R v. ANTONIO DUJORN CASANOVA, 2022 QCCQ 938

R. c. Casanova 2022 QCCQ 938 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Criminal and Penal Division Nos: 500-01-188976-192 500-01-189082-198 500-01-189129-197 500-01-192043-195 DATE: March 10, 2022 PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE LORI RENÉE WEITZMAN, J.C.Q. THE QUEEN PROSECUTOR v. ANTONIO DUJORN CASANOVA ACCUSED DECISION ON SENTENCE and LONG-TERM OFFENDER DESIGNATION WARNING: Restriction on publication: By Court order pursuant to

section 486.4(2.1) of the Criminal Code , any information that could identify the complainant shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. [ 1 ] Antonio Dujorn Casanova was found guilty after a trial of numerous charges stemming from an exploitative relationship with LL over a two-year period during which he exercised control and direction over her movements for the purpose of exploiting her, managed and facilitated her involvement in the sex trade, benefitted from the money she so earned, posted ads offering her services in the sex trade and assaulted, sexually assaulted and threatened her, all in the context of this exploitative relationship.

In addition, he was found guilty of two charges relating to the use of a firearm as well as for breaching Court-imposed conditions. Finally, after trial, Mr. Casanova entered guilty pleas to 3 additional counts for failing to respect Court-imposed conditions. [ 2 ] Following the convictions, the Court requested a presentence report [1] and a psycho-sexual evaluation [2] and granted the prosecution’s application for a remand for an evaluation pursuant to

section 752.1 Cr. C [3] (long term offender designation). [ 3 ] The Court must now determine the just and fit sentence for all these offences, and must decide whether to grant the prosecution’s application to have Mr. Casanova declared a long-term offender. I. The facts [ 4 ] Without revisiting all of the details canvassed at trial, and set out in the judgment dated December 21, 2020 [4] , the Court will provide a brief synopsis of the facts relevant to the sentencing phase. In file 500-01-189129-197 1) Between May 1, 2017 and May 12, 2019: Human trafficking (section 279.01(1)(

b) Cr. C.) (maximum 14 years; 4 year mandatory minimum) [ 5 ] LL explains how she came to be wholly under the influence of Mr. Casanova and feared reprisals from him if she did not follow his orders. She felt obliged to make money by offering sexual services in order to keep him happy and protect herself from physical and psychological harm. [ 6 ] During the two year period, Mr. Casanova ensured that LL was completely dependent on him as well as isolated. When LL met Mr. Casanova she was 19 years old, estranged from her family, with no money, no home and no support system.

Early on, he conditioned her to believe she was his object. She could not say “no” to him, and if she ever did, she paid the consequence with physical assaults as well as psychological tormenting, Mr. Casanova knowing full well just how anxious she became when he threatened to leave

her alone. [ 7 ] As their relationship evolved and she became his girlfriend, LL did not gain independence or more of a say in the way she was to work in the sex trade. She felt obliged to do what he expected in order to keep him happy. In October 2018, they were both arrested in Ontario, and subjected to Court-imposed conditions not to communicate with each other. LL moved in with her father in Montreal. Nevertheless, they did continue to see each other and Mr. Casanova’s control and influence over LL did not abate. [ 8 ] Mr.

Casanova never forced LL into a room to provide sexual services, nor did he beat her in order to have her provide sexual services for money. The assaults were not committed in order to force LL to provide sexual services: they were part of the general way Mr. Casanova treated LL and asserted his power. LL was made to understand the rules of behaviour that he expected.

He reminded her regularly of the consequences of failing to respect those rules, by actually harming her, by threatening to harm her, and by instilling psychological fear of leaving her on her own, with nothing. 2) May 1, 2017 and May 12, 2019: Receiving a material benefit from the commission of human trafficking (279.02(1) Cr. C.) ( maximum 10 years) [ 9 ] Over the period of two years covered in this count, Mr.

Casanova kept all the money LL made in the sex trade, [5] knowing it was obtained directly from the sexual services she provided, under his direction, control and influence and with the purpose of exploiting her. [ 10 ] Given the conviction on counts 1 and 2, a conditional stay of proceedings was entered on counts 3 and 4: 3) Procuring LL to provide sexual services for consideration (section 286.3(1) Cr. C.) 4) Receiving a financial/material benefit knowing it was obtained from the commission of an offence under 286.1(1) (section 286.2(1) Cr.

C.) 5) May 1, 2017 and May 12, 2019: Advertising an offer to provide sexual services for consideration (286.4a) Cr. C.) (maximum 5 years) [ 11 ] Mr. Casanova placed ads for the sexual services provided by LL, during the two years covered in this count. 6) May 1, 2017 and May 12, 2019: Assaults (section 266a) Cr. C . ) (maximum 5 years) [ 12 ] The assaults covered in this count are as follows: - Fall 2017: in the car, Mr. Casanova slapped LL across the face because he believed she was setting him up. - Fall 2017: Mr.

Casanova slapped LL across the face for questioning whether another girl had moved her shampoo bottle; - Fall 2017: Mr. Casanova slapped LL across the face for falling asleep at a client’s house; - September/October 2017: Mr. Casanova slapped LL across the face because she gave the name of another girl to one of her clients in Montreal; - In Niagara (exact date unknown) Mr. Casanova slapped LL across the face for speaking on the phone with a male friend; - Around April 11, 2019: in the car, Mr. Casanova grabbed LL by the coat and ripped it as he pulled her toward him.

He was angry because she hadn’t responded to his earlier text messages. March 15, 2018 : 7) Assault with a weapon (section 267a) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years) 8) Uttering threats (264.1(1)a)(2)

a) Cr. C.) (maximum 5 years) 9) Assault (266

a) Cr. C.) (maximum 5 years) 10) Using a firearm while committing assault or uttering threats (section 85(1)a)

(3) Cr. C.) ( maximum 14 years, mandatory minimum 1 year) [ 13 ] These four counts all refer to a single incident in a car on Notre-Dame Street in Montreal, when Mr. Casanova suspected that LL was “setting him up”. He took out a gun and pointed it at her, committing an assault with a weapon (count 7) and told her that he could kill her, thereby committing the offence of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm (count 8). [ 14 ] In addition, he hit her face with the back of his hand, hard enough to slam her head against the window, causing a bruise, thereby committing an assault (count 9).

