r v. Ahmed Ul Hassan Khan DURRANI, 2022 QCCQ 9332

R. c. Durrani 2022 QCCQ 9332 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF LAVAL TOWN OF LAVAL Criminal Division N°: 540-01-093459-199 DATE : December 9 th , 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SIMON B. DOLCI, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HIS MAJESTY THE KING Prosecutor v.

Ahmed Ul Hassan Khan DURRANI Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] In March 2016, the management of the Laval Police Department (LPD) is confronted with a problem concerning teenage runaways from the region's youth centers who find themselves on websites advertising sexual services for prostitution. [ 2 ] The LPD decided to put false advertisements of young women offering their sexual services on the same websites where they found the teenage runaways.

A fictitious narrative and photos are used to present the services of a young woman who is just starting out in the profession in the Laval area offering GFE, or "girlfriend experience". [ 3 ] It is intended that the advertisement gives the name of a woman whom the client should contact in order to obtain the GFE services of the prostitute. When the client calls or contacts the number on the ad, he is in fact put in touch with an undercover agent who poses as the girl's pimp. [ 4 ] Through exchanges with the potential client, the undercover officer informs him that the girl is 16 years old.

If the client wishes to proceed with the sexual services of the underage prostitute, he is invited to a hotel room. [ 5 ] Once at the hotel, the client and the undercover officer have a verbal conversation to restate the age of the girl, confirm the sexual services requested and their cost. The client is then taken to a nearby room where he is arrested by police officers. [ 6 ] This is how the Projet Défensif is structured by the LPD. Several such operations will take place between 2016 and 2019. Projet Défensif 7 is born in October 2019, it is the one that led to the arrest of Mr.

Durrani on October 15, 2019. [ 7 ] The accused is on trial on the charge of: On or about October 15, 2019, in Laval, district of Laval, did communicate with a person for the purpose of obtaining for consideration the sexual services of a person under the age of 18 years, thereby committing the indictable offence under

section 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code . [ 8 ] The accused admits having contacted the undercover officer via an online advertisement and having presented himself at the hotel where he was arrested. However, he denies that the services he requested were of a sexual nature because he was only looking for a listening ear, compassion and perhaps kissing.

He says he never knew the young woman was 16 years old because he was never told except at the very last minute when it was impossible for him to make an informed decision or get away from the situation. [ 9 ] The Prosecutor claims that the accused’s testimony is false because he is neither credible nor reliable. He alleges that he has met his burden of proof on all the elements of the offence of, communicating with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person under the age of 18 years old of which he is accused.

MATTERS IN DISPUTE [ 10 ] Does the Court believe the accused? [ 11 ] If the Court does not believe the accused, does the evidence of the accused raise a reasonable doubt? [ 12 ] If not, does all the evidence presented convince the Court beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt ? APPLICABLE LAW [ 13 ] The Court is faced with conflicting versions of events. Accordingly, the Court is guided by the words of Paciocco J. of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the

article entitled Doubt about Doubt : Coping with R. v. W.(D.) and Credibility Assessment [1] which summarizes the analysis grid applicable in this case as follows:

i) The criminal trial cannot properly be resolved by deciding which conflicting version of events is preferred; ii) A Court that believes evidence that is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused must acquit; iii) Even if the Court does not entirely believe evidence inconsistent with guilt, if the Court is left unsure whether that evidence is true, there is a reasonable doubt and an acquittal must follow; iv) Even where the Court entirely disbelieves evidence inconsistent with guilt, the mere rejection of that evidence does not prove guilt;

v) Even where the Court entirely disbelieves the evidence inconsistent with guilt, the accused should not be convicted unless the evidence that is given credit proves the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt . [ 14 ] The assessment of a testimony requires the Court to consider not only the credibility of the witness, but also the reliability of the witness's account. Credibility refers to the sincerity of the witness, while reliability refers to the value of the witness's story, whether it is trustworthy or not.

The credibility of the witness does not necessarily make his or her account reliable. [ 15 ] The analysis of the credibility and reliability of a witness, including the accused, is done considering all the evidence, not only by itself. The Court may believe some or all the evidence or it may believe none of it. [ 16 ] Partial or complete disbelief in exculpatory evidence does not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt.

Such an equation is reductive and contrary to the concept of reasonable doubt. [ 17 ] The Court must still consider whether it is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused by the balance of the evidence it has accepted. The balance of the evidence does not consist solely of the prosecutor's evidence, but includes any evidence given in the defence that the Court believes.

Does the Court believe the accused? [ 18 ] Consideration of this issue falls under the first step of the analytical framework proposed in W.(D), restated by Paciocco J. as follows: “A Court that believes evidence that is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused must acquit”. [ 19 ] The focus here is on assessing the testimony of the accused in the context of the whole evidence. [ 20 ] The accused arrived in Canada in the Toronto area in 1998 with his entire family before moving to Montreal in 2002. He was educated mainly in English, although he has a good knowledge of French.

Following the completion of his bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering at McGill University in 2016, he first worked at Pega Medical in Laval before getting involved in a recruitment process at General Motors. [ 21 ] Soon the company gave him important responsibilities and he became a manager in Oshawa, Ontario in 2017. At that point, he left the family nest for the first time in his life. He testifies that for him it was an upheaval to have to live in hotels, to have to move often and to assume heavy professional responsibilities. [ 22 ] He is very invested in his job and in his professional evolution.

