R. v. Downey and Reynolds

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Citation: (1992), 136 N.R. 266 (SCC),72 CCC (3d) 1,1992 CanLII 109 (SCC),[1992] 2 SCR 10,[1992] SCJ No 48 (QL),JE 92-807,16 WCB (2d) 163,13 CR (4th) 129,2 Alta LR (3d) 193,125 AR 342,14 WAC 342,136 NR 266,9 CRR (2d) 1,90 DLR (4th) 449
• Date: 21 May 1992

R. v. Downey and Reynolds (1992), 136 N.R. 266 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Kenneth Dale Downey (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada and The Attorney General of Quebec (intervenors)

(21874)

Indexed As: R. v. Downey and Reynolds

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and

Iacobucci, JJ.

May 21, 1992.

Summary:

Downey and Reynolds appealed their convictions for living on the avails of pros­titution contrary to ss. 195(1)(b) and 195(1)(j) of the Criminal Code. The issue was whether s. 195(2), which provided that a person habitually living with a prostitute was, in the absence of evidence to the con­trary, living on the avails of prostitution, violated the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Free­doms.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 105 A.R. 351, dismissed the appeal. The court held that s. 195(2) did not violate s. 11(d). Downey appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, La Forest, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court held that s. 195(2) violated the presumption of inno­cence, but was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Reverse onus provisions - Section 195(2) of the Criminal Code provided that "evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of prostitutes, or lives in a common bawdy house or house of assignment is, in the absence of evi­dence to the contrary, proof that the person lives on the avails of prostitution" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 195(2) infringed s. 11(d) of the Charter (presumption of innocence), because it permitted a conviction notwithstanding the existence of a reasonable doubt - The fact that someone lives with a prostitute did not lead inexorably to the conclusion that the person was living on the avails of prosti­tution - The court held that s. 195(2) was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Reverse onus provisions - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[t]he presumption of innocence is infringed whenever the accused is liable to be con­victed despite the existence of a reasonable doubt. If by the provisions of a statutory presumption, an accused is required to establish, that is to say to prove or dis­prove, on a balance of probabilities either an element of an offence or an excuse, then it contravenes s. 11(d). Such a provi­sion would permit a conviction in spite of a reasonable doubt. Even if a rational connection exists between the established fact and the fact to be presumed, this would be insufficient to make valid a presumption requiring the accused to dis­prove an element of the offence" - See paragraph 30.

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Reverse onus provisions - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[l]egislation which substitutes proof of one element for proof of an essential element will not infringe the presumption of innocence if as a result of the proof of the substituted element, it would be unrea­sonable for the trier of fact not to be satis­fied beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of the other element. To put it another way, the statutory presumption will be valid if the proof of the substituted fact leads inexorably to the proof of the other. However, the statutory presumption will infringe s. 11(d) if it requires the trier of fact to convict in spite of a reasonable doubt. A permissive assumption from which a trier of fact may but not must draw an inference of guilt will not infringe s. 11(d)" - See paragraph 30.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 4945 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 770

Public morals - Living on the avails of prostitution - Evidence and proof - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 4945 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Appleby, [1972] S.C.R. 303, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; 24 N.R. 199, refd to. [para. 12].

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, consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 66 N.R. 289; 41 Man.R.(2d) 1; 25 C.C.C. (3d) 221, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Schuldt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 592; 63 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 257, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328; 64 C.R.(3d) 123, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Kowlyk, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 59; 86 N.R. 195; 55 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Grilo (1991), 44 O.A.C. 284; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Celebrity Enterprises Ltd. (1977), 41 C.C.C.(2d) 540 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1961), 45 Cr. App. R. 113 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 94 N.R. 310; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Clarke, [1976] 2 All E.R. 696 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Boyle (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Oakes (1983), 40 O.R.(2d) 660 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

County Court of Ulster County v. Allen (1979), 442 U.S. 140 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 1]; sect. 11(d) [para. 14].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1892, c. 29, sect. 207 [para. 34].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1927, c. 36, sect. 216(1)(i) [para. 36].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1953-54, c. 51, sect. 184 [para. 35].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 195(1) [para. 33]; sect. 195(2) [para. 1]; sect. 306(2)(a) [para. 12].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 212(1) [para. 33]; sect. 212(3) [para. 1]; sect. 348(2)(a) [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Badgley Report - see Canada, Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths.

Canada, Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths, Sexual Offences Against Children (1984), vol. 2, pp. 1057-1058 [paras. 39, 47].

Canada, Special Committee on Pornogra­phy and Prostitution, Pornography and Prostitution in Canada (1985), vol. 2, pp. 379 [para. 38]; 417-418 [para. 43].

Cromwell, Thomas A., Proving Guilt: The Presumption of Innocence and the Cana­dian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in Evidence and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1989), (W.H. Charles, T.A. Cromwell and K.B. Job­son, eds.), p. 130 ff. [para. 16].

Cross on Evidence (5th Ed. 1979), p. 122 ff. [para. 16].

Erbe, Nancy, Prostitutes: Victims of Men's Exploitation and Abuse (1984), 2 Law & Inequality 609, p. 613 [para. 41].

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

Milman, Barbara, New Rules of the Oldest Profession: Should We Change Our Prostitution Laws? (1980), 3 Harv. Women's L.J. 1, p. 33 [para. 41].

New South Wales, Report of the Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly Upon Prostitution (1986), pp. 26-48 [para. 42].

Rogan Committee Report - see New South Wales, Report of the Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly Upon Pros­titution.

Sansfaçon, Daniel, Agreements and Con­ventions of the United Nations with Respect to Pornography and Prostitution (1984), generally [para. 44].

Sansfaçon, Daniel, Prostitution in Canada: A Research Review Report (1984), pp. 109-110 [para. 43].

Silbert, Mimi H., and Ayala M. Pines, Occupational Hazards of Street Prosti­tutes (1981), 8 Crim. Just. & Behaviour 395, p. 397 [para. 41].

United Kingdom, Criminal Law Revision Committee, Seventeenth Report, Prosti­tution: Off-street activities (1985), pp. 5-11 [para. 40]; 12 [paras. 40, 52]; 13 [para. 52].

United Kingdom, Criminal Law Revision Committee, Working Paper on Offences relating to Prostitution and allied Of­fences (1982), pp. 15 [para. 40]; 16 [paras. 40, 52]; 17-18 [para. 40].

Weisberg, D. Kelly, Children of the Night: The Adequacy of Statutory Treatment of Juvenile Prostitution (1984), 12 Am. J. Crim. Law 1, pp. 9 [para. 42]; 60 [para. 43].

Counsel:

Terence C. Semenuk and Mitchell C. Stephensen, for the appellant;

Jack Watson, for the respondent;

Robert J. Frater, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Monique Rousseau and Gilles Laporte, for the Attorney General of Quebec.

Solicitors of Record:

Singleton Urquhart Macdonald, Calgary, Alta., for the appellant;

Jack Watson, Edmonton, Alta., for the respondent;

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

Monique Rousseau and Gilles Laporte, Ste-Foy, Que., for the Attorney General of Quebec.

This appeal was heard on November 1, 1991, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official lan­guages on May 21, 1992, and the following opinions were filed:

Cory, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 55;

La Forest, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 56 to 58;

McLachlin, J., dissenting (Iacobucci, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 59 to 80.