2019 QCCQ 6896, 2019 QCCQ 6896

Translated from the original French R. c. Vera Camacho 2019 QCCQ 6896 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL “Criminal and Penal Division” Nos.: 500-01-153078-172 500-01-153844-177 500-01-154378-175 500-01-156320-175 DATE: November 4, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE MYLÈNE GRÉGOIRE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutrix v.

Luis Fernando VERA CAMACHO Accused ______________________________________________________________________ SENTENCING JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ This judgment and the evidence gathered during the sentencing hearing are subject to an order under s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code (Cr. C.) directing that any information that could identify the victims shall not be published in any document or broadcasted or transmitted in any way . I.

BACKGROUND [ 1 ] The accused pleaded guilty to a series of sexual offences involving nine victims, including seven minors: X (15 years old), Y (17 years old), Z (15 years old), A (16 years old), B (18 years old), C (22 years old), D (17 years old), E (17 years old) and F (16 years old). [ 2 ] The offences were committed between June 15, 2014, and April 6, 2017, the day of the accused’s arrest.

The 20 counts for which the accused pleaded guilty are grouped as follows: Sexual assault (5 counts) Sexual interference (2 counts) Luring a child (2 counts) Attempt to procure to become a prostitute (1 count) Procuring (3 counts) Procuring – person under 18 years (4 counts) Obtaining sexual services from person under 18 years (1 count) Obtaining material benefits from sexual services (1 count) Obtaining material benefits from sexual services provided by person under 18 years (1 count) [ 3 ] A joint statement of the facts [1] was filed. Below is an excerpt [2] to properly situate this decision:

[ translation ] The accused Camacho, known as Carlos, targeted minor girls to recruit them for the purpose of prostitution. He contacted the young girls via internet. He posted ads on various sites offering a well-paid job as a receptionist or a masseuse in a massage parlour. He asked them to send him photos of themselves. A meeting was then scheduled with Carlos for a so-called employment interview. The accused usually went to pick up the girls with his vehicle, most of the time outside a metro station. He drove a white SUV. He introduced himself as the agency “boss”.

He drove them to a massage parlour located at 5005 Jean-Talon in Montreal. Under the guise of training them for the job, he brought them into one of the rooms and asked them to undress. He started with a massage and ended with vaginal penetration without a condom.

He then explained in detail the sexual services they would offer clients and the amount of money for the services. [ 4 ] At the parties’ suggestion, sentencing submissions were postponed after the Court ordered a presentence report (PSR) [3] and a specialized sex offender assessment. [4] [ 5 ] Several victims, accompanied by their relatives, attended the sentencing hearing. The Court took knowledge of the contents of seven victim impact statements on the consequences of the crimes. [5] Some statements were read by the victims, and the others by the Crown prosecutor.

I will return to this. [ 6 ] The accused also testified in defense. Evidence of his therapeutic treatment and employment were also presented to the Court. [6] II. FACTS RELATED TO THE OFFENCES [ 7 ] The facts surrounding the offences committed against each victim are presented below in greater detail for each file. [ 8 ] The Court would like to thank counsels for their professionalism and cooperation as it is well aware of the effort required to reach an agreement on the facts in such a case.

This exercise facilitated the Court’s work, allowing the sentencing hearing to be targeted and serene. [ 9 ] These summaries are taken from the joint statement of facts: [7] ❖ 500-01-153078-172 X 15 years old Count 1. Between February 15, 2017, and March 15, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did receive a benefit knowing that it was obtained by and/or derived directly or indirectly from the offence in s. 286.1(2), thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.2(2) of the Criminal Code . Count 2.

Between February 15, 2017, and March 15, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure X, a person under the age of

18 years, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, did, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1), recruit, hold, conceal or harbour, exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of X, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code . Count 4.

Between February 15, 2017, and March 15, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, by means of telecommunication, did communicate with X, a person who was, or who the accused believed was, under the age of 16 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence against her under ss. 151, 152, 160(3), 173(2), 271, 272, 273 or 280, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in ss. 172.1(1) (

b) and (2) (

a) of the Criminal Code . Count 5. Between February 15, 2017, and March 15, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did, for a sexual purpose, touch any part of the body of X, a person under the age of sixteen (16) years, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 151 (

a) of the Criminal Code . « Between February 15 and March 15, 2017, the accused contacted the complainant to offer her a job interview. He went to pick her up at her home in a luxury white SUV vehicle. He told her that he was taking her to the massage parlour where she would work as a prostitute. He described the services and rates and explained how the income would be shared. The victim told him that she was 15 years old. He drove her to 5005 Jean-Talon, where he led her to a room and sexually assaulted her. In the coming days, the accused returned to pick up the victim and drive her to clients for prostitution.

He gave her a cellphone so that she could contact him and drove her to the hotel or directly to the client’s home. She gave the accused all the money she made from prostitution and he gave her a share at the end of the day » . Y 17 years old Count 6.

On or about February 11, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure Y, a person under the age of 18 years, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, did, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1), recruit, hold, conceal or harbour, exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of Y, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code . Count 7. On or about February 11, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did sexually assault Y, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 271 (

a) of the Criminal Code . « After having answered an ad on Kijiji, on February 11, 2017, she met Carlos at the Préfontaine metro, accompanied by her friend A. They got into his white Lexus SUV, and he dropped A off at a McDonald’s restaurant and drove Y to the massage parlour on Jean-Talon, where she was sexually assaulted. The accused ejaculated on her back. He explained the nature of the sexual services she was to provide and the prices clients were to pay. He then dropped her off at the McDonald’s restaurant where her friend A was waiting for her.

A forensic examination was conducted and confirmed that the DNA from the sperm was that of the accused » . Z 15 years old Count 9. On or about April 4, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure Z, a person under the age of 18 years, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, did, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1), recruit, hold, conceal or harbour, exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of Z, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code . Count 10.

On or about April 4, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did, for a sexual purpose, touch any part of the body of Z, a person under the age of sixteen (16) years, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 151 (

a) of the Criminal Code .

« On April 4, 2017, the victim went to the de la Savane metro to meet Carlos, who contacted her to offer her an interview for a well-paying job. The accused showed up for the meeting and asked the victim to get into his white SUV vehicle. He drove her to 5005 Jean-Talon. They went into one of the rooms and he asked her to undress, started to massage her and ended by penetrating her vagina. He explained that she could make a lot of money if she worked for him, providing sexual services to clients of his agency.

The police, who had the accused under surveillance, saw the victim leave 5005 Jean-Talon accompanied by the accused and get into the white SUV » . A 16 years old Count 11. On or about February 10, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, by means of telecommunication, did communicate with A, a person who was, or who the accused believed was, under the age of 18 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence against her under ss. 153(1), 155, 163.1, 170, 171, 279.011, 279.02(2), 279.03(2), 286.1(2), 286.2(2) or 286.3(2) , thereby committing the indictable offence set out in ss. 172.1(1) (

a) and (2) (

a) of the Criminal Code . « She answered an ad offering employment. The accused called her and talked to her about a job as a masseuse. She was asked for photos. A meeting was scheduled at the Préfontaine metro. On the telephone, the accused told her that if she wanted to make more money, she should bring [ translation ] “more people”. She went with her friend Y. They both got into the accused’s white SUV vehicle. He drove her to a McDonald’s restaurant and left with her friend Y. The accused called her back on her telephone and told her that her interview would be soon.

