Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, (1990) 109 N.R. 81 (SCC)

JudgeDickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateMay 31, 1990
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1990), 109 N.R. 81 (SCC);109 NR 81;77 CR (3d) 1;JE 90-907;56 CCC (3d) 65;10 WCB (2d) 191;1990 CanLII 20 (SCC);[1990] 4 WWR 481;[1991] 1 SCR 291;[1990] 1 SCR 1123;[1991] 1 SCR 285;61 CCC (3d) 574;48 CRR 1;[1990] SCJ No 52 (QL);[1990] ACS no 52;68 Man R (2d) 1;1990 CanLII 21 (SCC);1990 CanLII 105 (SCC);62 CCC (3d) 190

Ref. Re Criminal Code (1990), 109 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

In The Matter Of the Constitutional Questions Act, being Chapter C-180, C.C.S.M.

In The Matter Of a Reference pursuant thereto by the Governor-In-Council to the Court of Appeal for hearing and consideration of questions relating to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Criminal Code of Canada, being C-51 and sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) thereof

Jeffrey J. Gindin, on behalf of the Contradictor appointed by Order of the Chief Justice of Manitoba, and Mary-Jane Bennett, on behalf of Darlene Kent, added as Contradictor by Order of the Chief Justice of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Manitoba and the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan, the Attorney General for Alberta, the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Canadian Organization for the Rights of Prostitutes

(20581)

Indexed As: Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.

May 31, 1990.

Summary:

The Lieutenant Governor-In-Council of Manitoba referred seven questions to the Manitoba Court of Appeal for determination under the Constitutional Questions Act. The questions concerned the constitutional validity of ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, in light of ss. 2(b) and 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A further issue concerned whether ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Code could be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The reference arose from a case, R. v. Cunningham (1986), 31 C.C.C.(3d) 223 (Man. Prov. Ct.), in which the trial judge had held that s. 195.1(1)(c) of the Code was of no force and effect as it was inconsistent with s. 7 of the Charter. The trial judge had also commented respecting s. 193 of the Code and s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [1987] 6 W.W.R. 289; 49 Man.R.(2d) 1; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 408; 60 C.R.(3d) 216, held that ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) were not inconsistent with ss. 2(b) and 7 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal generally felt that it was unnecessary to consider s. 1 of the Charter. The appellants (contradictor at the Reference in the Court of Appeal and the contradictor added by order of the Chief Justice of Manitoba), appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada (per Dickson, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka and Lamer, JJ.), dismissed the appeal. The majority held that s. 193 of the Code, separately or combined with s. 195.1(1)(c), was not inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter. The majority held that s. 195.1(1)(c) of the Code was inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, but was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. The majority further held that the sections, separately or in combination, were not inconsistent with s. 7 of the Charter.

Wilson and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal. The minority would have held that s. 193 of the Code did not infringe either s. 2(b) or 7 of the Charter. The minority would have held that s. 195.1(1)(c) infringed both ss. 2(b) and 7 of the Charter, and in neither case could be justified under s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 649

Liberty - Limitations on - Choice of work - The Supreme Court of Canada considered the validity of the soliciting section of the Criminal Code (s. 195.1(1)(c)) - Lamer, J., considered whether "liberty" in s. 7 of the Charter included the right to engage in an occupation and carry on a business, specifically, in this case, prostitution - Lamer, J., discussed the concept of economic liberty and s. 7 and declined to define the scope of the right to liberty in this manner - Lamer, J., rejected applying American case law which suggested that liberty included liberty of contract - See paragraphs 49 to 61, 72.

Civil Rights - Topic 681

Liberty - Principles of fundamental justice - General - Lamer, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that since the advent of the Charter, the doctrine of vagueness or overbreadth has been the source of attack on laws on two grounds - First, a law that does not give fair notice to a person of the conduct that is contemplated as criminal, is subject to a s. 7 challenge to the extent that such a law may deprive a person of liberty and security of the person in a manner that does not accord with the principles of fundamental justice - Second, where a separate Charter right or freedom has been limited by legislation, the doctrine may be considered in determining whether the limit is "prescribed by law" within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraph 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 1800

