ROSETOWN, Sask. — The trial, which centres on allegations against Mohammad Masum and Sohel (Salim) Hader, heard more from the complainant this week, a woman who had worked in restaurants in Gull Lake, Tisdale and for two day in Elrose. She told the court she also worked in Tisdale despite her permit being tied to Bob's Diner in Elrose.
The woman described her living conditions as restrictive, saying she was discouraged from seeking help from immigration officials and instead directed to a private immigration consultant, to whom she paid up to $5,000. She testified she was made to feel indebted to the accused and manipulated into believing she had no other options.
The defence challenged the complainant’s account, pressing her on inconsistencies in her story, including social media messages and unclear travel timelines. The defence suggested this was evidence of misleading testimony.
Defence lawyers also pressed her on visits to Salim’s home, suggesting she had interactions with his wife and children that may have contradicted her earlier statements. Questions also focused on job arrangements, finances and conversations with an individual named Alvie, in which she allegedly said she would “do whatever is necessary” to stay in Canada.
The court heard that the woman initially arrived in Canada under the belief she could work as a cook. She claimed she was unaware of some immigration protocols. The defence countered that her preparations for travel to Canada were far less rigorous than those for prior trips to Thailand and Singapore, suggesting she may have misunderstood—or ignored—Canadian immigration rules.
Cross-examination also raised concerns over her qualifications and her declaration of intent upon entry into Canada.
A tense legal exchange erupted Monday when the defence attempted to question the witness about a personal email, believed to be protected by solicitor-client privilege. The document was not filed as evidence. The Crown objected, citing Section 278 of the Criminal Code, which governs the admissibility of third-party records.
The judge sided with the Crown, ruling the defence could not circumvent privacy protections by referencing privileged material during questioning. The defence indicated it may file a formal application to revisit the issue later.
Further confusion emerged as the complainant was questioned about a handwritten note and Facebook messages, some of which she said may have been lost or deleted during a phone transfer. The complainant suggested that another person may have accessed the device. The judge repeatedly asked for clarity as timelines and details remained in dispute possibly due to translation issues.
Saskatchewan MLA Doug Steele is expected to testify for the Crown in a future court date, although no timeline was confirmed this week.
The trial continues this week in Rosetown Provincial Court on Wednesday