R. v. Butler and McCord, (1990) 73 Man.R.(2d) 197 (CA)

• Judge: O'Sullivan, Huband, Twaddle, Lyon and Helper, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: November 01, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1990), 73 Man.R.(2d) 197 (CA)

R. v. Butler (1990), 73 Man.R.(2d) 197 (CA);

    3 W.A.C. 197

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Donald Victor Butler and Norma Jean McCord (accused/respondents) and between Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Donald Victor Butler and Norma Jean McCord (accused/appellants)

(Suit Nos. 367/89, 462/89, 463/89, 464/89)

Indexed As: R. v. Butler and McCord

Manitoba Court of Appeal

O'Sullivan, Huband, Twaddle, Lyon and Helper, JJ.A.

November 1, 1990.

Summary:

Butler and an employee were charged with numerous obscenity counts relating to maga­zines, videos and various sexual parapher­nalia.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 60 Man.R.(2d) 82, con­victed the accused on several counts. The court acquitted the accused on counts where the material reflected consensual activity between adults without force or violence. The court stated that limitations on such activity imposed by the Criminal Code were not justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The Crown appealed Butler's acquittals. The accused appealed convictions and sentence.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Twaddle and Helper, JJ.A., dissenting, allowed the Crown appeal and dismissed the accuseds' appeals against conviction.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Regulation of distribution of adult publications - An accused was charged with numerous obscenity counts relating to magazines, videos and various sexual paraphernalia under s. 159 [now s. 163] of the Criminal Code - The accused alleged that the section conflicted with the right to freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Charter - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the correct approach was to inquire whether the section con­flicted with the right to freedom of ex­pression; if so, then the legislation could be struck down in whole or in part unless saved by s. 1 of the Charter as a reason­able limit - See paragraphs 6 to 7.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Regulation of distribution of adult publications - Section 163 of the Criminal Code prohibited distribution and sale of obscene material - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the section did not contravene freedom of expression guaranteed in s. 2(b) of the Charter - The court stated that some activity falls outside the protection of s. 2(b) - The activities prohibited by s. 163 lie outside the ambit of Charter protection because of the absence of any meaning - See paragraphs 15 to 31.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Regulation of distribution of adult publications - Section 163 of the Criminal Code prohibited distribution and sale of obscene material - The Manitoba Court of Appeal applied the two-step process of considering first the content and then the form to determine whether the activities fell within the unregulated sphere of freedom of expression - The materials were devoid of meaning and the form consisted of the undue exploitation of sex; therefore, the activity fell outside Charter protection and fell properly within the regulated area of freedom of expression - See paragraphs 27 to 33.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Regulation of distribution of adult publications - Section 163 of the Criminal Code prohibited distribution and sale of obscene material - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that, if the activity was within the unregulated area of free­dom of expression, the provision contra­vened the Charter if either its purpose or effect restricted freedom of expression - Section 163 did not contravene the Charter because the purpose was to ban prurient material devoid of a redeeming meaning and, in effect, no one was thwarted in an attempt to convey a meaningful message - See paragraphs 34 to 35.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Charter - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - An accused was charged with numerous ob­scenity counts relating to magazines, videos and various sexual paraphernalia under s. 159 [now s. 163] of the Criminal Code - The accused alleged that the sec­tion conflicted with the right to freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Charter - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the correct approach was to inquire whether the section conflicted with the right to freedom of expression; if so, then the legislation could be struck down in whole or in part unless saved by s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit - See para­graphs 6 to 7.

Criminal Law - Topic 573

Public morals - Obscenity - Obscenity defined - The accused was charged with numerous counts of selling and possessing obscene material for the purpose of dis­tribution or sale, and of exposing obscene material to public view - The charges related to magazines, videos and various sexual paraphernalia - The content of the magazines and videos involved hard-core pornography - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the material rep­resented an undue exploitation of sex and was therefore obscene within the meaning of s. 159(8) [now s. 163(8)] of the Crimi­nal Code - The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed the finding - See paragraphs 8 to 14.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 494; 59 N.R. 101; 45 C.R.(3d) 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 10, 75, 190].

R. v. Sudbury News Service Ltd. (1978), 18 O.R.(2d) 428; 39 C.C.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Pereira-Vasquez (1988), 43 C.C.C.(3d) 82, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Video World Ltd. (1985), 36 Man.R.(2d) 68; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 331 (C.A.), affd. 77 N.R. 77; 48 Man.R.(2d) 240; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 191, refd to. [para. 13].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577, refd to. [paras. 18, 52].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 55 O.R.(2d) 129, refd to. [paras. 19, 151].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [paras. 20, 150].

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 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 24, 55, 146].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Attorney General of Quebec - see Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général).

Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65, refd to. [paras. 28, 55, 163].

Attorney General of Manitoba v. Groupe Quebecor Inc. (1987), 47 Man.R.(2d) 187, refd to. [para. 53].

Reference Re Criminal Code, ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c), [1987] 6 W.W.R. 289; 49 Man.R.(2d) 1; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 408, refd to. [para. 53].

