R. v. Bedford (T.J.) et al., (1996) 92 O.A.C. 312 (CA)

JudgeCarthy, Austin and Charron, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateAugust 13, 1996
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(1996), 92 O.A.C. 312 (CA)

R. v. Bedford (T.J.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 312 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Terri Jean Bedford, Bryan Harris, Christina Marie Masotti, Juliet Harris and Cheryl Anganoo (respondents)

(C23221)

Indexed As: R. v. Bedford (T.J.) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Carthy, Austin and Charron, JJ.A.

August 15, 1996.

Summary:

Informations filed by the Crown charged that the accused "did keep a common bawdyhouse" contrary to s. 210(1) of the Criminal Code. The trial judge quashed the informations on the ground that they did not reveal an offence known to law. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 871

Disorderly houses - Bawdy-houses - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4730 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4730

Procedure - Information or indictment - Charge or count - Indictable offences - Form and content - General - Informa­tions filed by the Crown charged that the accused "did keep a common bawdy-house" contrary to s. 210(1) of the Crimi­nal Code - The trial judge quashed the informations on the ground that they did not reveal an offence known to law - The Crown appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal where it held that the informations did reveal an offence known to law.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Catalano (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 255 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 1].

R. v. Kerim, [1963] 1 C.C.C. 233 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Milberg et al. (1987), 20 O.A.C. 75; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 45 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1987), 79 N.R. 398; 23 O.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

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. 3].

R. v. Corbeil, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 830; 124 N.R. 241; 40 Q.A.C. 283; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 272, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Tremblay et autres, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 932; 156 N.R. 30; 51 Q.A.C. 161; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 3].

Counsel:

Scott C. Hutchison, for the appellant;

Theresa R. Simone, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on August 13, 1996, before Carthy, Austin and Charron, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment was endorsed on the appeal record by the Court of Appeal and released on August 15, 1996.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • R. v. Bedford (T.J.) et al., (1997) 212 N.R. 245 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 27, 1997
    ...on the ground that they did not reveal an offence known to law. The Crown appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 92 O.A.C. 312, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The accused The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal where it lacked jurisdiction to hea......
  • R. v. Bedford (T.J.) et al., (1997) 100 O.A.C. 396 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 27, 1997
    ...on the ground that they did not reveal an offence known to law. The Crown appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 92 O.A.C. 312, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The accused The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal where it lacked jurisdiction to hea......
2 cases
  • R. v. Bedford (T.J.) et al., (1997) 212 N.R. 245 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 27, 1997
    ...on the ground that they did not reveal an offence known to law. The Crown appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 92 O.A.C. 312, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The accused The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal where it lacked jurisdiction to hea......
  • R. v. Bedford (T.J.) et al., (1997) 100 O.A.C. 396 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 27, 1997
    ...on the ground that they did not reveal an offence known to law. The Crown appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 92 O.A.C. 312, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The accused The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal where it lacked jurisdiction to hea......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT