R. v. Ni (B.B.) et al.

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: Laskin, Rosenberg and Goudge, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2002), 158 O.A.C. 230 (CA)
• Date: 02 April 2002

R. v. Ni (B.B.) (2002), 158 O.A.C. 230 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.054

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Bei Bei Ni, Jian Li and Yu Hua Jin (respondents)

(C33765)

Indexed As: R. v. Ni (B.B.) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Rosenberg and Goudge, JJ.A.

April 22, 2002.

Summary:

Three accused were charged with keeping a common bawdy-house or with being inmates thereof. All were acquitted via directed verdicts. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 872

Disorderly houses - Bawdy-houses - Keeping a common bawdy-house - What constitutes (s. 210(1)) - A trial judge directed verdicts of acquittal for three accused charged with keeping a common bawdy-house or with being inmates thereof - The evidence of a plainclothes officer was that when he attended on several occasions for a massage, one of the accused had offered to perform acts of masturbation on him - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the evidence presented was "at least sufficient to get past the directed verdict stage" - The trial judge had not properly distinguished the facts in this case from those in R. v. Tremblay and R. v. Pelletier (S.C.C.) - Here it was open to a trier of fact to find that the body rub parlour was being resorted to "for the purpose of prostitution" - The court ordered new trials.

Criminal Law - Topic 874

Disorderly houses - Bawdy-houses - Bawdy - What constitutes - Prostitution - [See Criminal Law - Topic 872 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4440

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissals - Directed verdicts - [See Criminal Law - Topic 872 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bedford (T.J.) (2000), 131 O.A.C. 101; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Tremblay et autres, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 932; 156 N.R. 30; 57 Q.A.C. 161; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 97, dist. [para. 5].

R. v. Pelletier (T.B.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 863; 250 N.R. 201; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 288, dist. [para. 5].

Counsel:

Thomas Galligan, for the appellant;

W.B. Fedunchak, for the respondent, Bei Bei Ni;

J.E. Ruderman, for the respondent, Jian Li;

William D. Gray, for the respondent, Yu Hua Jin.

These appeals were heard on April 2, 2002, by Laskin, Rosenberg and Goudge, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following endorsement was released by the court on April 22, 2002.