day and forced her to work while she was pregnant and occasionally without protection; and, the significant impact the offender’s conduct had on the victims..

*The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a sentence appeal in R v Senoubari Abedini, 2020 ONCA 520.

R v SC, 2019 ABQB 793

23 years and 6 months

SC received a global sentence of 23 years and 6 months incarceration: 8 years and 6 months for trafficking in persons under the age of eighteen years; 8 years concurrent for sexual assault; 7 years concurrent for sexual exploitation; 7 years and 6 months consecutive for incest; 8 years concurrent for sexual assault with a weapon; 1 year consecutive for making child pornography; 5 years concurrent for sexual assault; 5 years consecutive for incest; 1 year and six months consecutive for invitation to sexual touching; 1 year concurrent for careless storage of a firearm (count 23).

Ancillary orders: SOIRA order for life; DNA order; weapons prohibition for life (ss 109 and 110); order of prohibition for life (ss 161 and 161(a)(b)(c)(d)); and non-communication order (s 743.21); and, forfeiture of all items seized.

Summary: There were three victims, who were the offender’s daughters—KC, CC, and EC—of whom, only KC was trafficked. The offender made and posted child pornography of KC when she was 16 years old on the website “adultfriendfinder.com”. The offender arranged for men to meet and sexually assault KC by providing the location, rules of the meeting, and any other details. The offender blindfolded, gagged, and tied up the victim before placing her in the back of his vehicle. The unknown man was instructed to sit in his vehicle at a secluded location, pretend to be on the phone, wear a blindfold, and wait for the offender who would then ask for a code word. If the man replied correctly, he would be instructed to get into the back of the vehicle with KC. The offender then drove the unknown male and KC to another location where the sexual assault would take place. The offender talked to six or seven unknown individuals about potential meetings; however, only two unknown males attended the meeting locations.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the guilty plea as a mitigating factor.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following statutory aggravating factors: all three victims were under the age of 18; the offender was the victims’ father, who was in a position of trust and authority; the continued significant impact on KC, CC, and EC; the multiple occurrences; the sexual assaults were violent (KC was bound and blindfolded, her hair was pulled); the sexual assaults included penetration of her anus with objects; a nude picture that included her face was posted on the website that advertised her; the offender participated in sexually assaulting her together with the unknown males; the breach of trust; and the gratuitous degradation and objectification of KC; the offender abused multiple children in the family resulting in the destruction of the family unit; and, all members of the accused’s immediate family and several members of his extended family suffered psychological and emotional harm as a result of his offences.

R v Kassongo, [2019] OJ No 6689

3 years

Kassongo received a global sentence of 3 years imprisonment: trafficking in persons under the age of 18 (s 279.011); receiving a material benefit for trafficking in persons under the age of 18 (s 279.02(a)); and advertising sexual services (s 286.4).

Ancillary orders: weapons prohibition order for ten years (s. 109); DNA order; and a lifetime SOIRA order (s. 490.011(b)).

Summary: The offender, 20 years old at the time, met the victim, 15 years old, on Instagram before meeting in person. The offender, the victim, and a 14-year-old female went to a motel to use marijuana with two other unidentified males. The offender asked the two girls if they wanted to make money and proposed that they engage in the sex trade. The next day, the victim ran away from home and was picked up by the offender who took her to a hotel. The offender had sexual intercourse with her. Following this, the victim provided sexual services for one week, moving from hotel to hotel. The offender retained all the money and took nude pictures of the victim to advertise her sexual services. The victim continued to provide sexual services to the offender. There were times where she wanted to leave but did not know how to leave.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender was youthful, appeared remorseful, took full responsibility for his actions, pled guilty, was engaging in counselling at the time of sentencing, was said to be a talented musician, had strong family support, was not involved in a sophisticated organization, did not use the victim’s actual photo in his advertising, only has one entry on his adult criminal record; and, the lack of significant coercion, absence of violence, and the short duration of exploitation.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the age and vulnerability of the victim; the harm suffered by the victim; the offender exerted control over the environment where the victim engaged in the sex trade; and, the number of clients that the victim was required to service.

R v Tazike, 2019 ONCJ 819

7 years and 5 months

Tazike received a global sentence of 7 years and 5 months imprisonment: 6 years reduced to 5 years for trafficking in persons under the age of 18 (s 279.011); 5 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02); 3 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from sexual services (s 286.2); 6 years concurrent reduced to 5 years for procuring a person under the age of 18 (s 286.3(2)); 3 years concurrent for advertising sexual services (s 286.4); 2 years consecutive for sexual assault (s 271); 2 years concurrent for sexual assault (s 271); 6 months consecutive for criminal harassment (s 264 (3)); 6 months concurrent for mischief to property under $5000 (s 430(4)).

Ancillary Orders: DNA order (s 487.051); 20 year SOIRA order (s 490.013(2)(b)); 10 ear weapons prohibition order (s 109); non-communication order (s 743.21).

Summary: The victim was 16 years old and living in a youth shelter when she met the offender. The offender's friends raised the possibility of making over $1000 a day to the victim. She found the offer attractive despite not knowing exactly what was involved. The offender persuaded her into engaging in the sex trade and controlled her engagement, including by taking sexually suggestive photos of the victim, advertising her sexual services online, renting hotel rooms and receiving most, if not all, of the profits. Prior to advertising her sexual services, the offender had sex with the victim to determine if she would be a “skilled prostitute”. During her two years under the offender’s control, the victim was romantically involved with the offender, subjected to physical and sexual violence, and introduced to and provided drugs by the offender.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender was a young man with a supportive family, had a high school education, and demonstrated ability to work.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender’s demand for sexual favours, including non-consensual ones; his efforts to evade authorities; his posting sexually suggestive images of a 16 year old on the internet; the exploitation of a vulnerable 16 year old living in a youth shelter; the violence used against the victim; the duration of the exploitation; the intimate-partner relationship; the sexual assaults; and, conduct aimed at re-establishing a sexually exploitative relationship with the victim.