He says he has put aside many human relationships, to dedicate himself totally to his job, to the loss of any relationship. [ 23 ] Following a major workforce change at GM Canada, he explains that he returned to Montreal in February 2019 as a regional manager. He returns to his family home to stay with his parents. However, his father developed health problems and in addition to his work, he takes care of his father, who was not entirely autonomous, with the help of the rest of his family members. [ 24 ] In October 2019, he works a lot, has very long days in addition of having big responsibilities at home.

On October 15, 2019, he has an appointment at the Deschamps Chevrolet car dealership in Sainte-Julie. The meeting is scheduled for the entire day but leaves around 11:00 a.m. considering the absence of one of the employees. He sits down at the Tim Hortons near the dealership and testifies that at that time he felt alone, lonely, and was missing a lot of compassion. [ 25 ] The accused testifies that on the day of the events, he is searching on the Internet to fulfill his emotional and psychological needs.

He states that he took precautions in his search for a girl who would give him compassion, listening and affection. He says he has given up the usual dating sites like Tinder.com because they require the creation of a profile. Instead, he turns to websites that answer his search via Google.com with the keywords: "female companion Laval".

[ 26 ] With this search he first comes across the site Annonceintime.com and Humpchies.com which allowed him to limit his search to the Laval area.

In quest of affection, he says he was looking for someone who could act as his girlfriend, therefore with someone of his age. [ 27 ] The accused claims that the websites consulted did not allow him to believe that they were for sexual services, but especially that the services offered via the ads were from people 18 years of age or older. [ 28 ] Contrary to the accused, the Court considers that the presentation of the websites Annonceintime.com and Humpchies.com consulted by the accused have a strong sexual slant.

They use terms such as: 18 years and over, adult site, images of women presented in sensual or even erotic poses. [ 29 ] The accused introduces into evidence screenshots that he took the day after his arrest of the disclaimer on the Humpchies.com website. This disclaimer by the webmaster of the site is not a disclaimer for the accused in his defence.

The Court considers that the disclaimer from its first lines informs the user of the sexual nature of the website: warning: this website contains nudity, explicit sexual content and adult language . [ 30 ] The rest of the text, both in French and English, only informs the user that he/she should be 18 years or older to consult the site and that all content posted on their website must comply with the age and content standards. The website does not tolerate child pornography or minors advertising or utilizing the site. The accused testifies that he accessed the site by simply clicking on Enter .

He did not do any further verification, did not read the Terms & Conditions and admits that in no way does the website validate the user's age. [ 31 ] This kind of warning is simple, common, without any legal guarantee or credibility of the website's content. The accused admits having visited and searched all types of websites before this one in his search for affection. The Court cannot hold that the accused was only looking for listening and female compassion or sympathy while surfing on these sites.

The Court does not grant probative force to the screenshot deposited by the accused. [ 32 ] In addition, the accused candidly testifies that all the advertisements and announcements presented were related to sexual services, that some were very explicit and others less explicit. Clearly, from the start, the accused knew that he was consulting ad websites that may offer sexual services. [ 33 ] The Court notes from the testimony of the accused that he was looking for a GFE-type service.

It was only by reading the various sexual advertisements that he was able to read this term for the first time or at least to feel the need to verify its definition. It is with the help of this term that he chooses the ads on the sites he communicates with. He testifies that, in his opinion, this expression does not mean anything sexual. [ 34 ] In support of his understanding of the term GFE, he submits to the Court a screenshot of his Google search that reads as follows: GFE, Noun. A service provided by a prostitute that includes more personal activity, such as kissing, than traditionally provided by sex worker.

At its face, the term GFE refers to the world of prostitution and sex workers. We are far beyond the simple listening, compassion, and affection that the accused is trying to receive as he claims. The Court gives no probative value to the screenshot filed given all the evidence and testimony heard. [ 35 ] It is precisely the GFE terms of the ad for Madison on Annonceintime.com that prompt the accused to send his first text message to Madison at 11:19 a.m. when he has been searching for ads for about 30-40 minutes. Mia responds that she is the one who takes care of Madison.

He testifies that Mia also takes care of Kelly, another ad that he saw on the Humpchies.com website. [ 36 ] The accused defended himself by saying that both Madison's and Kelly's ads were not explicit and that they were ads that did not offer sex, only GFE. However, in cross-examination, he finally admits that Kelly's ad did offer sex as an additional feature. [ 37 ] The Court can see that the text used in the advertisements of the two girls is strongly focused on sex: jeune débutante, ne décoit jamais, discrétion assurée, Très ouverte d’esprit pour combler tes désirs les plus fous. Extras disponibles .

The photos presented are even more explicit than the text showing bodies of young women minimally clothed or in underwear in erotic positions. The Court does not believe the accused and does not give credence to the perspective that the accused tries to present in his testimony. He is seeking to relieve himself of responsibility. [ 38 ] The accused testified that all the ads on the websites Annonceintime.com and Humpchies.com listed the ages of the girls and they were all over 18.