The gun pointed at LL as he threatened her in the car was a prohibited firearm (count 10). Between August 27, 2018 and August 29, 2018 11) Assault with a weapon (267a) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years)

12) Uttering threats (264.1(1)a)(2)

a) Cr. C.) (maximum 5 years) 13) Assault bodily harm (267b) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years) 14) Using a firearm while committing assault or uttering threats (85(1)a)

(3) Cr. C.); (maximum 14 years, mandatory minimum 1 year) [ 15 ] These four counts cover the events which occurred in a hotel room in Ontario, shortly before Mr. Casanova and LL went to Thunder Bay where she was to work (August-September 2018). Mr. Casanova reacted in a jealous rage to his perception of LL flirting, by punching her and stomping on her abdomen and thighs (count 13). Later, when she tried to stop him from leaving the hotel room, he took out a gun and threatened to shoot her if she didn’t move out of his way (count 12).

He also pressed the gun against her forehead until she started to bleed (count 11) leaving a permanent scar on her forehead. Both the threats and the assault were committed with the same firearm (count 14). Between August 1, 2017 and April 30, 2018 15) Sexual assault (271a) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years) 16) Assault (266a) Cr. C.) (maximum 5 years) [ 16 ] These counts cover an incident which occurred in their apartment in Mississauga. LL indicated to Mr. Casanova that she was not happy with him texting while she was giving him oral sex.

In response, he slapped her face, then grabbed her head, forcing her to perform fellatio on him. March 17, 2019 17) Assault bodily harm (267b) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years) 18) Sexual assault (271a) Cr. C . ) (maximum 10 years) [ 17 ] These two counts refer to an incident at their apartment in Montreal. Mr. Casanova beat LL because she had been texting another man. He hit her with his belt buckle and kicked her, causing a searing pain in her abdomen and leaving bruises that were still visible days later.

He then forced her to submit to intercourse, ordering her to go to the bedroom, although she could barely walk because of the pain where he had kicked her. [ 18 ] Once in the bedroom, on the bed, Mr. Casanova got on top of her, put his hands around her neck and started strangling her, squeezing hard enough so that she could not breathe. While LL cried, Mr. Casanova penetrated her from behind and ejaculated inside her. Between January 1, 2019 and January 31, 2019 19) Assault bodily harm (267b) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years) [ 19 ] While at a motel, LL complained about seeing another girl’s name on Mr.

Casanova’s telephone. He slapped her face, grabbed her by the throat and pushed her against the wall raising her up until she could not breathe. The next day her face was still swollen. May 12, 2019 20) Uttering threats (264.1(1)a)(2)

a) Cr. C.) (maximum 5 years) [ 20 ] In May 2019, LL was living with her father in Montreal but she continued to see Mr. Casanova and worked for him in the sex trade at a massage parlour.They had an argument on May 12, 2019 because LL had an accident driving Mr. Casanova’s rental car. He told LL he was coming to stab her and her father, thus committing the offence of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm. File 500-01-188976-192 (7 th of May 2019) 145(3)b)) Failure to comply with the condition not to communicate with LL (Section 145(3)

a) Cr. C.) (maximum 2 years) [ 21 ] During a traffic stop, LL and Mr. Casanova were arrested for breaching Court conditions not to be in in contact or communicate with each other (these conditions were imposed following their arrest in Marathon, Ontario for possession of a firearm). [6] File 500-01-189082-198 (12th of May 2019) 2 counts 145(3)b)) Failure to comply with the condition not to communicate with LL and to respect a curfew (Section 145(3)

a) Cr. C.) [ 22 ] On the day of his arrest, Mr. Casanova was charged with communicating with LL in contravention of a Court order and was out past his curfew. File 500-01-192043-195

(June 21, 2019) Failure to comply with the condition not to communicate with LL (Section 145(3)

a) Cr. C.) (maximum 2 years) [ 23 ] After his arrest, Mr. Casanova contacted LL by telephone from jail. II Evidence on sentencing Victim Impact statement LL was afforded the opportunity to address the Court, either in person or in writing, to describe the consequences or impact of these crimes. However, she recently told the investigating officer that she no longer wishes to participate in these proceedings. She found it particularly stressful to testify, as it brought up painful memories that she does not want to revisit, preferring to “move on”. The presentence report [7] [ 24 ] Mr. Casanova is 31 years old.

He was between 26 and 28 years old when these offences were committed and at that time, he had no criminal record. (He has since been convicted and is presently serving a sentence for possession of a prohibited firearm). He grew up with this mother in Jamaica and moved to Canada to live with his father when he was 16 years old.

He is the father of two children, aged 6 and 7 years old, and maintains a positive relationship with their mother. [ 25 ] Perhaps due to his general denial of all the charges, as well as his “mixed collaboration”, and limited information provided to the probation officer, the presentence report does not provide much insight into Mr. Casanova’s character and personality nor what led him to commit these crimes. He does not accept these convictions, which he claims are based on the untruthful allegations of a spurned ex- girlfriend.

He also believes that as an Anglophone and a Black person, he has been unfairly treated by the justice system in Quebec. He denies being a violent person, although he does admit to having slapped LL during some arguments, but nothing more. He firmly maintains that they were a couple, that he only wanted to help her and although he did not stop her from working the sex trade, he did not bring her to it, nor force her to continue as a sex trade worker. This version, which he presented during the trial, was not believed. [ 26 ] The probation officer notes that Mr.

Casanova has a long history of delinquent behaviour, despite the absence of a criminal record. He has chosen a marginal and criminal lifestyle, admitting to supporting himself mostly through the sale of illegal drugs and to years of substance abuse which began at 12 years of age. [ 27 ] The probation officer concludes by underscoring Mr. Casanova’s lack of empathy, his refusal to be held accountable, his embracing a delinquent lifestyle, his lack of introspection and his unwillingness to follow therapy. He considers that Mr. Casanova has a high risk of reoffending. [8] Sexological assessment [ 28 ] Mr.

Casanova refused to collaborate with the sexologist in order to undergo a sexological assessment . Long-Term Offender Assessment [ 29 ] Following the remand for an evaluation (section 752.1 Cr. C.), Ms Tiziana Costi, psychologist, prepared a report [9] after several meetings with Mr. Casanova for a total of over 10 hours. She concludes that Mr. Casanova has antisocial personality traits, and delinquent values. According to her assessment, his risk of reoffending is high.

She writes: “ the risk of recidivism is present and quite significant in terms of violence and also to possible sexual offending because of his impulsive and antisocial behaviours ”. [10] She adds: “ The risk of recidivism is high, in our opinion, in terms of general violence and sexual violence in a similar context, and of taking advantage of someone weaker for personal gain ”. [11] [ 30 ] The purpose of a long-term offender designation sought by the prosecution is two-fold.

