The appellants, an adult entertainment parlour and its manager, appealed their convictions under a municipal by-law prohibiting dancers from touching patrons.
The trial and appeal judges had interpreted the by-law as an absolute prohibition on touching, regardless of the dancer's state of dress.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the by-law must be interpreted to prohibit touching only when the dancer is nude or partially nude, otherwise the provision would be unconstitutionally vague.
Because the trial judge failed to properly resolve conflicting evidence regarding the dancer's state of dress, the convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.