2022 QCCQ 12837, 2022 QCCQ 12837

R. c. Rose 2022 QCCQ 12837 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL “Criminal and Penal Division” No.: 500-01-174340-189 DATE : June 14, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE QUEEN Prosecutrix v.

ROSE, André Bryan Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER RESTRICTING PUBLICATION It is prohibited to publish in any document or broadcast or transmit in any way any information that could identify the complainant in these proceedings (s. 486.4(1) Cr. C. ) [ 1 ] The accused stands charged with, inter alia , procuring and trafficking: 1. In Montreal and in Toronto, between March 1, 2013, and December 4, 2014, did procure or attempt to procure a person to become a prostitute (s. 212(1)(

d) Cr. C. , as it read at the time). 2. In the same places and on the same dates, did, for the purposes of gain, exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of I.B. in such manner as to show that he was aiding, abetting or compelling her to engage in or carry on prostitution (s. 212(1)(

h) Cr. C. , as it read at the time). 3. In the same places and on the same dates, did live wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of I.B. (s.212 (1)(

j) Cr. C. , as it read at the time). 4. In Montreal and in Toronto, between December 5, 2014, and February 28, 2018, did procure a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1) recruit, hold, conceal or harbour a person who offered or provided sexual services for consideration, or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of that person s. 286.3(1) Cr. C. 5.

In the same places and on the same dates, did receive a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under s. 286.1(1) (s. 286.2(1) Cr. C. ). 6. In the same places and on the same dates, did recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold, conceal or harbour I.B., or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of I.B., for the purpose of exploiting her or facilitating her exploitation (s. 279.01(1)(

b) Cr. C. ). 7. In the same places, between March 1, 2013, and February 28, 2018, did knowingly utter threats to cause death or bodily harm against I.B. (ss. 264.1(1)(

a) and (2)(

a) Cr. C. ).

8. In the same places and on the same dates, did assault I.B. (s. 266(

a) Cr. C. ). [ 2 ] The accused was tried before the undersigned. As it appears from a reading of the charges against him, the facts underlying the charges took place in Montreal and Toronto over the course of several years. The prosecution’s main witness is I.B. The accused testified in his own defence. The Crown’s evidence I.B.’s testimony Montreal, August 2010 [ 3 ] In August 2010, the complainant I.B. met the accused for the first time at bar XO. She was 19 years old and struggled in English. The accused is an Anglophone.

The complainant told the Court that it was love at first sight when she saw the accused. [ 4 ] They left the bar in a taxi and ended up at the accused’s apartment, where they had non-consensual sexual relations. I.B. was very intoxicated. She returned to the accused’s apartment one month after this first meeting. [ 5 ] Several months later, I.B. bumped into the accused at the same bar. He asked her to have sexual relations at his apartment or in the bar’s bathroom. [ 6 ] After that meeting, I.B. decided to file a complaint with the police about what happened the night they first met.

She stated that she did not want to press charges, but simply to be protected from the accused. No charges were laid against the accused further to this incident. Montreal: spring / June 2012 [ 7 ] I.B. finished a two-month program at [College A] in Toronto. She obtained her certificate on June 27, 2012. [ 8 ] One day, she saw the accused in the hallway at the college. After that, on another occasion, the accused spoke to her. They sat outside, and on that occasion, I.B., who wanted to make peace, told him that she forgave him for what he did to her in Montreal. The accused appeared surprised.

It was their first contact since 2010. [ 9 ] When she finished her program, the complainant left her email address for the accused at the reception desk. She says that she did not want to see him again, but she was confused and still had feelings for him. 2012–2013: the beginning of the relationship Montreal / summer 2012 [ 10 ] Back in Montreal, the complainant and the accused communicated by email, Facebook, and Skype. The accused initiated the first contact.

At the time, I.B. was living with her mother. [ 11 ] According to the complainant, the accused seduced her, asked her to come and visit him in Toronto, and made her promises. She believed he had changed, and she wanted to start a romantic relationship with him. She told him so. Montreal and Toronto / fall 2012 [ 12 ] After a few weeks of long-distance communication, I.B. went to visit the accused in Toronto. She would do so several times. She took various means of transportation, such as the bus and the train, and once even a plane.

February 2013 [ 13 ] I.B. moved to Toronto, rented an apartment [on Street A], and looked for a job. Since she had no income, she received social assistance from the Ontario Government (the first payment was on February 27, 2013). She stayed in Toronto for a few months and then returned to Montreal for medical treatment. [ 14 ] She stated that, at that time, she and the accused were friends. They saw each other in Toronto a few times. [ 15 ] The accused asked her for money to pay his cell phone bill, allegedly because his mother had cancer. I.B., who had feelings for him, gave him the money.

Therefore, during her stay in Toronto, she transferred money to the accused (March 18, 2013). Spring 2013

[ 16 ] The complainant returned to live with her mother in Montreal and maintained contact with the accused. [ 17 ] During a conversation on Skype, the accused discussed sex and money with her. He first mentioned various topics related to sexual services (massage parlours, fellatio, how to advertise sexual services on Backpage ). I.B. sent him photos of herself (which were never used to advertise sexual services).

He talked to her about the sexual services that can be provided in spas and massage parlours (the type of service, the sharing of revenues 50/50 etc.). [ 18 ] The accused also told her about the “Program”, an expression that meant that I.B. provided sexual services at the accused’s request. He explained to her how the “game” worked.

He told her, among other things, that they could be rich, that she should quit school to come and live in Toronto where she could dance in clubs and do blow jobs, that they could use the website Backpage to post photos of the complainant and of the services she could offer in hotels, and that she could also offer sexual services to his colleagues in Toronto (two projects that would never come to fruition). [ 19 ] I.B. did not react when the accused suggested she offer sexual services.

At first, she refused to work in spas and massage parlours, but in the end, she agreed to do it because she cared about him, she loved him, and she could not say no to him. [ 20 ] She visited him in Toronto several times because she loved him. During this time, they had sexual relations. She wanted to be his girlfriend, but she knew that was not possible. Montreal 2013-2014: I.B. works in spas [ 21 ] She returned to live with her mother. She occasionally worked in a Chinese spa that she found on the internet, where she performed erotic massages and masturbated clients for $60 plus tips.

She described her state of mind at the time and explained that she really wanted to please the accused and to change her way of being so that they could be together, believing that she would be happy. [ 22 ] She told the accused that she had worked in a spa and had not enjoyed it. After this first experience, the accused insisted that the complainant quit school to earn money by performing sexual favours and make more money for him. Spa A [ 23 ] She returned to work in spas out of love. She told the Court that she loved the accused and that she was choosing to put her life on hold for him.

She told herself that he was right and that she would work in the spas and make a lot of money. [ 24 ] Consequently, she went to work at Spa A for a few months. She performed certain sexual services such as masturbation of clients, happy endings and erotic massages (with the body).

SPVM police officers showed up there once while the complainant was working. [ 25 ] The accused knew she was working in spas and said various things to her such as, “she’s hungry for money” and [ translation] “bitch you owe me money”, etc. [ 26 ] I.B. did not earn much money in the spas and was unable to send the accused as much money as she had hoped.

She used her income to pay her bills, as well as certain expenses when she went to Toronto (restaurants, movies). [ 27 ] He told her several times that she would make more money if she came and joined him in Toronto to offer sexual services in hotels. [ 28 ] After a break, and before working at Spa B, I.B. was a dancer at a strip club in Town A called [Club A], where she performed about ten times. She explained to the Court that during the previous year, she had watched a YouTube video that explained the different aspects of strip dancing. Spa B [ 29 ] She worked at Spa B for a few months and stopped in May 2015.

She grew tired of this work and told the accused. Among other things, she told him that she was fed up with touching and being touched by people her father’s age. [ 30 ] While she was working in the spas, I.B. and the accused spoke daily, and she went to visit him once a month to work on their romantic relationship. [ 31 ] In May 2015, I.B. was offered a job at [Company A], because she said that she wanted a normal life. She worked there for one month.