On the one hand, through a long-term supervision order, the measure is intended to protect society against the high risk of an offender reoffending. On the other hand, the measure has a considerable secondary objective, namely, to provide the offender with a framework to promote his or her social reintegration. Thus, rehabilitation is a key element of the long-term offender regime. [ 31 ] The defence does not contest the long-term offender designation pursuant to

section 753.1 Cr. C ., nor the supervision period of 7 years as requested by the prosecution, recognizing that the evidence has established the three criteria set out in

section 753.1 Cr. C., namely that: • (

a) it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more for the offence for which the offender has been convicted; • (

b) there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend; and • (

c) there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

Behaviour while incarcerated [ 32 ] Mr. Casanova has been incarcerated for 34 months, [12] during which time he has accumulated no less than 26 reprimands for his behaviour in jail. [13] These misconducts are not prior convictions and may not be used to punish him for his behaviour in jail, nor to increase the sentence to be imposed, but they serve to shed light on Mr. Casanova’s character, conduct and attitude. [14] The nature and number of these breaches of prison rules reflect his inability to respect rules and authority .

Some point to a potential for violence, in particular, 7 instances of possession of a handmade weapon and 5 instances of physical altercations with other inmates. III Positions of the parties [ 33 ] Providing a detailed table of the suggested sentence for each of the crimes charged, [15] the prosecutor recommends a period of 10 ½ years of incarceration (after adjusting the aggregate periods of 18 years he recommends, in order that the total sentence not be excessive). The prosecutor suggests that the usual 1.5 enhanced credit for time spent in preventive custody should be deducted. [ 34 ] Mr.

Casanova underscores that prior to the commission of these offences he had no criminal record. He suggests an aggregate sentence of 5 years for all of the crimes. Once the agreed-upon period of preventive detention is deducted, calculated according to the usual ratio of 1.5 to 1, the remainder is 500 days of imprisonment. Mr. Casanova suggests that 135 additional days should be deducted to reflect his difficult conditions of incarceration. The net prison term as of today would thus be 12 months in all of these files combined.

IV Sentencing principles [ 35 ] The fundamental principles of sentencing are codified in sections 718 and following of the Criminal Code , which provide that the goal of sentencing is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. This goal is met by the imposition of sanctions intended to meet one or more of the following objectives:

a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

b) to deter the offender and others from committing offences;

c) to separate offenders from society when necessary;

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

e) to provide reparation 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 and to the community. [ 36 ] Taking into consideration any aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender, a sentence should be similar to those imposed on similar offenders for similar offences. [ 37 ] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

V Review of the jurisprudence and range of sentences: human trafficking [ 38 ] A review of the sentencing ranges and principles applied to similar matters will be helpful in gauging the appropriate and just sentence in this case. [ 39 ] Although there are many counts to be considered, overall, Mr. Casanova’s role as pimp to LL and his treatment of her in that context form the backdrop for all of the offences committed. [ 40 ] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.

Downey [16] underscored the vulnerability of sex workers generally and the well documented abuse they suffer at the hands of their parasitic pimps. [ 41 ] Human trafficking involves exploitation, coercion and control exercised by pimps over their victims. It is eloquently explained by Campbell, J. in R. v. Lopez : [17] At its most basic level, it is a form of slavery, with pimps living parasitically off the earnings of prostitutes.

Pimps exercise their control over prostitutes by means of a variety of tactics including emotional blackmail, verbal abuse, threats of violence and/or pure physical violence and brutality. The prostitutes that are the subject of this coercive exploitation are typically vulnerable and disadvantaged women, who have been manipulated and taken advantage of by the pimp.

Even in cases where their initial participation in the sex trade is voluntary, including perhaps their business association with the pimp, and adopted for reasons of perceived increased security and safety in an inherently dangerous line of work, the relationship invariably becomes one-sided and exploitative. [ 42 ] A review of sentencing decisions for pimping offences indicates that general deterrence, denunciation and specific deterrence are said to be the paramount sentencing considerations. [18] Where the accused has coerced a woman into becoming or remaining a prostitute and exercised a significant degree of control over her activities, sentences of 4 or 5 years are typically imposed. [19] This can be longer or shorter, as individual factors are considered.

For human trafficking, the range appears to be 4 to 8 years, depending on aggravating and mitigating circumstances. [20] In many cases, the total sentence imposed includes sentences for other offences, such as assault or threats, which are imposed concurrently to the count of human trafficking (as opposed to imposing separate, consecutive sentences), thus explaining longer sentences than the range described. [ 43 ] Some examples of sentences imposed in similar cases were submitted by the parties and are summarized below.

These help to understand how the principles are applied and to gauge the applicable range of sentences for these types of offences, however, each case must be considered on its own merits allowing for individual factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

[ 44 ]

Summary of cases submitted by the prosecutor : it should be noted that some of these involve an additional aggravating factor of a minor as victim thus increasing the mandatory minimum sentence to 5 years pursuant to

section 279.011 b)). 1) R. v. A.E. , 2018 ONSC 471 The 30-year-old accused was convicted after trial of human trafficking, assault, criminal harassment, breach of a non-communication order, possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purposes of trafficking, and possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm. The offences involved two victims, both 19 years old and financially vulnerable, one of whom was exploited for between three and four years, the other one for three months. Violence was used, but it was “on the lower end of the scale”.

The accused exercised significant control over their activities and their hours of work, providing them with a list of rules for servicing clients. He kept almost all of their money. He had a significant youth record including a conviction for second-degree murder for which he served three years in closed custody.

On the mitigating side, the judge considered the offender’s significant support in the community, his difficult childhood, the absence of sexual violence and the fact that he did not coerce either of the victims into prostitution. (It may be noted, that these last factors cannot truly be considered mitigating). On the two human trafficking counts, the judge imposed a sentence of seven years, adjusted to six years in order to account for the totality principle.

The global or “gross” sentence for all the offences combined is calculated at 13 years, and reduced to 10 years to account for the totality principle 2) R. v. Lopez , 2018 ONSC 4749 A 25-year-old accused was sentenced after trial for human trafficking, advertising sexual services for money, assault with a weapon, uttering death threats, and wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice. The 19-year-old complainant and the accused, then 21, were involved in an intimate relationship, and entered into a business relationship in the sex trade together.

Over almost 18 months, the accused exercised control, direction or influence over the complainant for the purpose of exploiting her as a prostitute. Violence and threats were present. The sentencing judge considered the fact that the accused was abandoned by his mother when he was 14 years old and lived under the supervision of a woman who was frequently committing crimes. He had a significant criminal record beginning in Youth Court and continuing into adulthood.

