The appellant appealed a conviction for keeping a common bawdy house arising from the operation of a commercial house of domination offering sadomasochistic services.
The court held that the trial judge reasonably found the erotica sessions were primarily sexual in nature and constituted prostitution because they involved lewd acts for payment for the sexual gratification of clients on a frequent and habitual basis.
The court upheld the admission of a videotape corroborating the commercial services, agreed that most of the proposed expert evidence was irrelevant or insufficiently reliable under the governing expert evidence framework, and found that the search-related Charter breaches did not justify a stay.
The appeal was dismissed.