Freedom of speech or expression - General - Lamer, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada summarized the method of analysis that has developed for freedom of expression cases - The first step is whether the activity is within the sphere of conduct protected by freedom of expression - This involves an assessment of two questions: (1) does the activity have expressive content and (2) if so, is the form through which the content is conveyed protected by s. 2(b) - The second step is whether the purpose or effect of the governmental action was to restrict freedom of expression - If so, resort to s. 1 of the Charter is necessary - See paragraphs 84 to 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 1803

Freedom of speech or expression - Freedom of expression - Scope of - Lamer, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the scope of the right to freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Charter - He stated that the section protects all content of expression irrespective of the meaning or message sought to be conveyed - All forms are not, however, similarly protected, for example, direct attacks by violent means on the physical liberty and integrity of another person are not protected - The mere fact that Parliament has decided to criminalize an activity does not render it beyond the scope of s. 2(b) - See paragraphs 75 to 83.

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.1

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Communications between prostitute and client - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (the offence of soliciting) constituted a prima facie infringement of s. 2(b) of the Charter - The court, however, held that the infringement was justified as a reasonable limit prescribed by law within s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 1 to 13, 89 to 107.

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.3

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Keeping a common bawdy-house - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 193 of the Criminal Code (the offence of keeping a common bawdy-house) did not infringe the right to freedom of speech or expression in s. 2(b) of the Charter - Lamer, J., in separate reasons, said that this question did not need to be answered - See paragraphs 1 to 20, 108.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - Lamer, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that a law that is impermissibly vague and that has as a potential sanction the deprivation of liberty or security of the person, offends s. 7 of the Charter - He stated that the vagueness doctrine does not require that a law be absolutely certain - The role of the courts in giving meaning to legislative terms should not be overlooked when discussing the doctrine - The doctrine should not be applied to the bare words of the statutory provision, but to the provision as interpreted and applied in judicial decisions - The fact that a legislative term is open to varying interpretations by the courts is not fatal - See paragraphs 33 to 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - [See Civil Rights - Topic 681].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Charter - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1860.1].

Civil Rights - Topic 8469

Charter - Interpretation - United States experience - Lamer, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that in applying principles developed under a provision of the U.S. Constitution to cases arising under our Charter, the court must take into account differences in wording and historical foundations of the two documents - See paragraph 54.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Charter - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - [See Civil Rights - Topic 681].

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Charter - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3107].

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Charter - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - The Supreme Court of Canada held that ss. 193 (keeping a common bawdy-house) and 195.1(1)(c) (soliciting) of the Criminal Code, separately or in combination, did not infringe s. 7 of the Charter - The court held that the provisions were not so vague as to violate the principles of fundamental justice - See paragraphs 14 to 19, 45 to 47, 72 to 73.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Charter - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - Lamer, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the nature of the liberty and security of the person which s. 7 of the Charter protects - He stated that s. 7 was implicated (1) when the State, by resorting to the judicial system, restricts an individual's physical liberty in any circumstances; (2) when the State restricts individuals' security of the person by interfering with, or removing from them, control over their physical or mental integrity or (3) when the State either directly or through its agents restricts certain privileges or liberties by using the threat of punishment in cases of noncompliance - See paragraphs 61 to 73.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Charter - Interpretation - Principles of fundamental justice - Lamer, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the principles of fundamental justice are principles that govern the justice system. They determine the means by which one may be brought before or within the justice system and govern how one may be brought within the system and thereafter the conduct of judges and other actors once the individual is brought within it" - He further stated that political interests, pressures and values were not principles of fundamental justice - See paragraphs 63, 66.

Civil Rights - Topic 8554

Charter - Interpretation - Prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 681].

Criminal Law - Topic 787

Sexual offences, public morals - Soliciting - Communications to obtain prostitute's services - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1860.1].

Criminal Law - Topic 787

Sexual offences, public morals - Soliciting - Communications to obtain prostitute's services - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 8546].

Criminal Law - Topic 871

Disorderly houses - Bawdy-houses - General - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 8546].

Criminal Law - Topic 871

Disorderly houses - Bawdy-houses - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1860.3].

Equity - Topic 66

Maxims - Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege - Lamer, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, in discussing the void for vagueness doctrine when dealing with the validity of a Criminal Code section under the Charter, referred to the maxim "nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege" (there can be no crime or punishment unless it is in accordance with law that is certain, unambiguous and not retroactive) - See paragraph 34.