However, since his arrest on these charges he had taken significant steps towards rehabilitation, including writing a heartfelt letter of apology to the complainant, accepting full responsibility for his actions. On the all the counts globally, “only because of his excellent prospects of rehabilitation”, a sentence of 5 years was imposed. 3) R. v. Antoine , 2020 ONSC 181 The accused was 36 years old with significant prior convictions. He was sentenced on two counts of human trafficking, procuring and receiving a material benefit.

One victim worked in the sex trade at his behest for many months over a two-year period, and the other victim for a few days. Both were drug addicts and the accused supplied them with drugs. There were no overt acts of violence but there was the use of threats. Mitigating factors where the offender’s supportive family, his participation in rehabilitation programs and his childhood struggles with physical abuse. Globally, on the human trafficking counts he was sentenced to six years.

The appropriate sentence for all the offences combined was set at 9 years, reduced to 8 years considering the totality principle. 4) R. v. Abedini , [2019] O.J. No. 6947 ( aff’d 2020 ONCA 520 ) The accused, a 32-year-old woman, was found guilty on eight counts related to the sex trade, involving three 16 year-old victims. She ran a carefully planned escort business, enticing vulnerable young women and profiting from them while exercising strict and abusive physical and psychological control over them, although the actual violence was minimal.

She took 50% of the money earned and controlled the workers’ schedules and the publicity for their services. She was a first offender showing considerable rehabilitative efforts. A sentence of 8 ½ years in custody was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which found it to be entirely fit and within the range for similar offences and offenders, properly underscoring denunciation and deterrence. 5) R. v. Crosdale , 2019 ONCJ 3 A 33-year-old accused was found guilty of a number of human trafficking, prostitution, and child pornography offences. Two victims were involved, a 16-year-old and a 19-year-old.

On the mitigating side, the accused had no prior record and had support from his relatives, friends and the church in his community. Regarding the human trafficking offences, the sentence regarding the 16-year-old victim was five years, taking into account the coercion involved, the absence of physical violence and the short duration of the exploitation. With respect to the 19-year-old victim a sentence of 6 years concurrent was imposed for the exploitation that lasted over a period of four months, and involved physical violence, coercion and threats as well as using her to recruit the second victim. 6) R. v.

Salmon, 2019 ONSC 1574 The accused was found guilty of human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, procuring, and receiving a material benefit from sexual services for consideration, over a five to six month period. The judge considered the fact that the victim was already involved in the sex trade, and the absence of sexual and physical violence, but considered the control and coercion exercised over the victim, as well as pervasive threats of violence that loomed over her, creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record including eight incidents of violence and a prior conviction of attempting to procure, 10 years earlier. The mitigating factors were few. The sentence imposed was 6 years. 7) R. v. Jean , 2020 ONSC 624 A 30-year-old offender was convicted on two counts of human trafficking, receiving a material benefit, and two counts of breach of recognizance. He trafficked an 18-year-old victim for 6 to 7 months, and a second victim, for 2 ½ years, beginning when she was 19 years old.

The mitigating factors were the accused’s lack of a prior record, his relative youth, family support, steady employment, a positive presentence report, his partner and his young child, and his remorse. The aggravating factors were his control over the victims, the money he received, the age, vulnerability, and number of victims and the impact of the crime on them. The sentence was eight years, adjusted to 6 years based on the totality principle.

8) R. v. Gardner , 2020 ONSC 5954 A 31-year-old accused was found guilty of sexual assault, human trafficking and other charges. The complainant was 21 years old when she met the accused (then 27 years old) and his girlfriend, and they began a polyamorous relationship. The victim initially worked in the sex trade industry by choice. The accused began to exercise control over her which increased over time, ordering her to meet a quota of earnings. The exploitation lasted for several months.

The accused sexually assaulted the victim by penetrating her anally against her will while she was bound, as a punishment for misbehaviour. He repeatedly assaulted her by punching her on her body and her face. On the mitigating side, the accused had no criminal record and strong prospects for rehabilitation. The sentence imposed was five years on the human trafficking count and four years on the sexual assault count, both reduced to account for the totality principle to 7 years on all the counts combined. 9) R. v.

A.S ., 2017 ONSC 802 A 36-year-old offender was convicted of human trafficking, sexual assault, benefiting from human trafficking, procurement, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, three counts of assault and choking. His victim was a troubled indigenous young adult in a vulnerable situation. He formed a romantic relationship with her and created a situation of dependence. She worked in a strip club and provided sexual services for money giving him all of her earnings over a period of two years. After a break in the relationship, the victim came back to him, two years later.

The accused had a lengthy and “atrocious” criminal record dating back to age 15. The sentence imposed was meant to reflect the violent and dehumanizing conditions and control associated with the human trafficking and procurement offences as well as a very serious aggravated assault. The accused struck the victim with a glass jar, severing a tendon and permanently injuring her, choked her on one occasion to the point where she could not breathe, inflicted burns on her arm, and forcibly confined her.

The trial judge imposed a sentence higher than that requested by the Crown as their submission failed to give adequate recognition to the extreme egregious and gratuitous violence perpetrated by the accused. Although a global sentence of 14 years was appropriate, it was reduced by one year in recognition of the totality principle. The sentence imposed was thus 12 years for human trafficking, one year consecutive for choking, and concurrent sentences of six years for aggravated assault, as well as concurrent sentences for sexual assault, assault and procurement, for a total of 13 years . 10) R. v.

Tazike , 2019 ONCJ 819 A 25-year-old accused with no prior convictions was found guilty of several charges relating to human trafficking and procurement of a minor over a period of 2 years, as well as two counts of sexual assault, criminal harassment and mischief. He met the victim when she was 16 years old and living in a youth shelter. He introduced her to prostitution and kept all the money earned. They developed a romantic relationship which eventually deteriorated as the accused became violent. The charges included incidents of forced intercourse and violence.

A charge of criminal harassment was based on his refusal to accept that she was ending their relationship. The sentencing judge found that a global sentence of nine years would be appropriate, however, taking into account the fact that the accused was a youthful first offender, the global sentence was reduced to 7 ½ years , reflecting the totality principle (six years, reduced to five years for procuring a minor, two-years consecutive in relation to the sexual assaults and six months consecutive for the criminal assessment). 11) R. c .

Losse , 2021 QCCQ 13745 The accused was found guilty of 15 counts involving human trafficking, procurement offences, invitation to sexual touching and sexual interference with a person under 16 years of age. The first victim was 15 years old and developed a romantic relationship with the accused who was 25 years old. He suggested that she engage in the sex trade and took 50% of her profits. This lasted for about one month until she got pregnant.

