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 |
APPEAL VOLUME 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 hum an track ing operation to date in Cana da was uncovered
in Hamilton, Ontario. e Domotor case involved over ninete en tracked persons ,
transnationa l elements, and a crimina l organization eng aged in an elaborate f raud
scheme.1 As the rst suc cessful ly prosecuted case of internationa l human trac king,
and the largest u ncovered tracki ng operation to date in Canad a, the Domotor cas e
has been hailed a s a signicant mi lestone in the ght aga inst human tra cking in
Canada.2 Yet, little time has be en taken to critica lly reect on this ca se, assessin g not
only its successes but a lso its failures, a nd the implications it may have for future c ases
of human track ing in Canad a. While the pa rticular cr iminal justic e outcomes of
this case h ave been praised as progres s in Canada’s response to human tra cking, t he
* 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 tracking, along w ith other oences. 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 trac in humans: see “ Hamilton human tracking
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 tracking 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
tracking 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 tracking 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
tracking of Canadian cit izens or residents. See, i.e., Roya l Canadian Mounted Police, “Human
Tracking in Canada: A Threat Assess ment” (Ottawa: Royal Canadi an Mounted Police, 2010) at 1,
23 [RCMP]; Department of J ustice, “An Overview of Tracking in Persons and th e Government of
Canada’s Eorts to respond to t his Crime: 2010-2011”, online: Department of Justice Canada
Tracking Case Law Database, onlin e: ; Benjamin Perrin, Invisib le
Chains: Canada’s Underground World of Human Tracking (Toronto: Penguin Canada, 2010) [Perrin].
To continue reading
Request your trial