At the time, for a reason she does not know, she and the accused were not speaking. [ 32 ] Before working [to Company A], I.B. met D. in a club in Montreal ([Club B]). D. was working at a striptease club in Toronto and told I.B. that she could work as a stripper in Toronto. D. convinced I.B. to stop working at Spa B. She introduced her to her friend Xavier. Toronto: spring / summer 2015: I.B. starts working for Xavier [ 33 ] I.B. went to Toronto with Xavier. When they arrived, Xavier took I.B. to [Club C], a club in District A, and put her name down as a stripper. She started working there the first day.

She worked for Xavier for one month, five days a week, from 4 p.m. until 2:30 a.m., and she gave him 100% of her income. She explained that she was not free to leave him. She was unhappy and felt like a slave.

[ 34 ] During this time, she lived in different places such as hotel rooms, D.’s apartment, and a condominium. [ 35 ] During this time, the accused and I.B. were not in contact, and he was not aware that she was working at [Club C] in Toronto. Toronto: spring / summer 2015: I.B. works for Xavier and the accused for two weeks [ 36 ] One evening, the complainant bumped into the accused while she was working at [Club C]. He told her she was worth more than that and that she should follow him. I.B. thought he was going to help her.

That same evening, just before midnight, she left the club without the knowledge of Xavier and D., and went to the accused’s home where he was living with his mother ([...] Street B, District A). [ 37 ] They then had sexual relations. Later, the accused called his friend Jerome. They met with him that evening, in a car parked in front of the building where Jerome lived.

The accused then told I.B. that she had better “jump ship”, that is, change pimps, work as an escort, and advertise her sexual services on Backpage (Jerome would take care of posting the ads on the website). [ 38 ] Jerome was described to I.B. both as a [ translation ] “facilitator” and as the person responsible for security. The accused told her that he and Jerome had been in prison together. [ 39 ] The accused asked I.B. how much she was giving Xavier. He told her that she would have to have sexual relations with customers to earn as much or more money for him.

He also told her that she would have to work for him and Xavier at the same time (share the money between them without Xavier’s knowledge). [ 40 ] It was clear in I.B.’s mind that the accused expected her to work in hotels or as a stripper offering sexual services (“extra services”). [ 41 ] She worked for the accused and Xavier for two weeks. During that time the accused went to [Club C] daily, as if he were a customer, and collected money from I.B. (she pretended to dance and gave him the money discreetly, as the accused had directed her to do). Xavier knew nothing about it.

I.B.’s dancer name was S. [ 42 ] After two weeks, I.B. “jumped ship” and started working exclusively for the accused. At the time, I.B. was happy to be with the accused because she loved him. He asked her to give him her passport, but she refused. Fall 2015 to January 2016: first period that I.B. worked exclusively for the accused [ 43 ] One day, the accused told I.B. that she should no longer work for Xavier because he did not want to share the money with him anymore. He told her that she would work exclusively for him.

He made it clear that she would have to give him 100% of her earnings, which she agreed to do because she believed her situation would improve with him. [ 44 ] They had a conversation about the sexual services she would have to provide and the prices she would need to charge. I.B. wanted to make the accused happy and she knew that money impressed him.

The accused wanted to receive as much money as Xavier did, and he set a goal of $1,000 a day for I.B. [ 45 ] I.B., the accused, and Jerome found a motel where I.B. stayed with Jerome on the first night, while the accused returned to his mother’s home because he was working the next day. I.B. works for the accused for seven months [ 46 ] I.B. went back to [Club C] and worked there for 7 months. The accused managed the money she gave him, and she was not to ask him any questions. At the time, he was working part time in the heavy machinery sector. [ 47 ] In the beginning, I.B. lived in different hotel rooms.

She did so for about four or five months, and then moved into an apartment [on Street C]. [ 48 ] For seven months, Jerome was present and provided security. At one point, the accused and Jerome stopped speaking to each other because Jerome refused to put ads on Backpage about I.B. The hotel rooms [ 49 ] During the period that she lived at the hotel, the accused moved her from one room to another, with no explanation and without asking for her opinion. During this period: • I.B. was in love with the accused and wanted to live with him. He came to her room to collect the money and to have sexual relations with her;

• The sexual services included fellatio and vaginal penetration with condoms. I.B. was paid between $300 and $500 for the full service (blowjob and vaginal penetration). The accused set the prices she charged for extras. The accused paid for the condoms; • The accused paid for the hotel room in cash. Jerome lived in the room with I.B. and slept there; • The sexual services were provided in the room where I.B. was living. Once the sexual services had been performed, I.B. wrapped the money in toilet paper and sent a text message to the accused, who collected the money and then drove her to [Club C].

If he did not take the money in the hotel room, she gave it to him in the car. I.B. explained that one day she insisted that the accused give her half of the earnings. He threw the money in her face, then told her to give it back to him; • According to I.B., the accused was nearby when she was providing the sexual services in her hotel room (she thinks he stood on the other side of the door to ensure her safety). She knew that he stayed near the hotel when she saw customers.

It was agreed with the accused that she had to send him a text message if she had a problem with a customer; • I.B. provided sexual services in her room before and after her shift at [Club C]. She added that it was easier to do it after her shift, because she met the customers at the club. She was the one who picked the customers, not the accused. The accused did not allow her to go to the customer’s home because it could be dangerous; • Sexual services were provided at [Club C] and in the hotel room. I.B. regularly provided sexual services at the club in the VIP section.

On her own initiative, the complainant also offered room service to some paying customers that she met at the club; • When I.B. had her period, she offered sexual services at the club only, not in the room, because the darkness hid the blood. The apartment on [Street C] [ 50 ] I.B. was never alone when she was living in this apartment because Jerome slept on the sofa. During this period (of about two months), the complainant also offered sexual services at the club.

During this time, she would put the cash in a shoebox and she knew that she was not authorized to touch that money. [Club C] [ 51 ] During her shift at the club, I.B. communicated with the accused via text message. Their exchanges went as follows. [ 52 ] Several times a day, every day, I.B. would receive a text message from the accused asking her, “What’s the count?” This message was about the money she made at the club. I.B. would at that point communicate the amount of earnings she had accumulated at the time she received the message.

According to I.B., these repeated requests meant that she had no choice but to work as hard as she could to make the accused happy. [ 53 ] As for the sexual services rendered at [Club C]: • These services were not advertised and were rendered only when customers asked I.B. for them. She provided them even if she had her period and explained to the Court that she would discreetly remove her tampon before she started dancing; • The customers at the club were “tricks”. Those that sought sexual services were “johns”.

I.B. learned these terms from the accused; • The “extras” were specific sexual services, such as: fellatio, anal sex, a golden shower (I.B. once urinated on a customer at his request), foot fetishes, etc.; • Usually, I.B. told the accused which sexual services she had performed at the club (although she never told him about the golden shower because she was too embarrassed). According to I.B., the accused always wanted to know everything that happened at the club so that [ translation] “she would not do anything behind his back”. He asked her a lot of questions about the money she earned;

• She gave him all of her earnings. He rewarded her by sometimes giving her marijuana, cocaine, or a bottle of wine. [ 54 ] Rates and expenses: • $20 for one song, anything else was an extra ($20); • an “extra” was $20; • $300 for the full sexual service. If customers were hard to find, I.B. would agree to anal sex, which she described as very painful. These rates per service aimed to extract as much money as possible from the customer. [ 55 ] Some customers refused to pay for the services, other were aggressive or insulted I.B. When a customer requested a service, I.B. asked him to place his money on the table.

Once the service had been performed, she put the money in her handbag and returned to dance on the stage. The accused told her to do things this way (the money on the table). He set the prices so that the services rendered by I.B. would be profitable. During those seven months, I.B. earned between $300 and $1,800 a day. Some days were less profitable than others. [ 56 ] The accused became angry when she did not make enough money, although sometimes he did not because he knew she would be back at work the next day. [ 57 ] If she said that she wanted to stop working, the accused became angry.

