The appellant municipality appealed an acquittal of the respondent for violating the Adult Entertainment Parlour Bylaw by having physical contact with another person while providing services as an attendant.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the summary conviction appeal judge erred in implying the bylaw was ultra vires and in interpreting the bylaw to require proof that the accused was an employee of the establishment.
The Court held that the definition of 'attendant' does not require proof of an economic relationship with the establishment.
A new trial was ordered, though the appellant indicated it would not proceed.