The second victim was also a vulnerable young woman in her early twenties who became romantically involved with the accused, having met him through friends at her youth shelter. He introduced her to the sex trade and at first took 50% of her earnings but then eventually 100%. He was extremely controlling, provided her with drugs and was violent with her.

The total appropriate sentence was calculated at 13 years, however taking into account that the accused was a youthful first offender, and considering the totality principle, the sentence was adjusted to a global period of 9 years. [ 45 ] Cases submitted by the defence : it should be noted that five of the six cases provided are examples of sentences imposed for the offence of procuring. Although these are related offences to that of human trafficking, with identical maximum penalties of fourteen years, when the offence of procuring does not involve a minor, there is no minimum penalty. 1) R . c.

Fournier , 2020 QCCQ 8897 The accused was found guilty of procuring a minor, of receiving material benefits from those sexual services and advertising her sexual services, as well as production and distribution of juvenile pornography. The victim was a vulnerable 15-year-old runaway, introduced to prostitution by the accused and his accomplice who was her boyfriend. The events took place over two days during which the victim was forced into prostitution despite feeling ill and menstruating. She suffered significant psychological trauma following these events.

The accused was only 22 years old at the time of the commission of the offences but he had a criminal record for several weapons offences, extortion, uttering threats, production of cannabis, possession of counterfeit money, as well as breaches of probation. Because the offences involved a minor, he was subject to a five-year minimum sentence on the procuring charge (286.3

(2) Cr. C .). The total sentence imposed on all counts was 5 years (the sentencing judge refused to impose a consecutive sentence on the charge of production and distribution of juvenile pornography for advertising photographs of the victim, finding that the requirement to do so under

section 718.3

(7) Cr. C. is unconstitutional.)

2) R. c. Molin , 2020 QCCQ 5792 A 32-year-old accused pleaded guilty to procuring, receiving a material benefit from procuring and advertising sexual services, despite the fact that the victim was not present to give testimony at his trial. When they met, the victim was already involved in the sex trade. Over a period of approximately 10 days, the accused acted as her pimp, at first keeping 50% and then 100% of the money earned, providing her with drugs to feed her habit. The victim was not forced to engage in prostitution by the accused nor was any violence used.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record and was subjected to two probation orders relating to a conjugal violence matter at the time of these offences. The judge provides a useful review of sentences in similar matters and imposed a total sentence of 2 years less a day . 3) R. v.

Ellis , 2017 ONSC 3812 A 29-year-old accused was convicted on three charges under the earlier version of the Criminal Code (procuring a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, procuring a person to become a prostitute, exercising control, direction or influence over the movements of a person in such a manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting, or compelling that person to engage in prostitution) and of assault. The victim was 22 years old and they were engaged in an intimate relationship.

The accused introduced the victim to the sex trade and she worked as a prostitute, often working out of town, believing that they were equal partners. The accused was not happy when she ended their relationship some four months later. She did not stay in the prostitute/pimp relationship against her will or out of fear. The accused had support in the community, was gainfully employed and had no prior criminal record.

A sentence of 20 months was imposed. (It should be noted that the 2014 amendments to the Criminal Code relating to the offences of procuring and human trafficking added mandatory minimum sentences and increased the maximum sentences for these crimes. As Boswell J stated in R . v. A.E ., 2018 ONSC 471 , prior to 2014, the range was 2 to 3 years at the bottom end to 6 or 7 at the top end, whereas since 2014, the usual range appears to be 4 to 8 years, depending on aggravating and mitigating circumstances) 4) R . c.

Ayala Tafur , 2021 QCCQ 8292 The accused was found guilty of procuring and receiving a material benefit therefrom, as well as assault and assault with a weapon. The accused and his victim, both in their early 20s, were engaged in an intimate relationship. He introduced her to prostitution and she worked as a sex trade worker for a period of 10 months, travelling to various Canadian cities for this purpose at the accused’s behest, and giving him most of the money earned.

The review of the jurisprudence led the judge to note a wide range of sentences for the offence of procuring, ranging between 20 months and six years. Important consideration was given to the young age of the accused, his difficult background and the fact that he had begun therapy. He had no prior convictions (although he was convicted for several breaches of Court conditions after the offences in question). The total sentence imposed was 36 months . 5) R. c.

Rwasamanzi, 2019 QCCQ 2328 A 26-year-old accused with no prior convictions pleaded guilty to several charges including procuring and receiving material benefit therefrom, advertising sexual services, uttering threats and assault. Two victims were involved. The first was a 20-year-old, recruited by the accused and sent to work in Toronto where she was held in horrible conditions and subjected to violence, over a period of 10 days. The other victim met the accused when she was 18 years old and already working in the sex trade.

She also worked for him in Toronto and was a victim of violence and humiliation, over a period of 90 days. The specific consequences for one of the victims were particularly severe. A separate sentence was also imposed for obstruction of justice as the accused tried to prevent one of the victims from testifying, through threats. The sentencing judge considered the remorse shown by the accused and his prospects for rehabilitation. The sentences imposed were 3 years for one victim and 4 years for the other. Taking into consideration all of the offences, the aggregate sentence would be nine years.

This was adjusted to a total of 7 years in order to respect the totality principle. 6) R. c. Murenzi , 2018 QCCQ 7950 A 34-year-old accused was found guilty of human trafficking, procuring and assault causing bodily harm against his 20-year-old victim. They were involved in an intimate relationship. The offences occurred over a period of almost 4 years and involved violence and complete control over the victim. She lived in fear of him as he manipulated, isolated, mistreated and humiliated her. The accused had several convictions for breaching Court orders, most of them occurring after the offences in question.

The consequences on the victim were serious. The sentence imposed was 5 years . (Note that the offences were committed between 2010 and 2014, thus under the previous legislation where there was no minimum sentence for human trafficking and the offence of procuring carried a maximum of 10 years).

VI Range of sentences and relevant factors: assault, threats [ 46 ] There is a wide range of sentences for offences of assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon and uttering threats. [21] In the present matter, an aggravating factor on all of the offences of assault and threats is the general atmosphere of control over LL and her fear of Mr. Casanova during a two-year period. The denigration she was subjected to, the foul and threatening language used and Mr.

Casanova’s total lack of respect for her person are clearly illustrated in the text messages sent to LL [22] and they provide the context in which the assaults and threats occurred. An additional aggravating factor is the abuse of an intimate partner (sections 718.2 (ii) and 718.201 Cr. C.). VII Range of sentences and relevant factors: sexual assault [ 47 ] In several recent judgements [23] , the Québec Court of Appeal has reiterated that the sentencing ranges examined in R. c.