He once said he knew people who used violence to force women to work. [ 58 ] I.B. explained to the Court that the accused pressured her if she did not make enough money. For example, the accused said to her, “selling pussy is not hard”. More specifically, she said: [ translation ] So it was always money, money, money. You had to be like... “what’s the count?” So, sometimes I didn’t even have time to just have a drink of water. Just run, run, run in high heels, naked, like that, with the customers, like a robot. [1] [ 59 ] During this period, the accused even deprived her of food.

He dictated the pace she had to keep. [ 60 ] Every evening, the accused quizzed her, He asked her if she had spoken to anyone else or to any police officers, as he forbade her to talk about her situation to anyone, including the club managers or the girls working at the club. [ 61 ] During this period, I.B.’s family did not know where she was living because the accused controlled her communications with her family and friends. For those seven months, I.B. knew no one in Toronto other than the people who were involved in her work. [ 62 ] Once her shift was over, the accused came to pick her up at the club.

The first thing she had to do was to give him the money she had earned during the day. The accused used the expression, “first things first”, which meant that it was the first thing that I.B. had to do when she finished working.

She had no access to that money. [ 63 ] I.B. explained that together they decided on the amount that she would charge for any given service, but that she had no choice but to provide this service, because according to her, she could not say no to the accused. [ 64 ] During those seven months, I.B. felt that she could not say no to the accused when he asked her to provide certain sexual services or to give him the money.

She explained why. • The accused told her that Jerome was involved in violent criminal activities; • The accused and Jerome told her that they brought a firearm to the club when they had a confrontation with Xavier. I.B. never saw this weapon; • One evening, when the accused was drunk, he told I.B. that he had killed five people. [ 65 ] Although the accused’s statements comforted I.B. because she felt protected, she knew that it could turn against her. [ 66 ] At the accused’s request, I.B. worked at [Club C] six days a week. She worked the evening shift, starting at 7 p.m.

The club closed at 2 a.m. and she left around 2:30 a.m. She had one day off a week, which was [ translation ] “the maintenance day” for her manicure, hair, and eyebrows (services paid for by the accused). [ 67 ] Working at [Club C] was tough. I.B. had backaches because of the high heels she wore, and sometimes her feet bled. The accused was aware of this because he saw her feet. The only day off I.B. remembers is when she vomited in the elevator on her way to the club. [ 68 ] The accused used nicknames for I.B. He called her “ B.”, a reference to a truck that transports cash.

When he was angry, he insulted her and called her “kiatsi” (a Jamaican swearword) or “bitch”. I.B.’s visits to Montreal during this period

[ 69 ] The accused allowed I.B. to go to Montreal, but she had to insist and not make him angry. He dropped her off at the bus station and gave her money for the tickets. [ 70 ] She went to see her mother in Montreal once or twice, and stayed in the city for one or two days each time. She pretended that everything was fine when she was with her mother and her sister. Her sister knew that she was dancing in a club, but she was not aware of the extras. [ 71 ] While she was Montreal, I.B. danced at [Club D] and [Club A] to pay her bills and the debts she had in Montreal.

She danced on the stage and did “lap dances”. [ 72 ] At the time, I.B. had certain financial obligations in Montreal (bills, debts, credit cards, cell phone, etc.). When she was in Toronto, she had access to a credit card (which she eventually used once, to rent a hotel room in anticipation of leaving the accused). [ 73 ] When she returned to Toronto, she gave some of the money to the accused. The accused knew how she had earned that money. In fact, she had to bring money back for him when because it was a prerequisite to her being allowed to visit her family in Montreal.

I.B. decides to leave Toronto [ 74 ] I.B. was increasingly unhappy due to both her personal situation and her job. At the end of this seven-month period, she realized that the situation with the accused had not changed and that he was lying about their life together, among other things, even though he often told her that he loved her. [ 75 ] Nevertheless, I.B. explained to the Court that at times things went well, in particular when the accused was not angry. At that point, she saw him as a god [ 76 ] She left Toronto and went to live with her mother in Montreal.

She told the accused she was leaving for two days, but she had no intention of returning to Toronto. She did not tell him the truth, because she thought he would not let her go because he watched her all the time. From February 2016 to summer 2017: a break [ 77 ] I.B. told the Court that when she arrived in Montreal she felt confused because she did not understand what had happened in Toronto.

She said she was destroyed and had no self-esteem. [ 78 ] She changed her phone number, blocked the accused everywhere (for example, on Facebook), and destroyed any information connected to the accused. [ 79 ] At first she lived with her mother. Then, on February 11, 2016, she signed a lease, and on July 1, 2016, she moved to an apartment on [Street D]. From time to time, I.B. worked as a dancer at [Club A] to pay for her food. She did not work much because she was tired of this type of work.

She did not work when she had her period. [ 80 ] During this time, the accused tried to contact her on social media, in particular through friend requests (dated August 17, 2016, and April 24, 2016), which I.B. declined. Late 2016 and the following months [ 81 ] She resumed contact with the accused before the winter of 2016. She missed him and he was telling her the things she wanted to hear. [ 82 ] He asked her to come to Toronto to have sex with him. She answered that she wanted to be with him and have a romantic relationship with him. He replied that she could go to school and see her friends.

That was the reason I.B. decided to return to Toronto to visit the accused. I.B. did not work during the first visit, which lasted a few days. [ 83 ] She returned to Toronto several times (over 20 visits), and sometimes she worked there even though, in the beginning, the accused did not ask her to. [ 84 ] She explained that she did not want to be a dancer, but she could not live without him. When she returned to Toronto, she thought things would be different and that she would not have to work or give him her money.

However, once she was there, nothing changed. [ 85 ] During one of her visits, I.B. rented a hotel room where the accused came to collect his share of the money she had earned at [Club C]. She kept half of it because he allowed her to do so. At the time, I.B.’s financial situation was difficult. On May 18, 2017, she signed up at [Club C] again. Summer 2017 [ 86 ] In June 2017, I.B. signed a lease for an apartment located on [Street E] in Montreal. Her relationship with the accused was [ translation ] “on hold”. She moved in shortly after signing the lease and returned to Toronto three or four weeks later.

Summer 2017 to February 2018: second and last period July / August 2017 [Street B] [ 87 ] I.B. missed the accused. He sent her a message on Instagram saying, “My queen you look happy without me”. She decided to call him. He asked her to come back to Toronto. According to I.B., he pressured her to return, but she believed he had changed. [ 88 ] I.B. returned to Toronto and lived with the accused and his mother [on Street B]. The accused lived there with his mother Lorraine Markson and her spouse Wayne. [ 89 ] I.B. never had keys for this apartment. At first, she slept on the floor in the accused’s room.

One month before the move [to Street F], the accused’s mother bought her a mattress. [ 90 ] According to I.B., at that time, she and the accused had a business relationship, because he told her, “you just made it a business, you just made it work”. At the accused’s request, I.B. immediately resumes working at [Club C] [ 91 ] Jerome was not present during this second period. At first, I.B. worked the day shift (noon to 5 p.m.), six hours a week. I.B. knew before she arrived in Toronto that she would have to go back to work at [Club C].

At the time, the accused had a job. [ 92 ] As she had done during the first seven months when she was working for the accused, I.B. danced and offered extras at [Club C], although she did not offer sexual services in hotel rooms. [ 93 ] The extras she offered were the same ones she offered during the first period, and, like them, were charged separately to the customers. Among these extras was one called [ translation] “role play”, in which the customers simulated sexual assault of I.B. The cost of this extra was higher than the others. [ 94 ] In the morning, she took a taxi to work.

At the end of her shift, the accused sometimes came to pick her up at the club, but for the most part, she took a taxi home as well. When she was at work, the accused would send her text messages asking, “what’s the count?” about the money she was earning. [ 95 ] I.B. earned $1,000 a day during the day shift. She gave the accused all of her earnings, which he deposited in a safe in his closet.

