The Crown appealed the Court of Appeal for British Columbia's decision setting aside voyeurism convictions and ordering a new trial.
The accused, a hockey coach, had surreptitiously photographed two adolescent boys aged 12 to 14 in their underwear in hockey arena dressing rooms.
The central issue was whether s. 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code contains an implicit temporal component requiring the Crown to prove that nudity was reasonably expected at the specific time the photos were taken.
The Supreme Court held, through a textual, contextual, and purposive analysis, that s. 162(1)(a) has no implicit temporal component; dressing rooms qualify as protected 'safe places' regardless of whether nudity is expected at the precise moment of observation or recording.
The Court restored the convictions, and declined to address the respondent's constitutional overbreadth argument raised for the first time on appeal.
