Dave Phillips

The appellant appealed his convictions for indecent assault and sexual assault, arguing the trial judge's reliance on the complainant's testimony resulted in an unreasonable verdict.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no inherent improbability in the complainant's evidence to justify interfering with the trial judge's express credibility findings.

The Court concluded the verdict was supported by the evidence.

On a constitutional reference concerning prostitution-related Criminal Code provisions, the Court considered whether the bawdy-house offence and the public communication offence infringed freedom of expression and the principles of fundamental justice.

The majority held that the public communication offence engaged s. 2(b) because it prohibited public communication for the purpose of prostitution, but found the infringement justified under s. 1 in light of Parliament’s objective of addressing the social nuisance associated with street solicitation.

The majority further held that neither provision was impermissibly vague and that s. 7 did not protect the asserted economic liberty to pursue prostitution as a profession.

The appeal was dismissed, with two judges dissenting on the basis that the communication provision unjustifiably infringed both ss. 2(b) and 7.