To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit our website to provide feedback.
Criminal law — Trafficking in persons — Exploitation
(00:00:40) Summary
(00:10:28) Reasons for Judgment: O’Bonsawin J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and Moreau JJ. concurring)
(00:10:41) I. Overview – 1
(00:12:48) II. Factual Context – 6
(00:13:04) A. The Evidence of the Complainant – 7
(00:14:00) B. The Evidence of the Five Other Witnesses – 15
(00:16:12) C. The Exhibits – 21
(00:17:12) III. Judicial History – 22
(00:17:14) A. Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, 2021 NSSC 290 (Coady J.) – 22
(00:19:05) B. Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, 2023 NSCA 28, 425 C.C.C. (3d) 475 – 27
(00:19:26) (1) The Majority (Bryson J.A., Farrar J.A. Concurring) – 28
(00:21:33) (2) The Dissent (Van den Eynden J.A.) – 33
(00:22:57) IV. Issues – 38
(00:24:58) V. Analysis – 44
(00:25:16) A. Did the Trial Judge Fail To Consider All the Evidence? – 45
(00:27:37) B. Did the Trial Judge Misapprehend the Evidence? – 51
(00:27:55) (1) Interpretation of Section 279.01 Cr. C. – 52
(00:30:54) (a) Object of Section 279.01 Cr. C. – 55
(00:31:49) (b) Text and Context of Section 279.01 Cr. C. – 63
(00:36:13) (c) Conclusion – 70
(00:37:00) (2) The Trial Judge Assessed the Evidence Based on a Wrong Legal Principle – 72
(00:37:49) (a) Past Discreditable Conduct Evidence and Its Exclusionary Rule – 74
(00:39:23) (b) The Trial Judge’s Characterization of the Accused’s Conduct as Past Discreditable Conduct – 79
(00:41:30) (c) Regular Violence and Threats of Violence by the Accused Were Covered by the Indictment – 83
(00:45:00) (d) Regular Violence and Threats of Violence by an Accused Can Be Relevant and Material to the Actus Reus – 91
(00:48:17) (e) The Mens Rea Can Be Inferred From a Finding of Exploitation and Regular Violence and Threats of Violence by an Accused Against a Victim Can Be Relevant and Material to the Definition of Exploitation – 96
(00:51:08) (3) Conclusion and Precise Articulation of the Trial Judge’s Error of Law – 109
(00:51:48) (4) The Trial Judge’s Mischaracterization of the Evidence Tainted His Legal Analysis – 110
(00:54:29) C. Might the Error of Law Have Had a Material Bearing on the Acquittals? – 115
(00:55:29) VI. Conclusion – 120
(00:56:50) I. Defining the Error of Law in the Present Appeal – 123
(00:59:58) II. The Legal Error Would Not Have a Material Bearing on the Acquittal – 129
(01:01:30) A. The Trial Judge Could Not Have Been Persuaded by the Testimony of the Complainant – 133
(01:06:40) B. The Trial Judge Could Not Have Inferred Intent From the Circumstances of Control or Exploitation – 141
(01:07:17) (1) The Five Witnesses Did Not Provide an Evidentiary Basis for Finding Actual Exploitation – 142
(01:09:26) (2) The Negative Credibility Findings of the Five Witnesses Bar an Inference of “Intent To Exploit” – 147
(01:13:38) III. Conclusion – 155
