Germain Tremblay

The accused operated a licensed bar where couples paid an entrance fee to engage in or observe group sex activities.

He was charged with keeping a common bawdy-house for the practice of indecent acts under s. 210(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada, applying the harm-based test for criminal indecency established in the companion case of R. v. Labaye, held that the conduct did not constitute criminal indecency.

The Court found no significant risk of harm to the autonomy and liberty of members of the public, as access was restricted to informed and willing participants, and no evidence of physical, psychological, or anti-social harm.

The Crown's appeal was dismissed and the acquittal affirmed.

The accused was charged with operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

At trial, he testified he had consumed two large beers, and a defence expert testified that based on this consumption, his blood alcohol level should have been much lower than the breathalyzer results.

The trial judge rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and therefore rejected the expert opinion based on it, convicting the accused.

The Superior Court and Court of Appeal overturned the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that an expert opinion based on rejected testimony cannot constitute 'evidence to the contrary' to rebut the statutory presumption of accuracy of breathalyzer results.