He then believes that Kelly and Madison are of age of majority even though he is unable to confirm the ages he believes the girls' ads were displaying. [ 39 ] However, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the advertisements of the girls displayed any age. On the contrary, all the evidence heard shows that the LPD had taken particular care in the preparation of the advertisements and had intended not to indicate the age.

The Court does not believe this allegation of the accused. [ 40 ] Throughout his testimony, the accused attempts to present himself as someone who wants to know everything, to control everything and to make things clear. Moreover, the Court notes from his testimony and from his cross-examination that he repeats that he sent several messages to advertisers other than those in the present case. He states that many stop responding to him because he was asking too many questions or that his needs were too specific.

It did not work out the way he expected. [ 41 ] The accused admits the entirety of the text message exchanges between him and Mia on October 15, 2019, between 12:18:59 and 14:17:52. The text message exchanges read as a whole and in perspective with the evidence greatly affects the credibility and reliability of the accused's testimony that he did not desire sexuality but only compassion and affection from a girl. [ 42 ] The Court notes that the accused requested the GFE with 2 services in his first messages. He uses the word "services" as something additional to GFE.

He insists on his desire to be able to kiss with his tongue or French kiss. He mentions this several times in the text message exchange.

[ 43 ] In addition to requesting pictures of the girls other than the ones in the ads, the accused wants to be sure that they are recent. He explains what he likes about a woman's body and that he likes to kiss. Why is he so interested in the girl’s physical appearance if it is only to take advantage of their attentiveness and companionship? The accused says it is because he wanted to be able to deal with someone who could physically be his girlfriend and feel good about it.

The Court does not believe him. [ 44 ] Following the first exchange of text messages, during which the accused and Mia agree on two services within half an hour, GFE and French kiss for $120 with one of the girls, the accused is invited to go to the McDonald's restaurant located at the corner of St. Martin Boulevard and Highway 15. He was requested to call Mia once he was there. [ 45 ] He testifies that he called Mia once while he was in the highway exit near the restaurant. The call lasted 2 minutes and 25 seconds.

The accused gives a nebulous and implausible version of why the telephone conversation lasted that long. He testifies that the call was long, but the conversation was short considering that from the first second of the call he was quickly put on hold by Mia. According to his testimony, Mia takes over the line at the very moment he parked at the restaurant and then, they start their conversation. Yet, there is no way the undercover officer would have known that he was now parked at the restaurant. Why would she pick up the line at that exact moment?

It is not possible. [ 46 ] He said that during the conversation, he only validated who was prettier between Madison and Kelly. Then he questioned which one was better at GFE and who liked to kiss. To all questions, Mia answers, both. He hung up saying he will think about who between Madison and Kelly. [ 47 ] The accused denies having obtained the information that the girls were 16 years old during the phone conversation.

However, the text messages he sends following the call suggest otherwise in the Court’s mind. [ 48 ] He wrote: Je veut le faire, mais c’est illégal, il tient à ce que personne ne le voit ou le remarque . It is after the call that the accused worries about the arrival of the police. Why the sudden concern when the exchange of text messages prior to the call showed no concern on the part of the accused about the requested services?

The Court does not believe the accused when he testifies that at no time during the telephone conversation, he was informed of the age of 16. [ 49 ] The accused repeatedly testifies that he never wanted to have sex or any sexuality with the girl. He says that his requests were clear. However, he never took care to specify, explain or ask for it. He never mentioned it in any texts messages exchanges with Mia. Nor did he mention it in the phone conversation.

Never does he specify it in the second text message exchange he initiates with Mia at 14:02:43, a few minutes after hanging up. [ 50 ] During the second exchange of texts messages, the accused asks that this be done in his car and worries about the police coming. He wants it to be completely discreet. The Court does not believe the accused who said that it was because he did not want to be seen by family or friends. According to his story, he did not intend to do anything illegal. Why fear the police and require discretion when he only wants to open up and talk about his real life?

The Court qualifies his explanations as dubious and hazardous. [ 51 ] Although the accused asks Mia if the services could be performed in his car, he says that he complies with Mia's demands because he understands that the girls are surely as nervous as he is and that they want to be safe. The meeting place is fixed by text message in a hotel room of the Quality Suite in Laval. Why go to a hotel room to simply chat with a young girl as the accused claims?

It makes no sense. [ 52 ] The Court has some concerns with the Defence's argument that the accused's version is credible because he wants the services to be provided discreetly. Specifically, the Defence adds that a hotel room is much more discreet than doing it in his car, in broad daylight, in the company's vehicle. This argument as pleaded is contrary to the evidence heard, the testimony of the accused and the exchange of text messages. [ 53 ] Instead, the accused explained that he wanted the services to be in his car so that he would be more comfortable, and it would be more discreet.

He testifies that he does not want to go to a hotel room so that it would not look like what it was not. The text message exchanges corroborate the defendant's intentions. The argument as pleaded does not hold up. [ 54 ] The accused testifies that he is never informed of the girl's age of 16 through his exchanges with the undercover officer, whether by text message or telephone. The only time he learns about it is once in the room, trapped behind the door that the agent slams behind her.

