Current & Curious: Procuring is not a SPIO, but should it nonetheless be a route to a DO?

Mark Burton was charged with a number of sexual offences, several prostitution related offence and offences related to breaches of probation orders and an under section 810.2. Burton plead guilty to some of the breach offences and at the conclusion of the trial Trotter J acquitted him of all but the attempt to procure a person, AT, into prostitution and the breach of the 810.2 order: 2013 ONSC 2160.


Following these convictions the Crown sought a ruling on whether the attempt to procure conviction constituted a serious personal injury offence [SPIO], a requirement for dangerous offender application the Crown had indicated they were planning to bring. Trotter J held that it was not: 2013 ONSC 3120.

As part of the submissions on the application the Crown:

(…) emphasized the horrors and evils of prostitution, especially when young persons such as A.T. become ensnared in this dark and dangerous world. The social ills and dangers associated with prostitution, and juvenile prostitution in particular, are well-recognized and accepted by social science, and reflected in the legal literature and Canadian jurisprudence: see, for example, R. v. F.E.D., [2009] O.J. No. 819 (S.C.J.), Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youth (Badgley Committee), Sexual Offences Against Children in Canada (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1984), Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution (Fraser Committee), Pornography and Prostitution in Canada (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1985), R. v. Miller, [1997] O.J. No. 3911 (S.C.J.) and Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General), (2012), 282 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.), per Doherty J.A. at pp. 46-51 [para 10].

Read More