R v Alexis-McLymont and Elgin and Hird; 2018 ONSC 1389 and 2018 ONSC 1152

6 years (Alexis-McLymont); 7 years (Elgin); 9 years (Hird)

*There were 3 offenders

Alexis-McLymont received a global sentence of 6 years: 6 years for trafficking of a person under the age of 18 years (s 279.011(1)); 6 years concurrent for procuring a person under the age of 18 (s 286.3(2)); 3 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons under 18 years (s 279.02).

Elgin received a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment: 7 years for trafficking of a person under the age of 18 years (s. 279.011(1)); 7 years concurrent for procuring a person under the age of 18 (s 286.3(2)); 3 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons under 18 years (s 279.02); 3 years concurrent for sexual interference (s 151); 2 years concurrent for unlawful confinement (s 279(2)). The sexual assault conviction (s 271) was conditionally stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Hird received a global sentence of 9 years: 9 years for trafficking in persons under the age of 18 years (s 279.011(1)); 7 years concurrent for procuring a person under the age of 18 (s 286.3(2)); 4 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons under 18 years (s 279.02); 3 years concurrent sexual interference (s 151); 2 years concurrent for unlawful confinement (s 279(2)). The sexual assault conviction (s 271) was stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary orders for Alexis McLymont: Alexis-McLymont received a mandatory weapons prohibition order for life (s 109(1)(a)); DNA order (ss 487.04 and 487.051); SOIRA order for life (s 490.013(2.1)); victim surcharges totalling $600 (s 737); non‑communication order (s 743.21); discretionary forfeiture order in relation to two cellular telephones seized (s 490.1); prohibition order (ss 161(1)(a.1), (b), (c), and (d)).

Ancillary orders for Elgin: Elgin received a mandatory weapons prohibition order (s109(1)(a)); DNA order (ss 487.04 and 487.051(1)); SOIRA order for life (s 490.013(2.1)); victim surcharges totalling $1000 (s 737); non-communication order (s 743.21(1)); order of forfeiture for cellphone (s 490.1); prohibition order (ss 161(1)(a.1), (b), (c) and (d)).

Ancillary orders for Hird: Hird received a mandatory weapons prohibition order for life (s 109(1)(a)); DNA order (ss 487.04 and 487.051(1)); SOIRA order for life (s 490.013(2.1)); victim surcharges totalling $1000 (s 737); non-communication order (s 743.21(1)); prohibition order (ss 161(1)(a.1), (b), (c), and (d)).

Summary: Alexis-McLymont had a social media friendship with a third party, who housed the victim, and offered money to the third party to help with locating and recruiting young females. The victim was a 15-year-old female who had run away from home and was addicted to crystal methamphetamine. Alexis-McLymont contacted the victim through the third party and led the victim to believe that she would be selling drugs. She agreed to meet Alexis-McLymont at a bus station in a city unknown to her. She was brought to a motel where Elgin and Hird persuaded her to engage in sexual intercourse with a stranger in exchange for drugs. Elgin and Hird prevented the victim from leaving when she attempted to do so later that evening, forcing her to stay in the motel room and to continue to engage in sexual intercourse with strangers for payment. She was not permitted to touch or retain any of the money earned. Elgin and Hird took the victim’s cellular phone and gave her drugs to keep her dependant and compliant.

The judge highlighted the particularly appalling conditions in which the victim was exploited. In particular, she was: confined to one or two poorly kept hotel rooms; deprived of communication with the outside world and basic toiletries; and, starved and plied with drugs to make her amenable to her captors’ manipulations.

Mitigating factors for Alexis-McLymont: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: Alexis-McLymont was a youthful first time offender and had family and informal support from his spouse, which may assist in his rehabilitation prospects.

Mitigating factors for Elgin: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: Elgin expressed responsibility and remorse and demonstrated his determination to complete steps towards his rehabilitation, was a youthful offender who faced some extraordinary challenges during the course of a difficult childhood, including neglect, abandonment, learning disabilities, and forced independence, and had familial and informal support from his spouse, which may assist in his continued rehabilitation.

Mitigating factors for Hird: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: Hird was a youthful offender whose criminal record only contained property offences in youth court, and he had his family, friend and support from his partner, which may assist in his rehabilitation prospects.

Aggravating factors Alexis-McLymont: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the abuse of a person under the age of 18; the serious and profound impact of the misconduct on the victim and on her family; the evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in associate with a criminal organization; and, the appalling conditions in which the victim was exploited.

Aggravating factors Elgin: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: in addition to those noted for Alexis-McLymont, the offender’s obvious and unmitigated sense of entitlement to use the victim sexually; and the offender’s prior criminal record.

Aggravating factors for Hird: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: in addition to those noted for Alexis-McLymont, the offender’s obvious and unmitigated sense of entitlement to use the victim sexually.

R v Oliver, 2018 NSSC 230

8 years

Oliver received a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment: five years for trafficking in persons under the age of 18 (s 279.011(1)); 1 year concurrent for sexual interference (s 151); two years consecutive for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons under eighteen years (s 279.02(2)); 1 year consecutive for making child pornography (s 163.1(2)); and, 2 years concurrent for sexual assault (s 271).

Ancillary orders: prohibition order (s 161); DNA order; mandatory prohibition order for life (s 109); victim fine surcharge.

Summary: The offender met the first victim, a minor, through Snapchat where he identified himself as being 18 years old. After grooming her online, they met at a residence in Halifax. Once together, he started touching the victim directly on her breasts and on her buttocks. The offender later brought the victim to a hotel and directed her to a specific room. She was then met by two men in the room who sexually assaulted her. She was given $440.00, and she gave the offender a portion of this money. The offender refused to take the victim home but the victim was able to text a friend for help who then called the police. The victim was able to sneak out of the house and was walking down the road where the police found her.

