R. v. Moradi, 2016 ONCJ 843

WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file: A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code . This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1) , read as follows: 486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. —

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (

a) any of the following offences: (

i) an offence under

section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1,172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 212, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or (ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant’s sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (

i) if it occurred on or after that day; or (

b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a) .

(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(

a) or ( b ), the presiding judge or justice shall (

a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and (

b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order. . . . 486.6 OFFENCE —

(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1) , (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on

summary conviction. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Moradi, 2016 ONCJ 843 DATE: December 7, 2016 COURT FILE No.: Newmarket 15-09466 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — KRISTOPHER JONATHAN MORADI

Before Justice Joseph F. Kenkel ADMISSIBILITY RULING December 7, 2016. Mr. M. Dionne .......................................................................................... counsel for the Crown Mr.

E Ghebrai .................................................................................... counsel for the defendant KENKEL J.: [1] The accused is charged with eight offences including two counts of sexual assault and four counts alleging exploitation ofthe complainant via compelled prostitution. [2] Both parties agree that police forensic analysis recovered a PDF book from the accused’s laptop entitled, “Pimpology — The48 Laws of the Game”. The defence submits that the book should not be admitted into evidence as there is little or no probative valueand the prejudicial impact is significant.

The Crown submits that relevance outweighs any prejudicial effect. The book is relevant to thecomplainant’s evidence and to the accused’s statement. [3] It’s plain that the central issue in this trial is credibility. Relevance asks whether the existence of a particular fact makes theexistence of a fact at issue more or less likely. R v Candir 2009 ONCA 915 , [2009] OJ No 5485 at para 48 The PDF book iscircumstantial evidence that could support the credibility of the complainant’s evidence.

The presence of the book on the accused’slaptop is also a circumstance that might weigh against his statements to the police that he was not involved in human trafficking. Thebook is relevant evidence. [4] The Crown does not tender the book to show bad character. The PDF book was on the accused’s laptop at a timecontemporaneous to the allegations. The fact the accused possessed such a book at that time is directly relevant to the evidence heard andthe central issue before the court.

Potential prejudice is limited given the proposed use of the evidence and is otherwise outweighed bythe probative value of the evidence. [5] I find the PDF book to be admissible. Released: December 7, 2016 Justice Joseph F. Kenkel