R. v. Butler and McCord, (1992) 134 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 27, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 134 N.R. 81 (SCC);11 CR (4th) 137;[1992] 2 WWR 577;134 NR 81;89 DLR (4th) 449;15 WCB (2d) 159;16 WAC 1;1992 CanLII 124 (SCC);8 CRR (2d) 1;[1992] SCJ No 15 (QL);70 CCC (3d) 129;78 Man R (2d) 1;[1992] 1 SCR 452;JE 92-353

R. v. Butler (1992), 134 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Donald Victor Butler (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General of Quebec, The Attorney General of British Columbia, The Attorney General for Alberta, The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund and G.A.P. (Group Against Pornography) Inc. (intervenors)

(22191)

Indexed As: R. v. Butler and McCord

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-

Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin, Stevenson and

Iacobucci, JJ.

February 27, 1992.

Summary:

The accused were charged with multiple counts of selling obscene material, pos­session of obscene material for the purpose of distribution, possession of obscene material for the purpose of sale and exposing obscene material to public view, contrary to s. 159 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34 (now s. 163).

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 60 Man.R.(2d) 82, found all the material obscene within the meaning of s. 163(8). The court acquitted the accused on counts where the material reflected consensual sexual activity between adults without force, duress or violence. The accused was convicted on the remaining counts. The court stated that s. 163 violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and only the proscription of materials involving violence, cruelty, non­consensual or dehumanizing sexual activity was justified under s. 1. The Crown appealed one of the accused's acquittals. The accused appealed the convictions and sentence.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Twaddle and Helper, JJ.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 73 Man.R.(2d) 197; 3 W.A.C. 197, allowed the Crown appeal and dismissed the accused's appeals against conviction. The court stated that the materials in issue involved purely physical activity that con­veyed no meaning; accordingly, the materials fell outside protected freedom of expression and resort to s. 1 was unnecessary. The accused Butler appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all charges. The court held that s. 163(8) viol­ated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1803

Freedom of speech or expression - Free­dom of expression - Scope of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that ac­tivities cannot be excluded from the scope of the guaranteed freedom of expression on the basis of the content or meaning conveyed - See paragraph 66.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Regulation of distribution of adult publications - Section 163(8) of the Criminal Code deemed obscene any material which had as its dominant char­acteristic the "undue exploitation of sex" or "sex and ... crime, horror, cruelty and violence" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 163(8) violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, but was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842.1

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

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms - Application - Exceptions - Rea­sonable limits prescribed by law - Section 163 of the Criminal Code, which pro­scribed obscenity, violated the freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 163 was a reasonable limit prescribed by law (s. 1), because the objective (avoidance of harm to society) was a substantial concern justifying a limitation on freedom of ex­pression, there was a rational connection between the objective and the measures used, there was minimal impairment of freedom of expression and the measures employed did not outweigh the objec­tives - See paragraphs 73 to 121.

Criminal Law - Topic 573

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

Criminal Law - Topic 578

Public morals - Obscenity - Undue ex­ploitation of sex - Community standards - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the community standards test involved the standards of the national community as a whole - The test was concerned with what Canadians would not tolerate other Cana­dians being exposed to, not with what Canadians would not tolerate being exposed to themselves - See paragraph 45.

Criminal Law - Topic 578

Public morals - Obscenity - Undue ex­ploitation of sex - Community standards - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the 'internal necessities' test, or what has been referred to as the 'artistic defence', has been interpreted to assess whether the exploitation of sex has a justifiable role in advancing the plot or theme, and in con­sidering the work as a whole, does not merely represent 'dirt for dirt's sake' but has a legitimate role when measured by the internal necessities of the work itself." - See paragraph 54.

Criminal Law - Topic 578

Public morals - Obscenity - Undue ex­ploitation of sex - Community standards - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the portrayal of sex coupled with violence will almost always constitute the undue exploitation of sex. Explicit sex which is degrading or dehumanizing may be undue if the risk of harm is substantial. Finally, explicit sex that is not violent and neither degrading nor dehumanizing is generally tolerated in our society and will not qual­ify as the undue exploitation of sex unless it employs children in its production." - See paragraph 59.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dechow, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 951; 16 N.R. 204, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Germain, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 241; 62 N.R. 87, refd to. [para. 9].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Hicklin (1868), L.R. 3 Q.B. 360, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Fringe Product Inc. (1990), 53 C.C.C.(3d) 422 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Brodie v. The Queen, [1962] S.C.R. 681, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Close, [1948] V.L.R. 445, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Goldberg, [1971] 3 O.R. 323 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Kiverago (1973), 11 C.C.C.(2d) 463 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Cameron (1966), 58 D.L.R.(2d) 486 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Duthie Books Ltd. (1966), 58 D.L.R.(2d) 274 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Ariadne Developments Ltd. (1974), 8 N.S.R.(2d) 560; 19 C.C.C.(2d) 49 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Sudbury News Service Ltd. (1978), 39 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Prairie Schooner News Ltd. (1970), 75 W.W.R.(N.S.) 585 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Great West News Ltd., [1970] 4 C.C.C. 307 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Dominion News & Gifts (1962) Ltd., [1963] 2 C.C.C. 103 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

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, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Doug Rankine Co. (1983), 9 C.C.C.(3d) 53 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Ramsingh et al. (1984), 29 Man.R.(2d) 110; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 230 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Wagner (1985), 43 C.R.(3d) 318 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Odeon Morton Theatres Ltd. (1974), 16 C.C.C.(2d) 185, refd to. [para. 53].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors and Attorney General of Nova Scotia, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 662; 19 N.R. 570; 25 N.S.R.(2d) 128; 36 A.P.R. 128, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 66].

Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65, refd to. [para. 66].

Osborne, Millar and Burnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,203; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Red Hot Video Ltd. (1985), 45 C.R.(3d) 36 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) et al. v. Rocket and Price, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232; 111 N.R. 161; 40 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 97].

Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1972), 413 U.S. 49 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Rioux, [1969] S.C.R. 599; [1970] 3 C.C.C. 149, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Hawkshaw, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 668; 66 N.R. 350; 15 O.A.C. 308, refd to. [para. 141].

Handyside Case, Dec. 7, 1976, Series A, No. 24 (E.C.H.R.), refd to. [para. 153].

Müller and others, Case of, May 24, 1988, Series A, No. 133 (E.C.H.R.), refd to. [para. 153].

Statutes Noticed:

Agreement for the Suppression of the Circulation and Traffic in Obscene Pub­lications, May 10, 1910, as amended by the Protocol of May 4, 1949, Can. T.S. 1951, No. 34, generally [para. 90].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 2(b).

Convention for the Suppression of the Circulation of and Traffic in Obscene Publications, Sept. 23, 1923, as amended by Protocol of Nov. 12, 1947, Can. T.S. 1951, No. 33, generally [para. 90].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1892, c. 29, sect. 179 [para. 31].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1949 (2nd Sess.), c. 13, sect. 207 [para. 32].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1953-54, c. 51, sect. 150(8) [para. 35].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 159(1)(a), sect. 159(2)(a) [para. 3].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 163 [para. 27]; sect. 167, sect. 168, sect. 173, sect. 175 [para. 75].

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free­doms, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, art. 10 [para. 153].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Australia, Report of the Joint Select Com­mittee on Video Material (1988), vol. 1, pp. 185-230 [para. 49].

Beckton, Clare, Freedom of Expression (s. 2(b)), in The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Commentary (Walter S. Tarnopolsky and Gérald-A. Beaudoin eds.) (1982), p. 105 [para. 77].

Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Report on Pornography, Issue No. 18, March 22, 1978, p. 18:4 [para. 82].

Canada, Special Committee on Pornogra­phy and Prostitution, Report on Porn­ography and Prostitution (1985), vol. 1, pp. 51 [para. 57]; 103 [para. 131].

Downs, Donald Alexander, The New Poli­tics of Pornography (1989), p. 183 [para. 131].

Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously (1977), p. 255 [para. 154].

Dyzenhaus, David, Obscenity and the Charter: Autonomy and Equality (1991), 1 C.R.(4th) 367, pp. 370 [para. 78]; 376 [para. 79].

Fraser Report - see Canada, Special Com­mittee on Pornography and Prostitution.

Gardbaum, Stephen A., Why the Liberal State Can Promote Moral Ideals After All (1991), 104 Harv. L. Rev. 1350, generally [para. 156].

Lawrence, D.H., Lady Chatterley's Lover, generally [para. 37].

MacGuigan Report - see Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Meese Commission Report - see United States, Attorney General's Commission on Pornography.

New Zealand, Ministerial Committee of Inquiry into Pornography, Pornography: Report of the Ministerial Committee of Inquiry into Pornography (1988), pp. 35-45 [para. 49].

Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1989), vol. 13 [para. 126].

Tarnopolsky and Beaudoin, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Com­mentary (1982), p. 105 [para. 77].

Toronto, Task Force on Public Violence Against Women and Children, Final Report (1984), p. 66 [para. 49].

United States, Attorney General's Com­mission on Pornography, Final Report (1986), vol. 1, pp. 326 [para. 102]; 938-1035 [para. 49].

West, R., The Feminist-Conservative Anti-Pornography Alliance and the 1986 Attorney General's Commission on Por­nography Report (1987), 4 Am. Bar Found. Res. Jo. 681, p. 696 [para. 94].

Counsel:

George A. Derwin, for the appellant;

V.E. Toews and Robert Morrison, for the respondent;

Bernard Laprade, for the Attorney General of Canada;

David B. Butt, for the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jacques Gauvin, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

Frank A.V. Falzon, for the Attorney Gen­eral of British Columbia;

No one appearing for the Attorney General for Alberta;

Sheila Block, for the Canadian Civil Lib­erties Association and Manitoba Associ­ation for Rights and Liberties;

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;

Kathleen E. Mahoney and Linda A. Tay­lor, for the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund;

David G. Newman, for G.A.P. (Group Against Pornography) Inc.

Solicitors of Record:

Chapman, Goddard, Kagan, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;

Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manito­ba, for the respondent;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Attorney General of Canada;

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

Jacques Gauvin, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

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

Goran Tomljanovic, Edmonton, Alberta, for the Attorney General for Alberta;

Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto, Ontario, for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties;

Arvay, Finlay, Victoria, British Columbia, for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;

Code Hunter, Calgary, Alberta, for the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund;

Pitblado & Hoskin, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for G.A.P. (Group Against Pornography) Inc.

This appeal was heard on June 6, 1991, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 27, 1992, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both offi­cial languages and the following opinions were filed:

Sopinka, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iaco­bucci, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 124;

Gonthier, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., con­curring) - see paragraphs 125 to 161.