Cloutier [24] are still applicable. [ 48 ] The first category of sexual assault sentences as canvassed in Cloutier indicate a range of sentences of 12 to 23 months of imprisonment for sexual acts of lesser gravity and/or occurring on rare occasions and/or over a short period of time, committed on a single victim.

[ 49 ] The second category of sexual assault sentences falls within a range of 2 years less a day to 6 years, with a concentration of sentences between 3 to 4 years, generally for an accused without a criminal record, in cases of assaults marked by abuse of trust and authority, but devoid of acts of violence beyond the inherent violence of the assault itself. This range is relevant to both of the sexual assaults here. The sexual assault in count 15 (forced fellatio) falls on the lower end of this category.

The sexual assault in count 18 falls on the higher end of this range given the significant violence involved. [ 50 ] In addition, as noted above, in sentencing both counts of sexual assault, the Court must also consider the additional aggravating factor codified in sections 718.2 (ii) and 718.201 Cr. C., as the victim was the intimate partner of the accused. VIII Aggravating and mitigating factors [ 51 ] On the mitigating side, the Court takes into consideration that Mr. Casanova was 26 years old and had no prior convictions at the time these offences were committed.

He is currently serving a sentence of 18 months for possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition, but this is not a prior conviction. This offence was committed in Marathon, Ontario while he was with LL, in circumstances that LL described in her testimony at trial. The firearm is the one that Mr. Casanova used to threaten her on one occasion and assault her on another. [ 52 ] Mr. Casanova has the support of his mother and his sister.

He is also on good terms with the mother of his two children. [ 53 ] On the aggravating side, the Court will examine the factors commonly referred to in sentences imposed for procuring and human trafficking. [25] 1. The degree of coercion or control imposed by the pimp on the sex worker’s activities: As was canvassed in the December judgment, despite the fact that Mr. Casanova and LL were engaged in an intimate relationship, this was by no means an equal partnership. Mr. Casanova was wholly in control of all of her activities. He decided where and when she would offer sexual services.

At times she would ask to come home early, and he would encourage her to stay at work and make more money. Even outside her work in the sex trade, there was little that LL could do without his direction and consent. She needed his permission to spend money and had strict rules about whom she could speak to. As their relationship evolved, it was simply understood that LL was obliged to follow the rules imposed by Mr. Casanova.

In her testimony at trial, she admits that she did “agree” to provide certain services, even if she did not want to (for example anal sex or “Greek”), because as long as she was making money, Mr. Casanova was happy, and she was conditioned to make him happy. It was her job to bring in the money and to be a “good girl” in order to “deserve” the material things he promised her. When she brought the money, he was happy and wouldn’t beat her or admonish her. [26] 2.

The amount of money received by the pimp and the extent to which he allowed the sex worker to retain her earnings: It is difficult to establish how much money Mr. Casanova actually received. LL could make between $120 and $250 an hour and some days could service up to 12 clients. However, there is no precise accounting provided nor, evidence that she had clients every day. Regardless, the relevant aggravating factor is that Mr. Casanova kept all of the money that LL made in the sex trade, she had no say about the money so earned and he monitored the money she spent.

For example, an exchange in their text messages illustrates that even while she was working at the massage parlour LL had to ask for his permission to order food, and his permission was granted only after he checked how much money she had made that evening. 3. The age of the sex worker and her vulnerability: LL was 19 years old when she met Mr. Casanova in May 2017 in Toronto, where she had gone for a weekend with her friend M. and M.’s pimp, for the purpose of offering sexual services for money.

LL had no fixed address at the time: she had severed contacts with her family and was living with M. whom she had met in “rehab”. LL was dependent on cocaine at the time. She grew up in Montreal and spoke very little English. They ran into problems with M.’s pimp, and that is when they met Mr. Casanova, who offered to help them make enough money to get back to Montreal. LL had a total of $50 and one suitcase of belongings to her name. Thus, from their first meeting, LL was in a particularly vulnerable situation, estranged from her family, with no money, no home and no support system.

As their relationship evolved she became increasingly dependent on Mr. Casanova, feeling stuck, with no possibility of seeking help for the situation she found herself in. She was embarrassed to explain to her friends or family how she had gotten herself in so deep with someone who mistreated her and took all her money. [27] Despite being unhappy with the way she was treated, she became so dependent on Mr. Casanova that she would panic if he threatened to leave her. [28] 4.

The working conditions imposed, and any health safeguards taken: Very little came out of LL’s testimony in relation to any safeguards in place. She worked doing both “in calls” and “out calls”, thus she would go meet clients at a hotel, which in and of itself raises safety concerns. Mr. Casanova decided where she would work, for example encouraging her to work at a particular massage parlour, despite LL’s complaints about how the girls were treated there and the lack of cleanliness. 5.

The nature and sophistication of the “business”: In the present case, there is no sophisticated operation to speak of, but a consistent pattern of Mr. Casanova planning LL’s work in the sex trade which became their routine and way of life. In addition, they took several trips to remote areas where LL could make more money. (For example, they travelled to Sault Ste. Marie, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay).

6. The duration of the exploitative conduct: The exploitative conduct lasted for a full two years, and only ended when LL finally found the courage needed to speak to the authorities. Although she had tried to do so one year prior, following their arrest in Marathon, Ontario she got caught up in the bureaucracy of the proper jurisdiction where her charges could be brought, and she changed her mind. [29] 7. The degree of violence (apart from the violence inherent in the pimp’s parasitic activities): LL’s testimony refers to many incidents of assault, threats, assault causing bodily harm and sexual assault.

These are important aggravating factors that increase Mr. Casanova’s moral culpability as well as the lasting consequences on LL. They are referred to here as aggravating factors on the charge of human trafficking. Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that they also form the basis of separate and distinct charges. Thus, in order to properly address the true nature of the human trafficking charge, the sentence will reflect the ongoing violence over the two-year period. However, as will be explained below, the sentences will be adjusted so that Mr. Casanova is not penalized twice for the same events. 8.

The extent to which inducements such as drugs or alcohol were employed: When LL first met Mr. Casanova, she had a drug habit, and he provided her with the drugs that she asked for. This was an inducement only at the very start and in fact, LL gave up her cocaine habit during this relationship. The inducements were more in the nature of threats. These could be threats of violence and threats to abandon her, both of which served to keep LL obeying Mr. Casanova’s demands. 9. The consequences on the victim: As discussed above, LL declined to participate in the sentencing phase.

This was not because she did not suffer any trauma, but quite to the contrary, because revisiting these events was too painful for her. Her testimony during the trial shed light on some important consequences as she described quite poignantly feeling like she was an object for Mr. Casanova’s use. [30] She also described the difficulty she faced, feeling badly about herself for allowing herself to be controlled and at the mercy of Mr. Casanova, giving up her autonomy, her financial independence and her self-esteem. She fell in love with Mr.