The Court does not grant credibility to the version of the accused. [ 55 ] The accused testified that once in the hotel room 229 where he met Mia, he was never verbally advised by the undercover officer that the girl was 16 years old. He also never repeated the required services; GFE, with French kiss and 2 times sex. [ 56 ] According to his version, the time spent in Mia's room is very short. The discussion is in French, and he only asked where the girls were.

He testified that Mia informed him that Madison was with another client in one room and that Kelly was waiting for him in another room. [ 57 ] Mia asked him if he has any condoms, he says no, so she grabs two and give them to him. He said he doesn't need them. She answered you must take them. He puts them in his pockets. He says to the Court that he didn't take them, but she handed them to him and said he must take them. [ 58 ] The reasons why the accused said he took the two condoms offered to him are not clear. He alleges that he felt compelled to take them and put them in his pocket.

However, there is nothing in the evidence to show in any way that the accused was coerced or forced by the undercover officer. The Court does not believe that he felt coerced, neither that he did not value the condoms because his intentions were not to have sex. [ 59 ] On the contrary, the presence of two condoms in his pockets is more consistent with the rest of the evidence which shows that he required two services as two ejaculations, two full sexual relationships.

[ 60 ] The accused explains that Mia then guides him into room 228. She knocks on the bathroom door, where he hears the shower running, notifying Kelly that his client has arrived. He sits down on the sofa of the room. Whereas Mia is about to leave the room she quickly informs him that Kelly is 16 years old and slams back the door. [ 61 ] He says that he felt trapped with the information.

He had no time to process what was happening, and the policemen came out of their hiding and arrested him. [ 62 ] Although the evidence partly supports the accused's story that he remained in Room 229 for two minutes, the Court does not believe that he suddenly learned that she was 16 years old as the door closed behind the undercover officer. [ 63 ] The evidence presented demonstrates that Projet Défensif 7 is the seventh such project since 2016.

Previous police operations have had very minor failures and police officers have changed their ways to ensure successful operations that involve multiple officers as evidenced by Detective Sergeant Savard. On October 15, 2019, the police team is still under the direction of Detective Sergeant Savard, but more importantly, it is the same undercover officer who is acting as a matchmaker for the girls. [ 64 ] She was involved in many Défensif projects. She is the most experienced undercover officer in the LPD at that time.

She testified that she knows that all the evidence rests on her work, but also that she must not reveal the location of the hotel rooms or the operation will fail, endangering the agents and/or the citizens who are present at the hotel. [ 65 ] The evidence shows that the owners of the hotel where the rooms are rented were not even aware of the operation. Projet Défensif is a large-scale covert police operation involving many police officers.

It requires renting hotel rooms, decorating and staging the rooms, putting ads online, providing a phone line, arranging transportation for the arrested people and their vehicles, etc. [ 66 ] For all these reasons, in the Court's opinion, it is implausible to believe the accused. It is impossible for the undercover officer to have taken the risk of directing and leading the accused to room 228, the very end of the police operation, without first advising him that the girl he was going to meet was 16 years old.

To proceed with the arrest following a simple sentence said in the doorway, as the accused testified, does not make sense. On the contrary, the arrest of the accused is based on a large-scale and well-conceived operation. [ 67 ] For all these reasons, the Court does not accept the exculpatory elements of the version given by the accused and does not believe him.

Does the evidence of the accused raise a reasonable doubt? [ 68 ] As the Court does not give credence to the exculpatory elements of the defence evidence, the analysis must be shifted to the second step of the test in W. (D.), which was restated by Judge Paciocco in the following terms: Even if the Court does not entirely believe evidence inconsistent with guilt, if the Court is left unsure whether that evidence is true, there is a reasonable doubt and an acquittal must follow. [ 69 ] The testimony of the accused, combined with that of Detective Sergeant Martin Carl, who testified for the defence, leaves no reasonable doubt in the Court’s mind. [ 70 ] Detective Sergeant Carl's testimony does not add anything exculpatory to the accused's version of events; it simply adds details about the arrest and search of the accused.

The defence further argues that his testimony should be considered by the Court in its analysis of reasonable doubt with regard to the evidence presented by the prosecution. [ 71 ] It is recognized that the rejection of the accused's exculpatory evidence generally leads to the conclusion that the evidence does not leave a reasonable doubt with respect to offences that are fully denied. This was the view of the Quebec Court of Appeal in: A.N. c. R . 2015 QCCA 1109 , par. 70 ; R . c. R.E.M . , 2008 CSC 51 , par. 56 ; R . v. Phan , 2013 ONCA 787 , par. 25 .; R. c.

El Youssfi 2018 QCCQ 7563 . : It must be stressed that the judge did not believe the Appellant and gave cogent reasons for this. Where the defence is total denial such as here, not believing the accused generally leads to the conclusion that the defence has not raised reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge […] [ 72 ] The entire factual framework alleged by the accused is not retained for all the reasons described above. [ 73 ] Although the accused has no burden of proof, his testimony seems to be intended to refute or explain in a dubious manner the entirety of the evidence against him.

He constantly places himself in a position of total defence and denial. According to him, everything is clear in his mind and in his actions to the effect that he does not hear or expect anything of a sexual nature.

