ROSETOWN, Sask. — The woman at the centre of a human trafficking case in Saskatchewan was cross-examined Friday on her employment history, travel records and deleted cellphone messages as the defence sought to challenge her credibility in a Rosetown courtroom.
The woman, whose identity is protected under a publication ban, previously testified that she came to Canada in December 2022 under a travel order that granted her permission to leave her home country, provided she covered her own expenses and did not extend the leave. Her husband was listed on the travel documents, but she told the court he ultimately did not accompany her. “I came alone,” she said through an interpreter.
The woman later found work at Little Town Restaurant in Tisdale. Defence counsel questioned her about a physical altercation at the restaurant with a man named Shelby, who she said had accused her of theft.
“He insulted me. He said things to provoke me,” the woman testified. “I was emotional.”
Video footage entered in as an exhibit showed the woman grabbing Shelby by the shirt collar and later reaching for his neck, after shoving aside the accused in the case Masum. The woman confirmed her identity in the footage and admitted she had threatened to call police. Shelby had allegedly done the same.
Cross-examination then turned to the complainant’s contact with police. She confirmed she met RCMP officers on two occasions, gave two statements, and voluntarily handed over her cellphone. Under questioning, she acknowledged deleting all messages between herself and Doug Steele, a man central to the investigation. She said she did so to hide the messages from the accused.
The defence asked about their first meeting in Gull Lake and whether Steele gave her his business card and phone number, which she confirmed. The two began exchanging texts and calls, with the complainant acknowledging that Steele occasionally referred to her as “Pretty Girl.” and she often referred to him as "Handsome"
“How often did he use that nickname?” the defence asked.
“I don’t know exactly how often,” she replied, adding she believed he used the term in both calls and messages.
The defence also presented an April 17, 2024 letter purportedly from the woman’s former employer in Southeast Asia, stating she had been absent from work without permission since August 2022 and was found guilty of desertion under internal policy.
The Crown objected to the admissibility of the document, invoking Section 278 of the Criminal Code, which governs the use of a complainant’s private records in court. Judge Martinez stated he was concerned how they came in possession of what appears to be private communication. Defense stated they received the documents anonymously.
Judge Martinez did not admit the letter into evidence, stating the defence would need to make a formal application, but it would be kept for identification purposes for now.
“These are not collateral issues,” the defence argued. “This goes to the heart of her credibility.”
Proceedings were briefly recessed to allow the witness to privately review the documents. Upon resuming, she confirmed she had replied to the April 17 letter via email and received a request for further clarification.
The hearing continues June 2nd in Rosetown. Doug Steele is expected to take the stand at a later date to testify for Crown.