The appellant placed advertisements for a secretary/sales assistant and informed applicants, including an undercover police officer, that the job required having sexual intercourse with clients.
He held out the prospect of large financial rewards but did not make a formal offer of employment.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the holding out of large financial rewards could constitute the actus reus of an attempt to procure, going beyond mere preparation.
The Court also held that 'illicit sexual intercourse' in the Criminal Code refers to sexual intercourse not authorized or sanctioned by lawful marriage.