Casanova and her testimony, as well as the text messages they exchanged, illustrate her ambivalence about staying with him and making him happy while recognizing just how horribly she was being treated. 10. The risk of reoffending: The presentence report [31] and evaluation for the long-term offender designation [32] both underline Mr. Casanova’s high risk of reoffending. This factor is most influential with respect to the long-term offender designation and the protection of the public. Nevertheless it is also a factor to be considered in imposing the appropriate sentence.

IX Other factors: Preventive custody conditions and COVID-19 restrictions [ 54 ] Mr. Casanova testified regarding the conditions of his incarceration, specifically with respect to the Covid-19 related restrictions which came into effect in March 2020, affecting his gym time, telephone privileges, time out of his cell and allotted time for showering. He was also subjected to two periods of quarantine, one for 14 days and another for 18 days. [ 55 ] Mr.

Casanova testified that these restrictions affected his mental health, causing him stress and anxiety and affecting his sleep, as tensions ran high in the jail due to physically and emotionally difficult restrictions. [ 56 ] The Court also considered the affidavit [33] by Mr. Patrick Marquaire, “Directeur de service” at the Établissement de detention de Montréal (EDM) where Mr.

Casanova spent most of his preventive custody, [34] which provided details as to the measures adopted due to the Covid-19 pandemic. [ 57 ] According to section 719 (3.1) of the Criminal Code , an enhanced credit for preventive custody is capped at 1.5 days for each day served. Thus the Court may not increase the ratio of enhanced credit. [35] [ 58 ] However, it is understood that in the exercise of their discretion in imposing sentence, Courts can consider harsh conditions of custody in order to tailor the appropriate sentence to the personal circumstances of the accused.

Collateral consequences of the offence or of the sentence are neither mitigating nor aggravating, but they can properly be considered as part of the overall factors relevant to the sentence to be imposed. [36] [ 59 ] There is no doubt that conditions in jails across the country during the height of the pandemic were significantly more difficult than usual. It is well-known that the population at large had to adapt to pandemic restrictions during the past two years.

However, without a doubt, for prison inmates, already living in a stressful and sometimes volatile environment, the restrictions served to significantly worsen their conditions. Limited time outside of the inmates’ cells was an important feature of the measures taken in order to protect the prison population and limit the spread of the disease. While the Court is sympathetic to the impact of such conditions, it recognizes that these were useful measures, implemented for basic public health, and no more restrictive than what was necessary. [ 60 ] The Court finds that while Mr.

Casanova’s conditions in jail were not optimal, they were not so unduly harsh as to require them to be considered as a factor reducing the sentence. However, during the two periods of quarantine described by Mr. Casanova, his conditions were particularly harsh. For a total of 32 days (during two separate periods) he was confined to his cell. He did not have access to the shower, the telephone or any social contact. The Court will consider this period in the imposition of the total sentence.

The period will not, however, be equated with a mathematical calculation as the defence has suggested: there is no justification for reducing an otherwise appropriate sentence by 135 days. [ 61 ] In essence, these quarantine periods of 32 days are included among all of the factors noted above that the Court will consider in

imposing a just sentence for Mr. Casanova. X Consecutive vs concurrent sentences [ 62 ] It is often difficult to determine whether sentences for several offences in the same indictment should be imposed concurrently or consecutively.

Section 718.3(

i) Cr. C. favours the imposition of consecutive sentences for offences that do not arise out of the same event or series of events. Where offences are “closely linked together”, or “part of the same transaction or endeavor”, or “part of the same course of conduct”, concurrent sentences are generally imposed. [37] An additional difficulty arises in cases such as this, where the series of events extends over a lengthy period of time and involves the commission of many offences.

It would be contrary to the objectives of sentencing to impose concurrent sentences and in essence credit an offender with a lesser punishment than that which would normally be deserved, by virtue of the fact that the crimes were committed on a continuous and ongoing basis. [ 63 ] In the present matter, all of the offences fall under the general umbrella of an exploitative relationship which began in May 2017. The offence of human trafficking forms the backdrop for all the other offences during the entire two-year period.

In addition, as noted above, some offences committed in furtherance of this exploitative relationship, such as assaults, threats and sexual assaults, serve as aggravating factors for the offence of human trafficking. For those reasons, concurrent sentences may be appropriate. [ 64 ] This will certainly be the case for the simple assaults that are already grouped in one count, as well as the threats. However, some of the crimes committed, by their nature and their seriousness, deserve to be underscored, singled out, and punished consecutively. [ 65 ] As the Québec Court of Appeal noted in Auguste c.

R . [38] , a sentence may be consecutive where an aggravating factor justifies it, even where the sentences are imposed on charges arising from the same set of facts. In that case, particularly violent acts of assault committed against two victims during the course of a home invasion were serious enough to warrant a sentence to be imposed consecutively to the sentence for breaking and entry, unlawful confinement and theft. [ 66 ] Such is the case here for the incident in the hotel room in the fall of 2018 (specifically counts 11 and 13). Mr.

Casanova assaulted LL causing bodily harm when, in a fit of jealous rage, he beat her and stomped on her abdomen leaving her bruised and swollen. During that same episode, he assaulted her with a weapon as he pressed a firearm against her forehead with such force that it left LL physically scarred.

The sentences for the assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon can be served concurrently, as part of the same incident, but this sentence should be consecutive, in order to emphasize the serious nature of the offences, which occurred not as part and parcel of the human trafficking, but as separate offences in a conjugal violence context. [ 67 ] Similarly, the crimes of sexual assault (count 18) and assault with a weapon (count 17) committed in March 2019, stand out as particularly violent and occurring yet again in the context of conjugal violence.

These occurred in their Montreal apartment, when Mr. Casanova objected to LL texting another man, and reacted violently to her talking back to him when he asked her about it. On this occasion, Mr. Casanova punched LL in the face, kicked her and beat her with a belt buckle. He then ordered her into the bedroom where he got on top of her, put his hands around her neck and chocked her, squeezing hard enough so that she could not breathe, prompting LL to believe that he would kill her.

He proceeded to sexually assault her, while she was crying and in a state of emotional and physical distress, penetrating her from behind and ejaculating inside her. Here too, the Court finds that this event is particularly aggravating and warrants a consecutive sentence. [ 68 ] In addition, the two charges pursuant to section 85 (1)(a)

(3) Cr. C. of use of a firearm while committing assault or uttering threats, require that these sentences be imposed consecutively to all other sentences, pursuant to section 85 (4) Cr. C. [ 69 ] Finally, it is generally accepted that breaches of Court-imposed conditions attract consecutive sentences. These are separate offences, unrelated to the main transaction or series of events that deserve separate punishment. [39] [ 70 ] Once the aggregate of all the sentences is calculated, the Court will take into account the totality principle (section 718.2 Cr. C.) and proportionality (section718.1 Cr.

C.) to ensure that the final sentences imposed are not be unduly harsh or excessive. [40] XI Preventive custody calculation [ 71 ] The parties have agreed on the calculation of the preventive custody to be deducted from the sentence in accordance with section 719(3.1) Cr. C. This calculation includes Mr.

Casanova’s time spent incarcerated since his arrest on May 12, 2019 excluding preventive custody already accounted for in his Ontario file, and excluding the time being served since the sentence was imposed in that file, on October 11, 2021. [ 72 ] The period of preventive custody to be deducted here is a total of 883 days. Applying an enhanced credit of 1.5 days per day, the total amount to be deducted is 1,325 days. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: IMPOSES a total sentence to be served concurrently with any other sentence of 10 years (3,650 days) as adjusted to reflect the totality principle.

From this total sentence the preventive custody of 1,325 days must be deducted, thus the total sentence from today is 2,325 days. (The precise calculation of the sentence imposed for each offence and the adjustment required is contained in the following table. The aggregate sentences amount to a total of 16.5 years, adjusted to 10 years to avoid excessive punishment.)

OFFENCE SENTENCE ADJUSTMENT (TOTALITY PRINCIPLE) TOTAL SENTENCE AS ADJUSTED 1) File: 500-01-189129-197 Human trafficking (section 279.01(1) (

b) Cr. C.) (maximum 14 years; 4 year mandatory minimum) 7 years Reduced to 6 years 6 years (2190 days) [less preventive custody:1325 days 865 days remaining] 2) Receiving a material benefit from the commission of human trafficking (279.02(1) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years) 4 years concurrent 3) Procuring LL to provide sexual services for consideration (section 286.3(1) Cr. C.) (Application of Kienapple) 4) Receiving a financial/material benefit knowing it was obtained from the commission of an offence under 286.1(1) (section 286.2(1) Cr.

C.) (Application of Kienapple ) 5) Advertising an offer to provide sexual services for consideration (286.4a) Cr. C.) (maximum 5 years) 2 years concurrent 6) Assaults (section 266a) Cr. C . ) (maximum 5 years) 2 years concurrent 7) Assault with a weapon (section 267a) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years) 2 years concurrent OFFENCE SENTENCE ADJUSTMENT (TOTALITY PRINCIPLE) TOTAL SENTENCE AS ADJUSTED 8) Uttering threats (264.1(1)a)(2)

a) Cr. C.) (maximum 5 years) 6 months concurrent 9) Assault (266

a) Cr. C.) (maximum 5 years) 6 months concurrent 10) Using a firearm while committing assault or uttering threats (section 85(1)a)

(3) Cr. C.) (maximum 14 years, mandatory minimum 1 year) 1 year consecutive to counts 1, 11and 18 365 days 11) Assault with a weapon (267a) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years 3 years consecutive to count 1, and 18 Reduced to 2 years consecutive and concurrent to count 18 730 days 12) Uttering threats (264.1(1)a)(2)

a) Cr. C.) (maximum 5 years) 6 months concurrent 13) Assault bodily harm (267b) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years) 2 years concurrent 14) Using a firearm while committing assault or uttering threats (85(1)a)

(3) Cr. C.); ( maximum 14 years, mandatory minimum 1 year) 1 year consecutive to counts 1, 10, 11 and 18 365 days 15) Sexual assault (271a) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years) 2 years concurrent 16) Assault (266a) Cr. C.) (maximum 5 years) 1 year concurrent 17) Assault bodily harm (267b) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years) 2 years concurrent

18) Sexual assault (271a) Cr. C . ) (maximum 10 years) 4 years consecutive to counts 1 and 11. Reduced to 2 years consecutive and concurrent to count 11 19) Assault bodily harm (267b) Cr. C.) (maximum 10 years) 1 year concurrent 20) Uttering threats (264.1(1)a)(2)

a) Cr. C.) (maximum 5 years) 6 months concurrent OFFENCE SENTENCE ADJUSTMENT (TOTALITY PRINCIPLE) TOTAL SENTENCE AS ADJUSTED File: 500-01-188976-192: Failure to comply with the condition not to communicate with LL (Section 145(3)

a) Cr. C.) (maximum 2 years) 2 months consecutive to file 500-01- 189129-197 To be served concurrently File: 500-01-189082-198 1) Failure to comply with the condition not to communicate with LL 2) Failure to respect a curfew (Section 145(3)

a) Cr. C.) 3 months consecutive to file 500-01- 189129-197 and to file 500-01- 188976-192 To be served concurrently File: 500-01-192043-195 Failure to comply with the condition not to communicate with LL (Section 145(3)

a) Cr. C.) (maximum 2 years) 3 months consecutive to file 500-01- 189129-197, 500-01- 188976-192 and 500-01- 189082-198 To be served concurrently IMPOSES the following orders: - A DNA order, pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances from Mr. Casanova for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis (in file 500-01-189129-197, on counts 1, 15 and 18); - An Order pursuant to s. 490.012(1) and 490.013 (2.1) of the Criminal Code requiring Mr. Casanova to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registry Act , S.C. 2004, c. 10 for life (in file 500-01-189129-197, on counts 15 and 18); - An Order under section 109

(2) a) of the Criminal Code prohibiting Mr. Casanova from possessing any firearms, crossbow, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for a period of 10 years after his release from imprisonment, and under section 109

(2) b) of the Criminal Code from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition, for life ; - An order prohibiting Mr. Casanova form communicating with LL while he is incarcerated, pursuant to

section 743. 21 Criminal Code . FURTHER, THE COURT: DECLARES Mr. Casanova to be a long-term offender pursuant to

section 753.1 (3) of the Criminal Code , and subject to a long- term supervision order for a period of 7 years following his release from custody; ORDERS that copies of the following documents be forwarded to the Correctional Services of Canada for information and case management purposes pursuant to

Section 760 of the Criminal Code : the expert reports (S-2 and S-5); a transcript of the trial; this written judgment; and the judgment of December 21, 2020 .

__________________________________ LORI RENÉE WEITZMAN, J.C.Q. Me Alexandre Gautier Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions For the prosecution Me Alexie Galarneau Étude Légale Petite Italie For the accused Date of hearing: February 1, 2022