Labaye_2005scc80 - SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA C ITATION : R. v . Labaye, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 728, 2005 SCC 80 D ATE : 20051221 D OCKET : 30460 B ETWEEN : Jean-Paul Labaye Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent O FFICIAL E NGLISH T RANSLATION : Reasons of Bastarache and LeBel JJ. C ORAM : McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. R EASONS FOR J UDGMENT : (paras. 1 to 72) D ISSENTING R EASONS : (paras. 73 to 154) McLachlin C.J. (Major, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. concurring) Bastarache and LeBel JJ. ______________________________
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
R. v . Labaye, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 728, 2005 SCC 80 Jean-Paul Labaye Appellant v . Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v . Labaye Neutral citation: 2005 SCC 80. File No.: 30460. 2005: April 18; 2005: December 21. Present: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec Criminal law — Keeping common bawdy-house — Indecency — Harm-based test — Group sex in club — Whether conduct constitutes criminal indecency — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 197(1) “common bawdy-house”, 210(1). The accused was charged with keeping a common bawdy-house for the practice of acts of indecency under s. 210(1) of the Criminal Code . The accused
Background image of page 2
- 3 - operated a club in Montréal the purpose of which was to permit couples and single people to meet each other for group sex. Only members and their guests were admitted to the club. Prospective members were interviewed to ensure that they were aware of the nature of the activities of the club. Members paid an annual membership fee. A doorman manned the main door of the club, to ensure that only members and their guests entered. The club had three floors. The first floor was occupied by a bar, the second a salon, and the third the “apartment” of the accused. Two doors separated the third floor apartment from the rest of the club. One was marked “ Privé ” and the other was locked with a numeric key pad. Members of the club were supplied with the appropriate code and permitted to gain access to the third floor apartment. This was the only place where group sex took place. Entry to the club and participation in the activities were voluntary. At trial, the accused was convicted. The trial judge found that the accused’s apartment fell within the meaning of “public place”, as defined in s. 197(1) of the Criminal Code . She also found social harm in the fact that sexual exchanges took place in the presence of other members of the club. She concluded that this conduct was indecent under the Criminal Code because it was degrading and dehumanizing, was calculated to induce anti-social behaviour in its disregard for moral values, and raised the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. A majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the accused’s conviction. Held
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 70

Labaye_2005scc80 - SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online