Statutes - Topic 8410

Penal statutes - Interpretation of - Lamer, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada referred to the principle that penal statutes should be strictly construed in favour of the accused - See paragraph 45.

Cases Noticed:

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, appld. [paras. 2, 71, 129].

R. v. Hutt, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 476; 19 N.R. 331, refd to. [paras. 7, 94].

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, appld. [para. 10].

R. v. Westendorp, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 43; 46 N.R. 30, consd. [para. 12].

R. v. Cunningham (1986), 31 C.C.C.(3d) 223 (Man. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Skinner (1987), 79 N.S.R.(2d) 8; 196 A.P.R. 8 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Jahelka; R. v. Stagnitta (1987), 79 A.R. 44; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Boucher v. The King, [1951] S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 25].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 175, refd to. [paras. 25, 111].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

Danzig Legislative Decrees case, [1935] C.P.J.I. Series A/B No. 65, refd to. [para. 33].

Connally v. General Construction Co. (1926), 269 U.S. 385, refd to. [para. 34].

Cline v. Frink Dairy Co. (1927), 274 U.S. 445, refd to. [para. 34].

Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972), 405 U.S. 156, refd to. [para. 35].

Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104, refd to. [para. 36].

Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates Inc. (1982), 455 U.S. 489, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Morgentaler (1985), 11 O.A.C. 81; 52 O.R.(2d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Luscher v. Minister of National Revenue, [1985] 1 F.C. 85; 57 N.R. 386 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Information Retailers Association v. Toronto; Canadian Periodical Publishers v. Toronto (1985), 10 O.A.C. 140; 52 O.R.(2d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Robson (1985), 19 C.C.C.(3d) 137 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. LeBeau; R. v. Lofthouse (1988), 25 O.A.C. 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 163 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 62 C.R.(3d) 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [paras. 41, 140].

Smith v. Goguen (1974), 415 U.S. 566, refd to. [para. 41].

Kolendar v. Lawson (1983), 461 U.S. 352, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Kerim, [1963] S.C.R. 124, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. McLellan (1980), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 543 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Woszczyna (1983), 6 C.C.C.(3d) 221 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Patterson v. The Queen, [1968] S.C.R. 157, refd to. [paras. 44, 147].

R. v. Sorko, [1969] 4 C.C.C. 241 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Laliberté (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 109 (Qué. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Ikeda and Widjaja (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 195 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Lantay, [1966] 3 C.C.C. 270 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. De Munck, [1918] 1 K.B. 635 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Edwards and Pine (1986), 32 C.C.C.(3d) 412 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. McLean (1986), 52 C.R.(3d) 262 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 50].

Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897), 165 U.S. 578, refd to. [para. 51].

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), 262 U.S. 390, refd to. [para. 51].

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), 347 U.S. 497, refd to. [para. 51].

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972), 408 U.S. 564, refd to. [para. 51].

Lochner v. New York (1905), 198 U.S. 45, refd to. [para. 52].

Adair v. United States (1908), 208 U.S. 161, refd to. [para. 52].

Coppage v. Kansas (1915), 236 U.S. 1, refd to. [para. 52].

Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), 261 U.S. 525, refd to. [para. 52].

Morehead v. New York (ex rel. Tipaldo) (1936), 298 U.S. 587, refd to. [para. 53].

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), 300 U.S. 379, refd to. [para. 53].

United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), 304 U.S. 144, refd to. [para. 53].

Day-Brite Lighting Inc. v. Missouri (1952), 342 U.S. 421, refd to. [para. 53].

Ferguson v. Skrupa (1963), 372 U.S. 726, refd to. [para. 53].

Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1986] 1 F.C. 274; 12 F.T.R. 81, refd to. [para. 54].

R.V.P. Enterprises Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Consumer & Corporate Affairs), [1988] 4 W.W.R. 726 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Whitbread v. Walley (1988), 26 B.C.L.R.(2d) 203 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Quesnel and Smith (1985), 4 O.A.C. 393; 53 O.R.(2d) 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Bassett v. Canada (Government) et al. (1987), 53 Sask.R. 81; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 537 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Wilson v. Medical Services Commission (1988), 30 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, consd. [para. 56].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [paras. 60, 111].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [paras. 62, 139].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 161; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281; 60 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. (1984), 5 O.A.C. 1; 48 O.R.(2d) 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

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. [paras. 74, 111].