However, nothing in the evidence he submitted allows the Court to conclude or simply deduce that he communicated his non-sexual intentions and expectations as he pretends. [ 74 ] The intentions he claims to have are not reflected in his actions, his choices, and even less in none of his exchanges with the undercover officer. [ 75 ] Consequently, the evidence presented by the accused, when analyzed in combination with the entire evidence, does not raise a reasonable doubt.

Does all the evidence presented convince the Court beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt? [ 76 ] The next stage of The Court’s analysis is to determine whether the Crown has proved its case against Mr. Durrani beyond a reasonable doubt . This is the third step of the test set out in W.(D.) at which point the Tribunal must consider the following principle articulated by Judge Paciocco:

Even where the Court entirely disbelieves the evidence inconsistent with guilt, the accused should not be convicted unless the evidence that is given credit proves the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 77 ] It is therefore up to the Prosecutor to prove the actus reus, which can be summarized as communicating with anyone in order to obtain sexual services from a person under 18 years of age and in return for a price for the performance of the act [2] .

The mens rea for this offence requires the Prosecutor to prove an intent at the time of the communication to engage the sexual service of a prostitute [3] . Without the intent to engage in sexual service at the time of the communication, no offence would have been committed. There must be something more than the actus reus of mere words of communication [4] . Finally, the Prosecutor must prove that the accused believed in the prostitute’s status as a minor [5] .

Testimony of Detective Sergeant Luc Savard [ 78 ] Detective Sergeant Savard provided testimony that sets the context for this case and explained the reasons for setting up such a police operation. Officer Savard is the one who decided on the investigative techniques and guidelines for the undercover police operation that gave rise to the Projet Défensif from 2016 to October 2019. The objective of the Projet Défensif is clear: reducing the demand for sexual services from juveniles in the region by targeting the “buyer side ”.

He decided to put false advertisements of young women offering their sexual services on the same websites where they found the teenage runaways . [ 79 ] The creation of the fictitious ads is carefully thought out and elaborate. Detective Sergeant Savard testified extensively about the choices and the reasons for those choices. Contrary to the defence's arguments, the Court is not of the opinion that the ads left too much room for

interpretation or that the choices of words and images were made in a deliberate manner to entrap individuals [6] . [ 80 ] Detective Sergeant Savard is credible in his explanations linking the effort put into the narrative and his intentions that 1- the ads would not be blocked by the websites, 2- that they would be credible and would blend in with the mass of other ads. [ 81 ] The Court notes from his testimony that Projet Défensif 7 is an amalgam of several logistical and strategic choices. It is a large- scale project in which there are many rules to be followed. Some are stricter than others.

Detective Sergeant Savard explained that his instructions do not have to be followed in all cases, considering the use of an infiltration agent to whom it is essential to leave a certain latitude, a certain amount of decision-making power so that he can adapt to situations in the field. [ 82 ] Detective Sergeant Savard rightly admits in his testimony that it is true that the undercover officer did not always follow the instructions to all intents and purposes, but in cross-examination, he insists that these are not fixed rules; his instructions are guidelines, best practices left to the undercover officer to facilitate his or her work and ensure that the evidence obtained is of high quality.

His testimony is corroborated by all the evidence and by the undercover officer's testimony. [ 83 ] Contrary to the Defence's position, the Court did not find any significant contradiction affecting the credibility of the testimony of Detective Sergeant Savard or the undercover officer with respect to the rules governing Projet Défensif 7. There was no requirement that the client be made aware of the girls' ages on one or more occasions or in writing or at a specific time.

Instead, in both officer Savard's and the undercover officer's testimony, the main directive was that a client was never invited to the hotel by the undercover officer without the age of 16 having been provided in advance by text message or during a telephone conversation. [ 84 ] The role of the Detective Sergeant Savard is limited in the operation that led to the arrest of the accused.

However, it appears from his testimony and that of Detective Sergeant Carl that during the search accessory to the arrest of the accused, they attribute to him the ownership of two Samsung cell phones, one of which has been used to communicate with Mia, keys, 2 condoms, a $100 bill, and a $20 bill. The accused admits having possession of these items. [ 85 ] The possession of a lighter found in the pants pocket of the accused is litigious. The defense insists with several questions to Detective Sergeant Savard and Carl, on the list of exhibits.

The accused defends himself by saying that he doesn’t smoke, that he had no reason to possess this item and that he did not have a lighter on him at the time of his arrest. [ 86 ] The defence invites the Court to conclude that this reveals evidence that the officers' work was botched and that this is a demonstration of the inconsistency of the police’s work that undermines the overall credibility of the officers. Indeed, it is possible that the lighter found in the accused's pockets is in fact an object that is part of the room's set up.

Both the police and the accused testify that the items taken from the accused's pocket are place on a surface, a counter, or a table before being seize. Did the police take the lighter by mistake or did the accused have it in his pocket? [ 87 ] Although the Court remains without a clear answer as to the source of the lighter, this element of evidence is of little or no relevance on its own or in the context of the overall assessment of the evidence against the accused. [ 88 ] In cross-examination, the defence notes inconsistencies in Detective Sergeant Savard's report.