After communicating online, the offender and the second victim met in Halifax. During the evening, Oliver said that he would pay her to ‘service’ his adult friends. She said no but eventually agreed. Over the course of 5 days, the victim serviced 10 calls where she received between $75 to $150 per call but all the money went to the offender.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted that there were mitigating factors, but did not specify the factors in the judgement.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted that there were significant aggravating factors, but did not specify the factors in the judgement.

R v Burton, 2018 ONCJ 153

8 years and 6 months

Burton received a global sentence of 8 years and 6 months imprisonment followed by a ten year long term supervision order: 8 years and 6 months concurrent for two counts of human trafficking (s 279.01(1); 5 years concurrent for two counts of exercising control (conviction); 5 years concurrent for two counts receiving material benefit from trafficking in persons (conviction); 3 years concurrent for two counts of withholding passports (conviction); 2 years consecutive for obstructing justice (conviction).

Ancillary orders: SOIRA order for life; DNA order; weapons prohibition for life (s. 109); non-communication order with the victims.

Summary: V.C. and A.O., both 19, were from Kingston when they met the offender in Toronto. The offender used V.C.’s love for him and her vulnerabilities to control her and coerce her into engaging in the sex trade, while he used intimidation to coerce A.O. into engaging in the sex trade. The offender exercised significant control over both victims, confiscating their passports and all the profits, requiring the victims to clean the apartment and follow his rules, handing out food, cigarettes and alcohol at his discretion, requiring the victims to call him “daddy” and kiss his ring. The exploitation lasted for a week, during which the victims were required to provide sexual services at a number of different hotels, and ended when a client took both victims away from the offender and another client called the police..

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender was abused and neglected as a child and despite the fact that the offender obviously needed intense intervention at a young age, his mother and the state failed to ensure that he had access to support. 

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: there were multiple victims; the victims were vulnerable and suffered severe harm by the offender’s conduct; the offender exercised a significant degree of control over the victims, retained all the profits, demanded sexual favours from both victims, has a criminal record, had just been released from custody when he committed these offences, and obstructed justice through his continued communication with V.C. after his arrest.

R v Gray, 2018 NSPC 10

30 months

Gray received a global sentence of 30 months imprisonment: 24 months for receiving a benefit from sexual services (s 286.2(1)); 24 months concurrent for receiving a benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02(1)); 6 months consecutive for uttering threats (s 264.1(1)(a)); and 4 months concurrent for advertising sexual services (s 286.4).

Ancillary orders: Mandatory victim fine surcharge for $800; mandatory weapons prohibition order for 10 years (s 109); SOIRA order for 20 years; DNA Order.

Summary: The 20-year-old victim knew the offender as a friend of her boyfriend. She was addicted to drugs, had previously engaged in the sex trade and experienced victimization by “pimps”. She and her boyfriend moved in with the offender. Once living with the offender, he advertised her sexual services online, set up the appointments, having her attend as many as 20 calls per day, and took all her earnings. During this time, the victim contracted HIV. The victim moved out of the residence when her boyfriend was incarcerated but soon moved back in after she was kicked out of her mother’s house. The offender told her she would not have to do calls but he started posting ads again for her sexual services. She went on the calls and gave all her money to the offender. The victim had to resort to stealing food to feed herself. The offender used threats of violence and in her presence discussed with others how they would kill and dispose of her body. The victim believed that she would end up dead if she came forward to the police.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender was relatively youthful, pled guilty, has a limited criminal record that was generally unrelated, experienced challenges in his life, including substance abuse, learning challenges, and exposure to violence as a child, had family support and had previous employment with the ability to return after he was released from custody.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the victim was vulnerable due to her addiction and background; explicit and implicit threats were used; the offender took all of the victim’s earnings and became angry when she withheld any, which contributed to his control over her; the time period was 6 months, which is relatively long; and he had a previous record that included offences as an adult and a youth.

R c Murenzi, 2018 QCCQ 7950

5 years

Murenzi received a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment: 5 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)(b)); 3 years concurrent for assault causing bodily harm (s 267(b)); and 4 years concurrent for procuring (s 212(1)(h)).

Ancillary orders: Non-communication order (s 743.21); mandatory weapons prohibition order for firearms for 10 years (s 109); DNA order (s 487.051).

Summary: The victim was 20 years old when she met the 27 year old offender through a mutual friend. She fell in love and moved in with him. After a month, the offender became violent toward the victim and a relationship of dependence and submission started. The offender required the victim to dance at bars, claiming they had no money, and required her to provide him with all the money she earned each night. Exhausted from working everyday, the victim started using cocaine. The offender controlled of the victim’s identity documents, such as her health card and passport. The offender controlled the victim through violence, emotional manipulation, and isolation as he took her cell phone and cut her off from contacting her parents.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted that there were no mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender’s criminal record; the offender had significant control over the victim that led to emotional and financial dependence that took place in a climate of fear, manipulation, isolation, submission, and violence, confiscated a significant amount of money, exploited the victim for four years, engaged in some planning and sophistication; the degree of violence used; the victim was 20 and the offender’s spouse; the working conditions; and the significant psychological and physical impact of the offender’s conduct on the victim.

R v Lopez, 2018 ONSC 4749

5 years

Lopez received a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment: trafficking in persons; receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons; advertising sexual services; assaulting the victim with a weapon; uttering threats; wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice in a judicial proceeding; assault; breach of a recognizance by communicating with the victim; and, being within 100 meters of any place the victim was known to live, work or attend school. The convictions for procuring and receiving a material benefit from sexual services were stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary Orders: DNA order (s 487.051); mandatory weapons prohibition (ss 109(1)(a), 109(1)(a.1)(i), and 109(3)); non-communication order (s 743.21); victim surcharge in the total amount of $2,000 (s 737(2)(b)(ii)).

Summary: The victim, 19 years old, met the offender, 21 years old, and they began a casual intimate relationship. The victim proposed an arrangement that they engage in the sex trade. She would provide sexual services in exchange for money and the offender would take care of her by posting online advertisements, booking hotels, driving her to the “out calls,” and providing her with security while she worked. The offender proposed a 60/40 financial split of the profits with the offender taking 60% and the victim taking 40%, and the victim accepted. The offender soon started keeping all of the money, providing her with some funds for “bare necessities,” like personal hygiene products. He exercised significant control through verbal and physical violence, and determined where, when and what sexual services the victim would provide. 