Singer (Allen) Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général) et al., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790; 90 N.R. 48; 19 Q.A.C. 33, refd to. [paras. 74, 111].

R. v. Smith (1988), 44 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 80].

Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Jahelka; R. v. Stagnitta (1990), 109 N.R. 264, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Skinner (1990), 109 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Cohen, [1939] S.C.R. 212, refd to. [para. 147].

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. 149].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 149].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 8 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 149].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 1-2, 11-13, 20-23, 26-27, 29, 31, 38, 46, 71, 81-82, 87-92, 104, 108, 116, 141, 150-151, 153, 157-158]; sect. 2(b) [paras. 1, 21-24, 31, 74-75, 78-87, 89-91, 106, 108-109, 111-112, 116-117, 129, 151, 154, 156, 158]; sect. 2(c) [para. 26]; sect. 2(d) [paras. 57-58]; sect. 7 [paras. 14-16, 21-23, 27-28, 31-32, 38-39, sect. 46-50, 54-73, 108-109, 138-139, 142-143, 150, 154-156, 158]; sect. 8, sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 11, sect. 12, sect. 13, sect. 14 [paras. 62-65]; sect. 9, sect. 10(c) [para. 66].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [para. 23].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 116 [para. 66]; sect. 175(1)(c) [para. 94]; sect. 179(1) [para. 42]; sect. 193 [paras. 1, 14, 18-19, 21-23, 26-27, 31, 42, 45, 72, 90, 108-110, 117, 134, 144, 147-148, 152, 158]; sect. 195.1(1)(a), sect. 195.1(1)(b) [para. 127]; sect. 195.1(1)(c) [paras. 1-2, 4-5, 9, 12-14, 18-24, 26, 31, 46, 72, 89-90, 92, 95-96, 98-100, 103, 107-110, 114-115, 117-129, 131, 134, 137-138, 141, 144, 146-148, 151-154, 156-158]; sect. 666 [para. 66].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 21(1)(b), sect. 21(1)(c), sect. 22, sect. 51, sect. 53, sect. 59, sect. 63, sect. 83, sect. 113, sect. 131, sect. 136, sect. 140, sect. 143, sect. 163, sect. 168, sect. 175, sect. 241, sect. 264.1, sect. 296, sect. 301, sect. 318, sect. 319, sect. 380, sect. 408, sect. 423, sect. 464, sect. 465 [para. 79].

Danzig Penal Code [para. 33].

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, art. 7(1) [para. 33].

United States Constitution, Amendment 14 (1868), sect. 1 [paras. 51, 60].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Law Reform Commission of Canada, Recodifying Criminal Law, Report 31 (June 1987), p. 2 [para. 40].

Colvin, Eric, Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1989), 68 Can. Bar Rev. 560, pp. 573-574 [para. 62]; 575 [para. 68].

Côté, P.-A., The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (1984), p. 381 [para. 45].

Debates of the House of Commons (1985), vol. 5, p. 6374 [para. 133].

Fraser Committee Report on Pornography and Prostitution (1985), generally [paras. 94, 101]; ch. 38 [para. 105].

Ontario Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Pornography and Prostitution (1984) [para. 95].

Schaver, Frederick, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (1982), p. 91 [para. 75].

Symons, J., Orwell's Prophecies: The Limits of Liberty and the Limits of Law (1984), 9 Dalhousie L.J. 115, p. 116 [para. 50].

Tribe, L., American Constitutional Law (2nd Ed. 1988), p. 1033 [paras. 34, 37].

United Kingdom, Criminal Law Revision Committee, Sixteenth Report, Prostitution in the Street (1984), p. 4 [para. 103].

Counsel:

J.J. Gindin, Mary-Jane Bennett and Dave Phillips, for the appellants;

V.E. Toews and Donna J. Miller, for the respondent;

Graham R. Garton, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Michael Bernstein, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Gale Welsh, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Richard F. Taylor, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Joseph Eliot Magnet, for the intervenor, the Canadian Organization for the Rights of Prostitutes.

Solicitors of Record:

Smordin, Gindin, Soronow, Ludwig, Winnipeg, Manitoba;

Teffaine, Teillet & Bennett, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellants;

Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent;

F. Iacobucci, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

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

Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Saskatchawan;

Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Ministry of Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Joseph Eliot Magnet, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Organization for the Rights of Prostitutes.