The accused kept the key for the safe in the apartment on [Street B] around his neck. [ 96 ] The accused had threatened I.B. regarding this key, telling her, “if he can’t find the key, I.B.’s body would be found in the lake”. When I.B. described the threat to the Court, she stated, [ translation ] “it made my blood run cold”. [ 97 ] Although that was the first time he had threatened her, I.B. told the Court that she was afraid of the accused because she knew what he was capable of. She stated, [ translation ] “except when he was...

He tied people up and everything, I had never met people that did that, so... .” [ 98 ] According to I.B. the second period she worked for the accused was worse than the one before because she was working seven days a week, had more customers, and was doing extras that she described as [ translation ] “bizarre”. The accused was the one who decided to change her shift while they were still living on [Street B]. [ 99 ] In October 2017, I.B. worked double shifts for a month to bring in more money.

She explained that she had to work harder to earn money for a condominium they wanted to rent, but also because she had tried to escape and she wanted the accused to forgive her. [ 100 ] She also said that she tried to escape because she was unhappy with the situation, and that the accused controlled her life and took all of her money. She stayed in the hotel for two or three days. She cannot remember if she went to Montreal.

She remembers the accused saying to her on the phone, “I’m going to shut down the club” and “if he wasn’t makin money, nobody would”. [ 101 ] After this escape attempt, I.B. begged the accused to take her back, because she was still in love with him. She returned to the club to do double shifts. Drug use [ 102 ] They regularly used cocaine when they were living on [Street B]. I.B. used drugs at work sometimes when she was tired. The accused gave I.B. cocaine to sell to customers at the club when they asked her for it. I.B. sold cocaine to one customer three times.

The accused violence towards I.B. [ 103 ] According to I.B., there were episodes of violence while they were living on [Street B]. On one occasion, the accused pushed her and held her head in a stranglehold for a few seconds until she could not breathe. Then he said, “go back to work”. I.B. stated that the accused was often angry with her. The decision to move [ 104 ] At the time, I.B. was making a lot of money and she told the accused that things were going better with Xavier. The accused became angry. They had agreed to rent a condominium with help from the accused’s mother.

I.B. was working on building their relationship.

November 1, 2017, until February 2018: the apartment on [Street F] [ 105 ] I.B. and the accused rented an apartment in a building located at [...] [Street F] with help from the accused’s mother. I.B. signed a document related to the rental of the apartment. The rent was $2,800 a month, which she learned only after filing a complaint with the police in 2018. [ 106 ] Because she had signed that document, I.B. thinks she was the tenant of the apartment. The accused told her she was responsible for half of the rent. [ 107 ] The accused was unemployed while they were living on [Street F].

I.B. has no idea what he did during the day because she was working at the club at least six days a week. Nor did she know how he paid the rent. The relationship between I.B. and the accused on [Street F] [ 108 ] Their relationship was struggling when they moved into [Street F]. It was above all focused on work, that is, a continuation of the one they had when I.B. had returned to Toronto the previous summer. They almost never had sex because the accused had noticed that if they did, she made less money. Their relationship was strained.

Work at [Club C] [ 109 ] Sometimes the accused showed up at the club unannounced. When he was there, he would send certain customers to I.B. or he would give her instructions to make more money. According to I.B., it happened at least five times. On one occasion, he told her not to speak to a customer. [ 110 ] During this period, I.B. worked the day shift and sometimes the night shift. She also worked freelance, which meant that she did not have to dance and had more freedom to offer sexual services to customers. While they were on [Street F], I.B. often worked double shifts. [ 111 ] I.B. had very few days off.

Exceptionally, she had two consecutive days off after having a tooth pulled. The accused ordered her to return to work at the club even though she was still bleeding. [ 112 ] One morning, I.B. had used too much cocaine the night before, and she decided to go home because she was ill. When the accused woke up and saw that she was not at work, he started yelling at her and ordered her to go back to work. [ 113 ] At the time, I.B. was earning an average of $1,400 a day. Sometimes she earned more (the day of the Super Bowl she earned $2,900) and sometimes less (between $300 and $800 a day).

The accused always asked her to earn more money. To satisfy him, I.B. agreed to perform fellatio on a customer when he was not wearing a condom. [ 114 ] Even though she earned a lot of money, the accused did not give I.B. enough money to pay her work-related expenses (DJ fees, dressing room, food, taxis home). [ 115 ] To encourage her to make more money, the accused always told her to, “go starve the hoes”, which meant to take all the customers and not to leave any for the other girls. I.B. acknowledged that she is very competitive.

The accused told her that the money would be used to start their life together. [ 116 ] I.B. brought home a lot of money, and that is why he called her “B.”. She drank very little alcohol when she worked at the club so that she could “keep the count”. [ 117 ] At that time, there was tension at the club caused mainly by the new pimps who were trying to recruit and conflicts between the dancers. I.B. told the accused about the conflict, among other things, and generally about everything that happened at the club.

He gave her a knife (a “shank”) to protect herself. [ 118 ] During this time, I.B. believed that she could not refuse to work for the accused at [Club C]: [ translation] “No. Because he would say, “rule number one, learn to control your bitch” [ translation] and I was his ‘bitch’”. In addition, the accused had access to I.B.’s cell phone. She therefore felt that she could not call for help. [ 119 ] In November 2017, the accused told her he had chlamydia. She thought she also had it. She went to get a prescription at a clinic, but was not tested.

Visits to Montreal [ 120 ] During this time, I.B. went to Montreal twice with the accused’s permission. She always stayed for a day or two and then returned to Toronto. [ 121 ] I.B. had little contact with her family while she was living [on Street F]. When she visited her family, she tried to conceal her situation because she was embarrassed, but also because she was convinced that her mother and sister would not understand. [ 122 ] In the meantime, I.B.’s mother had a car accident. The accused did not allow her to visit her mother in the hospital because she had to work to pay their bills.

[ 123 ] I.B. sent her sister her address [on Street F] so that she would know where she lived if she disappeared. I.B. stated that during this time she paid for her taxis with a credit card so that there would be a trace if she disappeared. [ 124 ] She was afraid because of the accused’s behaviour. At the time, they were using a lot of cocaine. In addition, the accused would tell her that he was not himself. He even asked I.B. to stand guard at the apartment door armed with a butcher’s knife while they were using cocaine.

The currency-counting machine [ 125 ] The accused had a currency-counting machine that he used to count the money I.B. earned when she came home from work. He had two safes in the apartment, one locked with a key and the other with a code. The machine and the safes were in the room where the accused kept his personal things. [ 126 ] When I.B. would come home from work in a taxi, the accused would usually say, “first things first”, which meant that she had to give him all of the money she had earned during the day. Then she would describe her day to him, and then go and take a shower.

Once he had the money, he counted it with the machine. If the accused was sleeping when she returned, she had to put the money on the kitchen counter under a small statue, as instructed by the accused. [ 127 ] The accused controlled the money. He told I.B. that he had bought Bitcoins and clothing with this money (although I.B. always wore the same clothes at home), and that he deposited the money in various accounts to avoid detection. [ 128 ] I.B. was increasingly unhappy and tired of working at [Club C].

Episodes of violence during the time [at Street F] [ 129 ] During this time, the accused was both physically and verbally violent with I.B. • He threatened to kill her mother • He told her that her sister should mind her own business; I.B. knew what the accused was capable of so that scared her • He once made a stabbing gesture with his hand after I.B. told him that she wanted to quit and that she did not want to go back to work • He also told her she was lucky he did not beat her, which frightened I.B.

Even though he was verbally violent with her, she was still in love with him and hoped that she would find some way to make him love her. [ 130 ] He once told her that he wanted to buy a weapon to protect himself. He told her that he had given his weapon to a friend. He showed I.B. messages and photographs of himself trying to buy a firearm. I.B. was afraid because she understood that he could use it on her. However, she never saw the accused with a firearm. Christmas 2017 [ 131 ] Around Christmas time, the accused told I.B. that he wanted to marry her, and he gave her a ring for Christmas.

After receiving the ring, she thought she was engaged to the accused. At one point, he told her not to wear the ring while she was working at [Club C]. [ 132 ] That day, I.B. was supposed to work but the accused allowed her to come home early because she had no customers at the club. [ 133 ] When she got home, the accused was drunk and he shoved her. She went to the bathroom and when she returned he pinned her against the living room wall. She was crying.

