R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), (2001) 146 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Friday January 26, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 146 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC);2001 SCC 2;[2001] ACS no 3;48 WCB (2d) 287;[2001] CarswellBC 82;239 WAC 161;JE 2001-294;146 BCAC 161;[2001] SCJ No 3 (QL);150 CCC (3d) 321;194 DLR (4th) 1;86 CRR (2d) 1;88 BCLR (3d) 1;264 NR 201;[2001] 1 SCR 45;39 CR (5th) 72;[2001] 6 WWR 1

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.) (2001), 146 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC);

    239 W.A.C. 161

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2001] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.040

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. John Robin Sharpe (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General of Quebec, The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, The Attorney General for New Brunswick, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Attorney General for Alberta, The Canadian Police Association (CPA), The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP), Canadians Against Violence (CAVEAT), The Criminal Lawyers' Association, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Focus on the Family (Canada) Association, The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Beyond Borders, Canadians Addressing Sexual Exploitation (CASE), End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT) and The International Bureau for Children's Rights (intervenors)

(27376; 2001 SCC 2)

Indexed As: R. v. Sharpe (J.R.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

January 26, 2001.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of child pornography for the purpose of distribution or sale (Criminal Code, s. 163.1(3)) and two counts of pos­session of child pornography (s. 163.1(4)). The accused challenged the constitutionality of s. 163.1(4), submitting that making simple possession of child pornography for any pur­pose an offence violated his freedom of ex­pression (Charter, s. 2(b)) and was not saved as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported 1 B.C.T.C. 138, held that s. 163.1(4) violated the right to freedom of expression and was not saved as a reason­able limit prescribed by law. The Crown ap­pealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, McEachern, C.J.B.C., dissenting, in a judg­ment reported 127 B.C.A.C. 76; 207 W.A.C. 76, dismissed the appeal. The Crown ap­pealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. Section 163.1(4) violated freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) and the ac­cused's liberty rights (s. 7). The issue was whether s. 163.1(4) was a reasonable limit prescribed by law. Section 163.1(4) was con­stitutionally valid except for its applica­tion to two categories of material. Accord­ingly, the court held that "I would uphold s. 163.1(4) on the basis that the definition of 'child pornography' in s. 163.1 should be read as though it contained an exception for: (1) any written material or visual representa­tion created by the accused alone, and held by the accused alone, exclusively for his or her own personal use; (2) any visual record­ing, created by or depicting the accused, provided it does not depict unlawful sexual activity and is held by the accused ex­clusively for private use". L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache, JJ., dis­agreed that s. 163.1(4) was overly broad and found the read­ing in of the two exceptions to uphold its constitutional validity unnecess­ary. They would have concluded that the legisla­tion was justified under s. 1 in its entirety.

Civil Rights - Topic 1803

Freedom of speech or expression - Gen­eral principles - Freedom of expression - Scope of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the values underlying the right to free expression include individual self-fulfil­ment, finding the truth through the open exchange of ideas, and the political dis­course fundamental to democracy" - The court rejected the submission that "posses­sion" of expressive material did not raise free expression concerns - The court stated that "the right conferred by s. 2(b) of the Charter embraces a continuum of intel­lec­tu­al and expressive freedom -- 'freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expres­sion'. The right to possess expressive material is integrally related to the devel­opment of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The possession of such material allows us to understand the thought of others or con­solidate our own thought. Without the right to possess ex­pressive material, free­dom of thought, belief, opinion and ex­pression would be compromised. Thus the pos­ses­sion of expressive materials falls within the con­tinuum of rights protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter." - See paragraphs 23 to 25.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842.1