Channel Seven Television Ltd. v. National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, [1971] 5 W.W.R. 328 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Ford v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712, refd to. [para. 55].

Brodie v. R., [1962] S.C.R. 681, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Close, [1948] V.L.R. 445, refd to. [para. 77].

Dominion News v. R., [1964] S.C.R. 251, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Videoflicks et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks et al.

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 424; 75 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 84].

Attorney General of Alberta v. Attorney General of Canada, [1947] A.C. 503, refd to. [para. 84].

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. 86].

Bowman v. Secular Society Limited, [1917] A.C. 406, refd to. [para. 90].

Sedley's Case, 1 Sid. 168; 83 E.R. 1036, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Curl (1727), 2 Str. 88; 93 E.R. 849, refd to. [para. 92].

Jones v. Randall (1774), Lofft 384; 98 E.R. 706, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Hicklin (1868), L.R. 3 Q.B. 360, refd to. [para. 94].

Fletcher v. Birkenhead Corp., [1907] 1 K.B. 205, refd to. [para. 96].

Stephens v. Cuckfield R.D.C., [1960] 2 Q.B. 373, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. National News Co. (1953), 106 C.C.C. 26 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Red Hot Video Ltd. (1985), 45 C.R.(3d) 36; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 122, 162].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153, refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Doug Rankine Company Ltd. and Act III Video Productions Ltd. (1983), 36 C.R.(3d) 154 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 144].

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) (1988), 54 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 147].

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, refd to. [para. 148].

R. v. Andrews and Smith (1988), 28 O.A.C. 161; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 65 O.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Keegstra, [1988] 5 W.W.R. 211; 87 A.R. 177, refd to. [para. 159].

R. v. Wagner (1985), 43 C.R.(3d) 318 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 162].

R. v. Ramsingh et al. (1985), 29 Man.R.(2d) 110; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 230 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 162].

Nightengale Galleries Ltd. v. Director of Theatres Branch (1984), 48 O.R.(2d) 21 (C.C.), refd to. [para. 162].

R. v. Kopyto (1987), 62 O.R.(2d) 449, refd to. [para. 165].

Information Retailers Association of Met­ropolitan Toronto Inc. and Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Re (1985), 22 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 166].

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, refd to. [para. 196].

R. v. Video World Ltd., [1986] 1 W.W.R. 413; 36 Man.R.(2d) 68; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 331, refd to. [para. 197].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 1, 86, 187]; sect. 2(b) [paras. 15, 57, 143]; sect. 28 [para. 181].

Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-40.1, sect. 248, sect. 249 [para. 24].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1892, c. 29, sect. 179 [para. 96].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 159 [paras. 2, 127]; sect. 159(8) [para. 139]; sect. 177 [para. 152]; sect. 281.2 [para. 159].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 163 [para. 2]; sect. 163(1)(a), sect. 163(2)(a) [paras. 3, 49]; sect. 163(8) [paras. 6, 140]; sect. 181 [para. 152]; sect. 195.1(1)(c) [paras. 28, 163]; sect. 319 [para. 159].

Criminal Code Amendment Act, S.C. 1953-54, c. 51, generally [para. 98].

Criminal Code Amendment Act, S.C. 1959, c. 41, sect. 11 [para. 98].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Arbour, Louise, The Politics of Pornogra­phy: Towards an Expansive Theory of Constitutionally Protected Expression, p. 295 [para. 179].

Beckton, Clare, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Commentary (1982), p. 107 [para. 169].

Cohen, Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada (1966), pp. 60, 61 [para. 156].

Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals (1965), c. 1, pp. 11 [para. 109]; 19 [para. 113].

Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (U.S.A.) (1986), c. 5, pp. 39 [para. 176]; 40 [para. 177]; 41 [para. 178].

Fraser Report, Pornography and Prostitu­tion in Canada; Report of the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitu­tion (1985), vol. 1, c. 4, pp. 67 [para. 174]; 102 [para. 208]; 103 [para. 175].

Hart, H.A.L., Law, Liberty and Morals (1963), pp. 21 [para. 105]; 79 [para. 110].

Lawrence, D.H., Lady Chatterley's Lover [para. 99].

Metro Toronto Task Force on Public Vio­lence Against Women and Children, Final Report (1984), pp. 66 [para. 179]; 74 [para. 180].

Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty [para. 106].

Rolph, ed., The Trial of Lady Chatterley, p. 17 [para. 99].

Weiler and Elliot, Litigating the Values of a Nation: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, p. 295 [para. 179].

Counsel:

R.H. Morrison and V.E. Toews, for the Crown;

G.A. Derwin, for the accused.

This appeal was heard on March 2, 1990, before O'Sullivan, Huband, Twaddle, Lyon and Helper, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on November 1, 1990, when the following opinions were filed:

Huband, J.A. (O'Sullivan and Lyon, JJ.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 41;

Twaddle, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 42 to 126;

Helper, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 127 to 210.