The accused returned to drop Y off at the McDonald’s. The two young girls left on foot » . ❖ 500-01-153844-177 B 18 years old Count 2. Between June 15, 2014, and June 30, 2014, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure or attempt to procure B to become a prostitute, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 212(1) (

d) of the Criminal Code . Count 3. Between June 15, 2014, and June 30, 2014, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did sexually assault B, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 271 (

a) of the Criminal Code . « In June 2014, she answered an ad on Kijiji offering work as a masseuse. A meeting was scheduled outside the Namur metro. The accused arrived in a white SUV. She got into the vehicle and was driven to 5005 Jean-Talon. She followed him into one of the massage rooms, where he told her that she had to undress and be massaged as part of her training. She felt obliged to do so because she was afraid he would hurt her, so she complied. She lay down on her stomach and he penetrated her without a condom. He ejaculated on her back and then asked her to take a shower.

He explained the job of an escort and the money she could make. He brought her to see another woman and they took photos of her » . C 22 years old Count 4. Between June 1, 2015, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did receive a financial benefit knowing that it was derived directly or indirectly from the offence in s. 286.1(1), thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code .

Count 5. Between June 1, 2015, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, 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), did recruit, hold, conceal or harbour a person who offered or provided sexual services for consideration, or did exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of a person who offered or provided such services, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code .

« In the summer of 2015, the victim answered an ad offering employment as a massage therapist. The accused contacted her and a meeting was scheduled. He went to pick her up in his vehicle and drove her to the massage parlour located at 5005 Jean-Talon, where they had consensual sexual relations. She was 22 years old. He spoke to her about working as an escort. She started to prostitute herself after this meeting. The accused texted her when she had a client. A driver would bring her home. She then brought him the money and received a salary at the end of the day.

A person called Zoé managed the clients and appointments. She also took photos of her at her apartment. The accused picked her escort name (M.). Either the accused or Zoé drove her to meet with clients. 3-4 clients a week. The procedure was always the same: Text when you go in, when you count the money and when you get into the shower. The accused had previously asked her to find girls for prostitution » . ❖ 500-01-154378-175 D 17 years old Count 2.

Between January 1, 2016, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did receive a benefit knowing that it was derived directly or indirectly from the offence in s. 286.1(2), thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.2(2) of the Criminal Code . Count 3.

Between January 1, 2016, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure or recruit, hold, conceal or harbour, or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of D, a person under the age of 18 years, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code . Count 4. Between January 1, 2016, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did sexually assault D, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 271 (

a) of the Criminal Code . « In the spring of 2016, she answered an ad on Kijiji offering employment as a receptionist in a massage parlour. She exchanged emails with a person called Zoé who asked her to send her nude photos of herself, which she did. A meeting was arranged outside the Namur metro. The accused picked her up, drove her to 5005 Jean-Talon, led her into one of the rooms and asked her to undress. He massaged her and then sexually assaulted her. He knew that she was 17 years old. He talked about the agency and told her she could make money by giving massages and working as an escort.

She started to work as a prostitute for the accused. He set the prices and found the clients. Once the services had been provided, she gave the accused the money and he gave part of it back to her at the end of the day as wages. She sometimes dealt with Zoé, the accused’s business partner. She had to text him before and after she was with clients. The accused drove her to see the clients. She had regular clients. The accused asked her to bring her friends to the agency.

She had six or seven sexual relations with the accused at the massage parlour at 5005 Jean-Talon. He insisted, even if she said no. She worked as a prostitute for the accused until his arrest in April 2017 » . E 17 years old Count 5. Between October 1, 2016, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did sexually assault E, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 271 (

a) of the Criminal Code . Count 7. Between October 1, 2016, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure, or recruit, hold, conceal or harbour, or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of E, a person under the age of 18 years, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code . « In October 2016, she was contacted on Facebook by a person she did not know who offered her a chance to make money. She gave him her telephone number. The accused contacted her.

She gave him personal information, and he asked her to send him nude photos of herself, which she did. He explained that she could make a lot of money if she became a prostitute. He knew that she was 17 years old. Around February 4, 2017, a meeting with the accused was scheduled outside the Pie-IX metro. She got into his white SUV vehicle, and he drove her to an apartment. He served her a glass of alcohol and asked her to undress. He rubbed his penis against her and insisted several times on penetrating her. The victim felt compelled at a given point to consent.

He penetrated her vagina and ejaculated on her back. He gave her $80. He explained how his escort agency worked. She left after two hours. She told her sister what happened. The accused “texted” her continuously in the days that followed, asking if she was available to see clients. She did not reply to these requests » . ❖ 500-01-156320-175 F 16 years old Count 2. On or about January 13, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did sexually assault F, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 271 (

a) of the Criminal Code . Count 3. On or about January 13, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure F, a person under the age of 18 years, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1), did recruit, hold, conceal or harbour the person who offered or provided sexual services for consideration, or did exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of F, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code . « She was contacted by Carlos. He knew that she was 16 years old.

On January 13, 2017, she went to meet the accused outside the Outremont metro and got into his white SUV. He drove her to the massage parlour at 5005 Jean-Talon. He brought her into one of the rooms. An Asian woman entered and scrutinized her. The accused asked her to undress and remove her underwear.

He massaged her and then penetrated her vagina. He ejaculated on her back. He did not wear a condom. He then asked her to take a shower. He took photos of her, talked about prostitution, what services to provide and the rates. He offered her money to recruit other girls. He then took her out for dinner and drove her to his associate Zoé’s place to take more photos. He then dropped her off at the Papineau metro. Despite several calls, she never answered his requests to see clients » . III.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE CRIMES ON THE VICTIMS [8] [ 10 ] It is obvious that the commission of such crimes had and continues to have serious consequences for each victim in this case. Their family members are also considerably affected by the impact of these offences. [ 11 ] These consequences emerge in various ways, are specific to each individual and are not frozen in time.

The impact on a human life may sometimes evolve and vary in intensity. [ 12 ] After carefully listening to the testimony and reading the statements given at the sentencing hearing, it is clear that these young women undoubtedly suffered numerous, heavy and drastic repercussions. [9] Although they are very different, they are each important. [ 13 ] Below is a non-exhaustive description of the main consequences as stated by these young girls.

The order in which they are listed has no importance. • Several victims are still uneasy being in a public place due to the accused’s modus operandi , where everything started with a meeting near a metro station; • Their social lives in general will be affected forever; • Panic at the sight of a vehicle similar to the one used by the accused; • Fear of the accused and that he will harm them given that they reported him to the police and the fact that he knows their personal contact information; • Loss of self-esteem and trust in others; • Specific distrust of men; • Emotional instability; • Difficulty having, or cannot have, an intimate relationship with someone else; • Isolation; • Changes in personality; • Anxiety; • Loss of enjoyment of life, sadness, crying and wanting to die; • Depression; • Drug, alcohol or other substance abuse; • Suicide attempts; • Hospitalizations; • Psychological and/or psychiatric treatments; • Stress related to the fear of becoming pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted infection following unprotected sexual relations with the accused;

• Sexual blockage; • Sleep disorders and nightmares; • Dropping out of school; • Losing or leaving employment, causing financial stress. [ 14 ] Shortly after proceedings began, E tried to commit suicide twice in the space of a few months. She was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder [10] and now suffers from cardiac arrhythmia as a result of her last suicide attempt.

She said [ translation ] “she still sees images in her head and hears the accused’s voice giving her orders”. [ 15 ] Physicians also diagnosed B and D with post-traumatic stress after they had to be hospitalized. [ 16 ] To this day, they are still in therapy, as is Z. [ 17 ] D revealed that she changed sexual orientation due to her experience. She had to move to feel safe and so that she could start her life afresh. [ 18 ] Y dreamed of becoming an ambulance paramedic so she could help people. Today, she is the one who needs help. She had to give up her studies because of what she experienced.

She was unable to resume them and therefore had to abandon her dream. [ 19 ] The evidence also reveals that the victims’ families were affected by the offences committed against their daughters. [ 20 ] These damages are more than collateral. Parents can only but be affected when they see their child wounded, frightened, distressed, change behaviour or abandon dreams and ambitions.

This is why they can state with conviction that the accused, by committing his crimes, has stolen their daughters’ youth and innocence. [11] Their entire family life has suffered. [ 21 ] The Court would like to acknowledge the tremendous courage displayed by each of these young women in reporting their aggressor.

Thanks to their strength, combativeness and resilience, it was possible to put an end to this exploitation, mistreatment and abuse and undoubtedly prevent others from suffering the same fate. [ 22 ] The medical, physical, psychological and academic guidance and support needed requires extraordinary patience, tenderness, openness and availability from the victims’ families. [ 23 ] The Court commends the efforts of each family and encourages them to continue and remain hopeful for a better future. IV. OFFENDER [ 24 ] The accused is 36 years old, divorced and has no children.

He had no criminal record at the time the offences were committed. [ 25 ] During the proceeding, more specifically on February 18, 2019, he was sentenced to 15 days’ imprisonment on four counts of [ translation ] “failing to comply with a recognizance” entered into in these files. The accused violated his curfew and used the internet while prohibited. [ 26 ] The accused wanted to address the Court during the sentencing hearing. He repeated what he wrote in a letter presented and filed as SD-7 and apologized to the victims and their parents for what he made them go through.

[ 27 ] The accused acknowledged that he assaulted, manipulated and influenced each young girl and said that he was troubled to learn of all the repercussions caused by his actions because he never imagined that they could be so extensive.

He said that he believed from the beginning that the girls knew what they were doing and consented to act as they did. [ 28 ] He also expressed remorse while admitting that he alone was responsible and knew that he could not force them to forgive him. [ 29 ] He hopes that they will continue along their paths with the support of their families. [ 30 ] As previously stated, the authorities arrested the accused in April 2017. He was released approximately one month later. His parents paid his bail. The accused described his incarceration as destructive. His entourage reacted vividly, which caused confrontations.

Many people distanced themselves from him, little by little, including his parents. [ 31 ] His spouse Cindy left him for good when she learned the nature of the charges and filed for divorce. [ 32 ] The accused is currently living with Claire Nicolle, the co-accused in this file. [12] The status of their relationship is somewhat ambiguous, even though the accused maintains that they have not been a couple since October 2017. They still have sexual relations from time to time. [13] [ 33 ] The accused has had a very hard time keeping a job, due partly to his drinking and to the publicity surrounding this case.

The accused’s last job was as a booth manager for food company Déso, who is prepared to take him back after he has served his sentence, if the circumstances permit. [14] [ 34 ] Since his arrest, the accused has taken several steps with various specialized resources. The various professionals consulted have prepared reports, filed as exhibits SD-1 to SD-5. [ 35 ] Steve Titley, a sexologist with the Intervention Centre in Sexual Delinquency (ICSD) in Laval, conducted a first sexological assessment of the accused on August 3, 2017. The accused then participated in the ICSD awareness program for 12 or 13 weeks.

He said that it was during this program that he understood the abusive nature of the acts he committed and the consequences the victims may have experienced. [ 36 ] At the request of his counsel, the accused met with criminologist Thierry Webanck, who conducted a criminological assessment and prepared a report, dated March 19, 2018. [15] An addendum [16] dated December 11, 2018, was filed. [ 37 ] That report reveals the following about the accused’s profile: • The accused was born in Bolivia.

When he was four years old, he immigrated to Canada with his adoptive parents and his little sister, who is related by blood to their father. • The accused officially learned only in 2015, when he was 32 years old, that he had been “bought” from a poor family in his country of origin. Even though the whole family knew, they had always hidden it from him. The accused did not accept this secret, which he considered a betrayal. • The relationship with his adoptive father has always been tense, conflictual and unsatisfactory. The accused felt that his adoptive father despised him.

He said that he was psychologically and physically abused by his father. • He first left the family home when he was 15 years old, after his father kicked him out. • That was when the building janitor where he lived started to abuse him. [17] • The accused met Cindy when he was 18 years old, and they were married in 2007. • The accused cut off contact with his parents for 10 years (from 22 to 32 years old).

• The accused worked primarily in the restaurant industry. He opened his first coffee shop in 2008 and a second one in 2010. Business did not last. • He then became partners with an employee. She worked as a prostitute and he was the driver. • The accused returned to Quebec after spending one year in Bolivia with his spouse, during which time he developed a website design business. • His business became less profitable and seeing his debts mount, the accused this time became partners with a client who owned erotic massage parlours and escort agencies.

He was responsible for recruitment. • The accused quickly realized that he could make a lot more money from procuring escorts than from recruiting, and he opened his own escort agency in 2013-2014 with the goal of increasing his profits. [ 38 ] This is the context in which the offences were committed to which the accused pleaded guilty. [ 39 ] Mr. Webanck referred the accused to Dr. Marc Ravart for psychological and sexological treatment, and he started therapy on April 27, 2018. According to Dr.

Ravart’s report, [18] the accused participated in 19 sessions. [ 40 ] The therapy focused on understanding his criminal behaviour, on his underlying issues and on preventing recidivism. Dr. Ravart maintains that the accused took the therapy seriously, cooperated well and showed insight. [ 41 ] Dr. Ravart did not identify any mental health problem. He stated, however, that his [ translation ] “longstanding personal, relationship and family issues are directly and indirectly associated with his offences”. [19] Dr.