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Pornography - Section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code, which made it an offence to possess child por­nography as defined in s. 163.1(1), viol­ated freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) and the accused's liberty rights (s. 7) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 163.1(4) was a reason­able limit pre­scribed by law, with the exception of its application to two cat­egories of materials -The appropriate remedy was to uphold the constitutionality of s. 163.1(4), while read­ing in exceptions for the two categories - The court stated that "the first exception protects the pos­session of expressive ma­terial created through the efforts of a single person and held by that person alone, ex­clusive­ly for his or her own per­sonal use. This excep­tion protects deeply private ex­pression, such as personal jour­nals and drawings, intended solely for the eyes of their cre­ator. The second exception protects a person's possession of visual recordings created by or depicting that person, but only where these recordings do not depict unlawful sexual activity, are held only for private use, and were created with the con­sent of those persons depicted. These two exceptions apply equally to the offence of 'making' child pornography under s. 163.1(2). Neither exception affords protec­tion to a person harbouring any other in­tention than private possession; any inten­tion to distribute, publish, print, share or in any other way disseminate these materials will subject a person to the full force of s. 163.1." - See paragraphs 78 to 129.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1842.1].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Confer­ring of rights - Reading in - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "reading in will be appropriate only where (1) the legislative objective is obvious and reading in would further that objective or consti­tute a lesser interference with that objec­tive than would striking down the legisla­tion; (2) the choice of means used by the legis­lature to further the legislation's ob­jective is not so unequivocal that reading in would constitute an unacceptable intru­sion into the legislative domain; and (3) reading in would not require an intrusion into legisla­tive budgetary decisions so substantial as to change the nature of the particular legis­lative enterprise." - See paragraph 121.

Criminal Law - Topic 573.2

Sexual offences - Public morals - Ob­scen­ity - Child pornography defined - Section 163.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code defined "child pornography" to include a visual representation that showed, depicted, advo­cated or counselled sexual activity with a "person" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) "in­cludes both actual and imaginary human beings" - The court stated that "this defi­nition of child pornography catches depic­tions of imaginary human beings privately created and kept by the creator. Thus, the prohibition extends to visual expressions of thought and imagination, even in the ex­ceedingly private realm of solitary creation and enjoyment." - "Person" also included "auto-depictions, even where the person making the depiction, although under 18, does not appear to be a child, and intends to keep the depiction entirely in his or her own possession" - See paragraphs 37 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 573.2

Sexual offences - Public morals - Ob­scen­ity - Child pornography defined - Section 163.1(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code defined "child pornography" to include a visual representation of a person "depicted" as being under age 18 and "depicted" as en­gaging in explicit sexual activity - The Su­preme Court of Canada stated that the only reasonable approach to defining "depicted" was the sense of what was conveyed to the reasonable observer - The court stated that "the test must be objec­tive, based on the depiction rather than what was in the mind of the author or possessor. The question is this: would a reasonable observer perceive the person in the representation as being under 18 and engaged in explicit sexual activity?" - See paragraphs 42 to 43.

Criminal Law - Topic 573.2

Sexual offences - Public morals - Ob­scen­ity - Child pornography defined - Section 163.1(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code defined "child pornography" to include visual rep­re­sentations of "explicit sexual activity" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "explicit sexual activity" referred to "acts which viewed objectively fall at the ex­treme end of the spectrum of sexual activ­ity - acts involving nudity or intimate sexual activity, represented in graphic and unambiguous fashion, with persons under or depicted as under 18 years of age. The law does not catch pos­session of visual material depicting only casual sexual con­tact, like touching, kiss­ing, or hugging, since these are not depic­tions of nudity or intimate sexual activity. Certainly, a photo of teenagers kissing at summer camp will not be caught. At its furthest reach, the section might catch a video of a caress of an adolescent girl's naked breast, but only if the activity is graphically depicted and unmistakably sexual." - See paragraphs 44 to 49.

Criminal Law - Topic 573.2

Sexual offences - Public morals - Ob­scen­ity - Child pornography defined - Section 163.1(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code de­fined "child pornography" to include visual representations the "domi­nate char­acteris­tic" of which was the de­piction of a sexual organ or anal region for a "sexual purpose" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that whether the "domi­nant charac­teristic" was the depiction of sexual organs for a "sexual purpose" was to be deter­mined objectively - The court stated that "family photos of naked children, viewed objectively, gen­erally do not have as their 'dominant char­acteristic' the depiction of a sexual organ or anal region 'for a sexual purpose'. ... Absent evidence indicating a dominant prurient purpose, a photo of a child in the bath will not be caught. To secure a con­viction the Crown must prove beyond a rea­sonable doubt that the 'dom­inant char­acteristic' of the picture is a depiction of the sexual organ or anal region 'for a sexual purpose'" - See para­graphs 50 to 51.