There are the following inconsistencies: the planned duration of P rojet Défensif 7 , the list of agents participating in the project, the reference to the fictive ad of a woman named Jade and the confusion in the names of the websites on which they posted ads on October 15, 2019.

Although Detective Sergeant Savard was frustrated by the fact that his errors were noted in his investigation report, these contradictions have no bearing with the details of the operation nor the does it affect the officer's work on the day of the operation. [ 89 ] These confusions with other past defensive projects have been explained and the Court cannot accept that this is proof that the LPD acted unprepared and that all the police officers involved in the arrest of the accused improvised. [ 90 ] The only conclusion the Court can draw from this is that Detective Sergeant Savard made errors in writing his investigation report regarding the event leading to the arrest of the accused, but this does not affect the credibility or reliability of the testimony heard.

His testimony is straightforward, he did not try to hide or minimize his writing errors. He is also able to explain in detail each of the reasons for the choices and investigative strategy surrounding Projet Défensif 7. Testimony of the undercover officer «Mia»

[ 91 ] Mia's testimony is central to the prosecution's case. Mia is the undercover officer used in 5 similar operations prior to the one on October 15, 2019. [ 92 ] Despite her many past contributions to Projet Défensif 1-2-3-4, 7 and 8, her testimony is especially reliable. Throughout her testimony, she is able to provide time markers specific to the day and her involvement in the October 15, 2019, operation. [ 93 ] She testified from memory and after reviewing her notes in preparation for her testimony, but she doesn’t hesitate to point out her lack of recollection when she doesn’t know the answers.

She doesn’t attempt to give more than the client requested and is candid and truthful in her answers. The reliability of her testimony is not shaken by cross-examination. [ 94 ] She testified to her experience and knowledge of GFE and services in the field of prostitution. GFE is a term commonly used in the world of prostitution that describes a behavior, a way the prostitute behaves with the client during sexual services. The prostitute acts more like the client's girlfriend, notably by kissing and offering affection.

Services is a term used in exchanges between a pimp and potential clients that defines the complete intercourse between the prostitute and the client. It is a way of describing the number of ejaculations the man wants to receive in a given time. [ 95 ] Nothing in the evidence allows the court to doubt these explanations. Nothing contradicts the

definitions put forward by the undercover officer’s testimony. The court qualifies her explanations as clear, realistic and trustworthy. [ 96 ] On October 15, 2019, she explains that she plays the role of pimp, named Mia, on behalf of two 16-year-old girls. She testifies with aplomb and candor.

She knows that she must be able to prove the elements of the crime and she must not, under no circumstances, disclose where she is and without disclosing where the rest of the agents are hidden without having all the required evidence: sexual services, the monetary agreement for said services and the knowledge that the girl is only 16 years old. [ 97 ] Corroborated by the testimony of Detective Sergeants Savard and Carl, she explained that she is the only one who controls calls and text message conversations related to the phone number that appears on the online ads.

She recognized the entire text message conversation between her phone number and the one she identified the first time via call display as being " Riaz Ul Hassan ", the accused. [ 98 ] The evidence filed by the Crown and admitted by the defence demonstrates the exchanges of text messages between Mia and the accused. The Court considers it appropriate to reproduce the first exchange of text messages: START at 12 :18 :58 Accused : Salut Madison Mia : Salut moi c Mia.

Mia : Je m’occupe de Mady Accused : C’est combien le demi heure GFE avec 2 services Mia : 120$ pour 30 min Accused : Et je peux avoir deux services Accused : ? Mia : Oui Accused : Ok et embrasser avec la langue est inclus Mia : Oui Accused : D’accord , et elle fait des outcall? Mia : Non Accused : Dernière question, peux tu m’envoyer un couple de photos d’elle Mia : j’ai le mm que sur lannonce —- 2 images are sent by Mia to the accused either photos found on the ads Accused : Ce sont des photos récentes? Mia : Oui Accused : Ok d’accord, c’est quoi l’adresse? Et t’as deux filles qui travaille avec toi?

Mia : Jte dis c ou quand tu viens Mia : C Chomedey proche dla 15 Mia: Oui g 2 fille

Accused : Je me dirige vers ou parcontre Accused : OK les prix sont les même pour les deux? Et avec les deux je peux avoir 2 services dans le demi hr gfe et frenchkiss pour 120? Mia : Oui Accused : Il y a tu un place proche que tu peux me dire? Mia : Mcdo St-martin pi la 15 Accused: Ok je vais être là dans un heure environ Mia : K appel’e moi rendu là. Mia : C pour ½ h? Accused : Yes Mia : K, Kelly ou Madison? Accused: Qui tu suggères?

J’aime mince/ corps athlétique et j’aime embrasser Mia: Les deux sont mince et aime embrasser Accused : Ok Kelly alors Mia : Au pire tu choisi si son dispo les 2 Accused : Ok :) merci tes vraiment gentil Mia Mia : K fait plaisir Accused : Je t’appelle quand je suis au McDo Mia : Parfait Accused : Eta 20mins Mia: K END at 13 :36 :53 [ 99 ] According to her, it is clear from the exchange of text messages that the client wanted to obtain the sexual services of one of the young girls. The Court agrees.