Ravart was of the view that the accused is psychologically stable and had [ translation ] “learned and drawn clear lessons from the incidents”. [20] He encouraged him [ translation ] “to pursue his therapy in order to continue to reduce his risk factors and to improve himself and his quality of life”. [21] [ 42 ] On July 19, 2018, the accused started a second therapy with psychotherapist Stéphane Frigon, whom he saw 10 times. [22] The accused told him he was facing charges of procuring only at the end of the third session.

He interrupted the therapy for financial and job- related reasons at the end of 2018. [ 43 ] The accused liked Mr. Frigon’s direct and confrontational approach. He and Mr. Frigon scrutinized every aspect of his personality and the reasons for his offences.

The accused said that he has stopped lying. [ 44 ] In early 2019, the accused attended two out of a possible ten appointments offered by the Centre de Relation d’Aide de Montréal (CRAM), as evidenced by Exhibit SD-5. [ 45 ] To conclude on the accused’s therapy, he has met with Maribel Sanchez five times since January 2019 because he wanted to better understand his father’s behaviour toward him from the perspective of a Latino therapist with knowledge of South American culture. [ 46 ] The accused claims that all this has made him a better person. [ 47 ] The accused described his exploitation of the women as despicable, disgusting and degrading, and said he now knows that his acts were wrong and is aware of their consequences.

V. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES [ 48 ] Both parties more or less agree on the term [23] to be imposed for each count. They disagree primarily on whether the various sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively.

[ 49 ] The Crown proposes a total sentence of 36 years’ imprisonment, based on the multiplicity of counts, the number of victims involved, the minimum sentences prescribed and the application of the provisions on cumulative punishments. [24] Based on its calculation, the defence instead proposes 35 years. Considering the totality principle, however, the Crown seeks an overall sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. [ 50 ] The defence submits that a 5-year sentence less 60 days’ presentence custody adequately satisfies Parliament’s objectives and principles. VI.

CASE LAW [ 51 ] The parties conducted an extensive review of the case law on sexual offences, including those with elements involving prostitution or the exploitation of persons, including minors. In addition to the case law [25] filed by the parties in support of their position, the Court also read several other decisions. [26] Unsurprisingly, none of them is exactly like the case at bar.

Each case turns on its own facts and, all things considered, the comparative method has its limits. [27] [ 52 ] Moreover, several decisions raised discuss offences committed before the new provisions on the commodification of sexual activity came into force in 2014. At the same time, Parliament enacted many minimum sentences, particularly for procuring a person under the age of 18 years.

It had previously done so for internet luring. [ 53 ] Nor is sentencing a mathematical operation. [ 54 ] As noted by the Supreme Court in Lacasse , [28] “[s]entencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives”. [ 55 ] A range is not a straitjacket, and judges continue to have discretionary power and a duty to apply it to the specific case before them. [ 56 ] As will be discussed below, s. 718.3(7) Cr.

C. reiterates Parliament’s intention to inflict cumulative punishments on offenders who have committed various sexual offences against children. [ 57 ] Regardless, all of these cases make it clear that the appropriate sentence is one that, while individualized, will offer sufficient denunciation and deterrence. VII. SENTENCING PRINCIPLES [ 58 ] Under s. 718.1 Cr.

C., the fundamental sentencing principle is that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 59 ] Parliament listed the objectives and principles sought at this stage of the judicial process in s. 718 Cr. C.: Purpose 718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with

crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 60 ] Without excluding other objectives from the sentencing process, s. 718.01 Cr. C. provides the framework for exercising the judge’s discretion at this delicate step in the proceedings. Therefore, when a court imposes a sentence for an offence involving the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it must give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

The relative precedence given to the two objectives increases the importance of these principles, by giving less weight to other objectives, including rehabilitation. [29] [ 61 ]

Section 718.2 Cr. C. lists other principles that the Court must consider during sentencing.

According to s. 718.2( a ), a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. [ 62 ] Parliament took care to state, in a non-exhaustive manner, however, certain particularities that, once established by the evidence, constitute aggravating circumstances. 718.2( a ) … (ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years, (iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, (iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation, … [ 63 ]

Section 718.2(

b) Cr. C. codifies the principle of parity in sentencing, meaning that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Sections 718.2 (

d) and (

e) codify the principle that courts must consider sanctions less restrictive than those that deprive offenders of liberty where appropriate in the circumstances. The sentence must naturally consider the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 64 ]

Section 718.2(

c) Cr. C., which requires that sentences should not be unduly long or harsh, only applies where sentences are to be served consecutively. [30] [ 65 ] As a general rule, prison sentences should be concurrent where the counts are the result of a single incident, arise from the same facts, or involve an ongoing criminal act. [ 66 ] It is otherwise where the law explicitly provides that the sentence must be served

consecutively or if a consecutive sentence is justified due to an aggravating circumstance. [ 67 ]

Section 718.3(7) Cr. C. came into force on July 17, 2015, and states:

(7) When a court sentences an accused at the same time for more than one sexual offence committed against a child, the court shall direct … (

b) that a sentence of imprisonment it imposes for a sexual offence committed against a child, other than an offence under

section 163.1, be served consecutively to a sentence of imprisonment it imposes for a sexual offence committed against another child other than an offence under

section 163.1. [ 68 ] The words “the court shall direct” indicate that the sentences must be consecutive once the criteria of this provision are met. [ 69 ] Last, the principles of totality and proportionality must not be violated and, if needed, the Court should make the necessary adjustment. VIII. COURT-ORDERED ASSESSMENTS [ 70 ]

Section 720 Cr. C. states that a court shall, as soon as practicable after an offender has been found guilty, conduct proceedings to determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed. [ 71 ] The Court may, however, postpone this process to allow a probation officer to prepare and file a report in writing relating to the accused for the purpose of assisting the court in reaching its decision. [31] [ 72 ] The Court notes that some information from the PSR and the specialized sex offender assessment is relevant and helpful to the sentencing and individualization process. A few remarks are in order.

Specialized sex offender assessment [32] [ 73 ] Probation officer and PSR author Mathieu Pagé referred the accused to psychologist Michel Raymond for a specialized sex offender assessment. [ 74 ] The specific purpose of this assessment, dated May 17, 2019, was to assess the accused’s risk of reoffending and whether he has any cognitive distortions or sexual fantasies. The probation officer also asked for recommendations regarding the accused’s rehabilitation. [ 75 ] The psychologist had access to various reports by therapists [33] consulted by the accused and had telephone discussions with Dr. Frigon and Dr.