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender was remorseful, started to turn his life in a more positive direction since his arrest and detention, and had been working towards a successful reintegration into society by continuing his education with a view to obtaining employment in the automotive industry.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender’s criminal offences were serious, numerous, and committed over an extended period of time; the offender had a criminal record, continued to commit the crimes after being arrested for “assault with a weapon” against the victim, wilfully attempted to obstruct justice to prevent his conviction, threatened to kill the victim when the victim threatened to report him to the police for violating the conditions of his recognizance, demanded an exit fee from the victim, exploited, physically abused, and coerced the victim into giving him all her earnings; the victim was emotionally vulnerable; the significant impact of the offender’s conduct on the victim; the working conditions; the offender insisted the victim provide unprotected sexual services which led to her contracting sexually transmitted infections; and the offender’s operation was not unsophisticated.

R v AE, 2018 ONSC 471

10 years

AE received a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment: 7 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)(b)); 4 months for assault (s 266(a)); 1 year for criminal harassment (s 264(3)(a)); 2 years for possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (CDSA, s 5(3)(a)); 6 months for possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking (CDSA, s 5(3)(a.1)); 1 month for careless storage of firearm (s 86(3), conviction); 4 years for knowingly possessing a loaded, prohibited firearm (s 95(2)(a)); 4 months for knowingly possessing a firearm with an altered serial number (s 108(2)(a)); 5 years for human trafficking (s 279.01(1)(b)); 1 month for assault (s 266(a)); and 1 month for breach of non-communication order (s 145(3)(a)). Charges for possession of a prohibited weapon without a license and knowingly possessing a prohibited firearm without a license were stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary orders: SOIRA order for life; DNA order; weapons prohibition for life (s 109); non-communication order.

Summary: The two victims, KJ and AB, approached the offender to provide assistance in establishing themselves in the sex trade. KJ, 18 or 19 years old, had previously engaged in the sex trade, found herself in a “tough spot” and turned to the offender for assistance. AB, 19 years old, had been living on her own since the age of 16 and longed for a better life. Both victims thought they were building an empire with the offender but, in reality, he was exploiting them. The offender exercised significant control over the victims, including intimidation and violence, directed the locations where the victims would work, provided a list of rules for the victims to follow with clients, dictated working hours, drove them to and from work, kept tabs on them, and retained their earnings, resulting in their dependence upon him.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender continued to have significant support in the community and had a difficult childhood; the use or threat of violence was at the lower end and there was no sexual violence: and, the offender did not procure or coerce the victims into the sex trade as they both sought out his assistance.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the victims were young, financially vulnerable, and not well-educated; KJ was exploited for three to four years and AB was exploited for roughly three months; the various methods of control, including violence; the offender exercised significant control, threatened KJ with pursuit and violence if she attempted to leave and followed through with those threats when she did leave; the combination of guns, drugs, and human trafficking made for a toxic mix; and, the offender had a youth record.

Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions of Québec c Valcourt, 2017 QCCQ 6798

7 years

Valcourt received a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment: 6 years for trafficking in persons for Victim 1 (s 279.01(1)(b)); 42 months concurrent for procuring, in relation to Victim 1 (s 286.3(1)); 6 years concurrent for trafficking in persons for Victim 2 (s. 279.01(1)(b); 42 months concurrent for procuring, in relation to Victim 2 (s 286.3(1)); 1 year concurrent for forcibly sequestering, imprisoning or forcibly seizing Victim 2 (s 279(2)(a)); 6 months concurrent for assaulting Victim 2 (s 266(a)); 42 months concurrent for receiving material benefit obtained from the consideration of sexual services (s 286.2(1)); 6 months concurrent for possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose (s 88(2)); 6 months concurrent for a possession of money obtained by a crime (s 354); 2 months consecutive for failure to comply with non-communication order (s 145(3)); 2 consecutive months for a failure to comply with a probation order (s 733.1); 2 consecutive months for a failure to comply with an order (s 145(3)(a)); 2 months consecutive for failure to comply with non-communication order (s 145(3)); 2 months consecutive for failure to comply with non-communication order (s 145(3)); and 2 months consecutive for failure to comply with non-communication order (s 145(3)).

Ancillary Orders: DNA order (s 487.051); weapon and restricted weapon prohibition order for life (s 109(1)(a)); SOIRA order for life (s 490.012); non-communication order (s. 743.21).

Summary: KC met the offender on social media and used flattery to gain her trust. The offender took KC to his apartment where he lived with JB, who was engaged in the sex trade. The offender and KC went to Mexico and his attitude towards her abruptly changed. The offender became verbally, physically and sexually violent toward KC, and suggested she engage in the sex trade like JB. KC provided sexual services for consideration from a motel room. The offender controlled her engagement in the sex trade by posting ads, taking pictures, and arranging meetings with clients. He confiscated both victims’ earnings and used manipulation, threats, and violence to prevent the victims from leaving. KC was between twenty-three and twenty-four years old when staying with the offender and JB was between twenty-four and twenty-six years old.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factor: the offender’s cooperation in preparing the pre-sentence report.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender received benefits from the exploitation of others and was motivated by greed; the duration of exploitation; the degree of control and violence towards the victims; the fact that there were two victims; their age, their degree of vulnerabilities and the impact of the offending on them; the offender’s long criminal record; and, his continued communication with the victims while in custody.

R v AS, 2017 ONSC 802

13 years

AS received a global sentence of 13 years: 12 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); 5 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02); 6 years concurrent for aggravated assault; 2 years and 6 months concurrent for sexual assault; 1 year for each of three simple assaults; 8 years concurrent for procuring; 8 years concurrent for the exercise of control over the victim for the purposes of working in the sex trade (conviction); and 1 year consecutive for the offence of choking (conviction). A conviction for assault with a weapon was stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Ancillary orders: DNA order; mandatory weapons prohibition order for life (s 109); 20‑year SOIRA order.

