George A. Derwin

The appellant appealed his conviction for the sexual assault of a minor, arguing that the trial judgment was unreasonable due to a lack of corroborative evidence and issues with witness credibility.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, agreeing with the majority of the Manitoba Court of Appeal that the trial judgment was not unreasonable.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code obscenity provisions after being charged in connection with the sale, possession, and display of sexually explicit videotapes, magazines, and sexual devices.

The Court held that s. 163(8) infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, but upheld the provision under s. 1 on the basis that its true objective was preventing harm to society, particularly harm associated with degrading or dehumanizing sexual material.

The Court reformulated the obscenity analysis around harm, community tolerance, degradation or dehumanization, and internal necessities or artistic merit.

Because the courts below had applied materially different approaches, the appeal was allowed and a new trial was directed on all charges.