Ravart. [ 76 ] Mr. Raymond noted the following with respect to his [ translation ] “diagnostic impressions”: [34] [ translation ] • It is difficult to diagnose paraphilia (this could be confirmed by a sexual preference

assessment); • The accused displays many signs of narcissistic personality disorder, such as the need for admiration, fantasies about power, a sense of entitlement, the exploitation of others, and a lack of empathy; • Even though he displays a propensity for deception/manipulation and parasitism, elements of sexual promiscuity, a superficial charm to a lesser degree, a tendency to be bored, a lack of empathy and little remorse for the offences, he does not present sufficient traits to be considered a psychopath. [ 77 ] The factors associated with the accused’s sexual problem are as follows: [35] [ translation ] • Difficult childhood and unhealthy relationship with the father; • Secret and lie regarding his adoption; • Sense of betrayal; • Reproduction of the same approach in his relationship with his spouse by investing partially, being unfaithful and engaging in unlawful professional activities that he kept secret; • Financial problems he felt the need to camouflage by maintaining a lifestyle focused on appearances and material wealth; • Sexual experiences as an adolescent that seem to have turned him toward procuring and the search for a feeling of power by manipulating the victims during the offences; • Minimal acknowledgement of the impact of his acts on the victims. [ 78 ] In conclusion and with respect to the accused’s risk of reoffending, Mr.

Raymond recommends that he be assessed by the detention centre where he is to serve his sentence and be directed to the appropriate programs for his issues. In addition to working on his esteem issues, specific attention should be paid to his lack of empathy and difficulties investing sincerely in a lasting relationship. [36] [ 79 ] Eventually, the accused’s employment and the people he associates with should be confirmed, given his tendency to deceive, manipulate and keep secrets.

Presentence report [37] [ 80 ] On July 17, 2019, Mathieu Pagé prepared the presentence report ordered by the Court when the accused pleaded guilty. [ 81 ] The criminologist reviewed the accused’s childhood, adolescence, education and employment history. He also described his social environment and his various emotional and sexual relationships. [ 82 ] The report also described the factors that contributed to the offences and the therapeutic steps taken by the accused since his arrest. [ 83 ] Even though the accused states that he regrets his actions and displays some consideration for the victims, Mr.

Pagé feels that his acknowledgement of the offences he committed and his empathy have been superficial and embryonic to date. [38]

[ 84 ] Supported by Mr. Raymond’s specialized assessment, the probation officer concludes that there is still a risk of reoffending. This risk will be better controlled in the long term, however, if the accused continues to obtain professional help. The accused should be closely and strictly monitored to contain this risk. VIII.

ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION [ 85 ] Sentencing remains one of the most delicate stages of the criminal justice process in Canada. [ 86 ] As previously discussed, the Court’s sentence depends on the objective and subjective gravity of the offence and any aggravating and mitigating factors. [ 87 ] Objective gravity is determined by the maximum sentence established by Parliament for the offence and the place such offence occupies in the sentencing hierarchy in the Criminal Code .

Subjective gravity of the offence refers more to the way the crime was committed. [39] [ 88 ] No one disputes that the objective gravity of the offences at issue is high. Several of them are subject to mandatory minimum sentences ranging from 1 to 5 years and maximum sentences of 10 to 14 years. [ 89 ] At the risk of repetition, Parliament framed the exercise of the judge’s discretion by requiring that special attention be paid to certain specific objectives and that several sentencing factors be considered, particularly for offences involving children.

Mitigating circumstances [ 90 ] First, the Court accepts the following as mitigating circumstances: • The accused has no criminal record or any pending proceedings; • The guilty plea, [40] preventing the victims from suffering the additional trauma of having to testify and live with the uncertainty caused by any trial; • The accused’s good cooperation when the Court-ordered reports were prepared; • The accused’s remorse and apology to the victims and their families; • A certain acknowledgement of the harm caused to the victims; [41] • The various therapeutic steps taken, which establish that the accused has started his rehabilitation.

The accused’s circumstances [ 91 ] While the Court does not consider them as aggravating or mitigating circumstances, there are other elements relevant to individualizing the sentence. [ 92 ] The Court is aware of the fact that the accused had an atypical childhood. He was born in Bolivia, and his biological parents paid a poor family to buy him. The adoptive family then kept this secret and lied to him until 2015. The accused felt betrayed and still feels this way.

[ 93 ] His relationship with his adoptive father was difficult, conflictual and marked by episodes of psychological and physical violence. [ 94 ] The accused was bullied at school because he was overweight. [ 95 ] He was 14 years old when he had sexual intercourse for the first time, with an escort. As an adolescent, he placed an ad offering his sexual services. Over the years, he had many partners and sexual experiences. [ 96 ] While the accused does not describe it as abuse, when he was 15 years old, the janitor of the building where he lived touched his genitals and there was perhaps fellatio.

The janitor blackmailed the accused for sexual favours. [ 97 ] While not excusing, justifying or minimizing the accused’s criminal conduct, the hardships and unusual past he experienced certainly influenced the person he has become. [ 98 ] Criminologist Mr. Webanck stated that the accused does not have a psychopathological profile. The narcissism, deficient empathy, tendency to lie, sexual promiscuity and cognitive distortions, however, are part of his personality [42] and adversely affect his relational and social functioning.

There has been a strong connection between sexual activity and money since adolescence. [ 99 ] The following passage from the criminological assessment [43] is also relevant: [ translation ] Sexually abusing the victims during the recruitment process was an opportunistic ploy to satisfy his sexuality. It could be said that his conduct was guided by his desire for immediate sexual satisfaction and for power over young women.

The alleged “requirement” to have sexual intercourse with the applicants to assess their potential as an escort is supported by errors of thought (cognitive distortions) that allowed the accused to commit and justify the act, in his eyes and in the eyes of those around him.

He thus used (mental) defence mechanisms to protect himself and to isolate the negative parts of his personality. [ 100 ] The fact that he is not considered a paraphiliac or a psychopath [44] is not, however, a mitigating circumstance, as the defence implies in its arguments. [45] At most, this mental disorder would explain why the act was committed.

The accused’s moral culpability instead rises, given the absence of any psychological or psychiatric explanation. [46] [ 101 ] The fact that the accused was not physically violent, apart from the intrinsic violence recognized in any sexual assault, also affects his moral culpability [47] as opposed to being considered a mitigating circumstance. [ 102 ] The defence cites Bernard , [48] recently rendered by the Court of Appeal of Quebec, and argues that the Court has evidence of genuine rehabilitation by the accused that is well underway and deserves careful analysis. [ 103 ] After reading many reports, the Court notes that the accused has made real progress since he first started therapy.

Indeed, rehabilitation is one of the sentencing objectives.

[ 104 ] The fact that the pathological personality traits described by the various specialists have been anchored in the accused since his tender childhood, however, cannot be ignored. All agree that in this respect, therapy is recent and should pursue if his risk of reoffending is to be controlled and eventually reduced. [ 105 ] The accused’s last appointment with psychotherapist Mr. Frigon dates back to late 2018. [ 106 ] Since January 2019, psychologist-sexologist Dr. Ravart reports that the accused has not attended therapy regularly.