Summary: The victim received the offender’s phone number from her cellmate while she was serving an adult sentence. When in Toronto, the offender picked her up and spent the next few days grooming her, making her dependent on him, and persuading her to give him all her money. The offender got her to start working in strip clubs as a dancer and to start providing sexual services for money. If the victim did not earn enough money, the offender would beat and berate her. The offender used significant physical and sexual violence and threats of violence, as well as psychological control. This relationship continued for two years and ended in 2010. During this time, the victim met another man and they had a baby. However, the father was murdered and thereafter, because of her “alcohol abuse issues”, her baby was taken into care by the Children’s Aid Society. The offender reconnected with the victim while on bail and said he would help the victim get her child back if she would work as an “escort” for him and gave him all her earnings. The offender continued using violence against the victim. The relationship ended when the offender assaulted the victim, half-severing her foot, and then drove off. He disappeared until he was arrested two years later.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted no mitigating factors and found that the pre-sentence report indicated no remorse by the offender.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender’s significant control exerted over the victim; his high degree of physical, psychological and sexual violence; his psychological manipulation/inducement; his confiscating all of the victim’s money; his imposing an earnings target; the victim’s youth and vulnerability (she is Indigenous and was isolated with no family and friends in the area); the dangerous locations; the significant number of clients she was required to service; the duration of the exploitation; the significant impact on victim; and the offender’s “atrocious” criminal record.

R v NA, 2017 ONCJ 665

18 months

NA received a global sentence of 18 months imprisonment: 18 months for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); 18 months concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02); and 90 days concurrent for assault (s 266).

Ancillary orders: DNA order; mandatory weapons prohibition order (s 109); probation.

Summary: The victim met the offender when purchasing cocaine from him and they became friendly. He suggested she work at a strip club as a dancer and that he would assist her with earning money. She started dancing, and, over time, the offender began exercising control, direction, and influence over the victim’s movements. He did not force her to work at the strip club, but strongly encouraged her to do so and played a direct role in her working at various strip clubs. The offender had influence over the victim's movements to and from the strip clubs, ensuring that she went to work and gave him her earnings after working. Further, he used violence and threats of violence.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender was a young person and did not have a criminal record.

Aggravating factors: The Court found the following aggravating factors: the offender took advantage of the victim who he knew was vulnerable because of her drug addiction and the effect of the offence on the victim.

R v Deiaco, 2017 ONSC 3174

8 years

Deiaco received a global sentence of 8 years months imprisonment: 7 years for kidnapping (s 279(1)(a)); 5 years concurrent for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)); 3 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02(1)); 3 years concurrent for assault causing bodily harm (s 267(b)); and 1 year consecutive for use of an imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence (s 85(2)(a)).

Ancillary orders: Mandatory weapons prohibition order for life (s 109); DNA order; SOIRA order for life.

Summary: The victim was living in a shelter after being asked to leave a drug rehabilitation facility. She was unfamiliar with Toronto and had few friends but no family there. She got lost one day and asked the offender, whom she did not know, for help getting back to the shelter. He agreed to drive her back and while in the car they discussed her current circumstances. She told him she would work for him if he could get her money and opiates. The victim thought that the offender would keep her high, that she would be making money, that he would get her a hotel, and that they would live together. The offender directed a colleague to take pictures of the victim and to post them as ads on backpages.com. The offender required the victim to have sexual relations with him before she could start working. The offender dictated how much to charge clients and had her give him all her earnings. The victim saw 3 to 5 clients a day for the next 5 days. When there was an out-call, the offender would drive her to and from it. The victim felt trapped and isolated with nowhere to go, no money, and no freewill.

The victim escaped and soon posted her own ad on backpages.com. The offender and someone else showed up to an appointment booked under a false name to force the victim to return to him using violence. The victim’s boyfriend, who was also present, managed to call 911 and the police tracked the victim’s phone to the hotel where the offender had taken the victim.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender had some supportive family, had a difficult upbringing with an abusive father, was sexually abused as a child, and pled guilty; the victim was not required to testify at trial; the offender apologized to the victim and to the Court for his conduct; and, while incarcerated, the offender was in a facility where lockdowns occurred due to staff shortages, and he was triple bunked for 59 days.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the victim was vulnerable as she was drug dependent with few friends and no family; the offences had significant impact on the victim; the offender exercised a considerable degree of control, assisted with the advertising of the victim’s services, isolated and lied to her by failing to provide her with the drugs he promised; the victim was emotionally and financially dependent on the offender since he took all her earnings; the victim was exploited for six days; the offender induced the victim with the promise of drugs, a place to stay, steady business, and companionship, demanded sex from the victim; was violent when the victim tried to escape, had a significant criminal record, including offences of violence, was found guilty of 27 instances of misconduct while incarcerated, resulting in a sentence of 180 days in segregation; there was nothing to indicate that he would not be a danger to society; the offender demonstrated no insight into his behavior or the impact it had on his victims; and, the victim had to testify at the preliminary hearing.

R v KOM, 2017 ONCA 106

6 years and 6 months

* Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the offender’s sentence appeal.

KOM received a global sentence of 6 years and 6 months imprisonment: 23 offences, including trafficking in persons, unlawful confinement, uttering threats, robbery, assault, sexual assault, procuring and making and possessing child pornography.

