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.

The appellants were charged with keeping a common bawdy-house for the purpose of the practice of indecent acts.

Nude dancers performed in individual cubicles for clients, who were permitted to undress and masturbate during the performance, subject to a strict 'no touching' rule.

The trial judge acquitted the appellants, finding the acts did not exceed the community standard of tolerance.

The Court of Appeal reversed the acquittals and entered convictions after allowing the Crown to amend the charge to include prostitution.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals, holding that the late amendment caused irreparable prejudice and that the acts, performed in a relatively private setting between consenting adults with no physical contact, did not exceed the contemporary community standard of tolerance.