The PSR reveals that after the March visit, the accused contacted him only in July, [49] shortly before the sentencing hearing. [ 107 ] In Bernard , the trial judge ignored the evidence of rehabilitation.

In addition, the accused, aged merely 18 years old, had limited intelligence and presented a positive profile so rarely seen. [50] [ 108 ] With respect for the contrary view, that is not the case here. [ 109 ] Without minimizing the evidence of the accused’s fledgling rehabilitation, in light of the previous remarks after reviewing all the reports filed, both by the defence and pursuant to the Court’s orders, that evidence must be nuanced and distinguished in several regards.

Aggravating circumstances [ 110 ] The mistreatment of persons under the age of 18 years, [51] the breach of the victims’ trust, [52] not to mention the significant effects on each young girl regardless of age, [53] increase the gravity of the accused’s offences and therefore affect the severity of the sentence. [ 111 ] There are also other aggravating circumstances, most of which were admitted by the defence: [54] • There were nine victims; • The victims’ ages: of the three who prostituted themselves, two were minors (C, D (17 years old) and X (15 years old)); • The victims’ vulnerable situation; • The influence over and psychological manipulation of the victims; • The duration of the offences; • The repetition of various crimes; • The accused sexually assaulted seven out of nine victims; these sexual assaults were unprotected (without using a condom), which shows the accused’s blatant carelessness regarding the victims’ risk of becoming pregnant and/or contracting an infectious disease; • The method of recruiting young girls was an opportunistic ploy to satisfy the accused’s sexuality.

The accused sought profit from the unlawful activities and received a portion of the fruits of three of the victims’ labour (six of them rejected the accused’s offer to work for him); • The accused organized and planned the offences with his accomplice, using a Facebook account under a false name to recruit the victims (the co-accused is the accused’s former spouse; they are still living together);

• The number and extent of the short, medium and long-term consequences to the nine victims (see paras. 9 to 21). [ 112 ] In Tang , [55] rendered in 1997, the Court of Appeal of Alberta confirmed the five year- prison sentence of an accused convicted of living off the avails of prostitution of two young girls aged 13 and 14 years, with whom he also had sexual intercourses. The absence of a criminal record, the fact that there had been no violence against the two minor girls and the brief period involved were determinative factors for the Court of Appeal.

Otherwise, a harsher sentence would likely have been justified. The Court therefore proposed a series of factors likely to influence the appropriateness of the sentence for this type of offence, other than the aggravating or mitigating circumstances considered by the judge. [ 113 ] Let us now apply those factors to these cases: 1) The degree of coercion or control imposed by the pimp on the prostitution’s activities : The accused was the mastermind, even though he had an accomplice. He recruited by posting ads on various online sites offering employment as a receptionist or a masseuse in a massage parlour.

He used a woman’s fake name to initiate the first contact by email. He introduced himself using the pseudonym “Carlos” and asked the victims to send photos or even offered erotic photo sessions. He set up meetings for the hiring interview and introduced himself as the agency boss. To clearly establish his power at the initial meeting, he first massaged and then sexually assaulted the young girls (seven out of nine). He explained the sexual services they would have to provide to clientsand fixed the rates. He told them that they would earn a lot of money.

He was their driver, received all the money and set their salary. He gave some of them cellphones so that they could communicate with him. He also picked C’s escort name and gave her clear instructions such as [ translation ] “text when you go in, when you count the money and when you get into the shower”. [56] The accused also offered C and F money to recruit other girls. He asked D to bring her friends to the agency. 2) The amount of money received by the accused and the extent to which he allowed the victims to retain their earnings : All the money collected from clients had to be handed over to the accused.

He then decided what their salary would be and gave it to them. The evidence is silent on the precise percentage. We know, however, that the accused gave E $80 after he sexually assaulted her at the first meeting. 3) The age of the victims and their numbers : The accused had nine victims aged from 15 to 22 years old. Seven (7) of the victims were minors, including two who were only 15 years old. 4) Any special vulnerability on the part of the victims : The victims’ young age is definitely a criterion of vulnerability. The entire recruitment scam was insidious.

The accused led his now defenseless “prey” to an unknown place, the massage parlour on Jean-Talon Street. This made each young girl vulnerable, insecure, stressed, and afraid of reprisals if she did not obey his orders. Some of them noted that they were still afraid for themselves and their families due to the accused’s knowledge and access to their personal information. 5) The victims’ working conditions : The Court refers to point 1 for a

summary of the working conditions and states that the sexual services were apparently provided in a hotel or at the client’s home.

6) The degree of planning and sophistication : It was entirely the accused’s idea to offer the sexual services of an escort. He first procured adults. The PSR reveals that [ translation ] “after a year, the accused said that he added partners and that the scheme diversified and became larger. Over time, he had less and less responsibility and ... he was rolling in money ... his partner at the time took care of almost everything”. [57] Given his more controlling personality, however, the accused wanted to handle everything.

Clients wanted minor escorts and were prepared to pay a high price, particularly for unprotected sexual intercourse, so the accused developed the previously described recruitment method at the origin of these offences.

This is how the nine victims became involved in his “business”. 7) The size of the pimp’s operations : In addition to the preceding remarks on how the accused’s operations functioned, the Court notes that his business was considerable in size, given the number of victims (9). 8) The duration of the exploitative conduct : The offences were committed between June 15, 2014, and April 6, 2017, the day of his arrest. For four of the victims, there was only one incident, but for the others, the offences lasted from a few weeks to nearly two years for one of them.

The fact that the offences were repeated over a long period and involved many different victims cannot be described as “reoffending”, but this fact can certainly be considered to illustrate the accused’s character. It was not just a single incident or a brief period of misconduct. 9) The degree of violence used by the pimp : Aside from the intrinsic violence recognized in any sexual assault, the accused was not violent with the victims. 10) Inducement to use drugs or alcohol : The evidence does not establish any such behaviour by the accused.

The use of alcohol and/or drugs by some victims is instead a consequence of the crimes committed against them. 11) The effect on the victims of the exploitation : In this regard, the Court refers the reader to

section 3, paras. 9 to 22 inclusively. While much emphasis has been placed on the absence of physical violence, the most serious and long-lasting effects are psychological. 12) The extent to which the pimp demanded or compelled sexual favours for himself from the victims : The accused admitted each of the alleged sexual assaults against seven of the nine victims. His modus operandi to recruit the young girls was to first force himself on them by having unprotected complete sexual intercourse with them. He told them that he did so to ensure that they could provide the various sexual services to future clients.

This happened six or seven times with D, who said that each time the accused wanted to ejaculate in her and that she had to insist that he not do so. She was afraid of becoming pregnant or contracting an STI. The accused’s risk of reoffending [ 114 ] According to the ICSD sexological assessment, [58] consulted by criminologist Mr. Webanck, the accused’s risk of sexual or violent recidivism (STATIC-99R) is “moderate- low”. [59] [ 115 ] In March 2018, Mr. Webanck concluded that the accused’s problem extended beyond the

sexual aspect and included a strong opportunistic and lucrative component. [60] In December 2018, after learning about the clinical steps taken by the accused in the previous months, Mr. Webanck said that he was of the view that the accused’s actions, motivation and openness to the therapeutic work already done and that still needs to be done, should have a positive impact on reducing the risk of recidivism. [61] [ 116 ] As such, it is important to discuss the warning found on page 12 of the above criminal assessment.

