ROSETOWN, Sask. — The high-profile human trafficking and sexual assault trial of Mohammad Masum and Sohel Haider entered its second week of this stretch of trial on Tuesday with testimony from a former Saskatchewan MLA who told the court he discreetly intervened to help a woman police allege was being exploited while working in a rural restaurant.
Hugh Nerlien, who represented Kelvington-Wadena in the provincial legislature from 2016 to 2024, testified he attempted to assist the woman after being alerted to her situation by fellow Saskatchewan Party MLA Doug Steele.
The two accused — Masum and Haider — were charged in June 2023. They face multiple offences, including human trafficking and sexual assault.. The complainant’s identity is protected under a publication ban.
The woman previously told court she was recruited to work in Saskatchewan with the promise of earning $1,000 a month plus meals and accommodations until she received a Canadian work permit. Once she obtained it, she was told she'd be paid $24 an hour — but had to share her debit card and PIN so her employer could withdraw any wages paid above $1,000.
Related Stories:
- Complainant recounts alleged exploitation in Rosetown human trafficking trial
- Former and current Sask. MLAs called as crown witnesses in human trafficking court case
Masum and Haider are accused of forcing the woman to work in restaurants in Tisdale, Gull Lake and Elrose for up to 60 hours a week for less than minimum wage. Masum also faces a charge of sexual assault related to her time in Tisdale.
Nerlien testified that concerns were first raised to him in March 2023, when Steele informed him about a woman in his Cypress Hills constituency who seemed to possibly be in trouble. “Mr. Steele had shared with me it did not appear to be a normal employee-employer kind of environment. There was shared concern in his community, that he shared with me, that something wasn’t right.” Steele believed the woman had been moved to Tisdale and was working at the Little Town Restaurant.
Nerlien travelled to Tisdale for an economic development lunch, where he said he arrived early and discreetly passed the woman a printed note with resource links, the name of Jody Campbell — an immigration settlement worker — and his own legislative business card.
“She seemed very nervous … tight,” Nerlien told the court. “She later told me, ‘If he asks what you gave me, tell him it’s garbage.’”
He said the woman appeared too frightened to speak openly about her situation. Nerlien said he and Steele opted not to immediately involve police but agreed to connect the woman with Campbell, who had more experience dealing with newcomer issues.
“I didn’t know if it was criminal, immigration-related, or something else entirely,” Nerlien said during cross-examination. “But I believed she needed help.”
Nerlien said he kept in touch with the woman sporadically, offering to help with her résumé and job search, but she shared few details.
The defense questioned Nerlien on why he didn’t report his concerns to police directly or involve other political colleagues.
He testified that he and Steele viewed the matter as sensitive and wanted to proceed carefully until they had more clarity.
“I would hope anyone would be concerned in a situation like that,” he said.
Related Stories:
- Rosetown court hears day two of testimony in human trafficking trial; further delay due to Crown emergency
- Crown, defence clash over blame for trial delays in human trafficking case as testimony continues
The court heard Nerlien and Steele were later interviewed by the RCMP in April 2023. Nerlien assisted in compiling screenshots of Facebook messages between Steele and the complainant, which were shared with investigators.
However, the defence pointed out that Nerlien did not provide the police with his own message history with the woman. He testified that she may have changed her number, or he may have changed his phone, and the texts were no longer accessible.
The trial continues on Wednesday with the defense expected to complete its cross-examination of Nerlien before turning to the cross-examination of the complainant.
No word on the Jordan principle ruling yet.