This reference was heard before Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on December 1 and 2, 1988. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on May 31, 1990, when the following opinions were filed:

Dickson, C.J.C. (La Forest and Sopinka, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 21;

Lamer, J. - see paragraphs 22 to 108;

Wilson, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring, dissenting) - see paragraphs 109 to 158;

McIntyre, J., took no part in the judgment.

To continue reading

Request your trial
490 practice notes
  • R. v. Gratton (A.L.), (2002) 329 A.R. 208 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • December 3, 2002
    ...217; 50 C.R.R.(2d) 208; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 13 C.R.(5th) 241, 246, 251, 256; ( Smith ) [February 19, 1998] 1 S.C.R. 291; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 27; ( Skinner ), [February 19, 1998] 1 S.C.R. 298; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 31; ( Robart ), [February 19, 1998] 1 S.C.R. 279; 122 C.C.C......
  • R. v. Wilder (D.M.), [2003] B.C.T.C. 859 (SC)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 3, 2003
    ...M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 182]. 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. 481, refd to. [para. 183]. Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2......
  • Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 ABCA 301
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • December 16, 2002
    ...(1979), 2 E.H.R.R. 245 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts.), refd to. [para. 43]. 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, refd to. [para. Prostitution Reference - see Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. ......
  • Trinity Univ. v. College of Teachers, (2001) 269 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 9, 2000
    ...Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General) , [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.) , [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; R. v. Chaulk , [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303." By falling within the acceptable range of solutions, the BCCT's decision satisfies the minim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
422 cases
  • R. v. Gratton (A.L.), (2002) 329 A.R. 208 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • December 3, 2002
    ...217; 50 C.R.R.(2d) 208; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 13 C.R.(5th) 241, 246, 251, 256; ( Smith ) [February 19, 1998] 1 S.C.R. 291; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 27; ( Skinner ), [February 19, 1998] 1 S.C.R. 298; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 31; ( Robart ), [February 19, 1998] 1 S.C.R. 279; 122 C.C.C......
  • R. v. Wilder (D.M.), [2003] B.C.T.C. 859 (SC)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 3, 2003
    ...M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 182]. 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. 481, refd to. [para. 183]. Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2......
  • Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 ABCA 301
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • December 16, 2002
    ...(1979), 2 E.H.R.R. 245 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts.), refd to. [para. 43]. 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, refd to. [para. Prostitution Reference - see Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. ......
  • Trinity Univ. v. College of Teachers, (2001) 269 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 9, 2000
    ...Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General) , [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.) , [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; R. v. Chaulk , [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303." By falling within the acceptable range of solutions, the BCCT's decision satisfies the minim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
67 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second Edition
    • June 22, 2019
    ...385, [1998] SCJ No 61 ......................................2, 119, 199, 354 Reference re ss 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 SCR 1123, 56 CCC (3d) 65, [1990] SCJ No 52 .......... 107, 120, 136, 137, 192 Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 v Dolphin Del......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sixth Edition
    • June 22, 2017
    ...2014 SCC 32, 2014 SCC 32 ..................................... 24 Reference Re ss 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Canada), [1990] 1 SCR 1123, 56 CCC (3d) 65 ..............................62, 173, 261 Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 & 6, [2014] 1 SCR 433, 2014 SCC 21 ...............
  • Interpreting the Charter with International Law: Pitfalls and Principles
    • Canada
    • Appeal: Review of Current Law and Law Reform No. 19, January 2014
    • January 1, 2014
    ...Agency v Richardson, [1998] 3 SCR 157 at paras 57-58, 1997 CanLII 295; Reference re ss 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man), [1990] 1 SCR 1123, 56 CCC (3d) 65, Lamer CJC, concurring [Reference re ss 193]; Beauregard v Canada, [1986] 2 SCR 56 at paras 33-34, 30 DLR (4th) 481; R v M......
  • Measuring judicial activism on the Supreme Court of Canada: a comment on Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. NAPE.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 48 No. 3, September 2003
    • September 1, 2003
    ...Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3 * * Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Manitoba), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123 * * Reference Re Workers' Compensation Act , 1983 (Newfoundland), ss. 32 & 34, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 922 * RJR-MacDonald v. Canada (A.G.), [199......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT