R. v. Morgan
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge did not err in applying the presumption under s.286.2(3); there was no evidence to rebut the presumption that the complainant turned her earnings over to the appellant, and the judge had considered and rejected the subsection 4(1)(a) argument.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 ONCA 468
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Andrew Morgan
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 June 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Receiving Financial Benefit From Sexual Services, Presumption Under S.286.2(3), Application of S.4(1)(a) Argument, Publication Ban Under Ss.486.4 and 486.6
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Andrew Morgan
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in applying the presumption under s.286.2(3) that earnings were turned over to the appellant
- 2 Whether findings on elements of control for the second charge negate the presumption
- 3 Whether the trial judge needed to further address the subsection 4(1)(a) issue
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge did not err in applying the presumption under s.286.2(3); there was no evidence to rebut the presumption that the complainant turned her earnings over to the appellant, and the judge had considered and rejected the subsection 4(1)(a) argument.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Publication ban under ss.486.4 and 486.6 of the Criminal Code continues.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Morgan Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-06-06 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 468 Docket numbers C65522 Judges Feldman, Kathryn N.; van Rensburg, Katherine; Huscroft, Grant Subject Criminal Decision Content WARNING The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file: An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide: 486.4(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, 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 (iii) REPEALED: S.C. 2014, c. 25, s. 22(2), effective December 6, 2014 (Act, s. 49). (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) 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 victim of the right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order. (2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. (2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall (a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order. (3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. (4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b); 2010, c. 3, s. 5; 2012, c. 1, s. 29; 2014, c. 25, ss. 22,48; 2015, c. 13, s. 18.. 486.6(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. (2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15. COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Morgan, 2019 ONCA 468 DATE: 20190605 DOCKET: C65522 Feldman, van Rensburg and Huscroft JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Andrew Morgan Appellant Andrew Morgan, in person Michael Dineen, duty counsel Leslie Paine, for the respondent Heard: June 3, 2019 On appeal from the conviction entered on January 25, 2018 by Justice Deena Baltman of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with/without a jury. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant appeals his conviction for receiving a financial benefit from sexual services contrary to s. 286.2(1) of the Code. Duty counsel submitted that the trial judge erred by relying on the presumption under subsection (3) when some of the other findings suggested that she was not satisfied that the complainant gave all her earnings to the appellant. [2] We do not agree. The trial judge was not satisfied regarding elements of control for the second charge, but did not find, nor was there evidence that the complainant did not turn her earnings over to the appellant. There was no error in her application of the presumption. [3] The issue of subsection 4(1)(a) was specifically discussed by the trial judge and defence counsel and rejected. Therefore there was no need for the trial judge to address that issue. [4] The appeal is dismissed.