R. v. Jorgensen (R.) et al., (1995) 87 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 21, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 87 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)

R. v. Jorgensen (R.) (1995), 87 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Randy Jorgensen and 913719 Ontario Ltd. (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(23787)

Indexed As: R. v. Jorgensen (R.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

November 16, 1995.

Summary:

Jorgensen, was the sole officer of 913719 Ontario Ltd. which owned and operated a store under the name of "Adults Only Video and Magazine". Acting in an undercover capacity, members of the Metropolitan Police force and the Pornography and Hate Literature Section purchased eight videotapes from the store. Notwithstanding that the Ontario Film Review Board had approved the videotapes, members of the Pornography and Hate Literature Section viewed the videotapes and concluded that they were obscene. Jorgensen and his company were charged with eight counts of selling obscene material without lawful justification or excuse contrary to s. 163(2)(a) of the Crimi­nal Code.

The Ontario Provincial Court held that three of the eight videos were obscene and convicted the accused. The accused ap­pealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (1993), 66 O.A.C. 46, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and entered an acquittal.

Criminal Law - Topic 15

Drafting and interpretation of criminal statutes - Interpretation - "Knowingly" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it is a general rule of statutory construc­tion that when the term 'knowingly' is used in a criminal statute, it applies to all elements of the actus reus" - See para­graph 21.

Criminal Law - Topic 32

Mens rea or intention - Proof of mens rea - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 576 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 39.4

Mens rea or intention - Doctrine of wilful blindness - The Criminal Code, s. 163(2)(a), made it an offence to "knowingly" sell obscene materials - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed whether the wilful blindness doctrine could be applied to establish the mens rea re­quirement for this offence - See para­graphs 59 to 61.

Criminal Law - Topic 212

Common law defences - Officially induced error of law - [See Criminal Law - Topic 588 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 573

Obscenity - Obscenity defined - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 576 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 576

Obscenity - Selling obscene material -Jorgensen and his company were convicted of "knowingly" selling obscene videotapes contrary to s. 163(2)(a) of the Criminal Code - The films were approved for restricted viewing by the Ontario Film Rating Board - The Supreme Court of Canada set aside the convictions - The court held that there was no evidence to suggest any knowledge on the part of the accused beyond the fact that the videos in question were sex films in the general sense that they involved the exploitation of sex - Therefore the mens rea requirements of s. 163(2) were not satisfied and the accused were entitled to an acquittal.

Criminal Law - Topic 576

Obscenity - Selling obscene material - Section 163(2)(a) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to "knowingly" sell obscene materials - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the actus reus and mens rea of this offence - See paragraphs 19 to 81.

Criminal Law - Topic 576

Obscenity - Selling obscene material - The Criminal Code, s. 163(2)(a), made it an offence to "knowingly" sell obscene materials - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Crown must prove that the accused had knowledge, not only that the dominant characteristic of the material was the exploitation of sex, but knowledge of the presence of the ingredients of the subject matter which as a matter of law rendered the exploitation of sex undue - In this regard, in appropriate circumstances, the Crown can rely on the principles of wilful blindness - Provincial censor board appro­val of the material may be relevant in determining community standards of toler­ance or to the issue of wilful blindness - However, board approval is not relevant in determining the accused's knowledge and the Crown need not prove knowledge that the subject mat­ter of the charge exceeded community standards - Provincial censor board appro­val does not constitute a justi­fication or excuse - See paragraph 81.

Criminal Law - Topic 578

Obscenity - Undue exploitation of sex - Community standards - [See third Crimi­nal Law - Topic 576 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 584

Obscenity - Mens rea or intention - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 576 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 588

Obscenity - Defences - Lawful justifica­tion or excuse - Section 163(2)(a) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to knowingly, without justification or excuse, sell obscene materials - The Supreme Court of Canada held that approval of material by a provincial censor board does not constitute a justification or excuse within the meaning of s. 163(2) - See paragraphs 62 to 80 - Lamer, C.J.C., in partially concurring reasons, opined that although film board approval does not negative mens rea or justify an accused's actions, reliance on film board advice may in certain circumstances permit an accused to be excused from conviction and have proceedings stayed on the basis of an officially induced error of law - See para­graphs 84 to 125 - The majority of the court did not deal with the issue of offi­cially induced error - See paragraph 80.

