A Montreal human trafficking case has been postponed until February 2025 after a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision raised fundamental questions about whether drivers for sex workers should be considered protectors or facilitators of exploitation.
Judicial Delay Due to Legal Precedent
Quebec Court Judge Joëlle Roy announced the delay on Thursday, November 27, 2025, explaining she needed more time to consider how the Supreme Court's July ruling applies to the case against Mohamed Louchahi, 35, of Montreal North. The accused has pleaded not guilty to three human trafficking-related charges and one count of obstructing justice.
"It was my duty," Judge Roy stated in court, emphasizing the importance of the Supreme Court decision for her final verdict. The case originally began five years ago following a Montreal police investigation.
Supreme Court Ruling Complicates Prosecution
The legal complication stems from a Supreme Court ruling on July 24 that addressed a similar case from Alberta. Canada's highest court dismissed an appeal involving drivers working for an escort business who faced charges including receiving material benefit from prostitution.
The Supreme Court decision reinforces the 2014 Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which allows sex workers to take safety measures. This legislation has created ongoing legal ambiguity about what constitutes protection versus exploitation.
Contrasting Portraits of the Accused
Defence lawyer Sharon Sandiford portrays her client as merely a driver for two complainants - a 16-year-old girl and an 18-year-old woman. She argues the charges prevent sex workers from accessing security measures and maintains there's no evidence Louchahi knew he was driving for sex workers.
"We're talking about the people who help ensure that a sex worker can do their work in security," Sandiford argued in court.
However, prosecutor Véronique Warthold presented a different picture, alleging Louchahi acted as a pimp by managing advertisements, arranging clients, and collecting money for an escort agency. The younger complainant testified that while attending high school, she would study in evenings and work as a prostitute at night, allegedly forced by Louchahi to have sex with five or six clients while he waited in a car.
The teenage witness told the court she would pay Louchahi $100 for "his part" and referred to him as "my pimp."
The case has drawn public attention, particularly after controversy surrounding the judge's comments during cross-examination of the younger complainant last year. Judge Roy subsequently denied being harsh or rude with the witness.
The final decision, now scheduled for February 2025, will determine whether Louchahi was a criminal exploiter or merely providing transportation services in a controversial industry.
