Milestone or Missed Opportunity? A Critical Analysis of the Impact of Domotor on the Future of Human Trafficking Cases in Canada

• Author: Bethany Hastie - Alison Yule
• Position: Doctoral candidate at the Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University - Doctoral student at the Faculty of Law at Allard Hall, University of British Columbia
• Pages: 83-93

APPEALVOLUME 19

n

83

ARTICLE

MILESTONE OR MISSED OPPORTUNITY?

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF

DOMOTOR ON THE FUTURE OF HUMAN

TRAFFICKING CASES IN CANADA

Bethany Hastie & Alison Yule*

CITED: (2014) 19 Appeal 83–93

INTRODUCTION

In 2011, the largest human tracking operation to date in Canada was uncovered

in Hamilton, Ontario. e Domotor case involved over nineteen tracked persons,

transnational elements, and a criminal organization engaged in an elaborate fraud

scheme.1 As the rst successfully prosecuted case of international human tracking,

and the largest uncovered tracking operation to date in Canada, the Domotor case

has been hailed as a signicant milestone in the ght against human tracking in

Canada.2 Yet, little time has been taken to critically reect on this case, assessing not

only its successes but also its failures, and the implications it may have for future cases

of human tracking in Canada. While the particular criminal justice outcomes of

this case have been praised as progress in Canada’s response to human tracking, the

* Bethany Hastie is a doctor al candidate at the Institute of Comparati ve Law, McGill University.

Alison Yule is a doctoral stude nt at the Faculty of Law at Allard Hall, Universit y of British

Columbia. The authors wis h to acknowledge the suppor t of Professor Benjamin Perrin (Faculty of

Law at Allard Hall, Universit y of British Columbia) in the preparation of t his article.

1 This article uses the term “Domotor” to refer gen erally to the case, which includes two j udicial

decisions: a bail review hear ing, R v Domotor, 2011 ONSC 626, [2011] OJ No 6357 (QL) [Domotor

2011]; and a sentencing decision, R v Domotor, [2012] OJ No 3630 (SC) (QL) [Domotor 2012]. This

article focuses on the key a ccused in the case, Ferenc Domotor Sr, who ple d guilty to charges of

human tracking, along w ith other oences. Ultimately, twelve mem bers of the organized crime

group pled guilty to var ious charges in the course of the investigati on, eight of which included

guilty pleas for the charg e of conspiracy to trac in humans: see “ Hamilton human tracking

kingpin sentenced to 9 years ” CBC News (3 April 2012), online: CBC .

2 See, i.e., Nicole O’Reilly, “Couple sentenced in la rgest human tracking case in Can adian history”

The Hamilton Spectator (3 April 2012), online: [O’Reilly, “Couple”];

Samina Esha, “Ferenc Do motor sentenced to nine years in prison in C anada’s largest-ever human

tracking ring” The National Post (4 April 2012), online: . Prior to

Domotor, only one case involving a foreign nationa l victim had proceeded to trial u nder charges

of human tracking in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, infra note 18: see R v Ng, 2 007

BCPC 204. All other cases know n to have resulted in conviction for human tra cking charges

under s 279.01– s 279.04 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 involved the do mestic sex

tracking of Canadian cit izens or residents. See, i.e., Roya l Canadian Mounted Police, “Human

Tracking in Canada: A Threat Assess ment” (Ottawa: Royal Canadi an Mounted Police, 2010) at 1,

23 [RCMP]; Department of J ustice, “An Overview of Tracking in Persons and th e Government of

Canada’s Eorts to respond to t his Crime: 2010-2011”, online: Department of Justice Canada

[DOJ]; “Canada”, United Nations Oce on Drugs and Crime H uman

Tracking Case Law Database, onlin e: ; Benjamin Perrin, Invisib le

Chains: Canada’s Underground World of Human Tracking (Toronto: Penguin Canada, 2010) [Perrin].