He told her he loved her and asked her to kneel on the ground to show him that she was genuinely “ten toes down”, which means [ translation] “following his program 100%”. On December 26, the accused and I.B. went for dinner at the home of the accused’s mother. [ 134 ] I.B. went to Montreal for New Year’s, with the accused’s permission. She visited her mother and apologized for not visiting her after the accident. Then she returned to Toronto. January / February 2018

[ 135 ] Some of the text messages they exchanged between January 27, 2018, and February 8, 2018, establish that I.B. was still working for the accused and illustrate the dynamics of their working relationship. For example, I.B. told the Court: [ translation ] “I had to find... earn money, there was pressure, pressure; every day was like that.” [ 136 ] I.B. started to save money from her earnings at the club in preparation for leaving Toronto. She saved $4,000 in two weeks. T. kept it in a safe at the club.

When I.B. was ready to leave Toronto, T. gave her the money in an envelope, which she hid in a hole in her coat so the accused would not find it. [ 137 ] I.B. stated: [ translation ] ...because I wasn’t allowed to have any money, I wasn’t allowed to keep an amount, I wasn’t allowed to keep any amount, so that’s why I had to do things that way. ...I’d add a little at a time.

Since I had to give him something at the end of the day so... sometimes I’d put some aside, after... he’d say, “What’s the count?” I was so stressed that I’d give him everything. [ 138 ] In 2015, I.B. had managed to save a little money to escape. [ 139 ] At one point during their relationship the accused gave her about $800 because she had threatened to leave and told him she had bills to pay. The accused transferred $300 to her by Interac so she could pay her bills. [ 140 ] She confirmed that the three transfers listed in exhibit P-10 are related to payments of bills in Montreal.

The accused grudgingly gave her money. In this regard, she told the Court: [ translation ] Q. … How did he end up giving you money? R. Because I wanted to leave, because it was 100% money, so I clearly told him I didn’t want to do that. ...Of course, I didn’t want to do that, I didn’t feel right. Then he said, if I give you money, you’ll leave.

No, no, no, I won’t leave, I’ll go pay my bills, I’ll go to Montreal, I’ll go see my family, then I’ll come back. [ 141 ] The money the accused gave I.B. was not enough to pay all of her bills in Montreal. [ 142 ] In the days leading up to February 6, 2018, I.B. did not work because she was ill. The accused insisted she go to work nonetheless. [ 143 ] On February 6, 2018, I.B. left Toronto. She had decided to leave the accused. As she explained, however, at that point she did not know if she would return to Toronto some day because she was still in love with him.

She did intend, however, to use the $4,000 to pay her bills in Montreal. [ 144 ] The accused allowed her to go to Montreal because she was supposed to remove her furniture from her apartment in District B. I.B. would have liked to keep that apartment to be a little independent from the accused, but he insisted that she get rid of it. She agreed because she was tired of arguing with him. It was also one last attempt to save their relationship. February 2018 [ 145 ] After she returned to Montreal, she told the accused that she would not be returning to Toronto.

She did not want to tell him in person because she knew that he would not accept her decision, and she was afraid he would be violent with her. She said to him, “we both deserve better”, that she’s a woman, that she’s 27 years old and that she’s allowed to decide . The accused replied, “That’s what you think… I’m going to kill you…I’m going to come to Montreal and kill you”. I.B. hung up and started to cry.

The accused tried to call her back after that call. [ 146 ] Following this exchange, the accused left I.B. voicemail messages in which he apologized: “ Sorry I was out of pocket ; that they both deserve better but together, not separated ; and we should be done with the game ”. [ 147 ] The day after the call during which I.B was threatened, she saw a man wearing a black hooded jacket outside the door to her mother’s apartment. She was afraid that the accused had sent someone to kill her. [ 148 ] After receiving the threats, I.B. called the police, who came to her home to take the complaint.

The next day, she called them again to discuss the incident involving the man in the hood. [ 149 ] On February 27, 2018, I.B. received two messages from the accused on Instagram (two messages from Dre3677 dated February 27, 2018). Defence evidence The accused’s testimony

The accused testified in his defence. Montreal in 2010 [ 150 ] In 2010, the accused was studying sociology at Concordia University, where he was on the football team. In fact, Concordia had given him a football scholarship and that was the reason he moved from Toronto to Montreal. [ 151 ] The first time the accused and I.B. met was by chance at the XO bar. They looked at each other and then they started to dance. Conversation was difficult because I.B. did not speak English very well.

They had a drink or two during the evening and then left the bar, went to the accused’s apartment, and had sexual intercourse. [ 152 ] When cross-examined, the accused stated that they exchanged telephone numbers at the bar. When it was suggested to him that I.B. did not have a cell phone at the time, he stated that he did not know if she gave him her home phone number or her cell phone number. Regardless, he said that the next morning she sent him a message, but he can no longer remember if it was a text message.

The accused denies that there was a second meeting with I.B at bar XO. [ 153 ] While I.B. was taking a shower, the accused fell asleep on the sofa. That was when his friend A. came into the apartment and surprised I.B. in the shower. He apologized profusely and left the apartment ten minutes later. [ 154 ] The next morning, I.B. and the accused had sexual intercourse. The accused drove I.B. to the bus stop and they parted on good terms. I.B. sent him a text message. [ 155 ] They met again after a football practice. I.B. was waiting for him with sushi when he arrived home.

They had sexual intercourse and parted on good terms. After this second encounter, they stopped speaking. I.B. did not try to contact him and the accused may have called her, but communication was difficult because of the language barrier. [ 156 ] The accused left Montreal a few months after this second encounter because he had been injured and could no longer play football. He did not see I.B. again until they met at [College A]. The accused is unsure if they were in contact in the meantime via social media. 2012: the encounter at [College A] [ 157 ] After 2010, the accused held various jobs in Toronto.

He ended up taking a Policing Foundations program, which leads to a career as a police officer. At the time, he was living with his mother. [ 158 ] He happened to notice I.B. in a hall at [College A]. She saw him and smiled at him. They spoke and she told him she was sorry. He asked her why, because he did not understand why she was saying that. She then told him she was sorry that she filed a police complaint against him in 2010. [ 159 ] The accused told the Court what happened with the police in Montreal in 2010. Police officers contacted him in the months that followed his last encounter with I.B.

They sent him an email explaining that I.B. had filed a complaint against him. The police officer even told him that I.B. had said that the accused had nothing to do with that situation and that he had nothing to worry about. [ 160 ] When cross-examined on I.B.’s apology, the accused instead stated that it happened during their second encounter in Montreal, which was when I.B. brought the sushi. He added that I.B. did not apologize during the evening of their second encounter in Montreal in 2010 and that they had sexual intercourse that evening. He also added that he was in shock when the police contacted him.

He did not, however, question I.B. about it. [ 161 ] When he left [College A], the accused retrieved I.B.’s email address from the reception desk, where she had left it for him. 2012 to 2016: the encounter at [Club C] (2016) 2012 to 2016 [ 162 ] The accused did not see I.B. again after they crossed paths at [College A]. They may have been some communication between them. He only saw her again at [Club C]. According to him, that was in 2013. Later in his testimony, he added that it may have been in 2014.

Then, after consulting a document concerning his various jobs, he situated the encounter in 2016, when he was working for R&B Construction. [ 163 ] He is a machine operator and he has three certifications. He obtained them in 2013, when he did a training in Morrisburg. He was just a day labourer when he worked for R&B Construction in 2012. 2014: the money transfers [ 164 ] I.B. transferred money to him in 2014 for his birthday ([...]) while he was training in Morrisburg. He does not remember if I.B. transferred him any money between 2012 and 2016.

