Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., (2000) 263 N.R. 203 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 15, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 263 N.R. 203 (SCC);2000 SCC 69

Little Sisters Book & Art v. Can. (2000), 263 N.R. 203 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. DE.019

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium, B.C. Civil Liberties Association, James Eaton Deva and Guy Allen Bruce Smythe (appellants) v. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, The Minister of National Revenue and The Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents) and The Attorney General for Ontario, The Canadian AIDS Society, The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, The Canadian Conference of the Arts, EGALE Canada Inc., Equality Now, PEN Canada and The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) (intervenors)

(26858; 2000 SCC 69)

Indexed As: Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

December 15, 2000.

Summary:

The plaintiffs (Deva and Smythe) owned the plaintiff bookstore, which specialized in gay and lesbian literature, erotica, travel information, etc. Most of the materials were imported. For 15 years, the bookstore was systemically targeted by Customs officials. Books and other imported material were routinely seized as being obscene within the meaning of the Criminal Code, often without reasons being given. The same materials destined for "regular" bookstores were often not seized, or even examined. There was evidence that Customs officials examined, on average, 8% of all imported material, but examined "virtually all" material destined for the plaintiff bookstore. The plaintiffs com­plained that untrained officials routinely equated homosexual material with obscenity. The plaintiffs applied for a declaration under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, that the administrative review processes under the Customs Act and Customs Tariff were of no force and effect, as they violated freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) and discrimi­nated against homosexuals (s. 15(1)). Alter­natively, the plaintiffs sought a declaration under s. 24(1) of the Charter that the provi­sions were applied in a manner contrary to ss. 2(b) and 15(1).

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported 18 B.C.L.R.(3d) 241, held that the challenged provisions infringed freedom of expression (s. 2(b)), but were reasonable limits prescribed by law under s. 1. The court granted a declaration that the provisions had been construed and applied in a manner contrary to ss. 2(b) and 15(1). The plaintiffs appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Finch, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment report­ed 109 B.C.A.C. 49; 177 W.A.C. 49, dis­missed the appeal. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Iacobucci, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., dissenting in part, allowed the appeal in part. The challenged provisions did not violate equality rights. Although the provisions infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b), they were rea­son­able limits prescribed by law under s. 1, with the exception of the reverse onus pro­vision which required the importer to prove that the materials were not obscene. The obligation remained with the Crown to prove materials were obscene.

Civil Rights - Topic 953

Discrimination - Sexual orientation - Homosexuals - The plaintiffs, importers of gay and lesbian literature, erotica, travel information, etc., had been systemically targeted for 15 years by Customs officials - Imported materials were routinely seized as being obscene, often without reasons - The same materials destined for "regular" bookstores were often not seized, or even examined - There was evidence that Cus­toms officials examined, on average, 8% of all imported material, but examined "vir­tually all" material destined for the plain­tiffs' bookstore - The plaintiffs com­plained that untrained officials routinely equated homosexual material with obscen­ity - The plaintiffs applied for a declar­ation that the administrative review pro­cesses under the Customs Act and Customs Tariff were of no force and effect, as they dis­criminated against homosexuals (Char­ter, s. 15(1)) - Alternatively, the plaintiffs sought a dec­laration under s. 24(1) of the Charter that the provisions were applied in a manner contrary to s. 15(1) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the challenged provi­sions did not violate equality rights - The plaintiffs had been discriminated against in the past in the manner in which the legisla­tion was im­plemented - However, nothing in the legislation itself, or in its necessary effects, contemplated or encouraged differ­ential treatment based on sexual orientation - The legislation was capable of being applied in a manner consistent with Char­ter rights - See paragraphs 108 to 139.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842

Freedom of expression - Limitations on - Regulation of distribution of adult publica­tions - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the prohibition against import­ation of obscene materials under customs legislation, rooted in s. 163 of the Criminal Code, prima facie infringed the right to freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) and must be justified under s. 1 - The Charter protected the right to receive ex­pressive material as much as it did to create it - See paragraph 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842

Freedom of expression - Limitations on - Regulation of distribution of adult publica­tions - The plaintiffs submitted that the prohibition against importation of obscene materials under customs legislation, rooted in s. 163 of the Criminal Code, should either apply to gay and lesbian erotica differently than it did to heterosexual eroti­ca or should not apply at all - The plain­tiffs submitted that the harm-based Butler test (sexually explicit materials protected under freedom of expression unless the harm exceeds the community's level of tolerance) should not apply to materials targeted at gay and lesbian clientele (i.e., what was obscene for heterosexuals may not be obscene for homosexuals) - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected any such special exception from the Butler test - The court rejected arguments (1) that the community standard of tolerance was majoritarian and suppressed minority speech (including homosexual expression), (2) that the degrading or dehumanizing test was open to homophobic prejudice, (3) that the harm-based Butler test was merely morality in disguise and (4) that the Butler test was aimed at sexually explicit videos and not written text - See paragraphs 41 to 69.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842

Freedom of expression - Limitations on - Regulation of distribution of adult publica­tions - The Customs Act prohibited im­portation of obscene materials - The plaintiffs, importers of gay and lesbian erotica and other materials, claimed that the statutory customs border review pro­cedures were so unworkable that they violated freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) - The plaintiffs submitted that the regulatory structure was so open to maladministration because of administra­tive constraints such as limited budgets and lack of qualified personnel that it was constitutionally underprotective and should be struck down (i.e., the legislation did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that Customs officials would apply it constitu­tionally to expressive material) - The plaintiffs also claimed that the memoran­dum which customs officials applied to define obscenity was inadequate, time limits were not observed, there were delays in the internal review and reconsideration process and a specialized tribunal was needed - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission - Parliament was entitled to assume that legislation would be applied constitutionally by the public ser­vice - Parliament was entitled to pro­hibit importation of obscene materials, to assume that prohibition would not be invoked without reasonable cause and such refusal was appealable to the courts - See paragraphs 70 to 96.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842.1

Freedom of expression - Limitations on - Pornography - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 1842 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5516

Equality and protection of the law - Gen­eral principles and definitions - Tests for inequality - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in determining whether equality rights were violated "the analysis proceeds in three stages with close regard to content. At the first stage the claimant must show that the law, program or activity imposes differential treatment between the claimant and others with whom the claimant may fairly claim equality. The second stage requires the claimant to demonstrate that this differen­tiation is based on one or more of the enumerated or analogous grounds. The third stage requires the claimant to estab­lish that the differentiation amounts to a form of discrimination that has the effect of demeaning the claimant's human dig­nity. The 'dignity' aspect of the test is designed to weed out trivial or other com­plaints that do not engage the purpose of the equality provision." - See paragraph 110.

Civil Rights - Topic 5544

Equality and protection of the law - Denial of - What constitutes - Unequal administra­tion of law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5666.6

Equality and protection of the law - Par­ticular cases - Customs legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Customs - Topic 6701 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 573

Public morals - Obscenity - Obscenity defined - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1842 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 578

Public morals - Obscenity - Undue ex­ploitation of sex - Community standards - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1842 ].

Customs - Topic 6701

Prohibited importations - Obscene goods -General - The plaintiffs, importers of gay and lesbian literature, erotica, travel infor­mation, etc., had been systemically tar­geted for 15 years by Customs officials - Imported materials were routinely seized as being obscene, often without reasons - The same materials destined for "regular" bookstores were often not seized, or even examined - There was evidence that Cus­toms officials examined, on average, 8% of all imported material, but examined "vir­tually all" material destined for the plain­tiffs' bookstore - The plaintiffs com­plained that untrained officials routinely equated homosexual material with obscen­ity - The plaintiffs applied for a declar­ation under s. 52(1) of the Constitu­tion Act, 1982, that the administrative review processes under the Customs Act and Cus­toms Tariff were of no force and effect, as they violated freedom of expres­sion (Charter, s. 2(b)) and discriminated against homosexuals (s. 15(1)) - Alterna­tively, the plaintiffs sought a declaration under s. 24(1) of the Charter that the pro­visions were applied in a man­ner contrary to ss. 2(b) and 15(1) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the challenged provi­sions did not violate equality rights - Although the provisions infringed freedom of ex­pression under s. 2(b), they were reason­able limits pre­scribed by law under s. 1, with the excep­tion of the reverse onus provision which required the importer to prove that the materials were not obscene - The obliga­tion remained with the Crown to prove materials were obscene - See para­graphs 1 to 161.

Customs - Topic 8326

Offences and penalties - Evidence and proof - Reverse onus provisions - Section 152(3) of the Customs Act, which applied to "any proceeding under this Act", imposed a reverse onus on importers - Customs officials refusing entry of materials on the basis that they were obscene were assumed to be correct until the importer proved them wrong - The Supreme Court of Canada held that an importer had a Charter right to receive expressive material unless the state could justify denial of entry - It was for the state to establish that a limitation on the Charter right to freedom of expression was jus­tified - The court declared that "s. 152(3) is not to be construed and applied so as to place on an importer the onus to establish that goods are not obscene within the meaning of s. 163(8) of the Criminal Code. The burden of proving obscenity rests on the Crown or other person who alleges it." - See paragraphs 97 to 107.