Summary: The offender, who was 15 years old at the time of the offence, was a ringleader for an “organized and vicious human trafficking enterprise”. She forced several teenage girls into the sex trade through the use of threats, violence, confinement, and/or blackmail with sexually explicit pictures of the girls. Three victims, aged 13, 16, and 17 years old, alleged that, on separate occasions, they were lured to the offender’s house through promises of a sleepover or party. When they arrived, they were forced to put on provocative clothing and the offender took photos to advertise their sexual services to clients. The offender would solicit and arrange meetings for men to have sex with the girls for money and three of the victims testified they performed oral sex on men during these meetings.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender’s age and intelligence; she was a first-time offender, completed many of her high school credits and accessed services in detention, had a very difficult background, and expressed remorse.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offence included the exploitation of multiple vulnerable victims who were significantly impacted and some had suicidal thoughts; the offender’s actions were predatory, well-organized and premeditated; there was troubling violence; she abused drugs and alcohol and forced the victims to do the same; her activities were for her own profit; her conduct in custody was not exemplary; and, her risk of re-offending was high.

R v Maxwell, [2017] OJ No 1719

10 years

Maxwell received a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment: 10 years for trafficking in person (s 279.01); and 5 years concurrent on each remaining count except where the maximum is lesser than that—in all those cases it will be the maximum sentence available.

Ancillary orders: Non-communication order (s 743.21); DNA order; weapons prohibition for life; victim fine surcharge of two hundred dollars, concurrent on all 25 counts, with one year to pay it.

Summary: Oral decision; little information on the facts available.

Mitigating factors: The Court did not discuss mitigating factors, but the offender pled guilty.

Aggravating factors: The Court did not discuss the aggravating factors, but victim impact statements were mentioned.

R v Estrella, [2011] OJ No 6616

30 months

Estrella received a global sentence of 30 months imprisonment: 30 months for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); 30 months concurrent for procuring (s 212(1)(d)); and 60 days concurrent for assault. Another procuring charge was stayed pursuant to Kienapple.

Summary: The victim was a 16-year-old high school student when the offender and her colleague procured her into the sex trade. The colleague was an older man who was the primary “pimp” in the organization. The offender was more of a lead hand then a co‑venturer, but her role was still serious. There was no information to suggest that the offender was manipulated, exploited, or coerced into playing the role that she did. The victim had no experience working in the sex trade and there was no evidence to suggest she wanted to do this work. In the beginning, the victim started to resist and eventually went into hiding to try to avoid the offender so that she did not have to be a victim of trafficking anymore.

Mitigating Factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender was young, had no criminal record, and the operation was at its very beginning.

Aggravating Factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender’s very active role in recruiting, training, coaching, and motivating the victim; arranging for liaisons with clients at a hotel; taking the victim to a strip club to demonstrate how to engage in the sex trade; taking pictures of the victim and putting them up on the internet; the very direct forms of coercion used to persuade the victim to continue down this path; and the age and vulnerability of the victim.

R v DA, 2017 ONSC 3722

3 years and 6 months

DA received a global sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment: 3 years and 6 months for trafficking in persons; 2 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from sexual services; 2 years concurrent for procuring.

Ancillary orders: DNA order; a SOIRA order for 20 years; discretionary prohibition order (s 110); victim fine surcharge.

Summary: The victim and offender developed a relationship in 2014. The victim proposed that the offender be her protector while she engaged in the sex trade and he would receive 50% of the money. This was an arrangement the victim had previously entered with other men. Two days after this arrangement, the offender brought a second male and both men kept all the victim's earnings. Both men assaulted the victim.

Mitigating Factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender had no criminal record, had the support of his family, did not recruit the victim into the sex trade, was a relatively unsophisticated person who was introduced to the sex trade by the victim, did not compel or coerce the victim to engage in “illegal sexual activity”, and was on a restrictive recognizance since the incident and had not reoffended since his release.

Aggravating Factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the victim was subjected to physical violence; the offender took all of the victim's money, while only providing her five dollars a day for food; the offender took the victim's identification to maintain control over her; and, the sexual exploitation lasted approximately ninety days.

R v Finestone, 2017 ONCJ 22

4 years

Finestone received a global sentence of 4 years: 4 years for trafficking in persons under the age of eighteen years (s 279.011(1)).

Ancillary orders: DNA order; mandatory weapons prohibition order for 10 years (s 109); and, SOIRA order for 20 years.

Summary: The victim, a vulnerable 14-year-old girl, was forced to engage in the sex trade by the offender and Ms. Robitaille, who was the offender’s girlfriend and had engaged in sex trade for the offender. They met through a mutual acquaintance and the offender provided the victim with a place to stay other than at a group home. The offender posted an advertisement for the victim’s services stating that she was 19 years old and forced her to engage in the sex trade day and night, servicing approximately 20‑30 clients with oral and vaginal sex. The offender and Ms. Robitaille retained all of the proceeds. When the victim expressed her desire to leave, she was confined to the hotel room with an individual placed outside of the door, her cellphone was confiscated and she was not allowed to contact anyone. The offender then unplugged the hotel room telephone and asked the hotel to block all calls to the victim’s room.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender was youthful, remorseful, was taking responsibility for his conduct, did not have criminal record, pled guilty, was actively engaging in counselling and residential treatment in order to address his criminality, had some difficulties as a child, which were linked to his mental health issues and his alopecia, had strong family support, had very good rehabilitative prospects, and had Asperger’s Syndrome.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the age and vulnerability of the victim; the offender’s involvement with a second under-aged victim; the harm suffered by the victim; the offender exerted complete control over the work environment; the number of clients that the victim was forced to service; the offender worked with others, was able to direct others to do certain acts in furtherance of exploiting the victim; and, the increase in control and coercion during the last few hours of the offence.

R v S, 2016 ONSC 2939

5 years

S received a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment: 5 years for trafficking in persons (s 279.01(1)(b)); 3 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02(1)); 6 months concurrent for withholding travel or identity documents (s 279.03); 1 year concurrent for assault (s 266); 6 months concurrent for uttering threats (s 264.1)); and 6 months concurrent for breach of an undertaking (s 145(5.1)).

*A sentence appeal was allowed in R v RS, 2017 ONCA 141. The appellant was credited with 1033 days of pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders: A lifetime weapons prohibition order (s 109); non-communication order; DNA order (s 487.051).