The terms used, the questions asked, and the allusions made are consistent with this type of exchange between a client seeking sexual services and a pimp, as testified, and explained by the undercover officer. [ 100 ] She clarified that she did not write down the ages of the girls in the text message exchange, although she admitted that she had done so in the past during other arrests. In the accused's case, she explained that she did not write it down because the accused did not ask her about it.

Secondly, to remain credible in her role as a pimp, she says that a pimp in the world of juvenile prostitution would never write such a thing so as not to create evidence against himself if he was ever under investigation. This explanation is in the Court's mind credible and reliable. [ 101 ] She testified that she invited the caller to go to the McDonald's restaurant and to call her when he would get there because at this point, she is unable to prove that the person knows that the girls advertised are only 16 years old. She intended to tell the client if the client calls back.

She testified that she has done this before, and it is within the guidelines of her assignment. [ 102 ] She received a call from the accused at 13:57:33. She testified that when the accused gets on the phone, he initially had questions about the girls, their look and abilities on GFE sexual services. Once the accused learned the age of 16, he was surprised. She tells him that she informs him of the age of the girls because she doesn’t want to waste his time, nor hers considering that it is not all the customers who want minors.

The conversation ends after 2:25 minutes with the accused saying: « Je vais y penser et te rappeler ». [ 103 ] The Court believes the undercover officer in her testimony when she stated that it was during the call with the accused that she informed him of the age of the girls. Furthermore, she verified if he had noticed on the ads that the girls looked young and that they were 16 years old.

She is not shaken by the cross-examination and described with precision the words spoken by both sides. [ 104 ] Her recollection of the call, the words used, and the reactions of the accused are frank, and she testifies in an honest and concise manner. She never attempts to overstate her memories. [ 105 ] The undercover officer's testimony regarding the call received by the accused is credible and consistent with the rest of the evidence presented.

Specially when reading the second exchange of text messages that follows the phone conversation, which resumed at 14:02:43, that is, 2 minutes and 45 seconds after the call ended: START at : 14 :02 :43 Accused : Je veux que ça soit très discrète.

Accused : Est-ce que je pourrais faire le service en auto alors? Mia : Non dsl. Mia : Pas assez safe pour mes filles Accused : Et toi tes dans un hotel et c’est discrète?? Mia : Oui Accused : Je veux le faire mais c’est juste que c’est illégale c’est pour ça j’ai dit auto Mia : K ben jte force pas mais nous c’est dans un hotel et on sort pas d’ici Accused : Ok dacc je viens mais je veux ça soit vrm discrète Mia : Ok Mia : Tu peux passer par la porte de côté Accused : OK car je veux pas personne me vois tu comprends Mia : Oui c sur.

Mia : Jcompren Mia : Moi aussi je veux pas quon me remarque Accused : Pis la police va pas venir c sur oui Mia : Ben la! Mia : J’espère que non! Accused : Ok c quel hotel Mia : Tu viens ou pas? Accused : Oui Mia : K qualiy suites Mia : Rentre par la porte de côté qui donne face à l’autre hotel Mia : Pas l’entrée principale Accused : OK je suis ici Mia : K monte à la chambre 229 Accused: Ok 2mins END at 14 :17 :52 [ 106 ] This factual framework makes sense: why does the accused write a few minutes later: « Est-ce que je pourrais faire le service en auto alors? Je veux que ça soit discrète .».

Considering all the evidence, the Court accepts and retains the testimony of the undercover officer regarding what was said during the call. Clearly the accused was informed during the phone conversation, that the girls were 16 years old. [ 107 ] Contrary to what the accused claims, the undercover officer denied having put the conversation on hold; she never did so for risk of getting mixed up in the conversations or in her notes. The Court considers this explanation to be credible, given that the undercover officer said she attached great importance to this conversation.

It is following this last conversation that she will make the choice whether or not to reveal the location of the rendezvous, if the client accepts the services of a 16 year old girl. [ 108 ] The undercover officer testified that the second exchange of text messages was initiated by the accused who is concerned about the illegal nature of the offer: «Je veux le faire mais c’est juste que c’est illégale c’est pour ça j’ai dit auto».

Notwithstanding the fact that Mia informs him by text message that she does not force him: « K ben jte force pas mais nous c’est dans un hotel et on sort pas d’ici», it is obvious for the Court that the accused wants to go ahead and take advantage of the sexual services of one of the young girls he knows to be 16 years old: « Ok dacc je viens mais je veux ça soit vrm discrete». [ 109 ] This exchange of text messages, read in the context of the evidence of the earlier telephone conversation, demonstrates beyond a doubt that the accused intended to obtain sexual services from a prostitute who had been described to him as a minor. [ 110 ] The location of the hotel was then shared with him by the undercover officer as well as the instructions on where to park and how to find the door to the room 229.

She did so in accordance with her investigative guidelines because at that point it was clear in her mind that the accused wanted to proceed with his request for sexual services knowing that the girls were minors. The accused arrived at the

door of her room at 14:21. [ 111 ] Although the undercover officer admitted to having several texts messages conversations at the same time with several clients, the Court does not agree with the defence arguments.

