I saw this story and came here to post about it, but i see someone beat me to it. I find it disturbing how the LaPresse article focuses on the so called sex trafficing aspect of the story while the CBC article mostly focuses on the owner selling crack and fentlanyl and ''facilitated and earned extra money from sex trafficking that took place on the premises''. Yeah no shit, he rented rooms to sex workers and got money for it. That is not sex trafficing.
I litterally lived around the corner from this shithole motel in the late 80s and even back then it was a magnet for drugs and prostitution. In the 2 years I lived there I heard gunshots at night at least 3 times
So unless Mr Patel is in his 70s or 80s I doubt he was the owner back then.
The most logical and probable story is that these poor girls were heavily addicted and used the motel for their services, and the owner absolutely knew about it, but did nothing to stop it. Yes he is definitely part of the problem and is probabaly a douchbag, but to me 'traffcing' is absolutely the wrong word. He is not even a 'pimp'. He is a drug dealer and sleaze bag motel owner. Can we stop calliing anything related to prostitution 'trafficing'?? Trafficing exists, but this aint it.
But of course there is always the chance that i am completely wrong and the LaPresse is right, but for now i highly doubt it.