Summary: The victim was an exotic dancer and “escort” who worked in the Ottawa area. She met the offender when she was 19 years old and they entered into a romantic relationship. The exploitation lasted four months with the victim “escorting” under the offender's direction. After a few weeks of allowing the victim keep some of her earnings, the offender took all of her earnings. While the victim had a say in which cities she would perform, the offender determined what sexual services she would provide. The offender would post online advertisements, clients would call the cell number provided, and arrangements would be made for an appointment. The offender controlled the victim through physical violence, threats of physical violence, emotional manipulation, and financial dependency, which made it difficult for the victim to leave, He also kept her cell phone. The victim’s estranged relationship with family, young age, lack of financial resources, and pregnancy made her vulnerable.

Mitigating factors: The Court had trouble identifying any factor that mitigated the concern that, once released, the offender would continue to be a danger to women and operate in an environment outside of the law. 

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender’s lengthy criminal record, which includes many offences relating to assaults and other offences against women; no previous form of sentence deterred the offender from criminal behaviour or got him to assume responsibility for his actions; the offender posed a serious threat to women for whom he seemed to lack any respect, took advantage of a young 19-year-old woman that he realized was vulnerable, was significantly older than the victim, refused to speak with police or turn himself in for a period of 10 months despite knowing that the police were looking for him, seemed incapable of taking any direction or supervision from his family or any authority figure, and showed a total unwillingness to engage in any form of programming that could be of assistance to him in avoiding criminal behaviour—be it counselling or job training.

R v Moazami, 2015 BCSC 2055

23 years

Moazami received a global sentence of 23 year imprisonment: 1 year concurrent for procuring; 2 years concurrent for “living on the avails of prostitution” (now-repealed s 212(1)(j)); 6 months concurrent for trafficking in person (s 279.01(1)(b)); 2 years concurrent for sexual assault. The other counts dealt with 10 other complainants and did not relate to human trafficking. The aggregate sentence was 48 ½ years, which was reduced to 23 years due to the totality principle.

Ancillary orders: DNA order (ss 487.051 and 487.04); mandatory SOIRA order for life (ss 490.012(1) and 490.013(2.1)); mandatory weapons prohibition for life (s 109(1)); a non-communication order (s 743.21); and an order for forfeiture of all items seized by the police (s 490.1).

Summary: The victim, 19 years old, was introduced to the offender through her friend. At the time, the victim was forced to leave a residential treatment facility for drug addictions and had no place to live. The offender knew that the victim’s life at home was unstable, that she was unhoused, had a drug addiction and no way to support herself. During a party and after the offender supplied the victim with alcohol, cocaine, and several doses of GHB, the offender persuaded the victim to work in the sex trade by glamorizing it and promising her money and his protection. The offender transported the victim to Calgary and Edmonton to facilitate her engagement in the in the sex trade. He exercised significant control, including through sexual violence, isolating the victim, providing drugs to facilitate the victim’s dependency and violently assaulting and threatening to kill the dog he purchased for the victim. The offender determined what the victim could eat, where she went and with whom she could associate. The offender oscillated from mean and angry to a “nice guy”. While in Calgary, the offender forced the victim to remain in a hotel room for four hours, servicing clients every half hour, to make up for the money she lost the night before.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted that there were few mitigating circumstances regarding the counts related to this victim.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted that offender’s moral culpability was high due to his egregious treatment of the victim.

R v Williams, 2014 ONCJ 425

5 years

Williams received a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment for human trafficking (s 279.01).

Ancillary orders: SOIRA order for 20 years; mandatory weapons prohibition order for life (s 109); DNA order.

Summary: The offender was 23 years old with a criminal record, including convictions for robbery. He confined and exploited a 15-year old for his financial benefit. The offender preyed upon the victim while she was living in a foster home. He confined and compelled her to engage in the sex trade. Both counsel jointly submitted that a 5-year sentence would be appropriate. 

Mitigating factors: Not discussed.

Aggravating factors: Not discussed.

R v Byron, 2014 ONSC 990

6 years

Byron received a global sentence of 6 years incarceration: living on the avails of prostitution (now repealed s 212(2.1)); trafficking in persons under the age of eighteen years (s 279.011(1)); receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons (s 279.02); assault (s 266); breaches of a recognizance (s 811 and s 145(3)). Charges under now repealed prostitution offences were stayed.

Ancillary orders: SOIRA order for 20 years (s 490.012(1) and s. 490.013(2)(b)); mandatory weapons prohibition order for 10 years (s 109(1)(a)); mandatory DNA order (s 487.051(2)); non-communication order (s 743.21).

Summary: The victim was a 17 year old living as a ward of the Children's Aid Society. She had a learning disability and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and potential Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. The offender lured her from Windsor to Montreal on the premise that he desired a romantic relationship with her. In Montreal, the offender informed the victim that she belonged to him and would be working for him. The offender threatened and physically assaulted her when she tried to resist. For two months, the victim was forced to provide sexual services for money to over 100 men. The offender kept all the money, giving a small amount to the victim for food and clothes. If she refused to perform any sexual services or give the offender her money, the offender used force against her. The offender moved the victim around different cities including Montreal, Toronto, Barrie, and Ottawa.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender had a modest criminal record, having been convicted of possession of marijuana and failing to comply with an undertaking, had the support of family and a former girlfriend, and was only 21 years old at the time of the offences.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted numerous aggravating factors, including the following: the offender knew the victim was 17 years old, deliberately destroyed her identification, ignored conditions under a recognizance of bail, forced the victim to have sex with over 100 men while moving the her across different cities and keeping the money she earned, required her to engage in increasingly risky sexual acts, posted semi-nude photos of the victim online as advertisements to sell her sexual services, which remain on the internet where they continually serve to victimize the victim; the victim was controlled through the use of force to continue providing sexual services and comply with the offender; the offender lied more than 25 times about his activities when interviewed by the police; and, after claiming that he had accepted responsibility for his conduct, the offender then accused the victim and the police of pursuing him on these charges as a form of revenge.

