Human Trafficking Lawyer in Canada

What Human Trafficking covers in Canadian criminal law

What the Crown must prove

The Crown carries the burden of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt on any one of them means an acquittal.

• The accused recruited, transported, harboured or exercised control over the complainant
• That conduct was for the purpose of exploiting the complainant or facilitating their exploitation
• Exploitation within the meaning of section 279.04, assessed objectively in all the circumstances
• Where alleged, receipt of a material benefit knowing it resulted from the trafficking
• Identity of the accused and the date and jurisdiction of the alleged offence

Penalties and consequences on conviction

• Mandatory minimum penitentiary sentences under section 279.01, increasing where the complainant is under eighteen
• A maximum of life imprisonment where the offence involves kidnapping, aggravated assault or death
• Mandatory DNA orders and weapons prohibitions
• Forfeiture and restitution orders, including for the value of the labour or services obtained
• Certain deportation for permanent residents and foreign nationals

Common defences

• The relationship was consensual and did not involve exploitation within section 279.04
• Absence of the purpose of exploitation, which is the essential mental element
• Credibility and reliability challenges to complainant testimony, supported by digital records
• Section 8 Charter challenges to the seizure and search of phones, accounts and hotel records
• Attribution problems where multiple people had access to devices, accounts or funds
• Constitutional challenge to a mandatory minimum sentence under section 12 of the Charter

Human trafficking lawyer: frequently asked questions

Does human trafficking require moving someone across a border?

No. Section 279.01 has no cross-border element. Most human trafficking prosecutions in Canada are entirely domestic and involve no international movement at all. What matters is the purpose of exploitation, not travel.

Is the complainant's consent a defence?

Consent is not a straightforward answer. The test in section 279.04 is objective: whether the accused's conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the complainant to believe their safety would be threatened if they did not comply. Evidence that the relationship was genuinely voluntary is relevant, but stated consent alone does not end the analysis.

Are mandatory minimum sentences imposed?

Section 279.01 sets mandatory minimum penitentiary terms, with higher minimums where the complainant is under eighteen. Those minimums have been the subject of constitutional challenge under section 12 of the Charter, and counsel should confirm the current state of the law on the specific count.