When cross-examined on some of the money transfers in 2013, the accused stated that he did not remember, but insisted that the transfers were for his birthday. [2]

[ 165 ] The accused recalls that the training was just after his time at R&B Construction, because it was a prerequisite to become a member of the union (he thinks he became a member in May or June 2014). [ 166 ] According to the accused around March 2014, I.B. sent him a message online while he was doing the training in Morrisburg. She knew he was alone there. There was not much contact with I.B. between the meeting at [College A] and the Morrisburg money transfer. In addition, he does not know if she made other transfers to him before they met again at [Club C] in 2016.

The accused’s addresses [ 167 ] The accused testified that he has two residential addresses: his mother’s apartment on [Street B] and […] [Street F]. When he returned from Montreal in 2010, he moved in with his mother [on Street B]. [ 168 ] When cross-examined, he stated that at one point he had rented a condominium [on Street C]. He lived there for five or six months and then was evicted for not paying his bills. The lease was in his name, but his good friend Jerome was often there with him. Jerome’s full name is Jerome Nelson (his nickname is “Fun”).

According to the accused, Jerome was involved in criminal activities. In 2017, they had a falling out. [ 169 ] On April 30, 2015, the accused was living at that address. [3] I.B. went to the condominium on [Street C]. She slept there a few times. The encounter at [Club C] [ 170 ] The accused met I.B. at [Club C] in 2016. The accused was at the club with two work colleagues from R&B Construction. [ 171 ] He returned to the VIP section, where he saw I.B. sitting at a table, and he smiled at her. He then noticed she was crying. He sat down with her and asked her why she was there. She replied that she worked there.

The accused understood that she was a dancer, although she had not provided any details about her work. He told her she could do much better than working in a place as disgusting as a strip club. I.B. became upset. [ 172 ] He offered to help her and she replied that she wanted to collect her things. He drove her to a condominium. She went in and came out ten minutes later with a backpack. They then went to the apartment on [Street B]. I.B. stayed there for a few days because she had to return to Montreal. During this time, I.B. was working at [Club C].

The accused stated, “I.B. did what she wanted at any given time. Nobody controlled what I.B. does”. I.B. took the train back to Montreal. [ 173 ] When cross-examined about this period, the accused stated the following: • I.B. never told him Xavier and D. were exploiting her. She told him about her friend D. in Montreal, but never about Xavier; • He never met anyone that claimed to be I.B.’s pimp and he has never been at war with a pimp; • He denies trying to find a firearm with Jerome to protect I.B. In fact, he has never tried to find a firearm.

Jerome was not present during this first encounter; • The accused tried to help I.B. stop working at [Club C]. Yet she told him very little about the nature of her work. She told him that she did not want to work 9 to 5. That was her basic message; • The accused did not ask I.B. how she started dancing or what she had done between 2012 and 2016. He did not ask her if she had a boyfriend in Montreal; • They never discussed what she did at the club. He knew she was a dancer, but he was not aware of her financial situation. She never told him how much she earned.

She did not give him the money she made at the club when she returned from work, nor was it agreed that they would share that money; • They never discussed the identity of the club manager or of the people that worked with I.B.; • The accused knew that the condominium where he drove I.B. belonged to D., whom he saw only once. He never asked I.B. if she had any financial obligations to D. with respect to that condominium;

• A few weeks after their first encounter at the club, I.B. told him that D. was the one who had led her to start dancing; • He helped I.B. draft her curriculum vitae. They discussed various jobs without discussing money. From the first encounter until the fall of 2017 [ 174 ] After their first encounter, I.B. and the accused did not see each other for a few months. However, they remained in contact by telephone. [ 175 ] I.B. went to Toronto from time to time and always called the accused a week before her visit to inform him. She would stay for one or two weeks then return to Montreal.

During these visits, they lived with the accused’s mother. I.B. had a good relationship with the accused’s mother. He never asked his mother to keep an eye on I.B. [ 176 ] When I.B. was visiting Toronto, the accused’s mother sometimes paid for the groceries. It was not, however, because the accused was short of money. [ 177 ] When cross-examined, the accused stated that from 2016 to 2018, I.B. led a nomadic existence. She would leave without warning. She was, “free like a bird in the sky”. I.B. was always coming and going. [ 178 ] During her stays, they shared activities as lovers.

The accused believes that I.B. sometimes worked at [Club C] while she was in Toronto. I.B. determined her own work

schedule and worked at the club two, three, or four times a week. [ 179 ] He knew that I.B. was dancing. He never saw her dance, however, although he went to the club a few times. That type of work disturbs the accused a little. For example, he knows, because he experienced it during their first encounter at the club, that to have a lap dance with a dancer, a customer must go to the back of the club. [ 180 ] He tried to convince I.B. to do something else, albeit unsuccessfully, because, according to him, she did whatever she wanted.

He accepted the situation because he was in love. [ 181 ] He did not know she offered sexual services at the club. He suspected it, however, when she gave him chlamydia. He learned the whole story about I.B. only when the charges were laid. [ 182 ] As for the chlamydia, the accused explained to the Court that he was faithful and that I.B. did not want to discuss it. Nothing more. He asked I.B. where she caught chlamydia and asked her to be tested. According to the accused, I.B. did not answer him. He also said that she told him that she may have been infected while pole dancing at the club.

He guessed she might have caught it from someone else. Nevertheless, the main thing for him was to correct the situation. [ 183 ] At the time, he was working at Michael’s full time, every day from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. When he returned to [Street B] after work, I.B. was “in the best most positive spirits”.

According to the accused, he and I.B. planned to have a future together. [ 184 ] It was established during cross-examination that the accused was working at Michael’s in 2015. [4] The accused is sure he was working at R&B when he first met I.B. [ 185 ] The accused knew that I.B had an apartment in Montreal because he helped her end her lease in 2017 while they were living on [Street F]. He even tried to contact the manager of the building in Montreal to find a solution. He never went to Montreal or met I.B.’s family. However, she talked about her mother and sister to him.

The accused did not know what she did in Montreal other than visit her family. He did not ask her any questions about what she did in Montreal. October 2017 to February 2018 October 2017 [ 186 ] According to the accused, I.B. returned to Toronto after October 3, 2017. That is the date their relationship became more serious. At the time, he was no longer working for the Fernview company. [5] [ 187 ] The accused states that, around June 29, 2017, I.B. called him at work and told him she wanted to return to Toronto.

Referring to exhibit P-8, a Facebook friend request, the accused does not know why I.B. declined his request (on June 29, 2017). When cross- examined on the fact that I.B. rented an apartment in Montreal for July 1, 2017, the accused replied that he did not know if they were separated on that date or why I.B. rented an apartment. [ 188 ] When she was back in Toronto with the accused, I.B. moved in with him at his mother’s apartment on [Street B]. A mattress was bought for I.B and the accused slept on the sofa (before the mattress was purchased, I.B. slept on the sofa with him).

The accused added that they never paid any rent for that apartment. While they lived on [Street B], I.B. worked at [Club C] when she felt like it, because she had no schedule.

[ 189 ] At one point, they decided to move, because they wanted to start living as a couple. They discussed the future, their plans, and having children. At Christmas 2017, the accused bought I.B. a ring and a necklace. [6] They talked about becoming engaged, although the accused did not officially ask I.B. to marry him. I.B. was in complete agreement with this plan. They discussed budgets and started looking at condominiums. [ 190 ] The accused told I.B. that he could contribute $1,000, and it was understood that expenses would be shared fifty-fifty. It was a shared adventure.

The accused knew that I.B.’s share came from her work as a dancer. He was not aware of how much I.B. earned and stated , “ he didn’t want to be too much into her business ” . The accused did not feel comfortable discussing I.B.’s money with her (“not of my business”). Money was irrelevant as long as I.B. was able to contribute the same amount as the accused to paying the rent, which was enough for the accused. [ 191 ] Even though I.B. would leave Toronto for Montreal without warning, the accused was comfortable renting an apartment with her because he knew she always came back.

As long as the rent was paid, for the accused, I.B. was free to do whatever she wanted. Bad credit [ 192 ] The accused admitted that some credit card bills went unpaid because he had financial difficulties. He does not remember, however, when that was. Unemployment insurance [ 193 ] The accused does not remember which year he received unemployment insurance. When he consulted exhibit D-3, it appears that he received unemployment insurance only in 2017. He does not remember what time of year he started receiving his benefits. Violence [ 194 ] The accused denies having been physically or verbally violent with I.B.