Cases Noticed:

Luscher v. Minister of National Revenue, [1985] 1 F.C. 85; 57 N.R. 386 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 693; 13 R.F.L.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 129, appld. [para. 25].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

Ford v. Québec (Attorney General) - see Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général).

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69; 54 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Hicklin (1868), L.R. 3 Q.B. 360, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 494; 59 N.R. 101; 61 A.R. 35; 45 C.R.(3d) 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Hawkins (A.P.) et al. (1993), 66 O.A.C. 46; 15 O.R.(3d) 549 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Jacob (G.) (1996), 95 O.A.C. 241; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Erotica Video Exchange Ltd. (1994), 163 A.R. 181 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

Brodie v. R., [1962] S.C.R. 681, refd to. [para. 65].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241; 66 C.R.(3d) 297; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 296; 38 C.R.R. 252; 18 C.E.R. 227; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 673, refd to. [para. 77].

United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs (1971), 402 U.S. 363, refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 101].

Glad Day Bookshop Inc. v. Canada (Dep­uty Minister of National Revenue, Cus­toms and Excise), [1992] O.J. No. 1466 (Gen. Div.), disapprvd. in part [para. 103].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 110].

Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 110].

Granovsky v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 703; 253 N.R. 329, refd to. [para. 110].

Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies et al. v. Ontario et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950; 255 N.R. 1; 134 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Rankine (Doug) Co. (1983), 36 C.R.(3d) 154 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 114].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 12 R.F.L.(4th) 201; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 118].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 118].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 118].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,031; 40 C.R.R. 100, refd to. [para. 134].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12, refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 134].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 143].

R. v. C. Coles Co., [1965] 1 O.R. 557 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 195].

A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Massachu­setts (Attorney General) (1966), 383 U.S. 413, refd to. [para. 195].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 197].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 197].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 200].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 217].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 221].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 222].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 224].

Entick v. Carrington (1765), 2 Wils. K.B. 275; 95 E.R. 807, refd to. [para. 233].

Near v. Minnesota (1931), 283 U.S. 697, refd to. [para. 234].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Cana­dian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 235].

Times Film Corp. v. Chicago (City) (1961), 365 U.S. 43, refd to. [para. 235].

R. v. Lucas (J.D.) et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439; 224 N.R. 161; 163 Sask.R. 161; 165 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 240].

Freedman v. Maryland (1965), 380 U.S. 51, refd to. [para. 241].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attor­ney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 250].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 92 C.L.L.C. 14,036; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 250].

Tétrault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 358, refd to. [para. 250].

Mahe, Martel, Dubé and Association d'Ecole de Georges et Julia Bugnet v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342; 105 N.R. 321; 106 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 259].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 268].

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), 319 U.S. 624, refd to. [para. 271].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 513, refd to. [para. 271].

Dell Publishing Co. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue, Customs and Excise (1958), 2 T.B.R. 154 (Tar. Bd.), refd to. [para. 279].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 2(b), sect. 15(1), sect. 24(1) [para. 22].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [para. 22].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 163(8) [para. 22].

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1, sect. 58(1), sect. 58(5), sect. 58(6), sect. 60, sect. 63, sect. 67(1), sect. 152(3)(d), sect. 164(1)(j) [para. 22].

Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 41, sect. 114 [para. 22].

Customs Tariff, S.C. 1987, c. 49, Schedule VII, sect. 9956(a) [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bickell, Alexander M., The Least Danger­ous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (2nd Ed. 1986), pp. 135 [para. 232]; 141 [para. 236].

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (4th Ed. 1770), Book IV, pp. 151, 152 [para. 234].

Borovoy, Alan A., When Freedoms Col­lide: The Case for Our Civil Liberties (1988), p. 62 [para. 185].

Burstyn, Varda, Women Against Censor­ship (1985), p. 145 [para. 220].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (1st Sess., 33rd Parl.), April 2, 1985, vol. 3, pp. 3605, 3606, 3608, 3611 [para. 269].

Cossman, Brenda, and Ryder, Bruce, Cus­toms Censorship and the Charter: The Little Sisters Case (1996), 7:4 Const. Forum 103, p. 109 [para. 242].

Cossman, Brenda, et al., Bad Attitude/s on Trial: Pornography, Feminism, and the Butler Decision (1997), pp. 107, 108 [para. 55].

Duggan, Lisa, Hunter, Nan, and Vance, Carole S., False Premises: Feminist Antipornography Legislation in the U.S., in Women Against Censorship (Varda Burstyn, ed.) (1985), p. 145 [para. 220].