Mia and/or the rest of the police team were not able to confuse the accused with other clients or mix up conversations due to a lack of traceability or connection between the person identified on the caller ID as "Riaz Ul Hassan" and the person who came to the room door. [ 112 ] Indeed, the evidence reveals that the McDonald's is the only place where a potential client is invited to attend before the hotel. There is nothing in the evidence or in the testimony of the undercover officer to show that more than one potential customer was invited or present at the McDonald's at the same time as the accused.

He was therefore the only one near the Quality Suite hotel. Furthermore, the text message conversation between Mia and the accused ends as follows: Accused : Ok c quel hotel Mia : Tu viens ou pas?

Accused : Oui Mia : K quality suites Mia : Rentre par la porte de côté qui donne face à l’autre hotel Mia : Pas l’entrée principale At 14:16 :26 the accused wrote : Accused : OK je suis ici Mia : K monte a la chambre 229 Accused : Ok 2mins END at 14:17 :52 [ 113 ] The whole evidence supports the fact that the accused arrived alone at the door of room 229 at 2:21 p.m., that is, three minutes and eight seconds after his last message.

It is therefore very unlikely, if not impossible, that the entire police team, which also had to take the time to position itself in room 228, mistook the arrival of the accused for that of someone else. [ 114 ] Since the Court did not accept the accused's version of the verbal conversation held in room 229 with the undercover officer, it is necessary to analyze the rest of the evidence and her testimony on this subject. [ 115 ] The undercover officer's recollections are clear that after she let the accused into her room, she again informed him of the ages of the girls.

She even remembers telling him again because not everyone wants 16-year-olds. Although the conversation is brief, she explains that she offered two condoms to the accused considering that he reiterated, once again, in the room, that he wanted 2 full sex services. Her story is credible and supported by all the evidence. [ 116 ] Finally, she explained guiding the accused to the room across the hall, room 229. She entered and pretended to announce the arrival of a client to Kelly by knocking on the door of the bathroom where the shower is running.

She said she invited the accused to sit on the couch while waiting for Kelly to come out. According to her version, she said nothing more and closed the door hard behind her.

She said she closed it hard because this is her signal to the hidden police officers that they can come out and arrest the person in the room. [ 117 ] She explained that she is the only person who could give this signal, considering that no one knew what was being said in room 229 and that no one could see their arrival in room 228. [ 118 ] Contrary to the testimony of the undercover officer and Detective Sergeant Savard, Detective Sergeant Carl testified that, to the best of his memory, Detective Sergeant Robitaille had a listening device that allowed him to hear what was being said in the undercover officer's room 229.

Officer Carl was evasive and hesitant to explain what he described as « […] une technique d’enquête qu’on ne dévoile normalement pas . » and « […] un moyen de protéger l’agent d’infiltration . » Neither Detective Sergeant Robitaille nor any other police officer corroborated this information. The defense argues that this inconsistency in the testimony of the police officers is major, affecting their overall credibility and that of the police operation.

However, the Court is left with more questions than answers as to the use or not of a listening device and even its mere existence. [ 119 ] In conclusion, the Court considers that the accused consulted and clicked on Kelly's and Mia's advertisements in the context of his search for sexual services in Laval. On reading the entire text message conversation, supported by the testimony of the undercover officer, it is clearly demonstrated, in the eyes of the Court, that the accused communicated with Mia in order to obtain GFE-type sexual services, to kiss a young girl and to have two full sexual relationships.

In addition, the accused repeated his requests for sexual services on the phone and orally once in the hotel room where he also took two condoms. [ 120 ] The Court concludes from the Crown's evidence that the accused knew on two occasions, during the telephone call and once in room 229, that Kelly and Madison were 16 years old. The accused is an educated, articulate man who understood very well that he was requesting the services of underage escorts.

The evidence clearly shows this and his behaviour, his questions, and his requests. [ 121 ] Even if the offence was complete even before the accused presented himself at the room 229 of the Quality Suite hotel [7] , it is with this information that the accused maintains his desire and intention to obtain sexual services from one of the two girls and ultimately

from Kelly before moving to room 228. [ 122 ] It is clear from all the text message conversations and the testimony of the undercover officer that there was a financial agreement of $120 for sexual services for 30 minutes. The accused went to room 229 and was arrested in room 228 with a $100 bill and a $20 bill in his pockets. [ 123 ] The entirety of the evidence presented by the Prosecutor is solid and very convincing, based on credible and reliable witnesses and a version of the accused that is not retained.

The Court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about October 15, 2019, the accused communicated by text messages, then by phone and finally verbally with someone posing as Mia for the clear purpose and intention of obtaining, the sexual services of a person he knew was under the age of 18 years old for consideration of 120$. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : DECLARES the accused guilty as charged __________________________________ Simon B. Dolci, J.C.Q.

Me Marie-Philippe Guimond-Méthé For the Prosecutor Me Anthony El-Haddad Me Me Zarnab Durrani For the accused Hearing dates: July 7,8 and September 15 th , 2022 [7] R. c . Beaumont , 2021 QCCQ 4193 , par. 103 ; R. c . Veerasingam , 2021 ONCA 350 , par. 9 and 14 .; R. c. Ramelson , 2022 CSC 44 par. 88