Arbour J.
Arbour J. ‑‑ Although he did not have the benefit of R. v. Mara, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 630, and R. v. Tremblay, [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.
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.
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
Iacobucci J. (dissenting)
Iacobucci J. (dissenting) ‑‑ On examining all the circumstances of this case in light of the tests in R. v. Mara, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 630, and R. v. Tremblay, [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.
For these reasons this appeal as of right should be dismissed.
Cases cited
- R. v. Mara 25159-1997-06-26 ¶ 1, ¶ 4
- R. v. Tremblay 22650-1993-09-02 ¶ 1, ¶ 4