R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), (1999) 127 B.C.A.C. 76 (CA)

• Judge: McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Rowles, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 30, 1999
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1999), 127 B.C.A.C. 76 (CA);1999 BCCA 416

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.) (1999), 127 B.C.A.C. 76 (CA);

    207 W.A.C. 76

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.021

Regina (appellant) v. John Robin Sharpe (respondent)

(CA025488; 1999 BCCA 416)

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

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Rowles, JJ.A.

June 30, 1999.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of pos­session of child pornography for the purpose of distribu­tion or sale, contrary to s. 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code, and two counts of possession of child pornogra­phy, contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Code. The accused challenged the constitutional validity of ss. 163.1(3)(1)(b) and 163.1(4) of the Code.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at 1 B.C.T.C. 138, ruled that s. 163.1(4) was inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Charter, and was not saved by s. 1. The court dismissed the accused's attack on s. 163.1(3)(1)(b) of the Code. The Crown appealed respecting s. 163.1(4).

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, McEachern, C.J.B.C., dissenting, dismissed the Crown's appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1842.1

Freedom of expression - Limitations on - Pornogra­phy - Child pornography - Pos­session of - Section 163.1(4) of the Crim­inal Code prescribed the offence of pos­sessing child pornography as defined in s. 163.1(1) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that s. 163.1(4) violated the right to freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights, and was not justified under s. 1 - The legislation, although pursuing a valid objective, was disproportionate as between its salutary and deleterious effects - Further, the leg­islation overreached by criminalizing a vast range of conduct for which no rea­soned appre­hension of harm could be shown - The definition of child pornogra­phy captured a vast range of materials, a significant por­tion of which were not shown to pose a danger to children - See paragraphs 88 to 130, 136 to 218.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

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

Criminal Law - Topic 575.1

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

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; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 449; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 11 C.R.(4th) 137, refd to. [paras. 12, 147].

R. v. C.M. (1995), 82 O.A.C. 68; 41 C.R.(4th) 134 (C.A.), refd to v. [para. 17].

R. v. Brown et al., [1993] 2 All E.R. 75; 151 N.R. 321 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Paintings, Drawings and Photo­grap­hic Slides of Paintings (1995), 97 C.C.C.(3d) 290 (Ont. Gen. Div.), leave to appeal refused (1995), 196 N.R. 79; 89 O.A.C. 320; 42 C.R.(4th) 410 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 26, 203].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Langer - see R. v. Paintings, Drawings and Pho­to­graphic Slides of Paintings

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. [paras. 26, 140].

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; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 34 C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [paras. 27, 209].

Osborne v. Ohio (1990), 495 U.S. 103; 109 L. Ed. 2d 98; 110 S. Ct. 1691, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1; 146 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 36].

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. [paras. 71; 146].

Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada, Re, [1932] A.C. 54; [1932] 1 D.L.R. 58, refd to. [para. 73].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Bridges (1990), 54 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 455 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Everywoman's Health Centre Society (1988) v. Bridges - see R. v. Bridges.

Entick v. Carrington, [1558 - 1774] All E.R. Rep. 41; 19 State Tr. 1029; 2 Wils 275, refd to. [para. 93].

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; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 348, refd to. [para. 133].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 12 R.F.L.(4th) 201; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 140].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (At­torney Gen­eral), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 140].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 140].

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; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 149].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 152].

Reference Re ss. 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. 481, refd to. [para. 155].

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. 155].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 165].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161; 8 C.R.(4th) 82; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 165].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 166].

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. 170].

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. 172].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investiga­tion and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 173].

New York v. Ferber (1982), 458 U.S. 747 (U.S.S.C.), consd. [para. 188].

Osborne v. Ohio (1990), 495 U.S. 103 (U.S.S.C.), consd. [para. 188].

United States v. Hilton, [1999] WL 44725 (U.S.C.A. lst. Cir. (Me.)), refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. Chase, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 293; 80 N.R. 247; 82 N.B.R.(2d) 229; 208 A.P.R. 229; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 98; 59 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 197].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1; 127 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 206].

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. 206].

Olmstead v. United States (1927), 277 U.S. 438, refd to. [para. 207].

Thomson Newspaper Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201; 159 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para 211].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 81]; sect. 2(b) [para. 137].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 163 [para. 15]; sect. 163.1(1), sect. 163.1(2), sect. 163.1(3), sect. 163.1(4), sect. 163.1(5), sect. 163.1(6), sect. 163.1(7) [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

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

Blugerman, B., and May, L., The New Child Por­nography Law: Difficulties of Bill C-128 (1993), 4 M.C.L.R. 17, p. 27 [para. 200].

Canada, Report of the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths (Badgley Report) (1984), vol. 1, pp. 101 [para. 144]; 102, 103 [para. 184].

Canada, Special Com­mittee on Porno­graphy and Prostitution, Report of the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution (Fraser Commission Report), Ottawa (1985), vol. 2, pp. 584-85 [para. 184]; 629 [paras. 144, 184]; 630, 631, 632, 635, 636 [para. 184].

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

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Ed. 1973), pp. 27 [para. 8]; 517 [para. 85].

Counsel:

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

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

Judith A. Bowers, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Canada;

John D. McAlpine, Q.C., and Andrew D. Gay, for the intervenor, B.C. Civil Lib­erties Association;

T.S. Danson, for the intervenors, Canadian Police Association; Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, and Caveat;

E. Gordon, for the intervenors, Beyond Borders and ECPAT International;

R.W. Staley and M. Hayward, for the intervenors, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Focus on the Family (Canada) Association.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Colum­bia, on April 26 and 27, 1999, before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Rowles, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on June 30, 1999, and the follow­ing opinions were filed:

Southin, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 131;

Rowles, J.A. - see pagraphs 132 to 219;

McEachern, C.J.B.C., dissenting - see paragraphs 220 to 294.