Criminal Law - Topic 573.2

Sexual offences - Public morals - Ob­scen­ity - Child pornography defined - Section 163.1(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code de­fined "child pornography" to include static depictions for a sexual pur­pose of the "sexual organ" of a person under 18 years - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "prudence suggests leaving the precise con­tent of 'sexual or­gan' to future case-law. However, no one suggests that s. 163.1(a) (ii) was designed to catch depic­tions of eyes or lips. Parlia­ment's purpose of tar­geting possession of material associ­ated with a reasoned risk of harm to children suggests a restrained interpretation of 'sexual organ'" - See paragraphs 52 to 53.

Criminal Law - Topic 573.2

Sexual offences - Public morals - Ob­scen­ity - Child pornography defined - Section 163.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code defined "child pornography" as including written or visual material that "advocates" or "coun­sels" unlawful sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "at stake is not whether the maker or possess­or of the material intended to advocate or counsel the crime, but whether the material, viewed objectively, advocates or counsels the crime. ... it seems reasonable to conclude that in order to meet the re­quirement of 'advocates' or 'counsels', the material, viewed objectively, must be seen as 'ac­tively inducing' or encouraging the de­scribed offences with children. ... the prohibition is against material that, viewed objectively, sends the message that sex with children can and should be pursued" -See paragraphs 54 to 56.

Criminal Law - Topic 575.1

Sexual offences - Public morals - Ob­scen­ity - Possession of child pornography - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1842.1].

Criminal Law - Topic 588.1

Sexual offences - Public morals - Ob­scen­ity - Defences - Artistic merit - Section 163.1(6) provided a defence to child por­nography offences if the repre­sentations or written material had "artistic merit" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "ar­tistic merit" should be inter­preted "as including any expression that may reason­ably be viewed as art. Any objectively established artistic value, how­ever small, suffices to support the defence. ... whether a particular drawing, film or text is art must be left to the trial judge to determine on the basis of a variety of factors. The subjective intention of the creator will be relevant, although it is unlikely to be con­clusive. The form and content of the work may provide evidence as to whether it is art. Its connections with artistic conven­tions, traditions or styles may also be a factor. The opinion of experts on the sub­ject may be helpful. Other factors, like the mode of production, display and distribu­tion, may shed light of whether the depic­tion or writing possesses artistic value. It may be, as the case law develops, that the factors to be considered will be refined." - The court held that the defence did not incorporate a community tolerance stan­dard (i.e., defence not restricted to material posing no risk of harm to children) - See paragraphs 61 to 67.

Criminal Law - Topic 588.2

Sexual offences - Public morals - Ob­scen­ity - Defences - Educational, scien­tific or medical purpose - Section 163.1(6) pro­vided a defence to child pornography offences if the representations or written material had "an educational, scientific or medical purpose" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the defence refers to the purpose the material, viewed objectively, may serve and not the purpose for which the possessor actually holds it - The court stated that "the defence of possession for medical, education and scientific purposes, like other defences, should be interpreted liberally in accordance with Parliament's intent. On such an approach, possession of materials for therapeutic purposes might meet the requirements of the defence. This defence will apply in appropriate circum­stances to sketches and stories penned in the process of self-analysis or a couple's record of their sexual conduct held for the purpose of furthering that relationship" - See paragraphs 68 to 69.

Criminal Law - Topic 588.3

Sexual offences - Public morals - Ob­scen­ity - Defences - Public good - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed, with­out deciding, the application of the "public good" defence to obscenity legislation, including child pornography - A purposive interpretation was appropriate - The court stated that "examples of possession of child pornography which could serve the public good included possession of child por­nography by people in the justice sys­tem for purposes associated with prosecu­tion, by researchers studying the effects of exposure to child pornography, and by those in possession of works addressing the political or philosophical aspects of child pornography" - See paragraphs 70 to 71.

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; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 13].

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. 481a, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 18].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Cana­dian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 18].

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; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 23].

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 23].

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général).

Palko v. Connecticut (1937), 302 U.S. 319, refd to. [para. 23].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 136; 45 C.R.(4th) 307; 132 D.L.R.(4th) 31; 33 C.R.R.(2d) 226, refd to. [para. 26].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213; 217 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 33].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Sparrow Electric Corp., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 411; 208 N.R. 161; 193 A.R. 321; 135 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 33].

Verdun v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 550; 203 N.R. 60; 94 O.A.C. 211, refd to. [para. 33].

