A quadriplegic wanted to usher in 2018 with a threesome.

The man, called by the court as A.B., arranged for a sexual encounter with two women on New Year’s Eve and on to the following day.

However, it didn’t turn out to be the party he wished.

As soon as A.B. turned up around 10:30 p.m. on December 31, 2017 at the Surrey home of Jacqueline Lee Peintinger, where she did tricks, he changed his mind.

The woman, who advertises herself Nina on an escort services website, didn’t look as hot as she appeared online.

“She was older and not as attractive,” Justice Frits Verhoeven stated in his oral reasons for judgment on the criminal charges brought against Peintinger and her common-law partner Jeremy Sean Eddy.

Although Verhoeven dismissed the charges of robbery, extortion, threatening, and common assault, the judge found Peintinger and Eddy guilty of unlawful confinement.

The man is a vulnerable person.

“A.B. has had cerebral palsy from birth. He is a quadriplegic. He has some mobility from the waist up, only,” Verhoeven said. “He has very limited ability to use his hands. He uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility. He is unable to get into or out of his motorized wheelchair without assistance.”

Even though the man changed his mind, he was persuaded to be carried by Eddy to the coach house at the back of the main residence.

There was a “special-purpose bedroom” in that converted garage, which is used by the woman for her business.

A laptop was brought in, so he can pay online the $1,800 fee that was agreed on. However, the payment could not be processed.

Meanwhile, a girl named only as Charlene arrived at the residence. She was supposed to be the second woman in the party.

“Ms. Peintinger states that there was some sexual activity early on, with Charlene, in the coach house,” Verhoeven stated. “They both took their tops off and were touching each other.”

However, Verhoeven doesn’t believe that anything of this sort happened.

“It really makes no sense in the context of the clear fact that the first order of business was the payment issue, and the struggles with the internet. Both Ms. Peintinger and Mr. Eddy were clear that payment had to be made prior to sexual services,” according to Verhoeven.

“In cross-examination Ms. Peintinger added for the first time that she also kind of rubbed A.B.’s penis, early on. This was not put to him. She often seemed to be making up details of her evidence on the fly during the course of her testimony, and this is a good example.”

A.B. decided to fake a seizure, hoping he would be taken out of the house and into a hospital.

“While Ms. Peintinger was absent, he managed to roll himself off the bed, falling onto the floor. In doing so he injured his lip and forehead, receiving abrasions,” the judge recalled.

Instead of taking him to the hospital, the two partners and the girl named Charlene took A.B. to the main house.

As the three were figuring out how to complete the transaction for A.B.’s $1,800 payment, Charlene had a drug overdose.

Paramedics came to the house, and took away Charlene, who died days later.

Later on, A.B. suggested that he will ask his parents to deliver the money instead. A phone was given to him, and he was able to make a call. It was already the evening of January 1, 2018.

When he was talking with his father, his sister took the phone. She could hear the voice of another man in the background. The sister is a police officer. She earlier called the RCMP to report that her brother is missing.

“The police attended the residence with an emergency response team at about 8:50 p.m.,” the judge recalled. “Corporal Rego knocked on the door. Constable Pandu-Oesman was with him at the door. Mr. Eddy answered. Corporal Rego asked about A.B. Mr. Eddy gestured in the direction of the bedroom. He looked surprised, and confused. He asked, ‘That guy?’" 

Verhoeven stated in his oral reasons for judgment that the man had “loudly and repeatedly stated that he wanted to go home”.

“His requests were denied,” the judge said.

According to Verhoeven, Peintinger and Eddy “knew that he was completely helpless, in that he had no means to depart without at least minimal assistance from them”.

“While it is true that once he was placed in the bed A.B.’s physical confinement was due in part to his disability, in my view this makes no difference in all of the circumstances of the case,” the judge said. “The defendants had placed him in the helpless position he was in, knowing that he was helpless, and would not be able to leave without some kind of active assistance on someone’s part.”