R v McFarlane, [2012] OJ No 6566

8 years and 9 months

McFarlane received a global sentence of 8 years and 9 months: 8 years concurrent for two counts of kidnapping using a firearm and one count of trafficking in persons; and, 9 months consecutive for dangerous driving, with a 24-month driving prohibition.

Ancillary orders: DNA order; mandatory prohibition order for possession of any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, explosive substance for 10 years, and weapons prohibition order for life (s 109); and, SOIRA order for life.

Summary: AC met the offender at a strip club where she was dancing and eventually started dating the offender. As the offender increasingly spent time at AC’s residence, he duplicated a set of AC’s keys without her knowledge and refused to return the new keys. He also started to date VV, another dancer at a strip club. When the offender confined both victims in a vehicle, he put his gun to AC’s neck, pulled the trigger several times and told her that she must work for him by engaging in the sex trade or he would shoot her. AC agreed to work for his so that she would not be hurt. The offender controlled the two women through violence and threats of violence, including at gunpoint.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the guilty plea; the offender’s remorsefulness and desire to turn his life around; the medical evidence concerning the offender’s mental health and the influence that it had on the offence; and, the offender’s recognition that he needs assistance and that he must be on medication.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the duration of the confinement; the victims were vulnerable individuals; the impact on the victims; the dangerous driving to avoid police in a residential neighbourhood; the offender’s criminal record; his removing AC from her home; his use of a firearm; and, the physical violence and threats to use the gun and pulling the trigger with the gun to AC's neck.

R v Domotor, Domotor, and Kolompar, [2012] OJ No 3630

7 years (Domotor Sr.); 5 years (Domotor Jr.); Time served (Kolompar)

Domotor Sr. received a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment: 108 months for human trafficking (s 279.01); an unspecified concurrent sentence for participating in a criminal organization (s 467.11); and 6 months concurrent for counselling misrepresentations that induced error in the administration of the IRPA.

Domotor Jr. received a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment: 60 months for human trafficking; an unspecified concurrent sentence for participating in a criminal organization; and 3 months concurrent for misrepresentation.

Kolompar received a sentence of time served for misrepresentation.

Ancillary orders for Domotor Sr.: firearms prohibition for 10 years (s 109); and, DNA order (s 487.051).

Ancillary orders for Domotar Jr.: firearms prohibitions for 10 years and DNA order.

Summary: The offenders were major players in a large family organization that carried out criminal activities in Hungary and Canada, including human trafficking, welfare frauds, thefts from mail, and fraudulent dealings with stolen cheques. The organization began trafficking victims from Hungary into Canada after visa requirements were lifted for Hungarian visitors. In total, 19 victims were brought into Canada by the organization. Once in Canada, the victims were required to live in the offenders’ basements and work for the offenders for little or no pay. The victims spoke no English, were taken to make false refugee claims and their social services benefits were taken by the offenders. The victims were taken to open bank accounts that only the offenders could access. The victims’ families in Hungary were threatened and intimidated to withdraw complaints when charges were laid in Canada.

Mitigating factors for Domotor Sr.: The Court found the following mitigating factors: the guilty plea; and, the offender waived a preliminary hearing.

Mitigating factors for Domotar Jr.: The Court found the following mitigating factors: the guilty plea; the offender was in his late teens when the offences were committed, played a lesser role in the operation, was groomed by his father, and had no criminal record.

Mitigating factor for Kolompar: The Court found the following mitigating factor: the guilty plea.

Aggravating factors for Domotor Sr.: The Court found the following aggravating factors: the offender had a minor criminal record and groomed his son to follow in his footsteps; the offences were part of a premeditated criminal scheme, which lasted over a long period of time; the offences continued to be perpetrated even after the offender was arrested; the welfare fraud offences were a breach of society’s trust; and, other members of the criminal organization threatened victims and their families in Hungary.

Aggravating factors for Domotor Jr.: Similar to those that applied to Domotor Sr.

Aggravating factors for Kolompar: Similar to those that applied to Domotor Sr.

R v Nakpangi, [2008] OJ No 6022

60 months

Nakpangi received a global sentence of 60 months: 36 months for trafficking in persons (s 279.01); 24 months consecutive for living on the avails of prostitution of someone under eighteen (s 212(2)); 6 months concurrent for the possession of a counterfeit mark (s 376(2)(b)).

Ancillary orders: None mentioned.

Summary: The 25 year-old offender became a “pimp” for the first victim when she was 15 years old. She worked in the sex trade almost daily and turned over a total of $360,000 over three years until she contacted police. Over the course of the relationship, the offender threatened the victim and her family, assaulted her, and imposed an exit fee of $100,000. The second victim was 14 years old and met the offender when she was a ward of child welfare. The offender acted as a “pimp” for her and she gave approximately $65,000 in earnings to him.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factor: the guilty plea.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: the offender lived an extremely lavish lifestyle on money taken from his victims, exercised control over the first victim for a long period of time using assaults, threats against her and her family, and the imposition of exit fees and showed little remorse or chance of rehabilitation; and, the victims were both young.

R v St Vil, [2008] OJ No 6023

37 months

St Vil received a global sentence of 37 months imprisonment: trafficking in persons (s 279.01) and living on the avails of prostitution (s 212(1)(j)).

Ancillary orders: 18 month prohibition on entering adult entertainment venues and a DNA order (s 487.051).

Summary: The offender began a relationship with the victim. They moved together from Montreal to Mississauga where the victim began dancing in strip clubs. They discussed the greater earning potential of offering extra services to clients and she began working in the sex trade. The relationship was violent, the offender maintained control over the victim’s vehicle during the time she was prostituting herself, and he took around $20,000 of her earnings.

Mitigating factors: The Court noted the following mitigating factors: the offender entered a guilty plea and demonstrated a strong potential for rehabilitation.

Aggravating factors: The Court noted the following aggravating factors: there was domestic violence in the relationship; and the offence was serious and must have had a serious impact on the victim (no victim impact statement was adduced).