The Crown appealed from an acquittal entered after the court below held that an employee masseuse at a massage parlour could not be convicted of keeping a common bawdy-house absent evidence of care and management of the premises.
The Supreme Court majority held that, although the statutory definition of "keeper" is broad, the indictable offence in s. 210(1) requires both some degree of control over the care and management of the premises and participation in the illicit activities of the bawdy-house.
The accused's participation in the operation of the premises did not satisfy the required management element on the facts.
The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld, with a dissent that would have adopted a broader active-participation test.