Condominium visits [ 195 ] I.B., the accused, and his mother visited the condominium on [Street F]. They had visited another condominium, which was a better deal, but I.B. did not like it. She preferred something nicer, whereas the accused would have been satisfied with a less expensive apartment. [ 196 ] After a few weeks, they signed a one-year lease at the kitchen table in the apartment on [Street B] St.

The accused’s mother signed the lease, and he and I.B. signed as occupants (at the time, the accused did not have a good credit rating). [7] Other documents were signed on [Street F] for the keys, the parking, etc. November 1, 2017: [...] [Street F] [ 197 ] The accused and I.B. moved into [...] [Street F] on November 1, 2017. The rent was paid by direct deposit. The accused had a joint account with his mother. I.B. paid her share of the rent and her expenses in cash.

The accused assumed she had a bank account because she was paying rent in Montreal. [ 198 ] The accused paid for everything when he and I.B. went out because I.B. was his girlfriend. I.B. paid for her trips to Montreal. Money Money transfers in November 2017 and January 2018 [ 199 ] The accused remembers transferring money to I.B. on a few occasions. He does not remember the Interac transfers from I.B. in November 2017 and January 2018 or the reason they were made: “Maybe for a train or a plane ticket”. Here is an extract of the cross- examination on this subject: Q.

So, you agree with me that if you send some money through Interac you had a discussion about money with I.B.? A. No. As a boyfriend you can just be nice and send somebody something. Q: Out of the blue? A: You don’t have to have a previous discussion. I.B.’s earnings [ 200 ] On several occasions, the accused stated that he knew that I.B. was a dancer at the club, but that he did not know any details about her work. He stated repeatedly that he did not know how much she earned. Therefore, he does not know how much I.B. made from her work at the club from 2016 and 2018.

Furthermore, he did not know where I.B. kept her money at home and he never asked her. [ 201 ] She paid half of the rent, and what she did with her money and how she earned it was not his concern. Other than the rent

payment, the accused was not interested in I.B.’s financial situation. She had told him she had bills to pay in Montreal (the accused knew that her rent in Montreal was $600 or $700). She never told him that she had financial problems. [ 202 ] The accused took steps to help I.B. find a better job. This happened a few times, including in 2016 when he met her and in 2017 on [Street F]. When he asked her questions, she would answer that she did not want a steady job. [ 203 ] The only times money was mentioned was in certain text messages they exchanged.

The currency-counting machine [ 204 ] On [Street F], the accused had a currency-counting machine, which he already had in November 2017. At that time, the accused was working part time in landscaping. He was paid $30 an hour and received unemployment insurance. He allegedly owned this machine because he received mostly cash. [ 205 ] Indeed, Lex Vriend, who employed him, usually paid the accused cash every day, and at one point he paid him in cash on a weekly basis. According to the accused, he earned between $500 and $600 a week in $20 bills.

I.B. also used it because she did not like to touch cash. [ 206 ] Why buy a currency-counting machine just to count about 25 bills? The accused answered that I.B. wanted this machine and that she also used it. After work, I.B. would go into the room where the machine was kept and use it to count her money. Safe [ 207 ] The accused had a safe in the apartment on [Street B] and he moved it to [Street F]. He had two safes and he gave one of them to his mother. He kept his personal papers in these safes. I.B. had access to the safes and the key was outside.

Drug use [ 208 ] The accused acknowledges that he used cocaine before and after he lived at [Street F]. I.B. also consumed it. Late January 2018 until I.B.’s departure in February 2018 Text messages [ 209 ] During this period, I.B. and the accused exchanged text messages. Some of them have been assembled were filed during the trial. [8] The Court will revisit these text messages in its analysis February 2018: the end of the relationship [ 210 ] The relationship between the accused and the complainant ended in February 2018.

The accused was arrested on July 2, 2018, at [...] [Street F]. [ 211 ] I.B. left Toronto on February 6, 2018. The accused stated, “She was gone by Superbowl”. During the cross-examination, it was established that I.B. left Toronto on February 6, 2018, that is, after the Super Bowl on February 4, 2018. [ 212 ] The accused described his relationship with I.B. during the weeks leading up to her departure. According to him, I.B. was acting strange for two or three weeks before she left. She was distant. The accused asked her what was going on.

She was indifferent and he could not understand the situation. [ 213 ] In their text messages, the accused insulted I.B. by saying the following to her: “I just saved u (you) $3000 paid for ur (your) nails ur (your) phone and u (you) tell me u (you) need space u (you) ungrateful bitch”. [9] At the time, he knew that I.B. intended to go to Montreal to visit her mother. He also knew that she had to go there to move her things out of her apartment. [ 214 ] He remembers apologizing to I.B., but he does not remember having a conversation with her on this subject.

The accused does not remember much about what happened in the days after this insult. Therefore, he does not remember if he was on unemployment insurance, if I.B. went to work, or even if she was working at the time. [ 215 ] The accused received a text message from I.B. on the day she left Toronto, while she was on the bus. He was surprised because he thought she was at work, and the date for her departure had not been decided. Nevertheless, he believed she would return to Toronto at the end of her stay. That was not the case. Positions of the parties Defence

[ 216 ] The defence asks the Court to acquit the accused.

The defence’s submissions can be summarized as follows: • The accused did not know that the complainant was involved in prostitution at [Club C]; • He was not aware of the complainant’s financial situation and he never collected any money from her earnings, other than to pay the rent for [Street F]; • He was never violent or controlling with I.B. and he behaved towards her like any other lover would have done; • At the time of the events, the accused had a job or was a student and in no way was he living off the fruits of prostitution; • The evidence establishes that I.B. was obsessed with the accused, and the narrative of events, including the accused’s alleged procuring of the complainant, clearly illustrates this.

According to some of the defence’s other submissions, which the Court will address in its analysis, I.B. invented the narrative of events. The Crown [ 217 ] The Crown argues that it has established all of the essential elements of all of the offences with which the accused has been charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Applicable legal principles [ 218 ] The testimony of the accused and the testimony of the complainant are contradictory in several respects, especially with respect to the essential elements of the alleged offences. The Court must therefore follow the teachings of the Supreme Court in R. v.

W.(D.) . [10] [ 219 ] According to the test established by the Supreme Court, if the Court believes the accused, it must acquit. If it does not but is left in reasonable doubt, it must acquit.

Last, even if the Court does not believe the accused’s version and that version does not raise a reasonable doubt, the Court must determine if it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, based on the evidence that it has accepted. [ 220 ] In considering the testimony of the accused or of any other witness, the Court must consider not only the credibility of the witness, but also the reliability of the witness’s narrative. This analysis must be performed in light of the evidence as a whole, not in a vacuum.

The Court can believe the testimony in whole or in part or reject it in full. [ 221 ] Credibility refers to the sincerity of the witness, whereas reliability refers to the value of the witness’s account, i.e. whether or not it is worthy of belief. Thus, a witness’s credibility does no necessarily render his or her narrative reliable. [ 222 ] When assessing the evidence, the Court must keep in mind that the burden of proof falls on the Crown and that the accused benefits from the presumption of innocence. The accused need not prove his innocence.

The Crown must prove all of the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Stereotypes [ 223 ] The defence asks the Court to draw certain inferences that do not arise from the evidence or that arise from stereotypes.

(1) In its written submissions, the defence describes I.B. as follows: “a young, troubled plaintiff who cried incessantly and required social workers, dogs, stress balls and interminables breaks” [11] [ 224 ] Here the defence is referring to the complainant during her examination and cross-examination. This description of the complainant is entirely unfair and biased. Moreover, the Court ordered the support of a social worker and a dog. [ 225 ] During the complainant’s testimony, the Court made certain orders to make it possible for her to provide an honest and complete account.

