R. v. Pelletier, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 863

Thérèse Blais Pelletier Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Pelletier

File No.: 26928.

1999: December 13.

Present: McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Arbour JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec

Criminal law – Indecent acts – Common bawdy-house – Public place – Lap dancing – Co-owner of bar charged with keeping a common bawdy-house – Lap dancing occurring in cubicle with curtains partly open – Nude dancers allowing patrons to touch their breasts and buttocks – Trial judge finding that such acts could not be characterized as indecent – Acquittal of accused set aside by Court of Appeal but restored by Supreme Court.

Cases Cited

By Arbour J.

Referred to: R. v. Mara, 1997 CanLII 363 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 630; R. v. Tremblay, 1993 CanLII 115 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 932.

By Iacobucci J. (dissenting)

R. v. Mara, 1997 CanLII 363 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 630; R. v. Tremblay, 1993 CanLII 115 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 932.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 210(1).

APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1998] Q.J. No. 4316 (QL), allowing the Crown’s appeal from the acquittal of the accused by Judge Beaulieu of the Court of Québec, [1993] Q.J. No. 107 (QL). Appeal allowed, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ. dissenting.

Josée Ferrari and Robert La Haye, for the appellant.

Robert Rouleau and Randall Richmond, pour the respondent.

English version of the judgment of McLachlin, Major and Arbour JJ. delivered orally by

[1] Arbour J. ‑‑ Although he did not have the benefit of R. v. Mara, 1997 CanLII 363 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 630, and R. v. Tremblay, 1993 CanLII 115 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 932, the trial judge carefully considered all relevant factors in analyzing the standard of tolerance, which he properly assessed. More particularly, he was concerned with the nature and character of the touching that took place between the dancers and the police, and with the circumstances prevailing in the cubicle.

[2] In the present case it does not appear that the judge committed an error of law in his assessment of the standard of tolerance subsequently developed by the Supreme Court.

[3] In the circumstances the appeal is allowed and the acquittal is restored, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ. dissenting.

English version of the reasons of Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ. delivered orally by

[4] Iacobucci J. (dissenting) ‑‑ On examining all the circumstances of this case in light of the tests in R. v. Mara, 1997 CanLII 363 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 630, and R. v. Tremblay, 1993 CanLII 115 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 932, we find the behaviour indecent and consequently contrary to s. 210(1) of the Criminal Code particularly on account of the sexual contact between dancer and patron and the fact that the acts were not private in nature.

[5] For these reasons this appeal as of right should be dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellant: La Haye, De Gage, Linetsky & Slimovitch, Montréal.

Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General’s Prosecutor, Montréal.