Majority
The following are the reasons delivered by
Dickson C.J. and Lamer J.
The Chief Justice and Lamer J.‑‑We have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Chouinard J. and the separate concurring reasons of La Forest J.
On the issue of the proper test of obscenity to apply to the facts of this appeal, Chouinard and La Forest JJ. reach the same result, but for different reasons. We prefer the route taken by La Forest J. which builds on the judgment of Laskin C.J. in Dechow v. The Queen, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 951.
On the issue of whether the target audience is relevant in determining whether an item is obscene, a majority of this Court decided in the recent case of Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd. v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 494, that it is not and we respect that decision.
On all other matters, we agree with the reasons and conclusions of Chouinard J.
English version of the judgment of Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Le Dain and La Forest JJ. delivered by
Chouinard J.
Chouinard J.‑‑Appellant was found guilty by Primeau J. of the Municipal Court of Montréal, sitting as a magistrate under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code , of having unlawfully, knowingly and without lawful justification or excuse had in his possession for the purpose of sale various obscene articles, and of thereby committing the offence specified in s. 159(2) (a) and s. 165 (b) of the Criminal Code .
An initial appeal from this conviction was dismissed by Lagacé J. of the Superior Court. A second appeal, to the Court of Appeal with its leave, was unanimously dismissed by Montgomery, Bernier and Monet JJ.A.
Under section 159(2)(a) of the Code:
159. ...
(2) Every one commits an offence who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse,
(a) sells, exposes to public view or has in his possession for such a purpose any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatsoever,
Reference should also be made to subs. (8) of the same section:
Cases cited
- Dechow v. R. item-4370-1977-06-24 ¶ 2
- Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd. v. The Queen 17125-1985-05-09 ¶ 3