Emerson, Thomas I., The Doctrine of Prior Restraint (1955), 20 L. & Contemp. Probs. 648, pp. 656 to 659 [para. 236].

Hickson, Ford C.I., et al., Gay Men as Victims of Nonconsensual Sex (1994), 23 Archives of Sexual Behaviour 281, p. 281 [para. 199].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Looseleaf Ed.) (1999 update, release 1), vol. 2, pp. 34-11 [para. 133]; 35-11, 35-12 [para. 222].

Hogg, Peter W., and Bushell, Allison A., The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (1997), 35 Osgoode Hall L.J. 75, generally [para. 268].

Island, David, and Letellier, Patrick, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Viol­ence (1991), p. 1 [para. 199].

Jeffreys, Sheila, The Lesbian Heresy: A Feminist Perspective on the Lesbian Sexual Revolution (1993), pp. 187 to 188 [para. 199].

Lajoie, Andrée, De l'interventionnisme judiciaire comme apporte à l'émergence des droits sociaux (1991), 36 McGill L.J. 1338, generally [para. 250].

Lepofsy, David M., Towards a Purposive Approach to Freedom of Expression and its Limitation, in The Cambridge Lec­tures 1989 (F.E. McArdle ed.) (1990), vol. 1, p. 11 [para. 220].

McArdle, F.E., The Cambridge Lectures 1989 (1990), vol. 1, p. 11 [para. 220].

McElroy, Wendy, XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography (1995), p. 141 [para. 220].

Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, in On Lib­erty and Considerations on Representa­tive Government (1946), p. 14 [para. 272].

Milton, John, Areopagatica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicenc'd Printing, to the Parliament of England (1644), generally [para. 273].

Mirzoeff, N., The Visual Culture Reader (1998), p. 489 [para. 220].

Moon, Richard, R. v. Butler: The Limits of the Supreme Court's Feminist Re-inter­pretation of Section 163 (1993), 25 Ottawa L. Rev. 361, p. 370 [para. 55].

Nead, Lynda, The Female Nude: Art, Obscenity and Sexuality, in The Visual Culture Reader (N. Mirzoeff ed) (1998), p. 489 [para. 220].

Paglia, Camille, Vamps & Tramps: New Essays (1994), p. 66 [para. 220].

Petersen, K., and Hutchinson, A.G., Inter­preting Censorship in Canada (1999), p. 133 [para. 244].

Renzetti, Claire M., Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships (1992), p. 115 [para. 199].

Roach, Kent, Constitutional Remedies in Canada (1999 Looseleaf) (Release 6), paras. 12.320 [para. 258]; 13.884 [para. 262].

Ryder, Bruce, Undercover Censorship: Exploring the History of the Regulation of Publications in Canada, in Interpreting Censorship in Canada (K. Petersen and A.G. Hutchinson eds.) (1999), p. 133 [para. 244].

Strassen, Nadine, Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights (1995), p. 231 [para. 188].

Tisdale, Sally, Talk Dirty To Me: An Intimate Philosophy of Sex (1994), p. 157 [para. 220].

Voltaire, Essay on Epic Poetry (1727), generally [para. 272].

Counsel:

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., and Irene C. Faulkner, for the appellants;

Judith Bowers, Q.C., Brian J. Saunders and Daniel Kiselbach, for the respondents, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Revenue;

George H. Copley, Q.C., and Jeffrey M. Loenen, for the respondent, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Christine Bartlett-Hughes and Robert E. Houston, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

R. Douglas Elliott and Patricia A. LeFe­bour, for the intervener, the Canadian AIDS Society;

Patricia D.S. Jackson and Tycho M.J. Manson, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Frank Addario and Ethan Poskanzer, for the intervener, the Canadian Conference of the Arts;

Cynthia Petersen, for the intervener, EGALE Canada Inc.;

Janine Benedet, for the intervener, Equality Now;

Jill Copeland, for the intervener, PEN Canada;

Karen Busby and Claire Klassen, for the intervener, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF).

Solicitors of Record:

Arvay Finlay, Victoria, British Columbia, for the appellants;

Department of Justice, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents, the Min­ister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Revenue;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the re­spondent, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Elliott & Kim, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian AIDS Society;

Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Confer­ence of the Arts;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, EGALE Canada Inc.;

Janine Benedet, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Equality Now;

Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, PEN Canada;

Karen Busby and Claire Klassen, Winni­peg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF).

This appeal was heard on March 16, 2000, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 15, 2000, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major and Bastarache, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 161;

Iacobucci, J. (Arbour and LeBel, JJ., concurring), dissenting in part - see paragraphs 162 to 283.