I quote: [ translation ] Warning: STATIC-99R is a tool designed to help predict sexual and violent recidivism. The estimated recidivism risk proposed by STATIC-99R is based on an analysis of groups of individuals who returned before the courts for subsequent convictions. As a result, these estimates do not directly reflect the recidivism risk of an individual taken alone. The assessed subject’s recidivism risk may therefore be higher or lower than the tool’s estimated probability.

These variations are due to risk factors that are not measured by STATIC-99R. [ 117 ] In light of this information, the distinction and connection to be made with the result obtained by Mr. Raymond, who conducted the specialized sex offender assessment, after combining the STATIC-99R and STABLE-2007 scores, becomes clearer. The accused has an above-average risk of sexual recidivism when compared to sexual offenders as a whole. [62] The accused in fact has few protective factors. [63] [ 118 ] Mr.

Raymond stated that the lack of consideration for others is the most obvious contributory risk factor among those associated with the risk of recidivism. [64] Added to this are those related to the lack of positive social influence, the lack of a stable intimate relationship, a limited social network, feelings of solitude, relationships with women focused primarily on sexuality, a certain impulsiveness and employment instability.

Also noted is the failure to comply with the conditions of release. [ 119 ] The psychologist emphasized and I quote [ translation ] “that it remains to be seen whether the accused can genuinely try to change in the long term. ... To reduce the recidivism risk, the accused will have to work on changing the rationalizations and justifications for the offence and the risk factors described above”. [65] IX. CONCLUSION [ 120 ] The sentencing judge must balance all the relevant factors in order to meet the objectives being pursued in sentencing. Proportionality is the cardinal principle.

The more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender’s degree of responsibility, the heavier the sentence will be. [66] [ 121 ] In the circumstances of this case, the Court must send a clear message to the accused and to every person who might be tempted to imitate him. The accused’s fledgling rehabilitation is certainly to be considered, but cannot prevail over the compelling and imperative objectives of denunciation and deterrence. [ 122 ] The sentence to be imposed for each count must now be determined.

As Doyen J.A. recalled in Charest , [67] [ translation ] “to do so, the analysis proposed in R. c. Desjardins , 2015 QCCA 1774 , should be applied:

[ translation ] [33] To avoid this distortion and unwanted consequences, the just and appropriate sentence for each count should be determined in accordance with the objectives and principles that apply to sentencing, and the sentence ordered should be either concurrent with or consecutive to these sentences in relation to the others regardless of the overall sentence that may result. [34] Only once this is done should the totality principle in sentencing be considered.

If, when applying this principle, the Court finds that the overall sentence should be reduced, it is then preferable, inasmuch as possible, to impose concurrent sentences to achieve this goal. If the concurrent sentences method does not achieve an overall sentence that is fit, the Court may then reduce one or more of the sentences on some of the counts to achieve a fit overall sentence. [ 123 ] Minimum sentences are provided for several of the 20 counts, which simplifies the exercise in this regard. [ 124 ] In the Court’s view, it cannot be claimed that the offences at issue arise from the same facts.

Without repeating all the details, between 2014 and 2017, the accused recruited young girls for prostitution.

He sexually assaulted seven of them at least once and three of them became prostitutes. [ 125 ] These are clearly repeat [ translation ] “criminal transactions”, but separate for each victim and, therefore, they call for consecutive sentences. [ 126 ] After reviewing and analyzing all the circumstances of this matter and those surrounding the commission of the offences, combined with a review of the accused’s personal circumstances, the delicate exercise of finding the fit and appropriate sentence that respects the spirit of the law is as follows: ➢ 500-01-153078-172 Count/ Offence Applicable sentence ignoring the totality and proportionality principles Applicable sentence considering the totality and proportionality principles X (15 years old) February 15 to March 15, 2017 Count 1. 286.2(2) Minimum 2-year sentence, concurrent with any other sentence Minimum 2-year sentence, concurrent with any other sentence Count 2. 286.3(2) Minimum 5-year sentence, consecutive to any other sentence Minimum 5-year sentence, consecutive to any other sentence Count 4. 172.1(1) (

b) and (2) (

a) Minimum 1-year sentence, concurrent with any other sentence Minimum 1-year sentence, concurrent with any other sentence Count 5. 151( a ) 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Y (17 years old) February 11, 2017 Count 6. 286.3(2) Minimum 5-year sentence, consecutive to any other sentence Minimum 5-year sentence, concurrent with any other sentence Count 7. 271( a ) 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence

Z (15 years old) April 4, 2017 Count 9. 286.3(2) Minimum 5-year sentence, consecutive with any other sentence Minimum 5-year sentence, concurrent with any other sentence Count 10. 151( a ) 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence A (16 years old) February 10, 2017 Count 11. 172.1(1) (

a) and (2) (

a) Minimum 1-year sentence, consecutive to any other sentence Minimum 1-year sentence, concurrent with any other sentence Total 16 years, consecutive to any other sentence 5 years, consecutive to any other sentence ➢ 500-01-153844-177 Count/ Offence Applicable sentence ignoring the totality and proportionality principles Applicable sentence considering the totality and proportionality principles B (18 years old) June 15 to 30, 2014 Count 2. 212(1)( d ) 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 3. 271( a ) 2 years, consecutive to any other sentence 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence C (22 years old) June 1, 2015, to April 6, 2017 Count 4. 286.2(1) 3 years, concurrent with any other sentence 3 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 5. 286.3(1) 5 years, [68] consecutive to any other sentence 5 years, consecutive to any other sentence Total 7 years, consecutive to any other sentence 5 years, consecutive to any other sentence ➢ 500-01-154378-175 Count/ Offence Applicable sentence ignoring the totality and proportionality principles Applicable sentence considering the totality and proportionality principles D (16 years old) January 1, 2016, to April 6, 2017 Count 2. 286.2(2) Minimum 2-year sentence, concurrent with any other sentence Minimum 2-year sentence, concurrent with any other sentence Count 3. 286.3(2) Minimum 5-year sentence, consecutive to any other sentence Minimum 5-year sentence, consecutive to any other sentence Count 4. 271( a ) 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence

E (17 years old) October 1, 2016, to April 6, 2017 Count 5. 271( a ) 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 7. 286.3(2) Minimum 5-year sentence, consecutive to any other sentence Minimum 5-year sentence, concurrent with any other sentence Total 10 years, consecutive to any other sentence 5 years, consecutive to any other sentence ➢ 500-01-156320-175 Count/ Offence Applicable sentence ignoring the totality and proportionality principles Applicable sentence considering the totality and proportionality principles F (16 years old) January 13, 2017 Count 2. 271( a ) 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 3. 286.3(2) Minimum 5-year sentence, consecutive to any other sentence Minimum 5-year sentence, concurrent with any other sentence Total 5 years, consecutive to any other sentence 5 years, concurrent with any other sentence GRAND TOTAL 38-years’ imprisonment Total of 15 years’ imprisonment [ 127 ] The accused has served the equivalent of 60 days in presentence custody in file 500-01- 153078-172 that the Court will deduct from the total sentence for that file.