The Court therefore allowed I.B. to testify from behind a screen [12] and to be accompanied by a support person. [13] In those orders, Andrea Rittenhouse, a social worker from the CAVAC, and Officer Lemelin, a Sûreté du Québec police officer, were designated as support persons. Pursuant to these orders, Officer Lemelin acted as master to the support dog Sundae, who was next to the complainant when her cross-examination resumed. [14] [ 226 ] The complainant’s examination and cross-examination were gruelling.

The nature of the offences and the length of the events meant that the examination and cross-examination took several days, during which many facts, some of which were difficult and full of painful memories for I.B., had to be addressed. At several points the complainant was very upset, cried, and was unable to testify. The Court had to interrupt her testimony several times, because it was clear that I.B. was exhausted and could not continue.

[ 227 ] The Court has dealt with many cases of this nature and has heard many complainants, and is of the view that the complainant’s emotional behaviour during her testimony is entirely consistent with the nature of the offences discussed at the trial.

(2) The defence asks the Court to draw certain negative or stereotypical inferences from the fact that I.B. was a sex worker. [ 228 ] In its written submissions, the defence wrote: The Crown’s evidence, save for the text messages, is purely self-serving circumstantial evidence.

We must also consider the personal history and admitted capacity of the alleged victim to create a persona, to appeal to the public, whether that public be a customer who she wants to maximize her financial gains from said customer or here, we submit to the court, where she wants to portray herself as a victim of the defendant in this matter. [ 229 ] According to the Crown, this allegation by the defence is an invitation to have the Court draw a negative or stereotypical inference from the complainant’s occupation because, among other things, she used a nickname and a number of methods to maximize her profits. [ 230 ] The Court agrees with the Crown’s arguments.

Such reasoning is prohibited. [ 231 ] The courts are categorical on this point. In Williams , Stribopoulos J. of the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario wrote the following: [43] Unfortunately, the vulnerability of sex workers is not limited to their work. There can be little doubt that when a sex worker is a complainant in a sexual assault case, the risk of pernicious twin-myths reasoning is especially acute because of the social stigma that has long accompanied such work . In such cases, some jurors’ prejudices may prime them to be especially prone to prohibited twin-myths reasoning.

The Supreme Court of Canada has expressly acknowledged this heightened danger in sexual assault cases involving sex workers: see Barton , at paras. 1, 230-231. … [45] The second myth, which s. 276 and Seaboyer seek to redress – that unchaste women are less deserving of belief – is unquestionably a pervasive concern in all sexual services cases . However, extending the rules and procedures from Seaboyer to sexual services cases will do little to ameliorate this myth’s potential influence. After all, sexual services prosecutions necessarily entail evidence that the complainant exchanged sexual services for money.

Therefore, in all sexual services prosecutions there is an inherent risk that some jurors may be prone to unfairly and illogically discount the complainant’s credibility because she worked in the sex trade.

Accordingly, the trial judge’s standard proceeding to jurors to decide the case without prejudice and based only on the evidence is especially important in these cases. [15] [Emphasis added.] [ 232 ] In Azonwanna , [16] Copeland J. of the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario also wrote: [35] In addition, as I indicated I would in my ruling of December 5, 2019, I instruct myself, by analogy with Barton at paras. 200-203, that I should be cautious not to draw stereotypical or adverse inferences against the complainant on the basis that she has at times worked as a sex worker.

In particular, I note that people who do, or have in the past, engaged in sex work are entitled to the same protections the criminal justice system promises other Canadians; they are deserving of respect, humanity, and dignity; they are not sexual objects for male gratification; like anyone else, they are entitled to make the free choice to give or not give consent to sexual activity, and are not “available for the taking”; they do not assume the risk of any harm that befalls them because they engage in a dangerous form of work; and they are not less credible than other people.

(3) The theory of fabrication [ 233 ] In its submissions, the defence wrote: One can infer that the alleged pimping of I.B., just as with her identity of S... the stripper, can well be a creation of the plaintiff having studied the how to on YouTube. [17] [ 234 ] Pepall J.A. of the Court of Appeal for Ontario wrote the following on the theory of fabrication: [29] “The distinction between absence of evidence of a motive to fabricate and absence of a motive to fabricate is not easily digestible”: R . v. John , 2017 ONCA 622 , 350 C.C.C. (3d) 397 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 97 , per Watt J.A.

As Watt J.A. explained in John , at para. 93 : The former is not the equivalent of the latter, nor is the latter the same as the former: R . v. L . (L.) , 2009, ONCA 413 , 244 C.C.C. (3d) 149, at para. 44 . Said in another way, it does not logically follow that, because a witness has no apparent reason to lie, the witness must be telling the truth: R . v B . (R.W.) (1993), 24 B.C.A.C. 1, at para. 28 . The fact that a witness has no apparent motive to fabricate does not mean that the witness has no motive to fabricate: R . v.

L . (L.), at par. 44 . [Emphasis added.] … [35] Moreover, the trial judge was required to consider motive to fabricate due to the defence allegation that the complainant had a motive to fabricate. In the context of the defence submissions, he was entitled to look to the evidence for any suggestion of motive and conclude that there was no such evidence. The trial judge’s reference to the state of the relationship between the complainant and the appellant does not reflect a finding that the complainant had no motive to fabricate.

It is equally consistent with a finding that there was no evidence of any motive to fabricate. [18]

[235] Recently, the Honourable Normand Bonin, J.C.Q., wrote the following on the theory of fabrication: [translation] [81] … This means the Court must consider examining the theory of the fabrication of false complaints given the existence of a potentialmotive. The proof of a lack of a motive for inventing a story can certainly be a convincing reason to conclude that a witness is telling thetruth. On the other hand, evidence of a motive to invent a story does not necessarily mean that the complainant is not telling the truth.

It is one of the many factors that must be considered when assessing a witness’s credibility.[19] [236] In accordance with the case law, the Court must consider this issue raised by the defence. The essential elements of the offences with which the accused is charged Counts: 1. Section 212(1)(

d) Cr. C.; 2. Section 212(1)(

h) Cr. C.,; 3. Section 212(1)(

j) Cr. C., as they read at the time. [237] The charges against the accused took place over many years, from 2013 to 2018. Counts 1, 2, and 3 are subject to the formerlegislation, whereas counts 4 and 5 are subject to the new legislation. [238] On June 14, 2014, Bill C-36 was introduced in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bedford.[20] The Bill received royalassent on November 6, 2014, and came into force on December 6, 2014. , Among other things, the Bill replaced several offences thatexisted under s. 212 of the Criminal Code. The changes included a new offence of procuring in s. 286.3 Cr. C. (replacing former s.212(1)(

d) Cr. C.) and the new offence of “material benefit from sexual services” in s. 286.2 (which replaced s. 212(1)(

j) Cr. C.). [239] In Bedford, the Supreme Court found that s. 212(1)(

j) Cr. C., which prohibited living on the avails of prostitution, wasoverbroad and therefore unconstitutional. The Court declared this offence inconsistent with the Charter and, as a result, invalid. Thedeclaration of invalidity did not come into force immediately; instead, its effect was suspended for one year. [240] Two weeks before the suspension expired, the former s. 212(1)(

j) Cr. C. was replaced by the new provision. Recently in Albashir,[21] the Supreme Court had to answer the following question: Is the provision prohibiting living off the avails of sex workretroactively invalid such that it cannot ground a conviction for an offence committed prior to the declaration of invalidity taking effect?The Court decided that the remedy in Bedford was purely prospective. Count 1: In Montreal and Toronto, between March 1, 2013, and December 4, 2014, did procure or attempt to procure a person tobecome a prostitute (s. 212(1)(

d) Cr. C.) [241] To establish procuring, the Crown must prove that the accused intentionally did procure or attempt to procure a person tobecome a prostitute (the word “prostitute” is used here with reference to s. 212 Cr. C., as it read at the time of the offences). Prostitution is defined as follows: Prostitution consists of offering one’s body for the purpose of sexual intercourse or other sexual gratification in return for payment: R. v.Di Paola (1978), (ON CA), 43 C.C.C. (2d) 1

[…]