R. v. B.E., (1999) 126 O.A.C. 173 (CA)

• Judge: McMurtry, C.J.O., Carthy and Doherty, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 18, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 126 O.A.C. 173 (CA)

R. v. B.E. (1999), 126 O.A.C. 173 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.050

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. B.E. (appellant)

(C27253)

Indexed As: R. v. B.E.

Ontario Court of Appeal

McMurtry, C.J.O., Carthy and Doherty, JJ.A.

October 18, 1999.

Summary:

The accused was convicted on three sexual assault charges respecting his two step-daughters. The accused and his wife were convicted on three counts of endangering the morals of their children and acquitted on a charge of endangering the morals of their younger son. The accused pleaded guilty to possession of stolen property. He was sen­tenced to a total of seven years' imprison­ment. The accused appealed his convictions on the endangering charges and his sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842.4

Freedom of speech or expression - Limita­tions on - Corrupting children - Section 172 of the Criminal Code prohibited, inter alia, participation in sexual immorality in the home of a child thereby endangering the morals of the child - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 172 was constitu­tionally valid - Section 172 infringed freedom of expression (s. 2(b) of the Char­ter), but was justified by s. 1 - The objec­tive of the provision (protection of children from harmful conduct) was a pressing and substantial concern and the provision met the proportionality test - See paragraphs 13 to 74.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1842.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 715

Corruption of morals - Corrupting children - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1842.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 715

Corruption of morals - Corrupting children - The accused, convicted of sexually as­saulting his stepdaughters, aged 16 and 15, was also convicted of participating in sexual immorality in the home thereby endangering the morals of the step­daughters and his 10 year old son - The accused and his wife allegedly engaged in group sexual activities in the home and videotaped those activities; the wife en­gaged in lesbian activity in the home which the accused videotaped; they kept pornographic videos and books and sexual devices in the home; they placed sexually explicit advertisements in newspapers - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions respecting the stepdaughters, but quashed the conviction respecting the son - The trial judge failed to adequately explain to the jury the distinction between morality in the broad sense and its more limited meaning in the criminal law - The judge also failed to explain the requirement that the child actually be aware of the sexually immoral conduct - See paragraphs 77 to 91.

Criminal Law - Topic 5932

Sentence - Sexual assault - The accused was convicted on three counts of sexual assault of his two teenaged stepdaughters -The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed sentences of two years' imprisonment (consecutive) for each count for a total of six years - See paragraphs 92 to 95.

Words and Phrases

Morals - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "mor­als" as found in s. 172 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See para­graphs 39 to 42; 77 to 82.

Words and Phrases

Sexual immorality - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the words "sexual immorality" as found in s. 172 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 31 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

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; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 2 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 23].

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; 11 C.R.(4th) 137, refd to. [para. 26].

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. 26].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 348; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. B.G. (1999), 240 N.R. 260; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (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. 29].

R. v. E. (1981), 61 C.C.C.(2d) 287 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

Ducharme v. Ducharme (1972), 7 N.S.R.(2d) 326 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Jacob (G.) (1996), 95 O.A.C. 241; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Mara (P.) et al. (1996), 88 O.A.C. 358; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 147 (C.A.), affd. (1997), 213 N.R. 41; 101 O.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 539 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Ludacka (R.) (1996), 89 O.A.C. 241; 28 O.R.(3d) 19 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Tremblay et autres (1993), 156 N.R. 30; 57 Q.A.C. 161; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

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. 40].

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. 45].

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. 45].

R. v. Lucas (J.D.) et al. (1998), 224 N.R. 161; 163 Sask.R. 161; 165 W.A.C. 161; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.) (1999), 127 B.C.A.C. 76; 207 W.A.C. 76; 136 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 47].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Paintings, Drawings & Photographic Slides of Paintings (1995), 97 C.C.C.(3d) 290 (Ont. Gen. Div.), leave to appeal refused (1995), 196 N.R. 79; 89 O.A.C. 329; 100 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Langer - see R. v. Paintings, Drawings & Photo­graphic Slides of Paintings.

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; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 34 C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [para. 69].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 27].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 172 [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997), pp. 883 [para. 66]; 894 [para. 66].

Counsel:

Alison Wheeler and Tyler Hodgson ap­pearing as amicus curiae;

Scott Hutchison and Tina Yuen, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 4-5, 1999, before McMurtry, C.J.O., Carthy and Doherty, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On October 18, 1999, Doherty, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.