Words and Phrases

Knowingly - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of this word as it was used in s. 163(2)(a) of the Crim­inal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 19 to 81.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Rees, [1956] S.C.R. 640, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Metro News Ltd. (1986), 16 O.A.C. 319; 29 C.C.C.(3d) 35 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Cameron, [1966] 4 C.C.C. 273 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1967] 2 C.C.C. 195n (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Kiverago (1973), 11 C.C.C.(2d) 463 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. McFall (1975), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 181 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 223, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Blondin (1970), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 118 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Coughlin v. Highway Transport Board (Ont.), [1968] S.C.R. 569, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Prairie Schooner News Ltd. (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 251 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 494; 59 N.R. 101; 61 A.R. 35, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Furtney et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 89; 129 N.R. 241; 51 O.A.C. 299, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Santeramo (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 35 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 289; 42 C.R.(3d) 113; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Molis, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 356; 33 N.R. 411, refd to. [para. 86].

Long v. State (1949), 65 A.2d 489 (Del. S.C.), refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. MacLean (1974), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 84 (N.S. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Potter (1978), 3 C.R.(3d) 154 (P.E.I.S.C.), refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Flemming (1980), 43 N.S.R.(2d) 249; 81 A.P.R. 249 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. MacDougall (1981), 46 N.S.R.(2d) 47; 89 A.P.R. 47; 60 C.C.C.(2d) 137 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. MacDougall, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 605; 44 N.R. 560; 54 N.S.R.(2d) 562; 112 A.P.R. 562, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Ross, [1985] Sask. D. 5845-02, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Cancoil Thermal Corp. (1986), 14 O.A.C. 225; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Provincial Foods Inc. (1992), 111 N.S.R.(2d) 420; 303 A.P.R. 420 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Dubeau (1993), 80 C.C.C.(3d) 54 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Erotica Video Exchange Ltd. (1994), 163 A.R. 181 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Forster, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 339; 133 N.R. 333, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Pontes (P.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 44; 186 N.R. 81; 62 B.C.A.C. 241; 103 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 577; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 67 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 119].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 19 [para. 86]; sect. 163(1), sect. 163(2)(a), sect. 163(6), sect. 163(8) [para. 4].

Theatres Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T-6, sect. 3(7), sect. 33 [para. 123].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Arnold, Terence, State-Induced Error of Law, Criminal Liability and Dunn v. The Queen: A Recent Non-Development in Criminal Law (1978), 4 Dalhousie L.J. 559, pp. 584, 585 [para. 91].

Barton, P.G., Officially Induced Error as a Criminal Defence: A Preliminary Look (1979-80), 22 Crim. L.Q. 314, p. 315 [para. 90].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report 30, Recodifying the Criminal Law (1986), p. 31 [para. 92].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Work­ing Paper No. 29, Criminal Law: The General Part -- Liability and Defences (1982), p. 82 [para. 92].

LaFave, Wayne R., and Scott, Austin W., Substantive Criminal Law (1986), vol. 1, pp. 592, 593 [para. 94].

Kastner, Nancy S., Mistake of Law and the Defence of Officially Induced Error (1985-86), 28 Crim. L.Q. 308, p. 335 [para. 92].

Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (3rd Ed. 1995), pp. 295, 296, 297, 298 [para. 87]; 317 [para. 89].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law (1953), pp. 131, 133 [para. 21].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd Ed. 1961), pp. 157, 158, 159 [para. 59].

Counsel:

Alan D. Gold, for the appellants;

David Butt, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Gold & Fuerst, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 21, 1995, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official lan­guages on November 16, 1995, and the following opinions were filed:

Sopinka, J. (La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 82;

Lamer, C.J.C. (partially concurring rea­sons) - see paragraphs 83 to 125.