R. v. Tremblay et autres, (1993) 156 N.R. 30 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 02, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 156 N.R. 30 (SCC);57 QAC 161;[1993] 2 SCR 932;1993 CanLII 115 (SCC);156 NR 30;23 CR (4th) 98;106 DLR (4th) 413;84 CCC (3d) 97

R. v. Tremblay (1993), 156 N.R. 30 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Jean-Paul Tremblay, Patricia Tremblay, Peggy Obas-Malval, Doris Tremblay, Marleine Jean, Robert Bourdeau, Chantal Girouard, Christiane St-Louis and Brigitte Tremblay (accused-appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(22650)

Indexed As: R. v. Tremblay et autres

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier,

Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

September 2, 1993.

Summary:

The accused were charged with keeping a common bawdy house for the purpose of committing acts of indecency. The Montreal Municipal Court (Fontaine, J.), in a judg­ment reported [1989] R.J.Q. 217, acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered a conviction. See [1991] R.J.Q. 1766; 41 Q.A.C. 241; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 439. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Gonthier and La Forest, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal.

Criminal Law - Topic 873

Disorderly houses - Bawdy houses - Bawdy - What constitutes - Indecent acts - The Pussy Cat house offered its clients the services of erotic dancers - The client would sit in a chair while the dancer per­formed a suggestive dance on a mattress - The two were left alone - Clients were invited to undress - 75% of them mastur­bated during the performance - Physical contact between client and performer was prohibited - Pussy Cat management enforced this rule by observing the per­formance through a peep hole that was not used for other purposes - Management was charged with keeping a common bawdy house for the purpose of commit­ting acts of indecency - The Supreme Court of Canada acquitted the accused because the acts committed were not inde­cent in light of the standard of community tolerance - See paragraphs 29 to 68.

Droit criminel - Cote 873

Maisons de désordre - Maisons de débau­che - Débauche, en quoi consiste, actes indécents - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 873 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4270.1

Procedure - Indictment - Amendment, in appeal - The accused were charged with keeping a common bawdy house "for the purpose of the practice of acts of inde­cency" - Near the end of the trial, the Crown twice sought to amend the indict­ment - Firstly, the Crown wanted to delete the words "for the purpose of the practice of acts of indecency" - Secondly, the Crown wanted the same words replaced by the words "practice of prostitution" - The trial judge denied the amendments and acquitted the accused - The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the amendments and convicted the accused on the amended charge - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial judge's decision - The court held that it was inappropriate for the Court of Appeal to grant the amendments - See paragraph 28.

Droit criminel - Cote 4270.1

Procédure - Acte d'accusation - Amende­ment, en appel - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4270.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4271

Procedure - Indictment - Amendment, circumstances permitting - The accused were charged with keeping a common bawdy house "for the purpose of the prac­tice of acts of indecency" - Near the end of the trial, the Crown twice sought to amend the indictment - Firstly, the Crown wanted to delete the words "for the pur­pose of the practice of acts of indecency" - Secondly, the Crown wanted the same words replaced with the words "practice of prostitution" - The accused opposed the application because their defence was that the impugned acts were not acts of inde­cency - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed a trial court decision dismissing the application because the amendments sought would have caused irreparable prejudice to the accused - See paragraphs 21 to 28.

Droit criminel - Cote 4271

Procédure - Acte d'accusation - Amende­ment, conditions d'ouverture - [Voir Crim­inal Law - Topic 4271 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4273

Procedure - Indictment - Amendment, circumstances prohibiting - The accused were charged with keeping a common bawdy house "for the purpose of the prac­tice of acts of inde­cency" - Near the end of the trial, the Crown twice sought to amend the indict­ment - Firstly, the Crown wanted to delete the words "for the pur­pose of the practice of acts of indecency" - Secondly, the Crown wanted the same words replaced with the words "practice of prostitution"- The accused opposed the application because their defence was that the impugned acts were not acts of inde­cency - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed a trial court decision dismissing the appli­cation because the amendments sought would have caused irreparable prejudice to the accused - See paragraphs 21 to 28.

Droit criminel - Cote 4273

Procédure - Acte d'accusation - Amende­ment, conditions de non-ouverture - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4273 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Patterson, [1968] S.C.R. 157, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 494; 59 N.R. 101, consd. [para. 12].

R. v. De Munck, [1918] 1 K.B. 635 (Eng.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Webb, [1963] 3 W.L.R. 638 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Lantay, [1966] 3 C.C.C. 270 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Côté & Vézina, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 2; 64 N.R. 93; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Moore, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1097; 85 N.R. 195; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Geauvreau (1979), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 75 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 28].

Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1, consd. [para. 31].

Renvoi relatif au Code criminel (Man.) - voir/see Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

R. v. Doug Rankine Co., (1983), 36 C.R. (3d) 154 (Ont. Co. Ct.), consd. [para. 33].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 1; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1, consd. [para. 34].

R. v. MacLean and MacLean (No. 2) (1982), 1 C.C.C. (3d) 412 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Giambalvo (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 324 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Traynor, [1987] O.J. No. 1943 (Q.L.)(Ont. Prov. Ct., Crim. Div.), consd. [para. 37].

R. v. Pelletier, [1986] R.J.Q. 595; 27 C.C.C. (3d) 77 (S.C.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Kleppe (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 168 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Sequin, [1969] 2 C.C.C. 150 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Belanger (1980), 5 W.C.B. 446 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. St. Pierre (1974), 3 O.R.(2d) 642 (C.A.), consd. [para. 48].

R. v. Laliberté (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 109 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code/Code criminel, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 193(1) [para. 2]; sect. 529(3) [para. 24].

Criminal Code/Code criminel, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 150 [para. 78]; sect. 163 [para. 71]; sect. 197 [para. 78]; sect. 210(1) [para. 2]; sect. 601(3), sect. 601(4) [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Special Committee on Pornogra­phy and Prostitution, Report of the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution (Fraser Commission Report), Ottawa, 1985, generally [para. 11].

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

Roth, Philip, Portnoy's Complaint (1969), generally [para. 58].

Counsel:

Robert La Haye and Josée Ferrari, for the accused appellants;

Germain Tremblay, for the Crown.

Solicitors of Record:

La Haye, Chartrand & Assoc., Montreal, Que., for the accused appellants;

Germain Tremblay, Montreal, Que., for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on February 23, 1993, by La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on Sep­tember 2, 1993 and the following opinions were filed:

Cory, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) - see par­agraphs 1 to 69

Gonthier, J. (La Forest, J., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 70 to 92