In 2014, York Regional Police in Ontario established an undercover investigation known as Project Raphael, the objective of which was to reduce the demand for sexual services from minors in the region. The investigation involved officers posting fake advertisements in the “escorts” section of Backpage.com, an online classified advertising website. When an individual would respond to an ad, an undercover officer, posing as an escort, would disclose the fact that “she” was underage. If conversation continued, an arrangement for sexual services and price was made, and the individual would be directed to a hotel room for the transaction to occur. Upon arrival, the individuals were then arrested and charged. Temitope Dare, Erhard Haniffa, Muhammad Jaffer, and Cory Ramelson were all charged with child luring and communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor as a result of Project Raphael. Three of the four individuals were convicted at trial, and their appeals were dismissed at the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Mr. Ramelson’s matters were stayed at the court of first instance, but this stay was set aside on appeal. Dare, Haniffa, and Jaffer sought and were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Ramelson appealed as of right. In all four appeals, the Supreme Court will consider the proper analysis to be applied in determining whether entrapped a person within a virtual space like the internet.The Supreme Court of Canada is now hearing all four appeals together. Mr. Jaffer was found guilty by a jury of (1) child luring under 18 (s. 172.1(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46), and communicating to obtain for consideration the sexual services of a person under 18 (s. 212(4) (now s. 286.1(2))). The sentencing judge stayed the S. 286.1 charge pursuant to Kineapple. Mr. Jaffer’s defence of entrapment, a post-trial motion brought seeking a stay of proceedings, was dismissed at trial. His appeal of that dismissal was unanimously dismissed by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Similarly, Mr. Dare was found guilty of three offences at his trial: child luring under 18 ss. 172.1(1)(a)), child luring under 16172.1(1)(b), and communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor. 286.1(2). His post-trial entrapment stay application was also dismissed at trial, and his appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed. What follows is a presentation of the facts of each of the companion cases under appeal. Haniffa v the QueenMr. Haniffa was convicted at trial, but in a post-trial application argued that his charges should be stayed due to entrapment. The trial judge dismissed the application.The issue on appeal was whether Mr. Haniffa was entrapped by reason of the police providing an opportunity to commit crimes without first having a reasonable suspicion that the appellants were engaged in criminal activity, or pursuant to a bone fide police inquiry. Justice Jurianz found that, applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Ahmad, the law of entrapment had not changed for virtual spaces. The appellants argued that the investigation was no more than random virtue testing. Justice Jurianz disagreed.Mr. RamelsonAt the court of first instance, Mr. Ramelson argued that he was entrapped by police to commit the offences charged, and made an application for a stay of proceedings accordingly. The trial judge dismissed the application, but after the dismissal, The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ahmed was released. The trial judge invited the parties back to make further submissions on the issue of entrapment, and this time, the trial judge found that the police actions constituted entrapment and entered a stay of proceedings. The Crown appealed. A unanimous panel at the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal. Mr. Ramelson appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related