X. DISPOSITION FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: SENTENCES the accused to a total of 14 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. FILE 500-01-153078-172

Count 1. Between February 15, 2017, and March 15, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did receive a benefit knowing that it was obtained by and/or derived directly or indirectly from the offence in s. 286.1(2), thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.2(2) of the Criminal Code . 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 2.

Between February 15, 2017, and March 15, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure X, a person under the age of 18 years, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, did, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1), recruit, hold, conceal or harbour, exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of X, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code . 5 years, consecutive to any other sentence Count 4.

Between February 15, 2017, and March 15, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, by means of telecommunication, did communicate with X, a person who was, or who the accused believed was, under the age of 16 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence against her under ss. 151 , 152, 160(3), 173(2), 271 , 272, 273 or 280, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in ss. 172.1(1) (

b) and (2) (

a) of the Criminal Code . 1 year, concurrent with any other sentence Count 5. Between February 15, 2017, and March 15, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did, for a sexual purpose, touch any part of the body of X, a person under the age of sixteen (16) years, thereby committing the indictable offence under s. 151 (

a) of the Criminal Code . 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 6. On or about February 11, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure Y, a person under the age of 18 years, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, did, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1), recruit, hold, conceal or harbour, exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of S.B., thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code . 5 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 7.

On or about February 11, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did sexually assault Y, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 271 (

a) of the Criminal Code . 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 9. On or about April 4, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure Z, a person under the age of 18 years, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, did, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1), recruit, hold, conceal or harbour, exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of Z, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code . 5 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 10.

On or about April 4, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did, for a sexual purpose, touch any part of the body of Z, a person under the age of sixteen (16) years, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 151 (

a) of the Criminal Code . 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 11. On or about February 10, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, by means of

telecommunication, did communicate with A, a person who was, or who the accused believed was, under the age of 18 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under ss. 153(1), 155, 163.1, 170, 171, 279.011, 279.02(2), 279.03(2), 286.1(2), 286.2(2) or 286.3(2) , thereby committing the indictable offence set out in ss. 172.1(1) (

a) and (2) (

a) of the Criminal Code . 1 year, concurrent with any other sentence Total sentence in this file: 5 years less 60 days for presentence custody for a remaining 4 years and 10 months, consecutive to any other sentence. FILE 500-01-153844-177 Count 2. Between June 15, 2014, and June 30, 2014, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure or attempt to procure B to become a prostitute, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 212(1) (

d) of the Criminal Code . 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 3. Between June 15, 2014, and June 30, 2014, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did sexually assault B, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 271 (

a) of the Criminal Code . 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 4. Between June 1, 2015, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did receive a financial benefit knowing that it was derived directly or indirectly from the offence in s. 286.1(1), thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code . 3 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 5.

Between June 1, 2015, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, 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), did recruit, hold, conceal or harbour a person who offered or provided sexual services for consideration, or did exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of a person who offered or provided such services, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code . 5 years, consecutive to any other sentence Total sentence in this file: 5 years, consecutive to any other sentence FILE 500-01-154378-175 Count 2.

Between January 1, 2016, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did receive a benefit knowing that it was derived directly or indirectly from the offence in s. 286.1(2), thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.2(2) of the Criminal Code . 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 3.

Between January 1, 2016, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure or recruit, hold, conceal or harbour, or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of D, a person under the age of 18 years, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code .

5 years, consecutive to any other sentence Count 4. Between January 1, 2016, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did sexually assault D, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 271 (

a) of the Criminal Code . 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 5. Between October 1, 2016, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did sexually assault E, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 271 (

a) of the Criminal Code . 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 7. Between October 1, 2016, and April 6, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure, or recruit, hold, conceal or harbour, or exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of E, a person under the age of 18 years, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code . 5 years, concurrent with any other sentence Total sentence in this file: 5 years, consecutive to any other sentence FILE 500-01-156320-175 Count 2.

On or about January 13, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did sexually assault F, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 271 (

a) of the Criminal Code . 2 years, concurrent with any other sentence Count 3.

On or about January 13, 2017, in Montreal, District of Montreal, did procure F, a person under the age of 18 years, to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under s. 286.1(1), did recruit, hold, conceal or harbour the person who offered or provided sexual services for consideration, or did exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of F, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code . 5 years, concurrent with any other sentence Total sentence in this file: 5 years, concurrent with any other sentence ORDERS the accused, pursuant to s. 743.21 Cr.

C., not to communicate, directly or indirectly, while incarcerated, with X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, E or F or their family members. PROHIBITS the accused, pursuant to s. 109 Cr. C., from possessing (

a) any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance during the period that begins on the day on which the order is made, and ends not earlier than ten years after his release.

(

b) any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life. ISSUES an order under s. 487.051 Cr. C., authorizing the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances from the accused that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. PROHIBITS the accused, in accordance with s. 161 Cr. C., for a period of 5 years, to take effect on the expiry of the term of 14 years and 10 months of imprisonment, from; (

a) attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, school ground, playground or community centre, unless first authorized by the Court; (a.1) being within two kilometres of any dwelling-house where X or Z ordinarily resides; (

b) seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years; (

c) having any contact — including communicating by any means — with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless supervised by an adult responsible for that minor who is aware of your criminal record; (

d) using the Internet to network or chat with persons under the age of 18 years, unless first authorized by the Court. ORDERS the accused, pursuant to s. 490.012, to register with the sex offender registry and comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for life , the applicable period specified in s. 490.013(2.1). ORDERS the forfeiture of the amount of CA$3,270 to the Attorney General of Quebec. __________________________________ MYLÈNE GRÉGOIRE, J.C.Q.

Mtre Pascal Dostaler Crown prosecutor Mtre Marie-Hélène Giroux Counsel for the accused Dates of hearing: August 22 and 26, 2019 [25] [Submitted by the Crown]: Desjardins c. R . , 2015 QCCA 1774 ; DPCP c. Girard Lévesque , 2016 QCCQ 7602 ; R. v. Wallace , 2009 ABCA 300 ; R. v. Nelson , 2004 OSCJ 8213 ; R. c. Brun , 2016 QCCQ 14354 ; R. c. P.J.B., 2006 QCCQ 11319 ; R. v. Ackman , 2017 MBCA 78 ; DPCP c. Valcourt , 2017 QCCQ 6798 ; R. v. Moazami , 2015 BCSC 2055 .