The respondents were charged with soliciting for the purpose of prostitution after approaching undercover police officers.
Prior to approaching the officers, each respondent had approached several other unidentified men.
The Crown argued that the cumulative effect of the earlier approaches supplied the element of persistence required for the offence of soliciting.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeals, holding that the persistent or pressing conduct must be found in the actual approach to the person alleged to have been solicited, and cannot be inferred from unconnected prior approaches to unknown individuals.