Friesen v. Minister of National Revenue, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 103; 186 N.R. 243; 95 D.T.C. 5551, refd to. [para. 33].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,031; 40 C.R.R. 100, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 5 C.R.(4th) 253; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Lucas (J.D.) et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439; 224 N.R. 161; 163 Sask.R. 161; 165 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Hurtubise, [1997] B.C.J. No. 40 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Dionne (1987), 79 N.B.R.(2d) 297; 201 A.P.R. 297; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 171 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Langer (1995), 123 D.L.R.(4th) 289 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. American News Co. (1957), 118 C.C.C. 152 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Delorme (1973), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 350 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

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. 78].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12, refd to. [para. 78].

Thomson Newspapers Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 97; 79 C.R.(3d) 129; 76 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 50 C.R.R. 110, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328; 64 C.R.(3d) 123; 6 M.V.R.(2d) 138; [1988] 5 W.W.R. 26; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 29 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 51 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 35 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 95].

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

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 1 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 95].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 60, refd to. [para. 96].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 96].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 96].

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 97].

Ross v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al. - see Attis v. Board of Educa­tion of District No. 15 et al.

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al. (2000), 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 103].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 92 C.L.L.C. 14,036; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 114].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 122].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. D.O.L., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419; 161 N.R. 1; 88 Man.R.(2d) 241; 51 W.A.C. 241; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 18 C.R.R.(2d) 257; 25 C.R.(4th) 285, refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 6 C.R.R.(2d) 35, refd to. [para. 132].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 132].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 132].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 141].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 143].

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; 47 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 143].

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 v. KMart Canada Ltd., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1083; 245 N.R. 1; 128 B.C.A.C. 1; 208 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 144].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 155].

Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney Gen­eral) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 876; 201 N.R. 1; 178 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 454 A.P.R. 161; 137 D.L.R.(4th) 142, refd to. [para. 155].

Delisle v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 989; 244 N.R. 33, refd to. [para. 155].

R. v. Mara (P.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 630; 213 N.R. 41; 101 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 160].

R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 73 Man.R.(2d) 1; 3 W.A.C. 1; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 289; 79 C.R.(3d) 332; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 174].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 174].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161; 49 R.F.L.(3d) 117; [1993] 8 W.W.R. 513; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 84 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 18 C.R.R.(2d) 41, refd to. [para. 174].

R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metro­politan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1; 9 R.F.L.(4th) 157; 26 C.R.R.(2d) 202; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 174].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 175].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 175].

United States v. Hilton (1999), 167 F.3d 61 (1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 180].

Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973), 413 U.S. 49, refd to. [para. 201].

R. v. K.L.V., [1999] A.J. No. 350 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 207].

Osborne v. Ohio (1990), 495 U.S. 103, refd to. [para. 209].

R. v. B.E. (1999), 126 O.A.C. 173; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 100 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 215].

United States v. Knox (1994), 32 F.3d 733 (3rd Cir.), refd to. [para. 218].

R. v. Davis (G.N.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 759; 248 N.R. 44; 182 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 78; 554 A.P.R. 78, refd to. [para. 228].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 12]; sect. 2(b) [para. 10]; sect. 7 [para. 11].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 163(3) [paras. 9, 134]; sect. 163(4), sect. 165(5) [para. 9]; sect. 163.1(1) [paras. 7, 134]; sect. 163.1(4) [paras. 6, 134]; sect. 163.1(6) [paras. 8, 134]; sect. 163.1(7) [para. 8].

United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, Can. T.S. 1992, No. 3, art. 34 [para. 196].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bala, N., and Bailey, M., Canada: Recog­nizing the Interests of Children (1992-93), 31 U. Louisville J. Fam. L. 283, p. 293 [para. 170].

Bessner, R., Khan: Important Strides Made by the Supreme Court Respecting Child­ren's Evidence (1990), 79 C.R.(3d) 15, p. 16 [para. 170].

Blugerman, B., and May, L., The New Child Pornography Law: Difficulties of Bill C-128 (1994), 4 M.C.L.R. 17, gen­erally [para. 49].

Canada, Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths, Sexual Offences Against Children (1984) (Badgley Report), vol. 1, p. 101 [para. 210]; vol. 2, pp. 1198 [para. 167]; 1209 [para. 165]; 1273 [para. 201]; 1282, 1283 [para. 206].

Canada, Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, Annual Report on Organized Crime in Canada (2000), p. 13 [para. 166].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 3rd Sess., 34th Parl., vol. 13, June 3, 1993, p. 20328 [paras. 193].

