The defendant was charged with being an attendant at an adult live entertainment parlour and having physical contact with another person while providing services, contrary to the Business Licensing City of London By-Law #L-6, s. 3.8.
The court examined two issues: identity and whether the establishment constituted an adult entertainment parlour.
The court found the defendant guilty after determining that the performance involved nudity designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites, constituting a live performance under the by-law, and that physical contact occurred between the defendant and a patron.