Canada, Special Committee on Pornogra­phy and Prostitution, Report of (1985) (Fraser Report), vol. 2, pp. 561 [para. 231]; 571 [para. 188].

Canada, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs (1978) (MacGuigan Report), p. 18:4 [para. 159].

Canada, Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, Minutes of, Issue No. 105, June 10, 1993, pp. 105:4 to 105:5 [para. 205]; 105:21 [para. 201].

Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Pro­ceedings of, Issue No. 51, June 21, 1993, p. 50:41 [para. 126]; Issue No. 50, June 22, 1993, p. 51:54 [para. 127].

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), generally [para. 33].

Driedger, Elmer A., The Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 33].

Driedger, Elmer A., The Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 322 to 327 [para. 33]; 330 [para. 175].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Loose-leaf Ed.), vol. 2, p. 40-8 [para. 150].

Levesque, R.J.R., Sexual Abuse of Children: A Human Rights Perspective (1999), p. 214 [para. 230].

Roberts, J.V., Sexual Assault in Canada: Recent Statistical Trends (1996), 21 Queen's L.J. 395, p. 420 [para. 170].

Rogers, Rix, Reaching for Solutions, Report of the Special Advisor to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on Child Sexual Abuse in Canada (1990), pp. 18, 19 [para. 230].

Ross, J., R. v. Sharpe and Private Pos­session of Child Pornography (2000), 11 Constitutional Forum 50, p. 57 [para. 69].

Sugunasiri, S.M., Contextualism: The Supreme Court's New Standard of Judi­cial Analysis and Accountability (1999), 22 Dal. L.J. 126, pp. 133, 134 [para. 132].

Stephen, J.F., A Digest of the Criminal Law (9th Ed. 1950), p. 173 [para. 70].

Sullivan, Ruth, Statutory Interpretation (1997), generally [para. 33].

Watson, J., Case Comment: R. v. Sharpe (1999), 10 N.J.C.L. 251, p. 256 [para. 150].

Counsel:

John M. Gordon and Kate Ker, for the appellant;

Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C., and Richard C.C. Peck, Q.C., for the respondent;

Cheryl J. Tobias and Kenneth J. Yule, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

James H. Flaherty, Christine Bartlett-Hughes and Laurie Lacelle, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Joanne Marceau and Jacques Gauvin, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Daniel A. MacRury, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

Mary Elizabeth Beaton, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for New Bruns­wick;

Shawn Greenberg and Holly Penner, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Joshua B. Hawkes, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Timothy S. B. Danson, for the intervenors, the Canadian Police Association (CPA), the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) and Canadians Against Violence (CAVEAT);

Frank Addario and Michael Lacy, for the intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers' Asso­ciation;

Robert W. Staley, Meredith Hayward and Janet Epp Buckingham, for the intervenors, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Focus on the Family (Canada) Association;

John D. McAlpine, Q.C., Bruce Ryder and Andrew D. Gay, for the intervenor, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Associ­ation;

Patricia D.S. Jackson and Tycho M.J. Manson, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

David Matas, Mark Eric Hecht and Jean-François Noël, for the intervenors, Beyond Borders, Canadians Addressing Sexual Exploitation (CASE), End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Pur­poses (ECPAT) and the International Bureau for Children's Rights.

Solicitors of Record:

Ministry of the Attorney General, Van­couver, British Columbia, for the appel­lant;

Gil D. McKinnon and Richard C.C. Peck, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent;

Department of Justice, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attor­ney General of Canada;

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

Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Que­bec, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Public Prosecution Service (Appeals), Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

Attorney General for New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manito­ba, for the intervenor, the Attorney Gen­eral of Manitoba;

Alberta Justice, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Danson, Recht & Freedman, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, the Cana­dian Police Association (CPA), the Ca­nadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) and Canadians Against Violence (CAVEAT);

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers' Association;

Bennett Jones, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Focus on the Family (Canada) Association;

McAlpine Gudmundseth Mickelson, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;

Tory Tory, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

David Matas, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervenors, Beyond Borders, Canadians Addressing Sexual Exploitation (CASE), End Child Prostitution, Child Pornogra­phy and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT) and the Inter­national Bureau for Children's Rights.

This appeal was heard on January 18-19, 2000, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Basta­­rache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 26, 2001, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, C.J.C. (Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 130;

L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Basta­rache, JJ., concurring in the result - see paragraphs 131 to 243.